Young Asylum Seekers

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries, and to have secured this debate on the rights of young asylum seekers in this country.

We must remember that, on the whole, asylum seekers have fled to Britain from horrific persecution and we should give them the opportunity to escape properly, especially during their crucial formative years. Certain elements of the popular press have a lot to answer for, in my view, because they paint these vulnerable children and adults as people scrounging off the state. In fact, they are forced to live off the state; the jobs they are allowed to do are so highly skilled that they are unable to do them because of the inequities in access to education. Under the current system, young asylum seekers are at particular risk of floundering in limbo while their peers are starting their own lives. Often, unaccompanied minors are not believed by local authorities and so are left in risky adult situations, when they came here to escape that world. They are forced to live well below the poverty line, because of the Government’s freezing of asylum support.

We in the UK should be proud of our commitment to supporting legitimate refugees. We owe them a duty of care and a life of dignity, yet families that have fled from war or persecution are plunged into poverty when they reach the UK, a place they thought would be safe. The Home Secretary’s “irrational” decision to freeze asylum support in 2011 has seen a further 6,000 families fall below the poverty line. The Government’s many decisions to limit and cut benefits are tragic for families across the UK who are using food banks or shivering in their homes due to fuel poverty, but they are all the more devastating when we consider that asylum-seeker parents are not lawfully able to get a job to support their families at all in the first 12 months, and, realistically, in practice will not be able to get one after that, either. They have to live on £5.23 a day, an amount that was low in 2011 but is even worse now, as food prices have rocketed; 40% of these families now say they cannot afford to feed themselves or their children.

As the Minister will be aware, we are awaiting the Government’s decision on how much to raise the allowance to. The Government had to be told by a High Court judgment that the amount was far too low. As she also will know, MPs and organisations are calling on the Government to raise the amount to at least 70% of income support. I look forward to hearing the announcement on that—perhaps she could indicate in her response what she plans to do.

Although asylum support remains desperately low, only today the chief inspector of borders and immigration has been talking about the lack of a strategy to stop asylum support fraud—only six people were successfully prosecuted for asylum support fraud offences in 2012-13. The Minister needs to get a grip on asylum support. The Home Department clearly does not have a clue what it is doing—there is no policy to stop fraud and no policy to give dignified support to those who genuinely deserve and need it.

How does the Minister plan to respect the rights of the over 10,000 children who are in receipt of section 95 support? Those are the people we are here to speak about today: young asylum seekers who have come here to get an education and to have the opportunity for a decent life. With such a low allowance, they are denied the nutritious meals that help them concentrate at school. They are denied school trips and uniforms—in fact, everything that would help them to settle and integrate with their school friends—and they cannot start afresh. The Minister might have us believe that they are all making it up and none of them has a legitimate case, but surely children should not suffer as a result of the bad decisions of their parents. We would not let a British child suffer in that way, and we should not let persecuted children suffer, either.

The situation gets worse for young asylum seekers aged 16 and 17. They are too young to be treated like an adult, but too old to be treated like a child. They receive a considerably lower level of support than under-16s, yet are still in full-time education. They face all the problems I have just explained, but the situation is far more serious. Instead of inspiring those who have faced adversity, we are pushing them to their limits and forcing them underground. I assume the Government’s plan is to create a hostile environment so that even the countries they have fled from seem better than here. They face either a life of hardship and inequity, or a life of constant fear of death.

Young refugees and asylum seekers prioritise education; it helps them focus on the future and is often a positive aspect of what can be a very difficult life in the UK. UNICEF research has found that many have the aim of reaching university; that is particularly important when we consider the list of jobs open to asylum seekers—those jobs are very highly skilled and often require specialised qualifications. The Department for International Development prioritises education in many of the countries these young people come from, as can see the benefit of education to development and reconstruction, yet students in the UK could be forced out of their courses—or be unable even to begin them—before being returned to those countries. I am sure the Minister will acknowledge that that is inconsistent.

I am sure that young refugees in England, Wales and Northern Ireland would welcome the change that the Scottish Executive made in 2007, when they waived tuition fees for those who had been studying in Scotland for at least three years, but that does not help those young people who have been here for only a short period before their 18th birthday, and who are cut off from education at a crucial age and are prevented from taking anything positive from their time in the UK.

For those able to work or go into education, even the practical issue of having passed their documents to the Home Office can be a barrier. They have no proof of the legality of their stay in the UK, and employers or higher education institutions are understandably reluctant to take a chance on them. Even without that barrier, the shortage jobs that asylum seekers are allowed to do are so highly skilled that they need to go into further education, but many of these young people cannot afford to do so because they are treated as overseas students and so are unable to apply for student finance. That cruel cycle effectively means they are in limbo, unable to move on with their lives and stuck in the asylum system. That might be tolerable if the UK Border Agency could stick to its target of six months for a decision, but some young people wait five, six, seven or even eight years for that decision. That is eight years in limbo—eight years with their life on hold.

For young people who have discretionary leave to remain but not refugee status, the transition from child to adult is a challenge because they are reapplying when they are just 17. We need to ensure that ongoing support is offered, in line with social best practice, until the age of 21. That would give them the chance to finish their education, and become less vulnerable and better able to tackle the challenge of possibly returning to their home country.

I am proud that it was Labour in Scotland that pioneered the commitment to take a comprehensive approach to integration for refugees and people claiming asylum, and their closest loved ones—that always means their children. Thankfully, Labour’s leadership has been followed up, and we now have a refugee integration strategy in Scotland with a joined-up approach that facilitates things for refugees, so that they can fully contribute to and benefit from life in Scotland. The coalition should replicate that across the UK. Will the Minister commit to visiting Scotland to learn about that excellent practice in the Scottish Guardianship Service? Will she ensure that the Home Office is demonstrably playing the fullest part possible for kids who have literally lost everything, and tragically in some cases have suffered horrendous abuse too?

As the Minister will be aware, young asylum seekers, particularly those in the 16 to 17-year-old age bracket, are at high risk of having their age wrongly identified and so being placed into adult environments. That is in part due to cultural differences. Birthdays, birth dates and birth registrations are not as important in some cultures as they are in ours; for example, 64% of births go unregistered in sub-Saharan Africa and 65% in south Asia. Many children and young people arrive in the UK without identity documents to prove their age because they never had them or, in some cases, had to destroy them en route, having had to use false documents to travel. That is a challenge for local authorities in determining age. Some children from similar ethnic backgrounds who have grown up in the same environment may display significant physical, emotional and developmental differences, made larger by experience of adversity, conflict, violence and the migration process.

The Minister is concerned that some young people lie about their age, and I am sure that may be true in a small minority of cases, but as Labour Members say when talking about welfare fraud that we should not penalise the many for the decisions of the few. There is, of course, concern about someone in their early 20s being placed in accommodation with teenagers, but there is a far greater risk of placing children, perhaps as young as 14, in detention, or in independent and less carefully regulated accommodation, with adults of all ages. The system should be designed to protect children and to catch people in the net, not to penalise them for cultural differences or the rough journey they had to get here.

I would like to hear today what the Minister plans to do about that. Is she, at the very least, keeping track of how often this happens? How many cases have there been in the last year of the UK Border Agency treating an individual as an adult based purely on their appearance or demeanour? How many cases have there been in the last year of an individual who claims to be a child being placed in immigration detention? If the Minister cannot tell me this, will she agree to start collecting such information and to publish it regularly?

The Home Office should revise its policy on assessing age and treating young people as adults based solely on their appearance or demeanour. Anyone who has sold alcohol in a pub will say how difficult it is to assess someone’s age from what they look like. Our immigration system should not be based on that crude assessment. I welcome the work by the Association of Directors of Children’s Services in developing an age assessment strategic oversight group and reviewing the current arrangements. The belief that multiple agencies should be involved in age assessment is sensible and fair in trying to tackle this issue.

The Scottish Guardianship Service has a positive reputation on age assessment practice, but it remains inconsistent, and we need national statutory guidelines to ensure that all child protection and social work professionals follow a standard, high-quality pathway. The Minister will be aware of the costed proposal from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health to provide guidance to paediatricians. To my knowledge, she has not yet responded to that; I urge her to support proper guidance, because it is the best opportunity we have to make progress on age assessment since it first became a substantial issue 10 years ago.

We have a proud history around the world of fighting for human rights through our armed forces and the development objectives of the Department for International Development, but we are failing to protect the rights of young asylum seekers who have fled persecution. We must ensure that their time in the UK allows them to reach their potential, whether or not they are granted refugee status and whether they build their lives in the UK or return to try to find a solution to the problem in their home countries. We should equip them with the tools they need and respect their right to grow into responsible young adults.

I will conclude with the following questions for the Minister. In their response to the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, “In their best interests?”, the Government said that no action was needed on the majority of points. That was disappointing given the amount of expertise that was harnessed to create the report. Will the Minister commit to looking again at the report? Will she also consider giving asylum seekers a proper right to work, not just on shortage jobs, so that they can earn a living and contribute to society while they are waiting for a decision?

Will the Minister indicate how much asylum support will rise by? What does she have to say about the chief inspector’s claim that there is no strategy to tackle asylum fraud? Will she agree to visit Scotland and to learn more about the Scottish Guardianship Service? Does she think the service deserves funding from the Home Office? When will she respond to the costed proposal on age assessment guidance? Why did the Minister cancel the National Asylum Stakeholder Forum’s children’s sub-group meeting today? Why does she not prioritise these issues? Will she ensure that support is offered, in line with social best practice, up to the age of 25, or at least 21?

16:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) for securing this debate on the important subject of young people in the asylum system. I enjoyed reading his piece in dodonline today, which covered the issue. I am aware that he has long been interested in it and I therefore take his views particularly seriously. I welcome the opportunity to address some of the issues raised during this debate and I will do my best to cover as much as possible in the time available, but if I do not have time to cover them all, I will endeavour to ensure that he receives a written response.

It is a pleasure, Ms Dorries, to serve under your chairmanship. This is probably the first time I have done so in my present capacity, so it is a real treat.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the UK has a proud history of granting asylum to those who need it, and that all claims are carefully considered before decisions are made. The asylum system provides protection for those who are found to be genuinely in need of it in accordance with our commitments under international law, notably the 1951 refugee convention and the European convention on human rights. Protection needs are considered taking into account the individual’s circumstances, and against the background of published country information from a wide range of recognised and publicly disclosed sources.

The Government recognise that young asylum seekers may be particularly vulnerable children, and take very seriously their responsibility to safeguard and promote such cases. All staff who come into contact with young people in the asylum system have been trained to recognise their needs and to act in a way that protects and promotes their best interests in line with our obligations. The Government have a sustained track record of significant improvements in this area. We have transformed our approach to unaccompanied migrant children by ensuring that their best interests and human rights are fully protected while ensuring that legitimate immigration functions are not compromised.

The initiatives taken by this Government include the following. In December 2010, we published plans for ending the detention of children in a way that seeks to balance the protection of children with ensuring the departure of families who have no right to be in the UK. In the few cases in which families are held in pre-departure accommodation, we have worked with statutory and non-statutory corporate partners to ensure that the conditions in which they are held meet all their welfare needs. We have since gone further by giving legislative effect to the policy on detaining children.

I visited the Border Force team at Gatwick airport recently to see their work on identifying trafficked children in particular, but also asylum-seeking children, to ensure that they have the support they need. I cannot speak too highly of the way in which the team works with local social services. It has ensured that the rooms to which children are brought are child-friendly, with bean bags rather than nailed-down chairs. It respects the fact that these young and very vulnerable people need help and support when identifying whether they have been trafficked and ensuring that we can catch the traffickers and punish them. I have seen that with my own eyes and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the operation is very impressive.

Following the report, “Landing in Dover” in January 2012 by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England, we strengthened the arrival and screening process for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. When the asylum claim is made at their first point of contact with the Department, we allow up to four days for recuperation and to enable them to seek legal advice. In July 2012, we introduced new immigration rules to provide a framework for considering applications under article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which relates to family and private life. We have brought consideration of the best interests of children into the immigration rules in order to ensure that we consistently meet our obligations when considering family cases. There is now a clear route for applications for leave based on a child’s best interests.

In the Immigration Act 2014, we also set out clearly how we believe the interests of children should be balanced against the Government’s wider responsibilities for public safety and security and for the effective management of immigration. That has provided greater clarity and transparency on immigration decision making in what is a difficult and sensitive area.

Although the decision-making process in children’s asylum cases is essentially the same as that for adults, there are certain differences. For example, when children attend the asylum intake unit in Croydon—not far from Gatwick, of course—to submit their asylum application, they are often accompanied by social workers and an appointment line is used to minimise waiting times. If they attend alone, an urgent referral is made to local authority children’s services. We also take the fingerprints of all children over the age of five as soon as possible. That ensures that they can be identified if they are encountered at a later date, which is particularly important in potential trafficking cases.

We always make social services aware of a child’s arrival at the earliest opportunity. From that point onwards, a variety of professionals will have involvement with the welfare of the child. For consideration of their asylum application, children are interviewed by a specially trained decision maker. At the interview, the child will be accompanied by a responsible adult. A legal representative would normally be present for the interview, and an interpreter if appropriate. The decision maker will then consider the details of the case and make a decision on the application. If the decision is to refuse the child’s asylum application, the reception arrangements upon returning them to their country of origin must be considered.

The Home Office will not remove an unaccompanied child from the UK unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that safe and adequate reception arrangements are in place in the country to which the child is to be removed. In the event that it is not possible to put in place sufficient arrangements, specific leave is granted on that basis, for 30 months or until the child is 17 and a half years old—whichever is the shorter period. Grants of limited leave in these circumstances provide children with certainty that they will be allowed to stay in the UK until they are 18 years of age. Once they reach 18, we will seek to return them, unless they can establish a legitimate reason to remain in the UK as an adult.

At this point, I would like to add something else from my personal experience. Recently, I visited Albania, which is one of the source countries for many of the unaccompanied children. There is a terrible industry in Albania of falsifying histories of blood feuds. Organised crime gangs are involved in it, and I have enormous sympathy for the children who end up in that dreadful situation: trafficked by somebody who is falsifying their life records in order to use them for labour and other exploitation in the UK. We are working with the Albanians and other authorities to stamp out the organised crime that enables that to take place. It is an absolute travesty that people are able to use and abuse these most vulnerable young people in that way, and we have to work across borders to stamp it out.

We are not complacent, but we believe that the Government have a good story to tell about how we manage asylum claims from children. Last year, the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration inspected our management of claims from unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. His report was largely positive and praised the Home Office for conducting interviews sensitively, for giving the benefit of the doubt and for having good safeguarding procedures in dealing with unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Overall, the report was a fair assessment of our current performance in handling these claims. We welcome the fact that the ICI praised the Home Office for the cultural and customer-focused aspects of its work with young people, particularly its professional commitment to safeguarding and welfare and its close liaison with external partners such as local authority children’s services.

Our partnership with local authority children’s services is one of the cornerstones of our efforts to promote and ensure the welfare of children. The Home Office provides direct financial support to families, but unaccompanied children are the responsibility of local authority children’s services. Local authorities provide support to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, regardless of their immigration status, as they would to any other looked-after child. The immediate focus, especially where a child may have been trafficked, will be to ensure that the child is safe from harm, but local authorities will also plan to meet the health and education needs of the child. As for every looked-after child, the education plan will include securing the best education provision to meet that child’s needs. Health planning will include addressing both the physical and psychological needs the child may have as a consequence of their experiences before claiming asylum. It is worth reiterating the point that if a child is claiming asylum, they will have gone through some very difficult experiences and often suffered physical and almost certainly psychological damage. It is incredibly important that they be dealt with sensitively and that all children’s services are aware of that point.

[Jim Sheridan]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but will she indicate when we can get to a decision time of six months? As I said, it has taken six, seven or eight years for these young people to get a decision. Are there any plans to bring that down to the six-month target?

[Karen Bradley]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I hope to get to that shortly.

Local authorities already have a duty under the Children Act 1989 for planning the transition to adulthood of care leavers. For unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in care, that planning will include the different steps required in response to different immigration outcomes for the child. As part of that case planning, the guidance is clear that local authorities should work with dedicated case workers at the Home Office. The planning also includes a continued commitment to the education and well-being of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children leaving care while they remain in the UK, with support provided by a personal adviser. Any support will be tailored to individual need but, to take just one example, good practice might be working with apprenticeship schemes, so that those young people can develop meaningful skills while contributing to the local economy.

I turn to some of the hon. Gentleman’s specific points. On the asylum support given to children, it is absolutely clear that no child should be left destitute, and local authorities support unaccompanied children as they would any looked-after child born in the UK, regardless of their immigration status, nationality or documentation. Local authorities produce a care plan to ensure that everyone involved in providing the child’s care is aware of their needs. The plan will cover key stages in the child’s asylum claim, legal support, health—that includes psychological needs and any learning difficulties—and education, and the Home Office provides funding for that to local authorities.

If the children are in families, the families receive support direct from the Home Office to avoid destitution. That generally includes fully furnished accommodation with utility bills paid and a cash allowance to cover other essential living needs. The level of cash allowance varies according to the size of the household and how many children there are, but as an example, a couple with two children typically receives £170 to £180 a week. We do not believe that is ungenerous, but in light of the recent judicial review decision on the asylum support rate, we are carefully reviewing all the allowance levels to ensure that they are sufficient to cover essential living needs, and we expect to complete the review by mid-August. If a family asylum claim is refused and the family includes a child under 18, the family will continue to receive the same level of support as before in order to protect the welfare and best interests of the child.

We are endeavouring to decide all asylum cases older than six months by 1 April 2015. We have already made progress, and in March we cleared all straightforward pre-2011 asylum decisions. We cleared all straightforward pre-2012 decisions by the end of last month—June 2014—and we aim to clear all pre-2014 cases and ensure all new claims receive a decision within the six-month service standard by April 2015. Clearly, we inherited a backlog from the previous Government and that is a shame and a pity. We are now working to make sure we clear that backlog, and that by April 2015, all cases are dealt with in the six months that we endeavour to deal with them in.

The hon. Gentleman talked about uncertainty about age. He is absolutely right—as a publican’s daughter, I can vouch for how difficult it often is to see whether someone is a child or an adult when they come to the bar to get a drink. In the work on modern slavery, in many of the cases I have seen coming through the system, the age of the person involved is very uncertain, but it is not that people are being treated as an adult until proven to be a child. Where there is any doubt about whether someone is an adult or a child, we would immediately refer them to a local authority social services department for a careful, case-law-compliant assessment of their age, and we would treat them as a child until we have the outcome of their assessment.

I am conscious that we are about to reach the end of the time allotted for this debate. If there are any further points, I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman is written to, and I thank those in the Chamber for their time.