Government’s response to the House of Lords European Union Committee report – Children in Crisis: unaccompanied migrant children in the EU.

The Government would like to thank the Committee for its report published in July 2016 and apologise for the delay in providing this response to you.

The Government notes the recommendations made to the European Commission and that the Commission should exercise its responsibilities as fully as possible in those areas.

The Government’s response to the key recommendations that the committee makes is below.

Family Reunification

Paragraph 62, recommendation 59

We found no evidence to support the Government’s argument that the prospect of family reunification could encourage families to send children into Europe unaccompanied in order to act as an ‘anchor’ for other family members. If this were so, we would expect to see evidence of this happening in Member States that participate in the Family Reunification Directive. Instead, the evidence shows that some children are reluctant to seek family reunification, for fear that it may place family members in danger.

Taken with

Paragraph 127, Recommendation 57

Opportunities for unaccompanied migrant children to exercise their right to family reunification are inconsistently implemented across the EU, and are particularly limited in the UK. We are concerned by the recent trend in some Member States to ‘level down’ opportunities for family reunification, by falling back on the minimum requirements set out in the Family Reunification Directive.

Taken with

Paragraph 291, Recommendation 60

We recommend that the UK Government reconsider its restrictive position on family reunification. Legal aid should be available to unaccompanied migrant children for the purposes of proceedings for family reunification.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The Government believes that the reunion measures suggested in the recommendation will lead to more children setting out on unaccompanied journeys that will put their lives at risk. The Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC) acknowledged this in their recent report on the migration crisis published in August.

1

We support the principle of family unity and have several routes for families to be reunited safely without the need for children to travel here illegally. Our family reunion policy allows those granted status or humanitarian protection in the UK to sponsor their spouse or partner and children under the age of 18, who formed part of the family unit before the sponsor fled their country, to reunite with them here. Under this policy, we have granted over 22,000 family reunion visas over the past five years – reuniting many with their immediate family.

Where family members cannot meet the requirements of the Rules we consider whether there are exceptional circumstances or compassionate reasons to justify granting a visa outside the Rules. This caters for parents of unaccompanied children in exceptional circumstances. On 27 July we published revised Home Office policy guidance on family reunion to provide more clarity for applicants and their sponsors so that they can better understand the process and what is expected of them. The revisions include further guidance on the types of cases that may benefit from a grant of leave outside the Rules.

Our family reunion policy meets our international obligations and we believe it strikes the right balance between reuniting families and ensuring that our Rules are not more generous than other European countries. We believe that allowing children to sponsor parents under the Rules would create perverse incentives for them to be encouraged, or even forced, to leave their family and risk hazardous journeys to the UK to sponsor relatives. This plays into the hands of criminal gangs who exploit vulnerable people and goes against our safe guarding responsibilities.

There are a range of factors that encourage people to choose where to claim asylum, including the very real ‘push factors’ of conflict in their country of origin. As such it is difficult to provide clear evidence of the impact of any one policy or the Family Reunification Directive in Member States who opted into that Directive. However, Europol estimates that there are 85,000 unaccompanied minors amongst the migrant population in the EU who have entered the EU through irregular channels and there are reports that large numbers of these children go missing from reception centres shortly after arrival. We must do all we can to encourage people to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach and remain there whilst their claims are considered, rather than risk travelling across Europe and seeking to enter the UK illegally.

Solidarity and relocation to the UK

Paragraph 92, Recommendation 31

We regret the fact that Member States have made so little progress in relocating unaccompanied migrant children within the EU; in particular, we deplore the continuing reluctance of the UK Government to show solidarity with its European partners in helping to relocate such children.

Taken with

Paragraph 357, Recommendation 34

2

Any decision taken by Member States to relocate an unaccompanied migrant within the EU must, in line with international law, be based upon an assessment of the best interests of the child.

Taken with

Paragraph 358, Recommendation 35

In keeping with the Prime Minister’s statement on 4 May 2016, we urge the Government to act promptly and to work in partnership with frontline France, Greece, and the UNHCR to relocate significant numbers of unaccompanied migrant children to the UK. Relocation to the UK must take place as soon as possible, and in full accordance with individual best interests assessments.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The Government has been clear that the UK will not participate in the EU’s relocation scheme. We remain of the view that relocation schemes within Europe risk creating unintended consequences or perverse incentives for people to put their lives into the hands of traffickers. We also believe that resettlement schemes are best operated at the national level.

This does not mean that the UK is not playing its part in offering protection to vulnerable children displaced by conflict. In April, we announced a new Vulnerable Children’s Resettlement Scheme, which will focus on children at risk in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, resettling up to 3,000 individuals over the course of this Parliament. Children will be resettled with their family or carers where relevant. The UK will also resettle 20,000 Syrians over the course of the Parliament via the Syrian Vulnerable Person’s Resettlement Scheme. Over 2,800 have arrived under the scheme so far, around half of whom are children.

In addition, under the Immigration Act 2016 and the amendment commonly referred to as the ‘Dubs Amendment’, the Government has committed to bring a specified number of unaccompanied refugee children in Europe to the UK, where it is in their best interests. We are focusing on Greece, Italy and France as countries that are facing particular pressures, and will prioritise children with family links in the UK. For the most part, we will only take children who were already present in Europe before the EU-Turkey deal came into force on 20 March 2016, to avoid creating a situation where families see an advantage in sending unaccompanied children ahead, potentially putting them in the hands of people traffickers and criminal gangs.

We are making real progress in transferring unaccompanied children to the UK. Between 12 May and 1 October 2016, over 50 children who meet the criteria in the Immigration Act have been accepted for transfer. In respect of France since 10 October we have transferred over 300 children, including more than 60 girls, many of whom had been identified as at high risk of sexual exploitation.

We are in active discussions with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), UNICEF, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the French, Italian and Greek Governments to strengthen and speed up mechanisms to identify, assess and transfer children to the UK. We have secondees in France, Greece and Italy, to coordinate efforts on this initiative, in addition to sending a 3

number of teams to operate on the ground in Calais. The UK Government and our partners are clear that any decision to transfer unaccompanied children to the UK must be based on the best interests of the individual child. We are therefore working with partners to ensure that appropriate processes are in place, whilst at the same time acting with speed to bring these children to the UK once it has been established that it is in their best interests.

The Government takes note of the recent European Commission update on relocation and resettlement, which sets out the need for further concerted action to address the issue of unaccompanied minors across Europe.

Paragraph 359, Recommendation 36

We welcome the Government’s recent deployment of 75 experts to help with processing and registration of migrants at reception centres in Greece. Member States must ensure the continuity of such support to frontline Member States. The Commission and relevant EU Agencies should monitor closely whether the personnel deployed continues to meet specific needs on the ground.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The Government is continuing to support efforts at hotspots and the implementation of the EU-Turkey deal through the deployment of resources to Italy and Greece through the European Asylum Support Office (EASO). The UK offered 75 expert personnel to help with processing and administration of migrants in reception centres. We have deployed a large proportion of the 75 and are working with the Greek authorities and the European Commission to fulfil our offer. We remain committed to supporting Member States as necessary and will consider future support in due course. The provision of UK support via EASO is carefully considered and subject to available resources. We agree that the Commission and EU Agencies should closely monitor the situation, and regularly assess what support is needed to assist Greece and Italy in implementing hotspots effectively. The Government takes note of the European Commission updates on relocation and resettlement, which includes the position in relation to hotspots to the Council and European Parliament and receives updates from EASO via the EASO management board.

Allocation of Responsibility and burden-sharing at national level

Paragraph 98, Recommendation 47

We regret that those local authorities that are receiving the highest numbers of unaccompanied migrant children have had so little voluntary support from others. This lack of solidarity within the UK replicates a pattern that is all too common across the EU.

Taken with

Paragraph 352, Recommendation 46

We agree with our witnesses that the phenomenon of unaccompanied migrant children in the UK is a national, not merely a local, problem, and acknowledge the disproportionate burden that is currently falling on a few local authorities. It is 4

therefore regrettable that those local authorities receiving the highest numbers of unaccompanied migrant children have to date received so little support from other councils.

Taken with

Paragraph 353, Recommendation 48

We welcome the Government’s adoption of a National Transfer Scheme for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children on 1 July 2016, and the emphasis that this scheme places on the best interests of the child. We urge the Government to ensure that, in practice, decisions to disperse unaccompanied migrant children are made only in the best interests of the child, and take into account the facilities available in the destination local authority, as well as family or cultural links. Where necessary, the Government should make additional funding available to authorities that are not well-equipped to receive and provide specialised care for migrant children.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The Government agrees that there should be a more equitable distribution of Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children (UASC) across the country whilst ensuring that the welfare of vulnerable children continues to be safeguarded, and welcomes the Committee’s recognition of the efforts it has made to introduce the National Transfer Scheme. The scheme is designed to encourage all local authorities to volunteer to support UASC and we would urge as many authorities and regions across each nation of the to come forward. We are grateful to those authorities that have already done so, but need more authorities to sign up to the transfer scheme if it is to make a lasting difference. The scheme is underpinned by powers in the Immigration Act 2016, which include a provision for the Secretary of State to impose a mandatory scheme for transferring UASC between local authorities. However, it remains the Government’s hope that the scheme will operate on a voluntary basis and continue to build on the collaborative effort across central and local government.

One of the underpinning principles of the transfer scheme is to protect the best interests of the child and ensure that all UASC get the care and support they need. This can only be achieved by a more even distribution across the country.

An interim Transfer Protocol, which details the processes involved in transferring UASC from one local authority to another, reinforces that the transfer process must review and consider the best interests of the child. This is a judgement which must be made by the social worker at the entry local authority as well as the social worker at the receiving local authority.

The additional funding offered to each Strategic Migration Partnership is designed to bolster regional structures, particularly in areas with limited experience of caring for UASC. Officials continue to engage with local partners on a range of issues related to caring for UASC and regularly review what additional training and support could be offered.

In addition, a programme of training will be delivered through the Department for Education to foster carers and support workers of UASC. The training will help build 5

expertise and capacity in areas where it is most needed. It will enable foster carers and support workers of UASC to understand and respond to the particular needs and vulnerabilities of this group of children. It will also help them to better understand and recognise the signs of trafficking and quickly gain the child’s trust in order to prevent them from running away from a safe placement.

Paragraph 347, Recommendation 45

We urge the Government to ensure that adequate funds are allocated to local authority services for unaccompanied migrant children in a timely and transparent manner.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The Government recognises the burden placed on local authorities as a result of the increase in numbers of UASC. We have listened to feedback from local authorities and recently significantly increased the funding available.

From 1 July 2016, the daily rates for UASC under 16 increased from £95 to £114 which represented a 20% increase. Similarly, the daily rates for children aged 16 or 17 increased from £71 to £91 which represented a 28% increase. In addition, there was a 33% increase in the funding available to local authorities for UASC who go onto attract leaving care support. The Government believes that this represents a fair settlement for local authorities which will ensure that the costs of caring for UASC are covered.

To support the National Transfer Scheme and bolster regional structures, the Government has also recently announced an additional £60,000 per annum for each Strategic Migration Partnership.

Paragraph 340, Recommendation 42

The admirable work of non-governmental organisations is not a substitute for effective Member State action. The individual Member States should remain ultimately responsible for meeting the needs of unaccompanied migrant children.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The Government agrees that the work of non-governmental organisations in this area is very important. We work closely with a range of statutory and non-statutory partners which allows us to explore ways in which we can improve the response to UASC. For example, the Children’s Sub-Group of the National Asylum Stakeholder Forum (NASF) brings together a range of partners who provide valuable input with a view to improving the management and welfare of children as they pass through the immigration process.

The Government accepts that responsibility for the welfare of UASC rests with both central and local government. That is why our reception and ongoing care is based on the existing statutory responsibilities that central and local government have in this area. The Government continues to work closely with local authorities across the country, together with the Local Government Association, the Welsh Local Government Association, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Devolved 6

Administrations and the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, to ensure that the complex needs of UASC are met.

Paragraph 342, Recommendation 44

In the UK, we urge the Government also to provide such support. We further recommend that the Government consider granting nongovernmental organisations that work with unaccompanied minors the right to be consulted by local authorities in individual cases, for example, through guardianship.

Taken with

Paragraph 321, Recommendation 62

With regard to the UK, we are persuaded by evidence from England and Wales and from Scotland that the role of guardian should be independent, and should not be undertaken by social workers. We call on the Government to establish a guardianship service in England and Wales for all unaccompanied migrant children. In so doing, the Government should consider whether this service could be delivered by non-governmental organisations or civil , with appropriate state support.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The Government already has a number of ways in which the expertise and advice of non-governmental organisations can be obtained and utilised. All UASC are referred to the Children’s Panel Advice Service of the Refugee Council, which is funded by the Home Office and whose advisers provide a combination of practical support and advice to address each child’s needs. The Home Office meets on a regular basis with non-governmental organisations, both through the regular meetings of the Children’s sub-group of the National Asylum Stakeholder Forum, as well as ad-hoc meetings with individual organisations.

The statutory arrangement for UASC is that they are looked after by local authorities in keeping with the arrangements for all children in the UK. UASC are provided with a professional social worker and will also have an Independent Reviewing Officer to oversee their care arrangements, as well as access to an independent advocate and an independent visitor. UASC are also entitled to legal assistance in pursuing their asylum claim. The Government believes that these arrangements ensure that children are provided with independent support and advice and that the addition of a ‘guardian’ to this framework risks adding another level of unhelpful complexity to existing arrangements.

The Government is nevertheless interested in this area of work, and in conjunction with Barnardo’s as the service provider, ran a trial of Independent Child Trafficking Advocates (ICTA) in 23 local authorities in England from September 2014 to September 2015. The results of the trial were equivocal. Aspects of the model trialled showed promise but did not deliver on some key outcomes. In a number of key areas there was limited evidence of impact or an improvement in the outcomes for children. As the independent evaluation identified, we needed more time in order to see some of the potential benefits for trafficked children.

7

On 28 June the Government announced that it would commence section 48 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and committed to the full national roll out of ICTAs across England and Wales. This is part of a wider package of support to better support child victims of modern slavery, including a new Child Trafficking Protection Fund, statutory guidance on identification and support of potential victims and a review of accommodation and support for potential victims.

To support the national roll out of ICTAs, the Government is taking forward two major initiatives. We are introducing ICTAs in three early-adopter sites (Greater Manchester, Hampshire and nationally in Wales). The competition for the provider(s) of these sites is currently being undertaken. It is not possible to comment further whilst this competition is ongoing. Secondly, the Home Office, in collaboration with the Department for Education, will commission a new training programme for existing independent advocates which are a statutory provision to all looked after children.

Paragraph 345, Recommendation 40

The impediments to joint working in the United Kingdom start at the highest level of central government, where responsibility for unaccompanied migrant children is divided between the Home Office and the Department for Education. We recommend that the Government review the allocation of responsibility for such children within central government, with a view to identifying ways to ensure better cross-departmental working.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The Home Office and the Department for Education work very closely and collaboratively on the issue of unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASC). The close relationship between the two departments was demonstrated by the work leading up to the launch of the National Transfer Scheme for UASC on 1 July 2016. This involved very close working between the two departments, both at official and Ministerial level. The continued close working relationship between the Home Office and the Department for Education will be crucial in ensuring that the National Transfer Scheme is a success and that central and local government are able to manage the pressures that the increased number of UASC in the UK have presented. Both departments are committed to ensuring that all unaccompanied migrant children – however they arrive in the UK - receive the standard of care to which they are entitled.

Best Interests Principle

Paragraph 112, Recommendation 20

In the UK, there is evidence to suggest that, despite the existence of guidance on the application of the best interests principle, it is not respected and is regarded as an impediment to the effective operation of immigration controls.

Taken with

Paragraph 263, Recommendation 21

8

We further recommend that the UK Government should develop, apply and routinely monitor national guidance on how to conduct best interests assessments with regard to unaccompanied minors. We call on the Government to revisit its response to the JCHR’s 2013 report, and in particular to review the extent to which it has fulfilled its promise to consider the case for establishing a Best Interests Determination process.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The Government does not agree that the best interests principle is not respected and is regarded as an impediment to the effective operation of immigration controls. There is a statutory requirement placed on the Secretary of State by Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 to make arrangements for ensuring that immigration, asylum, nationality and customs functions are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the UK.

Guidance on how to conduct a best interests assessment and the sorts of questions to consider is set out in the ‘Processing children’s asylum claim’ instruction for Home Office decision makers. This guidance requires decision makers to take account of a child’s best interests when taking decisions in respect of that young person’s immigration status and when dealing with children more generally.

Where a decision is taken to grant a child protection in the UK, it will normally automatically take account of the best interests. Where a decision is taken to refuse protection or to require a child to leave the UK, a more detailed consideration of best interests is required. The guidance explains that the assessment requires the child’s interests be regarded as a primary consideration in an individual decision. Decision makers and staff working with unaccompanied asylum seeking children receive additional training on children’s issues, including the need to consider input from those with a formal role in the child’s life. The Government believes that the processes already in place helps decision makers come to reasoned and well balanced judgements when considering a child’s best interests.

Since the publication of its response to the 2013 Joint Committee on Human Rights Report the Government has considered the case for establishing a Best Interests Determination Process and has discussed this at length with non-governmental organisations, including UNICEF and UNHCR. The Government believes the existing process continues to ensure that a child’s best interests are taken into account at every stage and it is not clear what information might be provided through a dedicated determination process that is not already available to decision makers.

9