Refugee Children's Consortium response to Secure Borders, Safe Haven, Integration with Diversity in Modern Britain

White Paper Responses: Refugee Children's Consortium

Response by the Refugee Children’s Consortium to the
Home Office White Paper ‘Secure Borders, Safe Haven’

The members of the Refugee Children’s Consortium are Amnesty International, Barnardos, British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, the National Children’s Bureau, the Children’s Rights Alliance for England, the Children’s Society, the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, the NSPCC, the Refugee Council, Save the Children UK, UNICEF UK.

This group of NGOs works together to ensure that the rights of refugee children, whether unaccompanied or with their families, are respected in accordance with the relevant domestic, regional and international standards, in particular the Children Act 1989 (and Children (Scotland) Act 1995), the European Convention on Human Rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.

We draw your attention to the two papers appended to this submission on the care and treatment of unaccompanied refugee children and of children in families.

INTRODUCTION

The Refugee Children's Consortium welcomes this opportunity to respond to the Government's proposals to reform the asylum process as set out in the White Paper Secure Borders, Safe Haven. Our comments focus on the proposals set out in Chapter 4 of the White Paper.

We warmly welcome the Government’s determined endeavours to tackle the obvious failings of the current asylum system. However, as reform of the asylum process is driven forward, the Refugee Children’s Consortium urges the Government to carefully consider the potential impact of new measures on refugee children of all ages. Refugee children are children first and foremost and their rights and needs require special and separate attention.

The asylum process must not in any way compromise or militate against the proper care and development of children. In particular, children who have had experiences of torture, political violence and other forms of persecution, have specific developmental and mental health needs that must be fully catered for in all aspects of the asylum process and support arrangements.

We support this Government’s broader agenda of tackling poverty and promoting social inclusion and cohesion – and we believe that those who oppose the social exclusion of children must also oppose the social exclusion of refugee children.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

The Refugee Children's Consortium urges the Government to use the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) as its guiding principles on all matters relating to refugee children. The UNCRC provides a critical standard against which the UK can be assessed in respect of its treatment of refugee children.

The current review of asylum policy provides an appropriate and welcome opportunity for the Government to withdraw its Reservation to the UNCRC in respect of nationality, immigration and asylum. The Reservation effectively places a primacy on immigration law over the rights and welfare of refugee children, by setting these vulnerable young people apart from the operation of the Convention. This is fundamentally at odds with the universality of the UNCRC.

In 1995, the Reservation was criticised by the UN Committee that oversees compliance with the UNCRC as incompatible with the principles of the Convention. Furthermore, the Reservation is likely to be subject to renewed criticism when the Committee considers the UK’s Second Report on the UNCRC later this year.

A new legal opinion on the Reservation by Nick Blake QC of Matrix Chambers and Sandhya Drew of Tooks Court Chambers, calls on the Government to withdraw the Reservation. It states that, "The UK’s Reservation is in extremely broad terms and insofar as it is seeking to exclude children who are not given leave to enter from the substantive scope of the CRC, it is incompatible with that Convention’s object and purpose which is to protect all children." The opinion also advises that it is unnecessary for the Government to maintain the Reservation in order to achieve a system of firm immigration control – and that such an argument represents a flawed reading of the Convention.

In response to these and other arguments, the Government has stated that all immigration and nationality law is 'consistent with the thrust of the Convention' and that the Convention was not intended to create new rights in relation to immigration. However, if both these arguments are true, it is difficult to see why the Government believes the Reservation to be necessary in the first place. It is worth noting that of the 192 signatories to the Convention, only four have thought it necessary to enter reservations or declarations relating to the treatment of children who are non-nationals.

Specific Articles of the UNCRC

The Refugee Children’s Consortium believes that the best interests principle, as set out in Article 3 of the UNCRC, should be the overriding consideration in all policy decisions that affect refugee children:

"In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration."

Other key articles are also relevant to the proposals in the White Paper. The UNCRC stipulates that the rights in the Convention shall apply to all children without discrimination:

"States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status." (Article 2)

Article 12 lays down that children and young people have the right to express their views on matters affecting them and that these views should be given due weight. This should be reflected in asylum policies that do not treat refugee children in families simply as dependants, but as asylum applicants in their own right.

While we welcome the Government’s efforts to speed up the determination of asylum applications, we would caution that this focus on efficiency must not fail to allow for the time that it may take for some children and young people to feel able to share traumatic experiences.

Other UNCRC provisions – including a child’s rights to private and family life, education and an adequate standard of living – will be addressed at later points in this submission.

Inspection and Regulation

The Refugee Children’s Consortium believes that the Government should be accountable and transparent in the delivery of its asylum policy. We call on the Government to establish an independent inspection/ regulatory body to ensure that application procedures and support arrangements for asylum seekers meet prescribed standards. This body could monitor the treatment of refugee children at all stages of the asylum process, drawing attention to unacceptable practice and ensuring the dissemination of good practice.

A Child-Centred System

Refugee children should enjoy the same protection and the same promotion of their rights and welfare as any other children, and should not receive differential treatment because of their immigration status.

The Government should withdraw its Reservation to the UNCRC on the grounds that all children in the UK must be explicitly guaranteed the same rights. There is a special onus on the Government to foster a culture of equality – rather than to support a Reservation that sanctions discrimination against one of the most vulnerable groups of children in our society.

The Government should ensure that there are appropriate opportunities throughout the asylum process for refugee children to express their views, and that these views are given due weight.

In order for refugee children to be fully and properly involved in the asylum process, all information and advice that is given to adult applicants should also be made available in child-friendly formats and language to refugee children.

When the age of a young refugee is disputed and they are not clearly over 18, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the young person.

RESETTLEMENT

The Refugee Children's Consortium welcomes the development of a resettlement programme with the UNHCR and other organisations on the basis that the programme will be in addition to current asylum procedures.

There is some risk that the programme could create a two-tier system in which asylum seekers who arrive under the resettlement programme are labelled as good or more deserving than those who arrive separately. We hope the Government will be alert and sensitive to this risk.

Resettlement: A Child-Centred System

The Government should produce clear criteria for selection into the resettlement programmes which reflects the particular vulnerability of unaccompanied children and children in families.

The resettlement programme should be on a significant scale.

INDUCTION CENTRES

Refugee children have usually had to experience intense disruption, trauma and upheaval in their lives. The lack of continuity can cause tremendous distress as many of the different components that form an integral part of their identity, and around which their life has previously evolved, have been destroyed or left behind in their country of origin. A child’s first experiences on arrival in the UK are therefore essential in bridging the gap between their past experiences and the start of a new phase of their life in the UK. These first experiences may have a lasting impact on the child’s long-term welfare and positive integration into school, community and wider society.

The initial processes that refugee children are subject to are, therefore, extremely important. The Refugee Children’s Consortium agrees that there are many problems with the current support arrangements and we are keen to ensure that any new system prioritises children’s rights, needs and welfare. Within this framework the basis of any induction process or centre cannot simply be the "handling of asylum seekers’ applications" but must also seek to ensure that the welfare of the child is paramount. The emphasis in the Government’s current proposal is on the asylum process and the expectations upon adults within that process, their obligations and reporting arrangements. The Refugee Children’s Consortium presses the Government to consider how this process can become more child-centred.

Induction: A Child-Centred System

Children and their families should be supported in smaller child-friendly units of accommodation. This would mean having trained staff able to provide a supportive environment for children.

Children should be able to access play and learning facilities within the centres so that their physical, emotional, educational and social needs and rights are met.

Information should be provided to both children and parents about the children’s rights and entitlements in the UK. This should include information about children’s entitlement to claim asylum in their own right, their rights to education and healthcare, and about protection from abuse and neglect. This information should be provided in age and language appropriate formats.

The impact of fleeing persecution and parents’ subsequent fears and anxieties about the application process can have a detrimental impact on children. To reduce that impact legal advice should be provided in induction centres at the earliest opportunity.

To reduce the complications arising from the need to change solicitors, the first day of the period in which asylum seekers must complete their asylum applications should start on the first working day that they spend in their allocated accommodation.

Any assessment of children’s needs should be conducted by trained professionals who are capable of making a holistic assessment. The Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families (Department of Health 2000) should be used so that referral on to any specialist services can be made and so that this can also be taken into consideration in terms of any decisions to be made about dispersal.

The upper time limit for staying in induction centres must be adhered to so that children are able to access essential services such as healthcare and education and any specialist services that they need as soon as possible.

APPLICATION REGISTRATION CARDS (ARCs)

The Refugee Children’s Consortium acknowledges that a robust form of identification is necessary and welcomes the move to provide each member of a family with their own document. However, we wish to express concern about the potential for the smart card technology to be misused and the implications for children of the new arrangements.

In particular, it is vital that the ARC is not developed in such a way so as to stigmatise asylum seekers and their families. The system must also be flexible enough to cope with the likely scenario of asylum seekers (children in particular) losing their ARC. It is particularly important that punitive sanctions should not be imposed in these situations.

The new system means that all children over five years old will be fingerprinted. It is essential that a specialist team is established to ensure that this procedure is sensitive to the particular needs of children.

ARCs: A Child-Centred System

Legal safeguards should be in place to ensure that ARCs are not required to access universal services, where no requirement to show identification currently exists. There should be no requirement for asylum seekers to carry their card with them at all times.

Asylum seekers should have access to the information held on their ARC. The ARCs and associated technology should also be fully compliant with data protection laws.

Officials who fingerprint children should be sensitive to the limited understanding that children may have of the purpose of and need for this process and should be specially trained to perform this function in a ‘child friendly’ manner.

ACCOMMODATION CENTRES

The Refugee Children’s Consortium is opposed to the inclusion of children and their families in the piloting of accommodation centres. We understand that the Government’s intention is to "assess whether the provision of a broad range of facilities [… ] provides a more supportive environment for asylum seekers than is often available under current dispersal arrangements". While we share the Government’s concerns about the level of support that children and families are receiving under the current dispersal arrangements, we believe that we cannot continue to experiment with children’s lives. Our fear is that as a result of repeated attempts to try to achieve a "seamless asylum process" children are losing out. This is a well-founded fear given that this is the third major review of the support system in five years, and that as a result there will be three different systems running concurrently by the end of 2002 with inherent inequality of treatment. The Government has failed to demonstrate that involving children and young people in the pilots of the accommodation centres is in the best interests of those children.

We believe that the priority should be to improve existing systems, in order to enable children to access mainstream services and to continue with their lives with minimal disruption, rather than to create new systems that exclude and divide children living in the UK. It must be remembered that several months is a significant period in a child’s life and that refugee children have already undergone significant and traumatic upheaval before they reach the UK, often not understanding what is happening to them or why.

Accommodation Centres: A Child-Centred System

Children should not be involved in the piloting of accommodation centres.

Once the pilots are complete and have been fully and independently assessed, the Home Office should consult widely on the findings, ensuring that a full evaluation of their suitability for children and families is undertaken, before any families with children are accommodated there.

Families should not be separated by putting some members of the family in accommodation centres.

DISPERSAL

Given that dispersal will continue for the majority of asylum seekers for some time, we are very concerned about the lack of attention given in the White Paper to improving the current system of dispersal. We welcome the return to allocation according to clusters and are fully supportive of the proposal to deploy more resources regionally. The proposal to make assessments for support from NASS within the induction process is welcome if it means an end to the problems caused by the provision of emergency accommodation and the uncertainty caused by the length of time that families currently have to wait for decisions. The current levels of confusion, inaccessibility of services and isolation experienced by families awaiting an assessment for or in receipt of support through NASS is unacceptable.

The following issues are often experienced by families who members of the Consortium work with and any new developments in the dispersal system should prioritise the eradication of these problems:

· Families are not told where they are going to be dispersed to.

· Providers of support services in the dispersal destinations are not given accurate information about the arrival of new families.

· Families are forced to live in sub-standard accommodation.

· Families experience problems getting their vouchers.

· Families cannot get through to the NASS helpline.

· Families are not given information about the local area, how to access other services and if there are families from the same community living nearby.

· It is extremely difficult to find good solicitors/legal advice.

· Families are placed in areas where racial tension is high, subjecting them to racial harassment.

The Refugee Children’s Consortium is opposed to the compulsory dispersal of asylum seekers because it fails to address the particular needs of individual children and their families. We are aware of instances where families have offered to accept dispersal to a particular dispersal area, where they have community/ family support, only to be forced to live in a different dispersal area. We urge the Government to consider allowing some element of choice for families with children in the dispersal system. This would enable full consideration of the family’s needs in relation to their wider family, community, health and emotional needs. The trauma and isolation experienced by some families as a result of compulsory dispersal only results in the breakdown of the arrangement and puts children’s welfare at risk.

Dispersal: A Child-Centred System

A full assessment of the needs of children and their families during the induction process would result in improved dispersal decisions.

This assessment should take into consideration any familial or other connections and preferences for dispersal areas that families may already have.

Children and families should only be dispersed to areas that can provide for their range of needs and support them effectively. The preparation of local communities and services for the arrival of asylum seekers in their area must be prioritised. This includes ensuring that access to school places is immediately available.

Preparation in dispersal areas to receive children and families must also include information and training for relevant services.

In order to ensure adequate provision for children and families in dispersal areas, effective co-ordination at a regional level with the relevant organisations is essential. Local authorities, other statutory service providers, private sector accommodation providers, voluntary and community groups need to work closely together to ensure that the welfare of children is prioritised.

REPORTING AND AUDIT

It is not unreasonable to expect people subject to immigration control to maintain contact with the Home Office, particularly where this is a requirement imposed to avoid a person being detained. However, it is important that a requirement to report takes into account the implications for children in the process.

The audit needs to be a planned process that takes into account the potential for disruption to young people’s lives, and should be planned with local authorities to minimise the distress to children and young people.

Reporting and Audit: A Child-Centred System

Separated children in the care of local authorities should not be required to report separately to the Home Office. Children under the age of 18 should be the responsibility of an adult such as a social worker who can verify their whereabouts at reasonable intervals.

Children in families should not be required to report with their parents.

Arrangements for parents to report need to take into account the impact of this requirement on children. This means using mobile reporting centres where possible, giving parents plenty of notice of a reporting date, and, where parents have to travel, ensuring that this does not clash with times when young children have to be taken to or collected from school.

A full investigation for the reasons for failing to report should precede any imposition of a penalty, in order that exceptional circumstances can be considered. The possibility of a penalty leading to the suffering of dependent children should be carefully considered before any sanctions are imposed.

PHASING OUT VOUCHER SUPPORT

The Refugee Children's Consortium has lobbied continuously since the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 for the removal of vouchers, and we welcome the Government’s decision to replace the voucher scheme with a cash-based system.

However, calls for the abolition of vouchers were based partly on concerns about the stigmatisation and discrimination that they engendered and partly on concerns about the paltry level at which they were set. The abolition of the voucher scheme leaves the latter element of our concerns unaddressed, as the Government has announced no plans to redress the fundamental inequality in support levels. We are concerned, therefore, that levels of support will continue to be inadequate to meet the basic needs of destitute asylum seekers, as detailed in the table below.

Support for an asylum-seeking couple with two children under 16
(from April 2002)

Support rates for asylum seekers Income Support % of Income Support
Couple £59.26 £84.65 70%
2 children £67.00 £67.00 100%
Family premium - £14.75 0%
Total £126.26 £166.40 76%
In-kind support * £23.00 - -
Total £149.26 £166.40 90%
* Home Office estimate, May 2001

We would argue that even the current Income Support levels do not enable a decent standard of living or ensure that a family can bring up a child without any adverse risks to that child’s health, education, emotional well-being and development. Refugee children and their families have the same basic daily living needs as other UK residents. It is difficult to see, therefore, why they should receive a lower level of support. Furthermore, asylum-seeking families are denied access to key passported benefits, such as milk tokens, free vitamins, Social Fund grants and loans. Inequalities are greater still for children with disabilities, who are not eligible for additional premiums or other relevant passported benefits.

We are very concerned that asylum-seeking families are receiving grossly inadequate subsistence support. We believe that ensuring equal entitlement to benefits would send a clear message that the Government’s commitment to ending child poverty in twenty years applies to all children in the UK regardless of their immigration status.

We are dismayed by the White Paper’s reference to abolishing cash-only or voucher-only support (4.33 and 4.53). This would cause severe hardship not only for many asylum seekers but also for the friends or family members with whom they stay. Asylum seekers in this situation would become further marginalised and excluded from mainstream society and ultimately find it harder to integrate.

Removing the option of receiving voucher-only or cash-only support would inevitably increase the number of destitute asylum seekers and contribute to the creation of an underclass of 'invisible' asylum seekers. We are particularly concerned that children would be made to suffer as a result of the decisions of their parents. Asylum-seeking families should be able to choose to live with friends or family without forfeiting their entitlement to subsistence benefits from the state.

Subsistence Support: A Child-Centred System

The rates of support for asylum seekers should be increased to full Income Support levels, and should include entitlement to all passported benefits such as milk tokens and free vitamins.

Children and their families should have the option of living with family or friends without forfeiting their entitlement to subsistence benefits.

UNACCOMPANIED ASYLUM-SEEKING CHILDREN

The Refugee Children’s Consortium believes that all unaccompanied refugee children should receive the level of care and protection to which they are entitled, based on their need. Although improvements have been made to the system for determining children’s claims in recent years, a number of concerns remain, which have not been addressed by the White Paper. Above all we are concerned that the asylum process should be fair, and conducted in a manner which minimises trauma to the child.
Specialist workers

We welcome the specialisation of a number of caseworkers working on child asylum applications, within the Integrated Casework Directorate, but would like to see improved clarity over the way child-specific factors are assessed, how child-friendly procedures are developed and what training the caseworkers receive .

We recommend that the principle of specialisation is developed further and that all officials who come into contact with unaccompanied children at any stage of the asylum process, including screening interviews, should be trained in working with children.

Further, we recommend that the Home Office seeks appropriate specialist advice in developing child-friendly policy and practice from, for example, the UNHCR , other specialists in work with separated children and specialist childcare practitioners.

In addition, we recommend that the Home Office maintain in-depth awareness of the forms of persecution which particularly and specifically affect children, as well as up to date knowledge of the situation affecting children in countries of origin.

Interviewing Children

We note the intention to widen the immigration rules to make it possible to interview more children, and to train staff for this purpose. We would like greater clarity on the criteria for interviewing children will take place and on what training interviewers will receive. We strongly recommend that the Home Office should seek expert advice (as above) on this.

In all interviews with children it is critical that the appropriate safeguards are in place to ensure interviews are conducted in a manner compliant with the best interests of the child. For example, all those who are involved in interviewing must receive appropriate and comprehensive training, a child-friendly environment must be created in which the interviews can take place, and steps must be taken to ensure that the interviews are conducted in a language and using words that the child can fully understand.

Advice for Unaccompanied Children

This issue is omitted from the White Paper but we believe improvements could be made to the current system. Unaccompanied children need high-quality, specialist legal representatives who have training on and understanding of the kinds of experiences children may have had, and of child-friendly practices.

In the past, attention has been drawn to the variable quality of legal representation for unaccompanied minors . One boy in a recent study said:

"My solicitor doesn’t care about me, nobody cares about us" (Boy, aged 17)

There is a need for this situation to be reviewed in the light of the operating procedures and regulations on who can provide immigration advice or services introduced by the Immigration Services Commissioner in 2000. In addition to a legal representative, unaccompanied children should be appointed a guardian who can befriend the child and put them in contact with appropriate services.

Speeding up initial decisions

We welcome the commitment given to speed up initial decisions on 60 per cent of new applications, but we are concerned about the absence of any commitment on the remaining 40 per cent of unaccompanied children. We cannot stress too strongly the particularly damaging effects of uncertainty on children.

Age Disputes

The Refugee Children’s Consortium recognises that in giving special attention to claims from unaccompanied children, the Government must also ensure that asylum seekers do not abuse the system. However, assessing age is not an exact science and only through a holistic assessment of a child’s development, history and experiences can a judgement be made about the age range a young person falls within. The asylum system must, therefore, be flexible enough to allow for such an assessment to take place before an asylum seeker is categorised as a child or an adult.

In the early stages of assessment, pending the final decision, where the authorities feel unable to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt, but the young person remains adamant that they are under 18 years of age, the young person should be placed in a special category in the induction and accommodation processes (in the same way that pregnant mothers and asylum seekers with special needs are).

Asylum decisions

Any asylum system must be based on a fair and credible assessment of an application to enter or remain. However, we are concerned that because of additional difficulties involved in assessing children's claims, there may be a disproportionate tendency to grant exceptional leave to remain rather than refugee status or indefinite leave to remain. It is our impression that more needs to be done to ensure that those young people who qualify for refugee status or indefinite leave to remain are given it. We suggest this tentatively because statistics on the outcomes of children's claims have not yet been made available to us (although we understand they are available within the Home Office). Undoubtedly, there are internationally-recognised difficulties in assessing children's claims, and these can only be addressed by improving child-centred assessment procedures (see above).

Granting ELR to the 18th Birthday

It is crucial that the process for removing young people who have been awarded ELR until their 18th birthday, takes into consideration their best interests. This means there needs to be a degree of flexibility in the decision about whether to return a young person at 18, so that individual needs and circumstances can be taken into account. The decision-making process must be transparent and child-friendly. In recent research by Save the Children, many young people pointed to a lack of information from both legal representatives and the Home Office about the asylum process. The research also identified some evidence of inconsistent decision-making by the Home Office.

The consideration of the best interests of the child also means that when an unaccompanied child is refused asylum or ELR under the usual policy, plans should be made that take into account both the situation in the home country and the life they have made for themselves since arrival. Care must be taken to explain and prepare the young person for removal and the situation to which they are returning. It may be appropriate for a meeting to be held at this point between relevant parties, such as the young person, their social worker and carer, to discuss future plans for the young person.

Family Reunification and Reunion

Unaccompanied children have no clear entitlements to family reunification in the UK, regardless of their immigration status, and even reunion for compassionate grounds is rare and based on criteria which are unclear. This is an omission from the White Paper we would wish to see addressed. The current situation is in breach of Article 10 of the UNCRC which states that, "applications by a child or his or her parents to enter or leave a State Party for the purpose of family reunification shall be dealt with by States Parties in a positive, humane and expeditious manner".

We believe children with refugee status or complementary protection should be eligible to apply for family reunification with ascendants, siblings or descendants. Also there is a need for the development and publication of clear criteria for family reunion on compassionate grounds for unaccompanied children.

There is a clear need to develop ways for unaccompanied children to make family contacts, links and/or family reunification, which do not prejudice their asylum application in any way. Furthermore, opportunities for contact with family need to be considered at an early stage of a child’s stay in the UK, as such opportunities will have benefits both if they are awarded refugee status/ ELR or if they are required to return.

Dispersal at Age 18

The White Paper fails to address concerns about the current policy of dispersing unaccompanied young people who reach 18 years of age but who have not received a decision on their asylum application. In November 1999, Jack Straw stated that, "If someone has waited a year or two years in a particular area, it would be unacceptable to require that person to move in order to meet a national dispersal policy."

Since 1 October 2001, those unaccompanied children supported under Section 20 of the Children Act will be eligible for the continuing assistance provided for by the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000. According to Department of Health guidance, they will only be liable for dispersal 'in exceptional circumstances', although they must still transfer to NASS for accommodation and financial support. While we welcome this move, the majority of unaccompanied children are not looked after under Section 20 and so will still be liable for dispersal when they turn 18.

The Refugee Children’s Consortium is deeply concerned that these vulnerable young people are being forced to leave behind the support and contacts that they have built up since their time of arrival and while they try to adjust to a new life in the UK. Education and training may be disrupted and set back, and the young person may be sent far from the only friends and support networks they have. In recent research , professionals and unaccompanied children alike were both anxious and confused about what would happen to the young person at 18. This White Paper raises further concerns that unaccompanied young people turning 18 without an initial decision will be placed in accommodation centres.

Young asylum seekers have made the following comments about the policy of dispersal at 18:

"If you are dispersed it is like starting a new life again… a third life! This is too hard, starting a life for a second time was so difficult we cannot imagine doing it again." (18 year-old Kosovan boy)

"Dispersal makes you feel that all the energy you have put into making a life in England is wasted. Especially if it takes two years or more to get a decision" (17 year-old gypsy Kosovan girl)

"Dispersal slows down the integration of young people into the community. If we have to keep moving we will never be accepted. Also the money spent on community projects to support asylum seekers will be wasted if they have to move in the middle of a project." (19 year-old Afghan boy)

The dispersal of unaccompanied children at 18 gives rise to genuine concerns that the requirements of asylum legislation are being put before the rights, needs and interests of a particularly vulnerable group of young people.

The Government’s overriding objective should be that unaccompanied minors turning 18 receive equal treatment to other young people who have been the responsibility of a local authority.

Support for local authorities

The care and support of unaccompanied children is the responsibility of local authorities under the Children Act 1989 and Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and the lead for any new support arrangements should come from the Department of Health or the Scottish Executive. However, we welcome attempts to create a more joined-up approach in developing policy and practice for unaccompanied children in recognition that the asylum system relating to these children cannot be seen as separate from their welfare.

The Refugee Children’s Consortium is concerned that the Home Office grant to local authorities for the support of unaccompanied children distinguishes between under and over 16s. This policy is out of line with government guidance on the assessment and support of children, the National Assessment Framework, which requires local authorities to undertake a full needs-based – not age-based – assessment of all children in need.

Unaccompanied Refugee Children: A Child-Centred System

As stated in the Children Acts, due regard should be given to the views and wishes of the child or young person at all times.

Any official who has contact with or responsibility for unaccompanied children at any stage of the asylum process should receive appropriate training.

There should be absolute clarity about the criteria that will be used to decide whether or not a young person is interviewed. The views and best interests of the young person should be key considerations in whether or not they are interviewed regarding their asylum claim.

Legal safeguards and standards that apply to children in domestic legal proceedings should also apply to unaccompanied refugee children.

Improvements should be made in the practice and process of age assessments and those considered to be on the borderline should be given the benefit of the doubt.

A dedicated specialist unit (similar to police child protection teams) of specially trained officials should be established to work with unaccompanied refugee children throughout the asylum process.

Proper and early preparation should take place with unaccompanied children to prepare them for possible return to their home country.

All unaccompanied children should be given the opportunity to contact relatives overseas using an independent confidential service.

Separated children with refugee status and ELR should have clear entitlements to family reunification.

All unaccompanied young people turning 18 should be supported in situ, if they wish to be, and not dispersed or placed in accommodation centres when they are transferred to NASS.

Local authorities should continue to assume responsibility for unaccompanied minors presenting in their area under the terms of the Children Acts.

The grant paid for the support of unaccompanied children should be paid in advance, should not distinguish between under and over 16 year olds and should meet in full the reasonable costs of their support.

Policies and funding must be sufficiently flexible to respond to the needs and rights of children who become unaccompanied during the course of their stay in the UK.

DETENTION AND REMOVAL

We are very concerned by the White Paper’s proposals on detention and removal. We remain opposed to the detention of any child. We believe that detention is incompatible with the principles of the UNCRC and other human rights instruments. We draw particular attention to the interference with the child’s rights to freedom, to a normal social life, and to education, as well as to the duty on States to ensure the development of the child to the maximum possible extent. In short, detention facilities are never the best environment for children and may have a serious negative impact on their physical and emotional health and wellbeing.

Under English and Welsh law, children can only be detained as a result of criminal proceedings and mental health legislation, and of civil proceedings as established in the Children Act 1989 section 25 (1). The detention of children during immigration proceedings takes place outside of this legal framework. We are concerned that the White Paper endorses the policy of detaining children in asylum-seeking families prior to removal and also makes a vague and open-ended statement about detention in other circumstances (4.77). This disturbing development in policy will create loopholes through which it might be argued that refugee children and their families can be held in detention at the discretion of immigration officials and for longer periods without just cause. It is essential, therefore, that legal safeguards are put in place to prevent immigration officers acting in an arbitrary manner.

We draw particular attention to Article 37d) of the UNCRC which states that:

"Every child deprived of his or her liberty shall have the right to prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance, as well as the right to challenge the legality of the deprivation of his or her liberty before a court or other competent, independent and impartial authority and to a prompt decision on any such action."

We call on the Government to demonstrate how it will deliver this Convention right.

We would like to remind the Government of the statement of the Official Solicitor cited in the evidence presented by the Medical Foundation to the Special Standing Committee on the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999:

"The issue of the rights of children as individuals must be addressed to enable the United Kingdom to fulfil its treaty obligations. These rights include rights of freedom, to a normal social life and education. Detention of a child interferes with all of these rights. This is true if an unaccompanied child is detained, and it is also true when the child is made subject to the detention of his/her parents…"

"There is concern that in the dealings of the Immigration Service with children, there is a tendency to overlook the rights that the child has as an individual and to fail to ensure that the child is given the opportunity to assert those rights and that those rights are upheld and protected. It is necessary to consider carefully whether a child is being given the opportunity to assert his/her rights in practice – children face many difficulties that adults may not face in being able to assert their rights. This concern is expressed both in relation to those children who are unaccompanied and those children who are present in the United Kingdom with their families".

Hansard, HC Reporter, Official Report of Special Standing Committee Immigration and Asylum Bill, Party for Cols. 334-335.
Detention is a wholly inappropriate measure in situations involving children, and gives rise to serious questions in respect of compliance with Articles 2, 3, 6, 14, 16, 22, 24, 25, 29, 31, 37 and 39 of the UNCRC.

We are particularly concerned about the provision of education within removal and detention centres. We know that mainstream school is the ideal starting point to enable refugee children to rebuild their lives whilst enhancing the genuine inclusion of all children and their families in the local community and mainstream society. The structure and routine of a regular school day can help to provide a sense of normality and security in a child’s life, vital to promoting their emotional, physical, educational and social development and well-being. Mainstream school also provides an environment, which is well-suited to meeting the multiple and often complex needs of refugee children and young people, many of whom may be in need of additional support. Existing good practice demonstrates that mainstream schools can successfully promote the inclusion of refugee children and families in society with appropriate external support, resources, and partnerships across the community. We believe that educating refugee children in removal and detention centres is discriminatory.

The proposals to detain refugee children and their families in removal and detention centres also give rise to a number of child protection concerns. Firstly, there are many risks to child safety in institutional care given the power and access that staff have in such settings. Secondly, children and families who try to avoid living in such centres will become part of a hidden population whose whereabouts it is difficult to track, making it even more difficult to promote and protect the rights and needs of the child.

Finally, the public’s negative attitudes to asylum seekers will be fostered by the detention of asylum seekers and the implication that they are ‘unsafe’ or ‘untrustworthy’ with consequent deleterious affects for integration strategies.

Detention and Removal: A Child-Centred System

Children and their families should not be detained in removal or detention centres.

As a safeguard, detention should attract an automatic right to apply for bail, as set out in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, but never implemented.

The rights of the child should be considered as a central part of a decision to detain a family, and not as an afterthought.

Children should be educated within mainstream schools. The implementation of a two-tier discriminatory system of education in the UK is completely unacceptable.

Staff working with children in detention centres, like any other professionals working with children, should be police-checked and properly trained.

INTEGRATION

The Refugee Children’s Consortium welcomes the Government’s stated commitment to integration and the funding already announced to facilitate the integration of refugees into society. Several of our member agencies are involved in the National Refugee Integration Forum Sub-group on Unaccompanied Children.

The integration strategy needs commitment from all government departments and realistic funding to realise its aims. It is important that the thinking and policy-making in this area is ‘joined up’; any policies affecting children’s lives must consider the implications for successful integration. Proposals to provide services to children separately whilst their asylum claim is considered will have a long-term detrimental effect on their successful integration into society.

It is important to recognise that for children, integration cannot wait until a final positive decision has been made on their asylum claim. What may seem a relatively short period of time by an adult can seem lengthy for a child and represent a significant part of their childhood.

"All I do is wait, wait, wait. I will die waiting." (Girl aged 17)

We must ensure, therefore, that policies and practice encourage children to reach their potential and contribute to society at their own pace. Refugee children have endured much; an integration policy must ensure that these children receive immediate, appropriate support, assistance and inclusion from the time of arrival.

Integration: A Child-Centred System

All policies and initiatives aiming to improve the lives of children and young people need to be accessible to all refugee children, often referred to as ‘most vulnerable of all’. Accessibility must be universal – in other words not dependent on the immigration status of that child but on need. Mainstream services for children need to be encouraged through policies and training to provide a fully inclusive service to refugee children, whether living with families or separated from them.

Policies and initiatives providing accommodation and support to asylum seekers and their families must minimise the future risk of segregation. Children who have had limited access to the outside world may find it difficult to integrate at a later date. A child’s welfare and development must be of primary importance, indeed the UNCRC states that it is the responsibility of signatory states to "ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child" (Article 6).

Services provided to refugee children in public care (usually unaccompanied children) need to be specialist but mainstream. It is important that these children are not seen as a ‘problem’ or a temporary cohort of children, but as children with potential whose needs must be met and development encouraged.

Appendix 1

Refugee Children’s Consortium Briefing
Children in Families

The Refugee Children's Consortium believes that refugee children are children first and foremost. They should enjoy the same protection, and the same promotion of their welfare as any other children. Those who oppose the social exclusion of children must oppose the social exclusion of these children. This paper considers, in particular, the needs of children in families.

The Consortium envisages a system where the needs of children in families are met in the following ways:

1. Refugee families should have the same entitlement and access to cash benefits as other families living in the United Kingdom.
Children and their families have the same basic daily living needs, regardless of their immigration status and the time for which they have been resident in the UK. The Refugee Children's Consortium welcomes the Government commitment to ending child poverty in 20 years, and believes that enabling equal access and entitlement to benefits would send a clear message that this commitment applies to all children in the UK, regardless of their immigration status.

2. The practice of detaining refugee families whilst their application is processed should be ended.
We believe that detention of refugee children in families whilst their application is being processed is incompatible with the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and other human rights instruments. The decision on whether or not to detain an asylum seeker should take into account the effect of this on family members, and alternatives should be sought wherever possible e.g. stringent reporting requirements.

3. Refugee families should be provided with decent accommodation, and should be given a choice about where they live so that they can settle in areas that can give them appropriate community support.

The Government needs to ensure that dispersal areas are equipped to meet the needs of newly arriving asylum seekers and that dispersal areas are given sufficient support and money to set up appropriate systems and structures to meet the needs of asylum seekers. Use of sub-standard accommodation should end. The numbers of racial attacks in some dispersal areas is of serious concern and this problem should be addressed immediately.

4. Asylum seeking families and children should be given language support, education and health services
Dispersal to inappropriate locations, poverty, social exclusion and racism all diminish the quality of life for refugee children in families. We need to listen to and respond to what asylum seekers have to say about how to make settlement more effective in order for any dispersal system to work. This means providing adequate support systems and a commitment to improving community relations.

5. All refugee children under 16 should have access to a school place in the mainstream education system, and those aged 16 or over should have access to school or college if they wish to continue their education

Many refugee children have difficulty in accessing schools. Mainstream school, however, is crucial for enhancing the social, educational, linguistic and emotional development of refugee children, whilst promoting the genuine inclusion of all children and their families, regardless of their immigration status, into the local community and mainstream society. Children should be provided with a school place and the support to allow this development to take place, for most children this means full-time education studying a full curriculum.

6. Refugee families should have appropriate provision of legal representation
Dispersal areas should meet the needs of those who require legal representatives specialising in asylum claims, and ensure that adequate language support is available to assist the process. This would reduce the high numbers of initial ‘failed’ cases either for non-compliance reasons or because of poor representation, currently both distressing for families and a negative reflection on the decision-making system.

7. Asylum seekers should be allowed to work from the date of their arrival in the UK
Asylum seekers should be enabled to access work permits immediately on arrival in the United Kingdom. This would enable parents to work to support their families.

Appendix 2

Refugee Children’s Consortium Briefing
The Care of Unaccompanied Refugee Children

The Refugee Children’s Consortium believes that all unaccompanied refugee children should receive the level of care and protection to which they are entitled, based on their need, and that they should not receive differential treatment because of their immigration status.

The Consortium envisages a needs-led system where:
· Local authorities have full responsibility for the care and welfare of all unaccompanied children.

· A consistently high level of care is given to all unaccompanied children.

· The Department of Health ensures the full implementation of child welfare legislation.

· Age is not the prime determinant of need or of funding levels.

· Asylum applications are determined fairly, consistently and quickly, giving due regard to their status as children.

Specifically, the Consortium believes that:

1. Local authorities should continue to assume responsibility for unaccompanied children presenting in their area under the terms of the Children Acts 1989.

2. The nature of the support given by local authorities should be based on a full and careful needs assessment, conducted by a child care professional, which includes assessment of physical and mental health and of educational needs.

3. As stated in the Children Acts, due regard should be given to the views and wishes of the child or young person.

4. The grant paid for the support of unaccompanied children should be paid in advance, should not distinguish between under and over 16 year olds and should meet in full the reasonable costs of their support, enabling local authorities to properly plan service provision.

5. Statutory guidance from the Department of Health should state that unaccompanied minors should only be supported under Section 17 in the most exceptional circumstances and where the adult(s) with whom they are to live have received the appropriate checks and are properly supported to care for the young person.

6. No child or young person should be given local authority or other vouchers as the main means of support.

7. Statutory guidance should be rigorously adhered to in all placements of unaccompanied minors – including monitoring "out of area" placements and ensuring that a school place has been found.

8. A local authority within whose boundaries an unaccompanied minor is living, where this is different from the responsible authority, should be involved in care planning and monitoring, and, where possible, provide a named contact to whom the child or young person can turn to if necessary.

9. All unaccompanied minors, according to their wishes and needs, should be allocated an adult to advocate on their behalf, and given a legally appointed guardian where no adult in this country holds parental responsibility for them.

10. Improvements should be made in the practice and process of age assessments, and those considered to be on the borderline should be given the benefit of the doubt.

11. All unaccompanied children should be given the opportunity to contact relatives overseas using an independent confidential service.

12. All local authority staff who have contact with or responsibility for unaccompanied minors should receive appropriate training.

13. Transition to adulthood needs to be handled sensitively and appropriate support needs to be provided to all young people as they approach the age of 18.

Download a copy in Portable Document Format

Help with PDF files