A version of the below blog appeared on LBC News.
As Children’s Commissioner, I have a statutory duty to protect and promote the rights of children – no matter how they get here or what their asylum status is
This is how I have approached every government proposal throughout my five years, including its interventions on child asylum seekers.
I visited both accompanied and unaccompanied children in hotels. I’ve seen a young boy crying for his mother who he thinks has been killed by militants. A girl, separated from her parents on the journey and with an older ‘boyfriend’, who appeared to have been trafficked. I demanded information from the Home Office that showed that children have been raped and beaten on the journey from war zones, and even had their organs harvested. I have fought for action to prevent children being placed in unsafe hotels and then going missing.
I am speaking out today, because many more asylum-seeking children are at risk due to plans withdraw support and forcibly remove children whose families have failed asylum claims.
The Home Office consultation, launched in March, sought views on three measures that affect children and young people who I have a statutory duty towards: reducing or removing financial support for families with children with a failed asylum application; reducing or removing support for adult care leavers with a failed asylum claim, and legislating the use of physical interventions on children during enforced removals proceedings.
Of course, the government should set and enforce immigration rules. But my role is to ensure the rights and welfare of all children in England are protected. As they are currently set out, all three of the proposals will put children at risk of harm.
No child should be left destitute. The proposals put forward a 90-day window for families to leave the UK or apply for financial support. This support will only be available if families are at risk of destitution and have what is determined to be ‘a genuine obstacle’ to leaving. This is a tiny window – which could easily be impacted by bureaucratic delays – and there is no appeal process. And the list of what counts as a ‘genuine obstacle’ to leaving does not even include a child receiving ongoing medical treatment – this is completely at odds with the best interests of children.
I have a special responsibility for care leavers. All unaccompanied asylum-seeking children should be in care, and leaving care is often a cliff-edge moment. That precipice is even greater for children who are also facing a failed asylum claim. These proposals which would provide care leavers with just 3 weeks to appeal, make arrangements to leave the UK or to find alternative support is simply insufficient for young people already facing a mountain to climb. For some care-leavers all support they receive will be withdrawn just 21 days after their 18th birthday.
I’m also concerned about the use of force – and the physical and emotional impact on a child. Currently, immigration and other officers are not permitted to use physical interventions on children. The consultation proposed to permit both groups to physically intervene where an accompanied child does not comply with their removal. Interventions range from non-physical measures to the use of handcuffs. Any force used against a child should be an absolute last resort, something which is used to protect them or others from harm and done so with the utmost gravity by trained professionals, acting transparently and with accountability.
It is essential that we know how many children this may impact, where they live, and what support they might need. You cannot make good policy without this basic data. My team has asked the question of the Home Office, but it hasn’t been able to confirm the scope of the impact on children and families. I am therefore today writing formally to the Secretary of State to ask how many children will be affected by the proposals
But in the meantime, I will continue to press for changes and safeguards so that no child is left destitute or subject to unnecessary distress, detention or force, and that their best interests are fully considered in any decision affecting them. We need a system that works swiftly, fairly and gives families the opportunity to appeal.
The Children Act 1989 is clear that children’s best interests should always be at the centre of decisions about their lives. And as I have argued throughout my five years in this role, that includes every child in the country – with no exceptions.
