The government's suggestion that it is OK to place 16-year-old unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in 'independent living arrangements' - including B&B accommodation - when they have already acknowledged that most children of this age would find leaving home 'alien' stinks of discrimination.
Why would a child who has experienced terrible loss and trauma and finds themself in a strange country need less support than any other child? Surely they need more.
Care Matters rightly proposes that most children in care should remain with their carers until at least age 18. It even plans to pilot allowing young people to continue to live with their foster familes up to the age of 21.
Things are always going to become problematic once unaccompanied asylum-seeking children turn 18 given the Home Office's determination to increase the number it sends home (and the speed with which it does so). But we must at least ensure that, before these young people turn 18, they are treated the same as all other children in care living in the UK.
The proposed improvements to the care system are welcome, but they must be open to all. A two-tier care system based on a child's nationality (or anything else for that matter) is not acceptable.
Comments (1)
"clear evidence that Hillingdon had adopted a de-accommodation policy"
"All local authorities should follow the guidance set out in LAC13 (2003) and provide separated children with support under section 20 of the Children Act. Children should not be "de-accommodated" before they turn 18"
LAC 13: (PDF File)
http://www.asylumsupport.info/childreninneed.pdf
In addition witnesses told us that some local authorities were routinely "de-accommodating" separated asylum seeking children in order to reduce the costs of providing support. "De-accommodation" is a technical term which means essentially that children are taken out of the "looked after" system and provided with support under the leaving care provisions of the Children Act before they turn 18. These children will be provided with the support package that is provided to care leavers. They will have access to a personal adviser rather than a qualified social worker. Their needs as children will not be assessed or reviewed. The issue of "de-accommodation" was raised by the Children's Commissioner, who expressed concerns about the policy and practice of the London Borough of Hillingdon. Hillingdon has particularly extensive experience of and responsibility for asylum seeking children, because many enter the UK via Heathrow airport, which is located within Hillingdon's boundaries. The Children's Commissioner was concerned that separated asylum seeking children, who are frequently extremely vulnerable, were effectively being removed from the looked after system without due regard to the law, their needs or their welfare, and that their access to an appropriate level of service was thus prevented or restricted:
"We consider that the Hillingdon policy of de-accommodating UASC children at 16 is inimical to these children and fails to adequately safeguard and promote their welfare. We further take the view that the policy violates the child's right to family life and private life under Article 8 ECHR and discriminates against UASC contrary to Article 14 ECHR. In addition, in introducing such a policy it would appear that the best interests of the child have not been the paramount consideration."[260]
188. There is some evidence that the problem of "de-accommodation" arises from the fact that the financial costs, both direct and indirect, of providing an appropriate accommodation and support package to separated asylum seeking children under section 20 of the Children Act are only partly met by the Home Office's grant. The London Borough of Hillingdon told us that it had no formal or blanket policy to "de-accommodate" separated asylum seeking children and that its practice was to provide services on the basis of assessed need.[261] However, further information produced by the Children's Commissioner,[262] provided clear evidence that Hillingdon had adopted a de-accommodation policy. The evidence stated that, contrary to local authority guidance, there was no expectation that children would remain "looked after" unless there was an "exceptional reason" and advised social workers to avoid placing asylum seeking children in foster care to avoid the "obvious problems" that would arise.
We are concerned about the detrimental consequences of providing inadequate and inappropriate support and accommodation to separated asylum seeking children. These children, who come to the UK, often traumatised, from some of the most troubled regions of the world, are particularly vulnerable. All local authorities should follow the guidance set out in LAC13 (2003) and provide separated children with support under section 20 of the Children Act. Children should not be "de-accommodated" before they turn 18 (Paragraph 190)
30. We recognise that the difficulties local authorities face in providing an appropriate package of accommodation and support to separated asylum seeking children are compounded by the lack of additional resources available to social service departments, and by a broader political and policy context which pushes the needs of separated children down the already long list of priorities facing local authorities in providing children's services. Local authorities must be provided with sufficient funds to deliver an appropriate package of support and care, including leaving care costs (Paragraph 191)
31. We are concerned that there is currently no statutory oversight for ensuring that separated children are able to access the services and support to which they are entitled, and for ensuring that the wide range of bodies in contact with a child act in his or her best interests. This is despite the requirement of Article 19 of the EU Reception Directive, that separated children should be provided with a guardian. We recommend that a formal system of guardianship should be established for separated children subject to immigration control, including separated asylum seeking children. The guardian would have a statutory role and would be appointed by a statutory body to safeguard the best interests of the child and provide a link between all those providing services and support. The guardian should be expected to intervene if public bodies act in contravention of their legal duties towards a child (Paragraph 193)
32. We recommend that the Government's proposals to reform the arrangements for supporting unaccompanied asylum seeking children should be carefully scrutinised against the benchmark of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to ensure that this group are not excluded from the care, consideration and protection to which all children and young people are entitled (Paragraph 196)
33. We are concerned by the lack of recognition given by the Government to the risks of having children whose age is disputed in the adult system. We are not convinced that the Home Office is ensuring that the "benefit of the doubt" is given to separated asylum seeking children or that local authorities receive appropriate training and support to enable them to undertake an integrated assessment process. We are also concerned that age disputed children continue to be detained as adults despite Government policy which says that this should not happen; and legal actions, in which the Home Office has conceded that this approach is not appropriate. (Paragraph 203)
34. We recommend that where an asylum seeker's age is disputed even where the benefit of the doubt has been given, he or she should be provided with accommodation by the appropriate social service department in order for an integrated age assessment to be undertaken, considering all relevant factors. X-rays and other medical assessment methods should not be relied upon, given the margin of error. The process for dealing with age disputes should be reviewed, particularly in light of the evidence and recommendations arising from the research currently being undertaken by ILPA and due to be published shortly, with a view to ensuring that no age disputed asylum seeker is detained or removed unless and until an integrated age assessment has been undertaken. (Paragraph 204)
More:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200607/jtselect/jtrights/81/8111.htm
Posted by Tess | March 31, 2007 7:01 AM
Posted on March 31, 2007 07:01