Background

The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) was established under the Race Relations Act 1976 to work for the elimination of discrimination, the promotion of equality of opportunity and good race relations generally.

The CRE is grateful for the opportunity to respond to the consultation on Planning Better Outcomes and Support for Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children. In our response, we focus on those proposals that are likely to have an impact on race equality or ethnic minority communities. The response is divided into two sections: (1) general comments; and (2) comments on specific proposals contained in the paper.

General Comments

The Race Relations Act, as amended

The Home Office has a duty, under the Race Relations Act, as amended, to assess and consult on the likely impact of proposed policies on the promotion of race equality and to publish the results of those assessments. We would therefore expect a full race equality impact assessment (REIA) to be carried out of the proposals, including appropriate measures to eliminate or reduce any adverse impact on race equality and race relations, and for this to be published.

Furthermore, it is particularly disappointing that on numerous occasions the CRE has had to write to IND to request copies of race equality impact assessments of proposed policies, or changes to existing policies, and to remind the department of its duty to undertake these.

Every Child Matters

The CRE fully supports the Every Child Matters (ECM) agenda and its emphasis on developing more effective and accessible services focused around the needs of children, young people and families. One of the broad outcomes of ECM is that children and young people 'stay safe' with specific aims of keeping children 'safe from maltreatment, neglect, violence and sexual exploitation' and ensuring they 'have security, stability and are cared for'^[1].

ECM also acknowledges that 'some of the children in greatest need are unaccompanied asylum seekers. They may have left their homes and communities in violent and traumatic circumstances and be in poor health'^[2]. There is a commitment to investing in training for immigration officers to improve their identification of children at risk and ensure an appropriate response and to increase joint working between the Immigration Service, social services and the police.

We are concerned that the proposals in the consultation paper fail to adhere to the principles outlined in Every Child Matters. For example, although we recognise the importance of age determination in order to avoid the dangers of placing an adult with children, or vice versa, the whole thrust of the paper appears to be on reducing the 'serious level of abuse of the system' rather than on the immediate needs of that individual on arrival in the UK. Of the 166 age dispute cases detained at Oakington Immigration Reception Centre in 2005, over 60% were determined as minors^[3]. Ensuring the protection and rights of these young people must be the primary goal of the age determination process.

Similarly, the ECM agenda applies to children from birth to 19 years old. However, in the consultation paper a clear line is drawn at age 18, with limited, if any, access to welfare support after this age. The proposal to limit leave to remain and the additional suggestion to transfer support for former unaccompanied asylum-seeking children from local authorities to Section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 would mean a significant reduction in the level of financial and emotional support as well as considerable upheaval. The solution is presented as a financial incentive to local authorities otherwise reluctant to take on more unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, and ignores the integration needs of the child. It is designed to promote voluntary return, or invoke enforced return under the threat of destitution, to avoid invoking leaving care costs, yet little consideration is given to what support is needed for those children unable to return to their country of origin or to the trauma that many may have experienced which led to their asylum claim.

It is proposed that care planning takes into account the position of unsuccessful applicants who will be required to return home, but the CRE is concerned that, with limited resources, there is little incentive for local authorities to focus on this group given they will be leaving the country. If discretionary leave to remain is amended to expire at 17½, as is proposed in this paper, local authorities will have no 'leaving care duties' to young people over 18 who are in this situation and therefore 'without leave'. As a result, social services will not be inclined to promote opportunities for further education or training in the belief that the young people will shortly be removed. Not only does this pre-judge the outcome of the application but it denies education and integration opportunities to young asylum-seekers who may gain further leave to remain or go on to become refugees^[4]. This proposal could be interpreted as discriminatory, as it will result in less favourable treatment on account of immigration status^[5], and is likely to worsen the existing tension between the provision of social care and the maintenance of immigration control.

Importantly, ECM recognises unaccompanied asylum seeking minors as children first and asylum seekers second. However, the focus of the consultation paper is on the immigration status of the child, rather than his or her needs. Emphasis is placed on returning as many children as possible to their country of origin, rather than on their social care needs when they are here. We firmly believe that the level of care should be based on a comprehensive assessment of mental, physical and educational needs rather than on immigration status.

Given that ECM specifically highlights unaccompanied asylum seeking children as a group with some of the greatest need, we do not feel that this is adequately reflected, or addressed, in the consultation paper.

Specific comments

Chapter 2

(iii) More Rational Geographical Distribution

The CRE is concerned that the dispersal of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children outside London and the south east may expose many to the racial harassment experienced by dispersed adult asylum-seekers in particular localities and regions. There is strong evidence highlighting negative public attitudes towards asylum-seekers, which often develops into racial abuse and violence on the grounds of colour, nationality and (perceived) migration status^[6]. Hostility towards asylum seekers is often displaced onto whole ethnic minority communities even though many community members may not be asylum seekers. Frequently this hostility is inspired by rumours, lies and misreporting regarding asylum seekers access to services, jobs and benefits.

If designated 'specialist authorities' are to receive large numbers of unaccompanied asylum seeking children, they will require a firm strategy to deal with racial harassment and to promote community cohesion and integration. Local residents must be prepared for the arrival and integration of young asylum-seekers, supported by effective local leadership to tackle misperceptions and promote good race relations.

Local public services, including schools, healthcare services and housing providers must be prepared for the additional and specialised needs of this community, and adequately funded for this purpose. Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children often wait months before getting into mainstream schools resulting in significant delays to the process of integration and adjustment^[7]. There must be sufficient resources in place to meet the linguistic, physical and mental healthcare needs specific to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Dispersal should not deny these children access to adequate legal advice, the Refugee Council's Children's Panel, interpreters and trauma councillors. Consideration should also be taken of the cultural needs of dispersed asylum-seeking children, who benefit greatly from access to refugee community organisations and communities of their own national origin^[8].

Many unaccompanied asylum-seeking children will be returned to their country of origin, but a large proportion will be given some form of leave to remain in the UK and must be given the opportunity to integrate into their local communities. 25% of separated children in social care have no other support beyond that provided by professionals, and tend to experience extreme isolation, preventing any sense of belonging, community and fulfilment^[9]. Research has shown that a stable home environment, education and social networks all contribute to improving unaccompanied asylum-seeking children's wellbeing^[10].

Chapter 3

Initial Assessments, including Age Determination

Recent research by Swansea University^[11] found evidence that the rise in age disputes is illustrative not of 'a serious level of abuse of the system' but to a prevailing culture of cynicism and disbelief among immigration officers and social services departments. The assessment of age is notoriously difficult, but this is particularly true for children who come from different social, economic and ethnic origins. Prevailing assumptions based on socially constructed ideas of appropriate behaviour are often applied to asylum seeking children from diverse cultures and contexts, resulting in inaccurate assessments. There is no statutory guidance on age assessments and the research found evidence that such guidance as exists is not uniformly applied and contains inaccuracies, resulting in considerable variation in the quality of the assessment process. It also found that some social work managers place pressure on social workers to assess children as older than they are. This highlights the potential conflict of interest associated with the resource implications of accepting an applicant as a child.

The difficulties faced by social workers are likely to increase if more children are dispersed to areas that do not have experience dealing with unaccompanied asylum seeking children. Home Office staff and social workers need appropriate training and support to assess the age and needs of children claiming asylum. This process should be separate from both immigration control procedures and social care provision to ensure there is no conflict of interest.

Current methods of age assessment have large margins of error and do need to be revised, but the introduction of x-ray examinations does not present a viable alternative. Not only do they suffer from a greater margin of error (up to 5 years)^[12] but it would be a traumatic and invasive process for young people fleeing persecution. The CRE firmly disagrees with the assumption that any refusal to undergo an x-ray examination would indicate a false declaration of age. Fear, physical pain and a prior experience of torture are all adequate reasons for refusal, and this should not inform either the final decision on age or the substantive asylum application.

Assessment of Need and Placement

The paper states that foster care is likely to be the most appropriate option for those entering the care system when under 16 years old. The CRE believes it is therefore important that particular efforts are made to ensure that foster carers have the knowledge, skills and understanding to be able provide the specialist support unaccompanied asylum seeking children will undoubtedly need.

There is a body of evidence that same-race placement helps children learn more easily about their racial background and cultural heritage and therefore enables them to cope better with racial discrimination and hostility. However, it is wrong to assume that there are common links between people of the same ethnic origin and same-race placements can limit the choices available and mean that children stay in institutionalised care for longer, where there are predominantly white staff^[13].

Foster carers must be sensitive to and understand a child's cultural background and values; however, this does not require them to be the same ethnic background as the child^[14]. We therefore welcome the proposals in Care Matters for including specialised professional development modules on working with unaccompanied asylum seeking children within the national training framework.

Shared housing and independent living

The paper proposes the consideration of other types of support services for over 16s including shared housing and independent living, both with considerably reduced levels of supervision and support. The Children's Commissioner has expressed his concerns about the effects of de-accommodation at 16, a practice favoured by local authorities seeking to reduce costs^[15]. Placement change can lead to the loss of a school place, or difficulty reaching the school due to transport costs. Children living independently at the age of 16 are likely to lose, or fail to establish, valuable social and professional networks necessary for integration.

Research by ECPAT UK and Barnardo's reveals evidence that some groups of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, particularly Chinese and Vietnamese, are absconding from local authority care, a situation that is likely to be worsened by a reduction in supervision and support^[16]. Placing children into 'semi-supported' and shared accommodation leaves many children vulnerable to exploitation by criminal gangs or traffickers. Child safety concerns aside, large numbers of young irregular migrants in urban areas will lead to significant community cohesion issues^[17].

The Asylum Application

The paper proposes introducing shorter periods of leave, or none at all, for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children aged 16 or over. It also outlines plans to amend discretionary leave to remain to expire when the young person reaches 17½ so that all further applications and appeals are concluded before they turn 18. The CRE is concerned that withdrawal of support at 16 will deny young asylum seekers access to essential information, and legal advice necessary to pursue their application. It will also mean young people are unable to access education and English language training, both key elements for integration. Although the speed of decision making is improving, 28% of appeals received in 2005/06 did not receive a final decision within the six month time limit^[18], suggesting that many of these young people will be without the necessary support and resources well beyond their 18th birthday.

Furthermore, these plans work under the assumption that it will be possible to remove the young people once they reach the end of the line. These 'end of line' cases are the fastest growing group of young people in social services care^[19]. There are many reasons why failed asylum seekers cannot be returned to their country of origin, including a lack of safe passage, difficulty accessing travel documents and genuine fear of persecution. Despite this, failure to comply with removal directions will result in children becoming destitute, living in a state of limbo, alienated from support services and vulnerable to exploitation and trafficking.

Proposals to introduce measures enabling the forced removal of former unaccompanied asylum-seeking children at 16 or 17 will have damaging consequences for the safety of these young people. It is possible that this will encourage young people to abscond from social services care before they reach the end of the line, turning to irregular labour, exploitation and trafficking. Again, implications for community cohesion and good race relations are grave.

Chapter 4

The Specialist Authority

The CRE has concerns about the current level of support being provided by local authorities to unaccompanied asylum seeking children. Research suggests that the Hillingdon judgement and the subsequent guidance issued by the Government is not being adhered to by many local authorities, resulting in unaccompanied children leaving care with limited support after 18 whilst other care leavers are given ongoing help and support until they reach 21^[20].

The Commission for Social Care Inspection also found that councils with less experience of dealing with asylum seeking young people had less well-developed arrangements for supporting them. In addition, comprehensive assessment of young people's needs and detailed care plans were sometimes not in place^[21]. The Refugee Council has also highlighted concerns about the lack of services or the quality of service that local authorities are able to provide to unaccompanied young people with not enough support from central government^[22]. Young asylum seekers and refugees are frequently marginalised and isolated, often due to people's prejudice or unfamiliarity with support systems. This isolation prevents them accessing the level of care, support and services they need^[23].

It is also important to consider the evidence relating to the experiences of ethnic minority looked after children in Britain which shows that, once in care, their needs are often not adequately met, particularly in relation to health, disability, racial harassment, the importance of maintaining family languages, religion and spirituality, and racial and ethnic identity^[24]. Children from Black, Asian and Black mixed-heritage communities are also less likely than White children to find a family and remain longer in the care system^[25].

Given this evidence, the CRE would want to see robust systems in place for determining which local authorities should become specialist authorities to ensure that services really do meet the needs of unaccompanied asylum seeking children and that adequate funding is in place for the provision of the required range of services. 'Specialist authorities' should be aware of the barriers faced by asylum-seeking children and lead professionals should undertake appropriate race and diversity training so that they have a clear understanding of the particular difficulties facing ethnic minority young people. Also, efforts should be paid to recruit more lead professionals from ethnic minority communities.

Funding for leaving care services can be expensive, with enormous potential to impact on social care budgets. There is already evidence of local authorities briefing the media on costs incurred through the support of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children^[26]. This sort of coverage has the potential to have a negative impact on race relations. It is currently not clear how the proposals to change the funding arrangements for local authorities may impact on them being able to deliver the vital services needed to ensure that children receive the support and care they need.

For more information about any issue raised in this consultation response, please contact Sile Reynolds, Policy Officer on 020 7939 0104 or email sreynolds@cre.gov.uk.

Notes

1. HM Government (2004) Every Child Matters: Change for Children. Department for Education and Skills. [back]
2. Page 35, HM Government (2003) Every Child Matters -- Green Paper. Department for Education and Skills. [back]
3. Figures compiled by the Refugee Council at Oakington Immigration Removal Centre. [back]
4. In 2006/07 21% of appeals were allowed. Home Office Asylum Statistics: 1st Quarter 2007. [back]
5. Memorandum from the Office of the Children's Commissioner to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the Treatment of Asylum Seekers, September 2006. [back]
6. The reception and integration of new migrant communities, the Institute for Public Policy Research, 2007. [back]
7. A long way to go: young refugees and asylum seekers in the UK, a guide for donors and funders. New Philanthropy Capital, April 2007. [back]
8. Williamson, L. (1998) Unaccompanied - but not unsupported, in Refugee Education: Mapping the field, J. Rutter and C. Jones, eds. Trentham Books: Stoke on Trent. p. 49-74. [back]
9. A long way to go: young refugees and asylum seekers in the UK, a guide for donors and funders. New Philanthropy Capital, April 2007 p.22. [back]
10. Wade, J., Mitchell, F. and Baylis, G. (2005) Unaccompanied asylum seeking children. British Association for Adoption and Fostering: London. [back]
11. Dr Heaven Crawley 'When is a child not a child? Asylum, age disputes and the process of age assessment', ILPA May 2007. [back]
12. ibid. [back]
13. Commission for Racial Equality (1990) Adopting A Better Policy: Adoption and fostering of ethnic minority children. London: CRE. [back]
14. Department for Education and Skills (2006) Care Matters: transforming the lives of children in care. Equality Impact Assessment. [back]
15. Evidence from the Office of the Children's Commissioner on the de-accommodation policy and practice of the London Borough of Hillingdon, 6 January 2007. [back]
16. Evidence from ECPAT UK to the Joint Committee on Human Rights Inquiry on the Human Rights of People Trafficked into the United Kingdom, January 2006. [back]
17. The Destitution Trap, Research into destitution among refused asylum seekers in the UK, Refugee Action 2006 p88. [back]
18. Home Office Asylum Statistics: 1st Quarter 2007. [back]
19. Free, E. (2006) Unaccompanied refugees and asylum seekers turning 18. Save the Children. [back]
20. Nandy, L. (2005) The impact of government policy on asylum-seeking and refugee children. Children & Society.Volume 19, pp.1-4. [back]
21. Commission for Social Care Inspection (2005) Making Every Child Matter: Messages from inspections of children's social services. [back]
22. Free, E. (2005) Local Authority Support to Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Young People. Changes since the Hillingdon Judgement (2003). Save the Children. [back]
23. A long way to go: young refugees and asylum seekers in the UK, a guide for donors and funders. New Philanthropy Capital, April 2007. [back]
24. Barn, R. (2006) Improving services to meet the needs of minority ethnic children and families. London: Department for Education and Skills. [back]
25. Selwyn, J., Frazer, L., and Fitgerald, A. (2004) Finding adoptive families for black, Asian and black mixed-parentage children: agency policy and practice. Executive Summary. NCH. [back]
26. 'Minors conflict', The Guardian, 31/01/07 [weblink] [back]