Inquiry into the human rights of unaccompanied migrant children and
young people in the UK
Joint Committee on Human Rights
October 2012
______________________________________________________________________________
About Barnardo’s
1. Barnardo’s is the UK’s largest children’s charity, with 800 services supporting over
200,000 children, young people and families every year. Our projects include counselling
for children who have experienced sexual exploitation, fostering and adoption services,
vocational training, disability inclusion groups and services for young carers. Our
purpose is to help the UK's most vulnerable children and young people transform their
lives and fulfil their potential.
2. This response is based on the views of our practitioners and experience of delivering
services to unaccompanied migrant children and young people:

Barnardo’s has three trafficking services in London, Hampshire and Manchester. As
well as direct work with children, these provide awareness raising and training
regarding child trafficking to local agencies including social care, health, police and
immigration authorities, education and accommodation providers.
 In Manchester, we provide both individual support to children who have
experienced or who are at risk from trafficking, and health care support to asylumseeking children including HIV care.
 We run a specialist fostering service in the South East that provides family
placements for unaccompanied asylum seeking children and supports them through
the asylum process.
 Our 16+ service runs a residential unit for looked after and accommodated
unaccompanied asylum seeking young people in Glasgow.
 We provide a safe accommodation project for sexually exploited and trafficked
children offering specialist, therapeutic foster care.
______________________________________________________________________________
1
3. Executive summary

The Department for Education should have overall responsibility for unaccompanied
migrant children.
 The Department for Education should create a national lead to support the safeguarding
of unaccompanied migrant children, and encourage local authorities in places of high
need to establish specialist child trafficking leads and specialist resources.
 Training is needed amongst those who work with unaccompanied migrant children in
order to ensure that their specific needs and vulnerabilities are taken into account.
 All interpreters working in the immigration system should be trained and accredited by
the Home Office.
 The UKBA should put measures in place to tackle the culture of disbelief surrounding
unaccompanied migrant children’s immigration cases.
 The UKBA should also ensure that their own guidance is carried out in practice,
particularly around applying the benefit of the doubt more generously when dealing with
children.
 Unaccompanied migrant children seeking asylum should always be seen as children first
and asylum seekers second.
 As the current decision-making process around asylum claims does not represent a
durable status for children, this should be provided for all. This may include granting
indefinite leave to remain to all unaccompanied migrant children, including trafficked
children.
 It is vital that all children who are unable to return to their country of origin are granted
indefinite leave to remain as the current system leaves them in a completely
unacceptable position.
 The Government should ensure that unaccompanied migrant children have access to
free legal representation for all cases, including the most complex.
 A system of guardianship should be established to provide independent, quality support.
 All unaccompanied migrant children and young people who have been in the care of
children’s services should be supported up to and after the age of 18.
 To ensure that all unaccompanied migrant children have adequate post-18 support, local
authorities should have specialist unaccompanied minors or child trafficking teams. It
would be especially important to establish these in authorities near ports or in those
which have a significant number of unaccompanied migrant children.
 The training of social workers who are involved in age assessments must be improved.
 The culture of disbelief around unaccompanied migrant children’s presented ages must
be challenged and tackled.
 There should be an independent, multi-agency panel approach to determining age
assessments.
 The practice of placing unaccompanied migrant children and young people into unsafe
accommodation must stop.
 The pilot safe accommodation scheme, run by the Department for Education and
Barnardo’s to train more foster carers to support trafficked children, should be rolled
out nationally with support to help local authorities engage effectively with the scheme.
______________________________________________________________________________
2
4. Should one department in Government have overall responsibility for
unaccompanied migrant children and young people in order to ensure that their
rights are best promoted and protected? If so, which one?
4.1 Barnardo’s is concerned that whilst the Department for Education determines policy
related to safeguarding, children’s rights and children in care, the Home Office is the lead
agency for migrant children. Subsequently, the issues surrounding unaccompanied migrant
children are seen from an immigration perspective, related to controlling the movement of
migrants, rather than a children’s rights perspective, related to promoting the welfare of
children. Establishing the Department for Education as the lead agency for migrant children
would both ensure that their welfare is better promoted and send a powerful message that
the safeguarding of vulnerable unaccompanied migrant children takes precedence over
immigration concerns.
4.2 The Department for Education should also create a national lead to provide strategic steer
and support the imbedding of unaccompanied migrant children as a national safeguarding
issue. This should support the establishment of a child trafficking lead and specialist
resources in local authorities of high need.
4.3 Recommendations


The Department for Education should have overall responsibility for unaccompanied
migrant children.
The Department for Education should create a national lead to support the safeguarding
of unaccompanied migrant children, and encourage local authorities in places of high
need to establish specialist child trafficking leads and specialist resources.
5. Is there sufficient awareness and relevant training on children's rights and the
UNCRC for those in government, central and local, and other bodies, public or
otherwise, who deal with separated migrant children and young people?
5.1 Barnardo’s experience strongly suggests that there is insufficient awareness and training
around children’s rights and the UNCRC. Through accompanying asylum-seeking children
to children in need assessments carried out by local authorities, our practitioners are aware
that the guidelines around interviewing children are not always adhered to in practice. For
example, in one case an interview was not stopped after the child had become clearly
distressed. In another, a child’s request to stop the interview on account of being thirsty
was refused and was only accepted after the accompanying practitioner spoke out on their
behalf. These examples show that some interview practices may go against safeguarding
duties to promote the welfare of children. It is particularly concerning that these practices
occurred when children were accompanied by our practitioners, as it calls into question
whether this happens more regularly when children do not have someone to speak out for
them.
3
Case study – immigration interview
Our practitioners work with unaccompanied children and young people who attend
immigration interviews with officials from the UKBA. They are aware that whilst some have
training on how to conduct interviews and appropriate safeguarding procedures, this is not
always the case with every official, leading to negative consequences for the child.
A young woman had been trafficked into the UK and been age assessed by the local authority
to be under the age of 18. Despite this, she was not afforded the appropriate level of care for
a child in an immigration interview attended by one of our practitioners. As well as a harsh
tone throughout, the immigration official adopted a stance of disbelief and aggressive
questioning. Although the young woman had subsequently become frightened and begun to
laugh nervously, the official did not adapt their tone and took her laughter to be a sign of
facetiousness. As both our practitioner and the solicitor had become concerned, they
requested regular breaks in the interview. The appropriate practices around dealing with a
child in an interview had not been followed in this case.
5.2 There is also an issue around the use of interpreters who are crucial in relating the
complexities of an asylum case to both the child or young person and officials. We know
that interpreters often have little knowledge of the asylum process or experience of
working with vulnerable children and young people. Mistakes in interpreting can have a
detrimental impact both on the case and the child or young person’s confidence in the
process. In addition safeguarding issues can arise from the use of interpreters who have not
been formally checked and approved in cases of child trafficking.
Case study – interpreters
Our practitioners have had direct contact with interpreters in both UKBA and local authority
interviews. In one case, two children had been trafficked together into the UK and were being
looked after in separate areas of the country to minimise the risk of traffickers locating them
together. An interpreter had passed on confidential information to one child about the
whereabouts of the other, thereby threatening the safety of both if either were to come back
into contact with the traffickers. In another service, our practitioners became aware that an
interpreter had an inappropriate relationship with the child they were assisting and was
purchasing gifts for them. The child was subsequently given a different interpreter.
5.3 Recommendations


Training is needed amongst those who work with unaccompanied migrant children in
order to ensure that their specific needs and vulnerabilities are taken into account.
All interpreters working in the immigration system should be trained and accredited by
the Home Office.
4
6. How are unaccompanied migrant children’s best interests being considered and
upheld in immigration decisions made about the leave to remain and enter?
6.1 Barnardo’s is concerned that unaccompanied migrant children’s best interests are not being
considered and upheld in immigration decisions. Although UKBA guidance states that the
benefit of the doubt should be applied more generously when dealing with a child, our
practitioners report that the opposite is often the case, with a pervasive culture of disbelief
apparent in the UKBA assessment process. If a child’s experiences are wrongly disbelieved,
the basis from which immigration decisions are made is flawed, meaning that their best
interests cannot be adequately considered.
6.2 We are also concerned that children’s best interests are not being given enough weight in
the immigration decision making process. Whilst the UKBA controls immigration, decisions
about leave to remain and enter should not be based solely upon immigration issues as the
child’s best interests must also be considered. In fact, there is guidance stating that the
course favouring the child’s best interests should be followed unless there is contravening
reasons of considerable force against them. Whilst there will be occasions when it may be
in a child’s interest to return to their country of origin, this will not be the case in many
situations. There therefore needs to be a thorough examination of child protection
concerns for every child to ensure that their best interests are being met.
6.3 Recommendations



The UKBA should put measures in place to tackle the culture of disbelief surrounding
unaccompanied migrant children’s immigration cases.
The UKBA should also ensure that their own guidance is carried out in practice,
particularly around applying the benefit of the doubt more generously when dealing with
children.
Unaccompanied migrant children seeking asylum should always be seen as children first
and asylum seekers second.
7. Is the current decision-making process on children's asylum claims satisfactory
and does it represent the finding of a 'durable solution' for each child in the UK, in
accordance with the recommendations of the UN Committee on the Rights of the
Child?
7.1 We are aware that few of the unaccompanied migrant children we work with are granted a
durable status to remain in the UK. Instead, many are refused asylum and given
discretionary leave to remain for three years or until they are 17 and a half years old. This
does not represent a ‘durable solution’ as children are left with a temporary resolution and
the knowledge that their residence is not permanent. Our practitioners reflect that this can
leave young people feeling anxious and de-motivated as they approach 18, when they may
lose their leave to remain and many of their rights, as well as potentially being required to
return to their country of origin despite outstanding protection concerns. We also know
that children who are given discretionary leave to remain are likely to have integrated into
5
the UK having spent a significant part of their lives here and believe that this should be
more fully considered in immigration decisions.
7.2 Trafficked children are particularly vulnerable in the current system. As their discretionary
leave to remain ends, many will apply for asylum at the age of 18. During this process, they
may become frightened that they will return to their country of origin, and may
subsequently return to traffickers. The prospect of being refused asylum at the age of 18
can therefore have particularly negative consequences for trafficked children. Taking all
these factors into account, we believe that the current system does not take
unaccompanied migrant children’s best interests into account or sufficiently promote their
welfare.
Case study – ‘durable solution’
A young woman arrived into the UK from South East Asia unaccompanied aged 15 years of
age. The social worker completing the age assessment assessed her as being 16 years old. She
was given discretionary leave to remain as an unaccompanied child seeking asylum in the UK
but her initial asylum claim was refused. Her discretionary leave expired when she reached
17 and a half years of age. Her application for an extension to her leave and a subsequent
asylum appeal was rejected. She subsequently had no access to public funds and was forced
to leave her accommodation. She has now had a Human Rights Assessment by social services
and given accommodation and a subsistence allowance of £35 a week.
(Due to the legally sensitive nature of this information, this is a typical case study based on
our practitioners’ experiences).
Case study – a trafficked child
Our practitioners work directly with trafficked children and have first-hand experience of the
difficulties they go through upon turning 18. In one case, a child had been trafficked into the
UK and been given discretionary leave to remain. As this ended when he turned 17 and a
half, he applied for asylum. He became frightened during the decision-making process that his
asylum claim would be rejected and that he would be returned to his country of origin where
he had been persecuted. Whilst our practitioners re-assured him that he could appeal even
his claim was rejected, he had been offered a job by his traffickers and been told to leave his
children’s home. A few days later, he was reported missing. It seemed that the fear of having
his claim rejected and having to return to his country of origin had led him to return to his
traffickers. Our practitioners report that this type of scenario has occurred in a number of
cases, and that traffickers may attempt to re-engage with children at this stage as they are
aware of the heightened anxiety they often feel when their discretionary leave to remain
ends.
6
7.3 There is the concerning issue of unaccompanied migrant children who cannot be returned
to their country of origin after their discretionary leave to remain ends. This can be due to
a number of reasons, such as the host country refusing to take back asylum seekers, a lack
of papers or identification, or because the child is stateless. Working directly with children
who have faced this scenario in the past, our practitioners are aware of the shocking
position that these young people are placed in. Without the right to remain in the UK, they
are often left without the basic means to support themselves, such as the right to work or
access benefits and accommodation, and are left destitute. Some are given a subsistence
allowance following a Human Rights Assessment but the level of this support remains
woeful and, without statutory guidance on the assessments, its application remains varied.
7.4 Recommendations


As the current decision-making process around asylum claims does not represent a
durable status for children, this should be provided for all. This may include granting
indefinite leave to remain to all unaccompanied migrant children, including trafficked
children.
It is vital that all children who are unable to return to their country of origin are granted
indefinite leave to remain as the current system leaves them in a completely
unacceptable position.
8. Are unaccompanied children able to access the legal advice and representation
necessary to ensure that they are able to have their voice heard in any judicial and
administrative proceedings affecting them, and that their rights are upheld, in
accordance with international standards? Should there be a system of guardians for
unaccompanied and separated migrant children to ensure that their interests are
represented?
8.1 Whilst many unaccompanied children we work with are able to access legal advice, this
remains a challenge in a significant minority of cases. In particular, there is a shortage of
specialist legal advice available for complex cases. It is likely that this has been influenced by
the cuts to legal aid and the reduction in the number of services that provide asylum and
immigration advice. Our practitioners in the North of England report that it is difficult for
children to access solicitors following cuts to legal aid services, and some have had to take
on representation from London despite the clear disadvantages that this entails.
8.2 We believe that establishing a system of guardianship for unaccompanied migrant children
would be in their best interests. Social workers undertake an initial assessment of a child’s
needs within seven days to establish their care plan. Any information given in this short
period of time may be limited and confused due to the threats, trauma and abuse that the
child may have faced. If a system of guardians were in place, they could contextualise and
highlight the importance of confused information in the short-term, and could build up a
relationship of trust to encourage the disclosure of further information in the long-term.
Independent Reviewing Officers (IROs) currently chair reviews of care plans and monitor
the local authority’s performance in meeting their functions on a child’s case. However,
7
there is a strong argument that IROs are not independent from local authorities as they are
directly employed by them. This may result in any challenges made by IROs to local
authorities being directly discouraged by local authority managers, or in the self-censorship
of IROs as a result of a reluctance to challenge their employers. Guardians would be
independent of local authorities, thereby being far better placed to challenge their actions
and promote the best interests of the child. Social workers and IROs are not involved in
every process that unaccompanied migrant children go through, such as criminal
proceedings or the immigration process. Guardians would offer a steady presence for
children through all of these processes and provide support in unsettling periods.
8.3 Recommendations


The Government should ensure that unaccompanied migrant children have access to
free legal representation for all cases, including the most complex.
A system of guardianship should be established to provide independent, quality support.
9. Is there sufficient support and advice for unaccompanied migrant children as
they approach eighteen years of age and beyond into adulthood?
9.1 Barnardo’s is worried that the support and advice for unaccompanied migrant children up
to and after the age of 18 is lacking. Our practitioners report that the period after the age
of 18 is a particularly vulnerable time for unaccompanied young people as they leave
children’s services. Those that have been refused asylum may only receive a minimal amount
of support. Some may be unable to return to their country of origin if their country does
not accept people back into the country. They may subsequently remain in the UK as a
stateless person, without access to support, accommodation and without the right to work
or receive benefits.
9.2 Despite this, we are aware that not all local authorities have specialist unaccompanied
minors or child trafficking teams. Where they are in place, they provide vital support to
young people approaching 18 and beyond. In many authorities, there is a lack of specialist
support after unaccompanied migrant children turn 18, and no process of referring
unaccompanied children in care to a vulnerable adult team to support them post-18.
Furthermore, young people who have access to effective foster or social carers, voluntary
sector organisations or legal representation are much more likely to have better outcomes,
whilst others are left behind. Establishing this level of support for all unaccompanied migrant
young people would be beneficial.
9.3 Recommendations


All unaccompanied migrant children and young people who have been in the care of
children’s services should be supported up to and after the age of 18.
To ensure that all unaccompanied migrant children have adequate post-18 support, local
authorities should have specialist unaccompanied minors or child trafficking teams. It
8
would be especially important to establish these in authorities near ports or in those
which have a significant number of unaccompanied migrant children.
10. Are local authorities and immigration officials dealing satisfactorily with the
issue of children and young people whose ages have been disputed, and has the
Government considered developing an independent multi-agency panel-based
approach to determining age assessments?
10.1 Age assessments represent an extremely important process for unaccompanied migrant
children as they determine whether the child or young person is entitled to children’s
services as a child in need. This is particularly important for unaccompanied migrant
children as they enter the UK alone or separated, and require assistance. An incorrect
assessment that a young person is an adult can lead to further exploitation and abuse, as
they may find themselves without adequate support and accommodation, or detained with
adults. It is therefore vital that the correct procedures are followed and that the
assessment is independent and fair.
10.2 However, from Barnardo’s experience of working to support unaccompanied migrant
children, age assessments often do not follow Merton guidelines. Our practitioners have
first-hand experience of attending age assessment cases to support unaccompanied migrant
children. In one case, a practitioner was part of an age assessment where only one social
worker was present, despite guidance stating that there must be two social workers in
every age assessment. As these assessments have such a large bearing on the child’s
subsequent care, it is unacceptable that the decision was left to a single social worker who
could not corroborate their decision with another. Additionally, our practitioners are
aware that the benefit of the doubt is rarely given to young people, despite guidance
stating that a young person’s age should only be disputed if it is seemingly clear that they
are over 18 years of age. This is related to the culture of disbelief outlined earlier, whereby
unaccompanied migrant children are routinely doubted and disbelieved. Furthermore, a
question mark remains as to whether local authorities are best-placed to carry out
impartial age assessments when the result determines the level of support they will need
to provide for the young person.
10.3 Recommendations



The training of social workers who are involved in age assessments must be improved.
The culture of disbelief around unaccompanied migrant children’s presented ages must
be challenged and tackled.
There should be an independent, multi-agency panel approach to determining age
assessments.
9
11. What assessment has been made of the impact of funding cuts on care
provision for unaccompanied migrant children and young people, and what steps
have been taken to ensure that such individuals are provided with sufficient support
and care?
11.1 Barnardo’s is worried that unaccompanied migrant children and young people are not
being provided with sufficient support and care in terms of their accommodation.
Unaccompanied migrant children have the same rights as any other child in the UK under
the Leaving Care Act 1989 and should be treated equally. We believe that the high
incidence of young people going missing from care compels us to place safeguarding above
all other considerations including age and immigration status. Our practitioners are aware
that some unaccompanied migrant children, including those that have been trafficked, are
placed in shared accommodation, hotels or bed and breakfasts without adequate
safeguarding arrangements. This is likely to be a contributory factor to the high proportion
of trafficked children who go missing from local authority care.
11.2 Barnardo’s runs a safe accommodation project which provides specialist, therapeutic foster
care and safeguards trafficked and sexually exploited children and young people. This two
year pilot project, funded by the Department for Education, works directly with children
to provide therapeutic ways of accommodating trafficked children and young people. It also
provides specialist training of front line professionals as well as local authority and
Barnardo’s-based foster carers. In June 2012, the joint inquiry into children who go missing
from care (led by the All Party Parliamentary Group for Runaway and Missing Children and
Adults, and the All Party Parliamentary Group for Looked after Children and Care
Leavers) recommended that the pilot scheme should be rolled out nationally with support
to help local authorities to engage effectively with the scheme. In many local authorities,
safe accommodation does not currently exist, with the result being that unaccompanied
migrant children and young people are often not adequately safeguarded. We therefore
support the call for such schemes to be extended.
11.3 Recommendations


The practice of placing unaccompanied migrant children and young people into unsafe
accommodation must stop.
The pilot safe accommodation scheme, run by the Department for Education and
Barnardo’s to train more foster carers to support trafficked children, should be rolled
out nationally with support to help local authorities engage effectively with the scheme.
10