The UK Government’s Coalition Agreement committed the UK to end the detention of children for immigration purposes. Yarlswood Family Unit has been replaced by Cedars, opened in August 2011, with capacity to detain up to 9 families with activities provided by Barnardo’s.  Detention should be limited to 72 hours, with ministerial authorisation, this may take place for up to 1 week.   Immigration detention, however, remains for many adults. Where you have first-hand experience of detention, this is an issue that could be helpfully raised with your constituency MP.

See also the Migration Observatory

http://www.quaker.org.uk/news/quaker-statement-immigration-detention

16 May 2012

Quaker statement on immigration detention

by Quaker Asylum and Refugee Network (QARN)

That which is morally wrong cannot be politically right.

1822 Quaker faith & practice 23.26

We urgently call for the ending of indefinite detention, which is fundamentally unjust and causes much suffering to its victims.

As Quakers we believe that there is that of God in everyone. We see the Testimony to Equality as clearly relevant to our concerns about those migrants and asylum seekers who are kept in detention. They are treated much worse than those born British.

The right to liberty is a fundamental right enjoyed by all people in the United Kingdom, whether British citizens or subject to immigration control. It is a right established in common law as well as protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. Recent anti-terror legislation that allows for terror suspects to be locked up without being charged has been controversial. There has justifiably been an outcry about it and the time limit has now been reduced to 14 days. However, thousands of people are kept every year in detention by the UK Borders Agency with no date set for their release, yet there is no public outrage about this.

The Immigration Act 1971 first included the power to detain immigrants; later legislation has extended or amended that power. People can be detained on arrival in the UK as immigrants or when seeking asylum, if considered likely to abscond, or when they have already been refused the right to remain and deportation is expected to be imminent.

The decision to detain is made by immigration officers without reference to a court. In theory each detainee has the right to apply for bail after 7 days, but many people are unaware of this procedure and find it difficult to access legal advice. The immigration court ‘judges’ do not have to be trained or experienced to the level of senior judiciary, inadequate records are kept, and in many cases the Home Office view that the applicant is likely to abscond is accepted without evidence.

In theory it is Government policy not to detain survivors of torture or those with serious medical conditions or mental health problems, but in practice even proven survivors of rape and torture, pregnant women, and those with severe mental and physical health problems are often found in detention. Many innocent men, women and children who have been locked up in immigration detention centres have suffered severe mental health problems, with detention in many cases adding to trauma already suffered in their home country.

16 May 2012

One way that advice provision to migrant children and young people can be improved is by ensuring that they are able to access good legal representation by lawyers with appropriate expertise. This may involve, for example, providing better guidance and training to professionals working with children in how to locate good legal representatives, how to recognise poor quality provision, and what to do when a child or young person is unhappy with the representation they have received.

For those children and young people who under current proposals are set to lose out on legal aid, it will be of great importance that where local authorities are required to pay private fees for them, the local authority seeks out high quality providers and not those charging the lowest rates.

Another area that requires attention is supporting those who have been wrongly denied public funding to pursue their cases.

Another possible way to think about improving advice provision to young migrants – including those who may not otherwise access advice – is to look to increasing provision through advice surgeries and outreach work. Providing advice in this way has a number of advantages, including reaching hard-to-reach groups. Advice surgeries and outreach work cannot, however, provide a substitute for full representation.

A further option for legal advice provision is to move away from legal aid funding. Incorporating pro bono work from private law firms could provide one possibility. Some organisations may seek funding to do immigration and asylum casework without relying on the Legal Services Commission or private fees, or may top up their publicly funded work with other sources of funding.

An important direction for future research would be an assessment of how migrant children and young people feel about the advice they need, the advice they receive and where they receive it from, and any areas where they feel they are not getting adequate advice and support.

Understanding children and young people’s perceptions of their advice needs should drive improvements in advice provision.

In writing this report, it was evident that there are a number of dedicated professionals working with separated children and young people who are keen to provide the best service they can. But they are working in a challenging climate, and  while together we can explore options to ‘fill the gaps’ in provision, there is a limit to what can be done to address the full impact of funding cuts, and discriminatory policy and practice, without further changes at a national level. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that young refugee and migrants are supported and protected, and budgetary constraints cannot be used as a means of shirking this responsibility. The introduction of a guardianship system is one way in which the government could ensure that it is upholding these legal standards, as would be further measures to ensure that all children and young people are able to access free quality legal advice and representation, and thus ensure their access to protection and justice. What is needed from central and local government alike is an open commitment to affording young refugees and migrants equal rights and treatment under UK and international law.

http://www.seekingsupport.co.uk/images/navigating_the_system_exec_summary.pdf

Important judgment on value of medical reports
by David Rhys Jones for Free Movement blog, 8 May
The Court of Appeal has reviewed the meaning of ‘independent evidence of torture’ and the correct approach to the analysis of medical reports in R (on the application of AM) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 521. Read article here
…
City of Sanctuary?
City of Sanctuary concern for welfare of asylum seekers as housing contract goes to private security firm. Sheffield council is urged by asylum-seeker and refugee support groups to keep a close watch on new, independent housing contract. Read at Guardian blogs
…
Blogging from detention

Children held in small, stuffy rooms at airport for hours, often sharing space with adults they are not related to, watchdog finds 

The UK Border Agency is detaining children in “degrading and disgraceful” conditions at Heathrow, according to an official watchdog.

The Heathrow independent monitoring board (IMB) says children of all ages are being detained at the airport for immigration purposes almost every day, and are sometimes kept overnight. They are held in rooms that are small, stuffy and have no natural light. There is no access to the open air, no sleeping accommodation and only hand basins for washing. They often share space with unrelated adults and can be held in these conditions for many hours.

The annual report of the watchdog, which visits and monitors UKBA’s short-term holding facilities at Heathrow, says the units at each terminal are no more than waiting rooms with rows of seats and little else. There are separate rooms for children, with cots, toys and children’s books, but these are very small. The worst at terminal 3 is just nine square metres, with the result that children use the main rooms.

The IMB says suitable accommodation for families with children needs to be provided. “Until this can be done, UKBA should make arrangements for any families held at the airport to be detained at a nearby hotel or other suitable space and for transport to be available promptly,” it says.

Nearly 15,000 people were detained by immigration officials at Heathrow for short periods in 2011, with nearly 3,000 of them held for more than 12 hours. Separate figures for children are not given, but one child is recorded as having spent 31 hours and 50 minutes detained at Heathrow before a social worker arrived on 20 December 2011.

“The conditions under which children are being held, and detainees have to endure overnight, are degrading and disgraceful,” says the IMB’s annual report. “The detention of children continues, despite the government saying that it would end the detention of children for immigration purposes. The IMB recognises that children cannot always be admitted to the country straight away and are sometimes held for their own protection. It recommends that non-custodial, child-friendly accommodation is provided at Heathrow for families with children as a matter of urgency.” It adds that the UKBA has failed to deliver improvements to the accommodation, despite promises in response to previous IMB reports.

The private security company Reliance took over running the Heathrow holding rooms in May last year. The IMB says detainees have been well cared for by Reliance staff, but transport to and from Heathrow is not well organised and detainees face long waits to be taken from the airport to immigration detention centres.

A border force spokesperson said: “We share the independent monitoring board’s concerns about the quality of the accommodation provided by BAA [the airport operator]. We have raised this with them on numerous occasions in the past and will continue to do so to ensure those held at the border have proper facilities to meet their and our needs.

“The report rightly recognises we are handling cases efficiently and professionally and that it identifies improvements in the way passengers, including children, are treated by staff. We will respond to the report fully in due course.”

The rooms at Heathrow were built to UKBA specifications, the IMB says.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/14/uk-border-agency-heathrow-children

Striving for Sanctuary – Climbing the Mountain of Integration:  

Saturday 19th May 2012., 11.00am to 3.30pm (Registration from 10.30am), Carrs Lane Church Centre, Birmingham B4 7SX.

Cost: £10, £5 unemployed, free for asylum seekers

Speakers:
Revd Professor Nicholas Sagovsky, University of RoehamptonJulian Prior, Chief Executive of Action Foundation

Workshops on:
Housing, Education, Employment and Equipping Volunteers

10.30am          Registration (and refreshments)

11.00am          Welcome – Revd Dr Rosemary Kidd, Chair of CRN

11.05am          Introduction to the theme of ‘Integration’ – voices of refugee friends of Restore (Birmingham Churches project)

11.25am          Keynote address – Revd Professor Nicholas Sagovsky,UniversityofRoehamptonand former Commissioner on the Independent Asylum Commission

11.55am          Music

12.00pm          Keynote address – Julian Prior, Chief Executive of Action Foundation and author of ‘Asylum Matters’, report of the Centre for Social Justice

12.30pm          Lunch (Please bring your own sandwiches.  Drinks available)

1.10pm                        Music

1.20pm                        Input on legal matters

1.45pm                        Panel – questions and answers

2.15pm            Workshops:  Housing, Education, Employment and Equipping volunteers

3.15pm            Concluding remarks – Revd Professor Nicholas Sagovsky

3.30pm            Closure of conference.

Details about Carrs Lane Church Centre, Carrs Lane, B4 7SX

Carrs Lane Church Centre has good public transport links via bus, coach and train.  New Street Station is within 10 minutes’ easy walk.  Moor Street Station (Chiltern Line fromLondon) is opposite.

On foot in the city centre, follow signs towards Moor Street Station or ask for directions to Marks & Spencer (which is the other side ofCarrs Lane).  The Church Centre is on the corner at the lower end ofCarrs Lane.

A small car park is available at the Church Centre for use, by prior arrangement, for those with limited mobility, and for others for unloading only.  Please let us know if you want us to book you a disabled parking space.  Public parking is available nearby.

Website (with map):  www.carrslane.co.uk

http://www.ctbi.org.uk/pdf_view.php?id=745

Book for this year’s conference – Striving for Sanctuary, Climbing the Mountain of Integration

Firm hired by Home Office to deport refused asylum seekers and foreign prisoners admits its guards lack respect for minorities and women

The private company hired by the government to deport foreign nationals has decided to place its own guards under surveillance after concluding that some lack respect for ethnic minorities and women and display “loutish” and “aggressive” behaviour.

The damning assessment of the attitudes and conduct of staff working for Reliance is made in an internal company memo, drawn up by senior managers after the company won the Home Office contract to deport foreign prisoners and refused asylum seekers.

The document, one of a number of internal company records leaked to the Guardian, identifies problems “at all levels of the business” and cites poor communication, peer pressure and use of “inappropriate language” by guards empowered to use force to return foreign nationals.

In response, executives at Reliance have decided to recruit a team of covert monitors who will pose as passengers on commercial flights and report back on the performance of guards. They hope the move will quell the growing impression that the deportation system remains in crisis – 18 months after an Angolan man, Jimmy Mubenga, died after being forcibly restrained on a flight from Heathrow.

The Guardian has obtained details of seven further cases of alleged mistreatment of detainees said to have occurred since last May, when Reliance took over the lucrative government removals contract from rival private security firm G4S.

The Home Office said the five allegations it had investigated were found to be “entirely without merit”; in at least one case a detainee is believed to have seriously injured guards during altercations.

Campaigners argue that the complaints process rarely finds in favour of deportees and say the latest complaints indicate a culture of using excessive force remains.

Three G4S guards arrested over Mubenga’s death in October 2010 remain on bail. The Crown Prosecution Service is expected to announce whether they will face manslaughter charges at the end of the month.

A parliamentary report last week suggested the removals process was in chaos, as a fifth of foreign prisoners who recently finished their jail terms had still not been deported by last November. The home affairs select committee was highly critical of the UK Border Agency, the Home Office department that works with Reliance, saying it was failing to fulfil its basic tasks and risked damaging public trust.

Reliance consulted independent groups and the Border Agency about the welfare of detainees. The consultation pointed to problems with management of staff and “laddish” behaviour and the memo says there is a variation in the way guards treat detainees. The memo states: “Is there actually a problem with our business? The consensus was: yes. Is this a company where women, ethnic minorities and those of diverse religions feel comfortable? Evidence would suggest: no.”

Under a list of reasons why the company may have inherited a damaging culture, the memo identifies complacency and low morale and cites issues to do with supervision, discipline and recruitment. It also concludes there is a lack of respect, shared values and “knowledge of how we should treat people”.

In a statement, Reliance said that while it was proud of the overall standards of most staff, it had have begun a programme to rectify some areas of behaviour and attitude. “This will be supported by a programme of on board, covert monitoring of staff behaviour, a process which is due to be introduced in June 2012.

“The company has also reviewed and amended its recruitment processes to encourage more applications from women and those from diverse cultural backgrounds, has restructured the senior management team and created a central unit which has responsibility for overseeing all operational standards.”

The company said “an initial period of adjustment” was to be expected when taking on a new contract, adding that the new contract was different from the one held by G4S “in its requirement to balance the welfare of detainees with a more stringent approach to costings and creating more value for money for the taxpayer”.

Since taking on the contract, Reliance has embarked on cost-cutting while seeking to change the “culture and behaviour” of guards – many of whom were automatically transferred across from G4S in May. Insiders say the contract has been beset with problems, with guards complaining about shortages of staff, issues with vehicles and poor safety standards.

Eleven guards are understood to have been suspended for refusing to fly on charter flights to Afghanistan, citing a lack of security provisions or risk assessments. On one recent flight to Kabul they say they were left for several hours on the tarmac at the airport, in freezing conditions and fearing for their safety. Reliance said five guards remained suspended for refusing to fly to Afghanistan but insisted its risk assessments had been “stringent”.

In a separate incident, a guard was temporarily suspended and given a warning after being overheard making what were perceived as inappropriate comments in an airport lounge in Nairobi, Kenya.

In one of the leaked documents, Reliance blames “austerity cuts” within UKBA for a series of changes in working practices that proved unpopular with staff, some of whom threatened a revolt.

The document warns that its multimillion pound contract with the Home Office is at risk: “Failure to change would make the contract’s future unviable,” it says.

Reliance consulted widely within the company and with independent groups and the UK Border Agency about the welfare of detainees. The outcome of the consultation pointed to problems with management of staff and “laddish” behaviour and says there is a variation in the way guards treat of detainees. The memo states: “Is there actually a problem with our business? The consensus was: ‘yes’.”

It adds: “Is this a company where women, ethnic minorities and and those of diverse religions feel comfortable? Evidence would suggest: ‘no’.”

Under a list reasons why the company may have inherited a damaging culture, the memo identifies “complacency” and low morale and cites issues such issues to do with supervision, discipline and recruitment. It also concludes there is a lack of respect, shared values and “knowledge of how we should treat people”.

Reliance recently enlisted the help of Citizens UK, a network of community organisers. Citizens UK decided to work closely with the company, advising on how to implement “cultural change” and improve removals, after it emerged that Mubenga’s young children attended a school in group’s network of north London primary schools.

13 April 2012

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/13/staff-deporting-foreigners-loutish

Plans dropped three years ago to be revived despite opposition from medical profession, lawyers and children’s commissioners

The UK Border Agency is to trial dental x-rays of child asylum seekers in the face of fierce opposition from the medical profession, immigration lawyers and the UK’s children‘s commissioners.

The agency has started a three-month trial of volunteer applicants to establish whether the x-rays would be a useful tool in establishing the ages of asylum seekers, who are treated differently if they are under 18. The move comes three years after the previous Labour government dropped plans to introduce such checks.

Any UK-wide introduction of such tests would be likely to involve hundreds of children and young adults each year.

The children’s commissioners said in a joint statement that they were appalled at what they believed was “a clear breach of the rights of vulnerable children and young people and may, in fact, be illegal”.

Lawyers also warned that the planned trial was unethical and that to x-ray children in such circumstances might constitute assault.

Liam Donaldson, when he was chief medical officer for the government in 2008, backed the medical and dental professions’ warning against the use of checks involving potential harm from ionising radiation when there was no intention of clinical benefit. He also supported their concerns about the scientific evidence over establishing age in such a way.

The resurrection of an idea dropped by ministers in 2008 was revealed in a letter to interested parties from Zilla Bowell, the Border Agency’s head of asylum.

She insisted those who chose not to participate would not jeopardise their claims for asylum or humanitarian protection but said: “Many of you will be aware of the difficulties that arise when we are not able to establish, with any certainly, the age of the asylum applicant. We are keen to utilise any appropriate tool which can increase our levels of certainty (as long as it does not have a negative impact on the individual in safeguarding terms, of course).”

Child asylum seekers are usually cared for by local authority social services departments but the agency has complained that young adults claim to be under 18 to avoid removal.

The pilot will involve volunteers who are assessed as adults by Croydon council, in south London, but maintain they are under 18. They will be given the opportunity to have a dental x-ray at Guy’s hospital, London.

Bowell’s letter states that if x-rays indicate that the individual is likely to be under 18, Croydon council will be invited to review their assessment of the asylum-seekers’ age.

Alison Harvey, general secretary of the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, said in a letter to the Border Agency: “Age is disputed with a frequency that gives rise to the most grave concerns, and despite official acknowledgement that you cannot date-stamp a child, the Home Office continues to pursue the chimera of certainty in this area, to the most grave detriment of children who are subjected to doubt, to disbelief, detention and denial of services and now, it is proposed, to irradiation.”

Colin Yeo, a barrister who specialises in immigration issues, said on a blog he edits at Renaissance Chambers, London: “This practice is highly controversial … This brings to mind another example of the application of false quasi-scientific ‘certainty’ to another unmeasurable: measuring skulls to determine race.”

The Refugee Council also criticised the trial. Deborah Harris, its chief operating officer, said: “The fact that numerous professional bodies have previously stated that this is not a sound method leaves us very concerned for vulnerable children caught in the process.”

UKBA –  Children entering detention held solely under Immigration Act powers January 2012

 Monthly management information on children entering detention, held solely under Immigration Act powers.

The figures are based on management information and are not subject to the detailed checks that apply for National Statistics.

They maybe revised in subsequent quarterly control of immigration publications. Therefore they should be seen as provisional.

Date: Thu Feb 23 09:30:00 GMT 2012

Full Document: Children entering detention held solely under Immigration Act powers January 2012 (Microsoft Excel file – 36kb)

…

Publications in Migrations and asylum – research and statistics publications

…

Applications: 
There were a total of 19,804 applications in 2011, up slightly on the total of 17,790 applications in 2010

Decisions: 
In 2011, there were 17,496 initial decisions of which 25% were grants of asylum (4,309), and 8% were grants of HP/DL (1,339).This compares with 20,645 initial decisions in 2010 of which 17% were grants of asylum, and 8% were grants of HP/DL

Pending cases since April 2006 
There were 6,534 cases pending initial decision at the end of 2011(2,479 over 6 months old), plus 4,763 pending further review. This compares with  5,978 waiting decisions at the end of 2010 (3,417 over 6 months old), plus 5,645 pending further review.

Appeals 
In 2011 9,980 appeals were received and 10,521 were determined, 26% were allowed (2,785). In 2010 13,928 appeals were received and 14,723 were determined, 27% were allowed (4,029).

Particular nationalities which continued to have higher percentages of appeals allowed in 2011: 
Burma: 62% (total allowed: 64).
Somalia: 53% (total allowed: 114).
Eritrea: 47% (total allowed: 102).
Sudan: 39% (total allowed: 50)
Syria: 39% (total allowed: 47).
Sri Lanka 37% (total allowed: 467).
DRC: 35% (total allowed: 47).
Zimbabwe: 34% (total allowed: 205).
Iran: 30% (total allowed: 376).

Asylum Support 
At the end of 2011, 20,894 were supported (2,786 subsistence only, 18,108 dispersed acc), compared with 22,039 at the end of 2010 (3,315 subsistence only, 18,724 dispersed acc). At the end of 2011, 2,310 were receiving S4 support.

In 2011, the UK ranked 11 out of the EU15 in terms of asylum applicants per head of population. It received a total of 25,500 applicants (including dependents). France, Germany, Sweden and Belgium all received more applications than the UK, with France receiving 50,000.

Children’s Society: 

Our report highlights the plight of the alarming number of young people who have nowhere to live and no regular source of financial support. These young people are sometimes forced to resort to increasingly desperate means in order to survive.

The devastating effects of destitution

In ‘I don’t feel human’ we examine available data on the extent and impact of destitution, and speak to young migrants and the people who work to support them. The report sets out the devastating impact being destitute has on children, young people and families.

This is an issue for young people who come to seek protection in the UK alone but have been refused asylum and so are left in limbo.

Having fled danger in their country of birth, these young people are exposed to danger and harm in this country because they are excluded from support and accommodation. They remain hidden from view and have to survive with minimal resources.

This is also an issue for children in migrant families who may not have an asylum claim but who become destitute for various reasons including domestic violence and family breakdown. Yet due to immigration restrictions they are unable to access support and their parents are not allowed to work in order to pull them out of poverty.

‘I can’t comprehend how people can survive.’

The stories that our practitioners have highlighted are sobering. One recounted that a number of lone mothers he supports won’t eat just so that their children eat. Many families have to rely on handouts from charities and friends, and don’t have money for buses so they are forced to walk for miles to get food. The practitioner said: ‘It’s all about survival. I can’t comprehend how people can survive.’

Being destitute leaves young people vulnerable to abuse and exploitation – as one practitioner said: ‘This is how (a young woman) had to survive. She was staying with men and they were using and abusing her. It was horrendous what was going on. I’m sure there’s a lot of young women in this situation.’

Our services see an alarming rise in destitution rates

At The Children’s Society we support almost 2,000 young refugees and migrants each year through ten specialist centres across England, as well as through children’s centres and other mainstream services. Our practitioners provide advocacy and support to children, young people and families who find themselves destitute and without access to essential services due to immigration restrictions.

Our services are witnessing an alarming rise in the number of destitute children, young people and families in desperate need of support.

Between April and September 2011, more than a third (34 percent) of young refugees supported by our New Londoners project were destitute. In contrast, 14 percent of such young people in the previous year (2009-10). Our project in the West Midlands has supported hundreds of destitute families since 2008.

It is difficult to say exactly how many children this affects across the country because the government doesn’t collect data on the number of children and young people who are destitute because of immigration policies. However, figures from civil society organisations suggest there could be many thousands of children and young people in this situation.

Exclusion from support

In the past, destitution has been a deliberate policy used to try and reduce what were seen to be ‘incentives’ for those coming to the UK to claim asylum.

Previously, the now Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Iain Duncan Smith MP has referred to the policy of forced destitution as a ‘black hole’. He heavily criticised the previous government for this ‘failed policy’: ‘UK policy is still driven by the thesis, clearly falsified, that we can encourage people to leave by being nasty.’

Current legislation means that support can be withdrawn and withheld from certain groups of people in the immigration and asylum process.

However, this leaves many thousands of people – including children and young people – who cannot return to their country of origin. They often become destitute for prolonged periods of time, sometimes several years, and lack access to even the most basic welfare support.

This particularly affects young children in the crucial early years of their life and damages the life chances of older children as they transition into adulthood.

What’s needed

The experiences of destitute children and young people raise serious welfare concerns. Indeed, their acute vulnerability means that their predicament should be seen as an important child protection concern. In future they must be properly protected.

In our report we call for immediate action to ensure that all children and young people, regardless of their immigration status, should be able to access adequate levels of support and not forced to live in absolute poverty and despair.

By Ilona Pinter, Policy Adviser

…

Chapter 5: Conclusion and recommendations
Asylum-seeking and migrant children are living in conditions of extreme poverty for extended periods of time, often years. This has a significant impact on their immediate health and well-being as well as their sense of self-worth, dignity and hope for the future. According to the young people, families and support workers we spoke to for this report, children are going hungry, lacking adequate clothing, medicine and other essential goods and putting their lives at risk by sleeping rough or with strangers.

During periods of destitution young people and families are exposed to exploitation, violence and abuse, particularly those who are homeless and on the streets. While destitute, some young people we spoke to self-harmed and attempted
suicide, while others were sexually exploited or engaged in other harmful activities in order to survive. It is clear that statutory safeguarding duties are not being upheld, neither by the UK Border Agency nor by local agencies.

Despite a lack of official data, the evidence gathered by The Children’s Society demonstrates incontrovertibly that the experiences of young people who are destitute have a profound impact on them in the short-term and could have
significant implications for their future. What is also clear is that in many cases children and young people are deliberately being made destitute by the government’s policy of excluding these young asylum-seekers and migrants from support. For those young people and families whose claims have been refused but who are unable to return home, this policy is pushing them into alarming levels of deprivation.  It must be recognised that this policy has failed and continues to fail, and that urgent steps must now be taken to ensure that children and families are not left to starve on our streets.

Recommendations

Children and young people have specific rights that should be protected above considerations of immigration control, and should be central to the decisions made about them.

End-to-end cash-based support
The government should implement a single end-to-end cash-based support system for asylum seekers as well as those who have been refused asylum to ensure that no child has to survive below an acceptable level. This support should be at 100% of income support for children under 18 and at least 70% for adults  where accommodation is provided. Support
should be adjusted annually in line with mainstream benefits.

Local authority support
Leaving care provisions should be available to all looked-after children regardless of their immigration status and they should be supported until at least the age of 21 (or until 24 if they are in education). This could be achieved by amending Schedule 3 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to ensure that leaving care and children in need provisions are always made available to children and young people to meet their welfare needs. This should include support provided to children in need and their families under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989.

‘No-one believes what he says but he’s got an incredible character that hasn’t been broken by his experience of being destitute, despite having suffered so much loss.’ Practitioner about a young person

Permission to work
Permission to work should be granted to asylum seeking parents and young adults if their claim for asylum has not been concluded within six months through no fault of their own in order to help ensure that children are not growing up in destitution. Refused asylum seekers who temporarily cannot be returned to their country of origin through no fault of their own should be allowed to work.

Legal advice
Children and vulnerable young people should be able to access legal aid for advice and representation in relation to their civil cases including their immigration claims to ensure that they have a fair chance to have their cases considered. The provision of early legal advice, which was first piloted in Solihull in 2006-2007, should be rolled out nationally and made available to all children, young people and families who need it.

Monitoring destitution
To be reflective of the true extent of poverty, child poverty statistics should capture the numbers of all asylum-seeking and migrant children living in poverty, including those who experience destitution, to ensure that effective policies are developed to tackle this issue. This could be done through independent national surveys or by adapting and analysing existing data sets.

Child poverty strategy
As part of the child poverty strategy, including its progress reports and corresponding local needs assessments, both central and local government should consider children and young people from asylum-seeking, refugee and migrant communities in order to ensure that eradicating child poverty is achieved for all children regardless of immigration status.  The Home Office should be made accountable for the number of children living in poverty as a consequence of immigration policy.

Building resilience among young people
Central and local government should explore strategies to build children and young people’s resilience through participation and empowerment work by involving young refugees and migrants in projects that celebrate their stories of overcoming adversity. Young refugees and migrants should be involved in local and national decision-making like other children, for example through the Department for Education’s consultations with children in care and young carers and through local children in care councils, in order to capture their unique and innovative perspective.

Conclusion
In his preface to the Asylum Matters report by the Centre for Social Justice56 which sets out a series of policy  recommendations on restoring trust in the UK asylum system, the now Secretary of State for Work and Pensions,
Iain Duncan Smith MP referred to the policy of forced destitution and illegal working by asylum seekers as a ‘black hole’ and heavily criticised the previous government for this ‘failed policy’:

‘UK policy is still driven by the thesis, clearly falsified, that we can encourage people to leave by being nasty.’

The experiences of children and young people presented in this report raise serious child protection concerns. The risks facing these children when they are destitute are acute and need to be addressed urgently by local and central government agencies. In order to ensure compliance with its safeguarding duties and its obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the government should urgently review all immigration policies and legislation that force children, young people and families into destitution, and ensure that support is provided to all children and
young people who need it, regardless of their immigration status.

http://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/news-views/good-childhood-blog/plight-young-refugees-and-migrants