Age of unaccompanied migrant children "too often disputed", say MPs

The age of unaccompanied migrant children is too often disputed, putting their welfare and best interests at risk and meaning the UK falls short of its UN obligations, MPs have warned.

In a report, Human Rights of unaccompanied migrant children and young people in the UK, the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) said that changing the ‘culture of disbelief’ was a paramount concern.

The committee argued that the benefit of the doubt should be given “more often as part of a more sensitive process”. It also noted the need to provide robust data for the full scrutiny of cases where age was disputed. 

The MPs argued that “despite the rights to protection and support owed to those children by the UK under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, immigration concerns are too often given priority”.

In 2012 around 1,200 unaccompanied migrant children sought asylum in the UK. Around 2,150 such children were being cared for by local authorities.

The MPs said many children – after traumatic journeys – faced intensive interviews on arrival “for which there were too rarely interpreting facilities available”.

The report also highlighted evidence of children being placed in inappropriate accommodation facilities without suitably trained staff. There were concerns as well about the educational services provided.

The MPs also said that:

• Decisions on children’s futures were too often delayed until they approached adulthood, leaving children uncertain about what their futures would hold. The JCHR said clear and thorough decisions should be made as soon as possible “with children fully informed about what those decisions will mean for their future”.
• A pilot tribunal should be established to take on decision-making in some cases.
• The Government should not return any children to Afghanistan or Iraq while conflict and humanitarian concerns persisted.
• There should be the development of a clear cross-Government strategy to safeguard and support unaccompanied migrant children.
• The Department for Education should be given a more prominent role in overseeing the welfare of unaccompanied migrant children, in particular in administering grant funding to local authorities to support those children.
• There should be a stronger emphasis on the age and background of children in asylum and immigration processes.
• The framework for identifying victims of trafficking uncovered too few cases, and was failing to prevent victims of trafficking being brought within the criminal justice system as perpetrators. There should be an independent review of the framework, and more work should be done to raise awareness of its operation in the safeguarding workforce, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.
• Responsibility for the system should be taken from the immigration authorities and given to the UK Human Trafficking Centre, “to give a greater perception of its independence”.
• Support for children was too inconsistent across the country, especially during the transition to adulthood, “because of resource constraints, uncertainties about the legal framework and a lack of specialist expertise”. Amongst other things, a clear legal framework for support services should be developed, ensuring support is provided for all children through to adulthood, “even where appeal rights are exhausted”.

The report also said that the complexity of the asylum, immigration and support systems made them difficult to navigate for unaccompanied migrant children. Specialist advice and advocacy was therefore crucial.

The MPs called for the establishment of pilot programmes in England and Wales to appoint guardians for unaccompanied migrant children, to advocate for their best interests and to support them through the processes they were subject to.

They also said there should be an assessment of the quality and availability of legal services for unaccompanied migrant children in England and Wales, alongside consideration of the cost-benefit case for bringing all cases involving such children into the scope of legal aid.

JCHR chair Dr Hywel Francis MP said: “Unaccompanied migrant children in the asylum and immigration processes are some of the most vulnerable young people in the United Kingdom. They have often fled conflict situations abroad or have been victims of abuse and exploitation, including those who arrive as victims of trafficking. It is crucial that they are supported effectively.

“We do not find it satisfactory that immigration concerns are too often given priority when dealing with such children; in doing so the UK is falling short of the obligations it owes to such children under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This is starkly demonstrated by the ‘culture of disbelief’ about the age of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.

“From when unaccompanied children enter the country, through to the final decision being made about their future, we must bring their best interests to the fore. We call on the Government to make the changes that will ensure that focus, and by doing so demonstrate its commitment to the rights of all children in the UK regardless of their immigration status.”

Last month a report by the Coram Children’s Legal Centre claimed the system for assessing the age of children arriving alone in the UK was “inadequate” and costing local authorities up to hundreds of thousands of pounds in unnecessary legal costs.

The Coram report recommended that age should not be disputed “when there is no reason for the Home Office or local authority to doubt a child’s own account of how old they are or the evidence they provide.”

It also called for statutory guidance on assessing age to be published, as well as the development of an alternative dispute resolution to reduce the contentiousness and costs of disputes and enable faster resolution.