Revised transcript of evidence taken before
The EU Sub‑Committee on Home Affairs
Unaccompanied minors in the EU
Evidence Session No. 4 Heard in Public Questions 69 - 86
Witnesses: Mr James Brokenshire MP and Mr Edward Timpson MP
Ms Anne Longfield OBE
Members present
Baroness Prashar (Chairman)
Lord Condon
Lord Cormack
Lord Jay of Ewelme
Lord Morris of Handsworth
Lord Ribeiro
Lord Soley
Lord Wasserman
Mr James Brokenshire MP, Minister for Immigration, Home Office, and Mr Edward Timpson MP, Minister of State for Children and Families, Department for Education
Q69 The Chairman: Good morning, Mr Brokenshire, and thank you again. As I explained outside, before we start the session I regrettably have to raise another matter, which is about the laissez-passer documents. As you know, we wrote to you, I think in January. The Explanatory Memorandum had certain gaps, so we went back to you and got your reply. We sent another letter to you on 24 February. Then we received a letter from you on the 11th, wanting to expedite the matter. As you know, this really was not possible. This is not the only case where these sorts of things happen, and we have raised this with you before. I just wanted to register the Committee’s disquiet about this, because the principle of parliamentary scrutiny is very important and I just want to be clear about what action is being taken.
The other thing I should say is that we are also asking to see your Permanent Secretary and are establishing a date when this can happen. I just wanted to register the Committee’s disquiet and would be grateful if you can tell us what is being done to make sure that this does not continue. This is not a new thing; it has been an ongoing issue for us.
James Brokenshire MP: Thank you, Baroness Prashar, for the opportunity to respond on this. I know that you have asked Mark Sedwill, the Permanent Secretary, to come before you, and I hope that a date will be agreed very shortly. We recognise that there have been strains on the Home Office’s ability to meet scrutiny commitments, in large measure because of the additional dossiers and matters that are being issued by the Commission in respect of the response to the migration crisis. This has led to a diminution in the standards of performance that I would want to see. I hope from the appearances that I have made before your Committee on a number of occasions that it is clear that I take the issue of scrutiny very seriously indeed. It is important that Parliament has the rightful opportunity to examine documents and understand the view of the Government on matters, and therefore to ensure that Parliament is doing the rightful job of scrutiny.
With the specific example that you refer to, there were issues in relation to the original Explanatory Memorandum to do with some of the legal approaches, which led to the Explanatory Memorandum being adjusted and resubmitted. I assure the Committee that there has been no scrutiny override—obviously we will confirm our response formally in relation to that particular dossier very shortly. Just to assure you, I have asked policy officials to deploy resources flexibly to assist the asylum and migration team’s workload. That is where I think the real pressures are within the department, and I obviously want to see this flexible approach lead to improved performance within the department’s responses and approach. It is in no one’s interests not to see that improvement.
As I have indicated, I see this as a very important issue. I would be very happy, outside the formalities of the Committee, to meet you, Chair, perhaps to go through with the clerk any specific documents or concerns that you have and look at this in greater granularity. I assure you of the message that I have given very clearly to the department about my expectations and the need for improvements on how we respond to inquiries from your Committee—and indeed to the Commons Committee—and the timeliness of the Explanatory Memorandum.
The Chairman: Thank you for that. As I think you know, our clerk and staff are very willing to work with your staff to iron out any difficulties. It is in all our interests that parliamentary scrutiny takes place. As you know, Lord Boswell regards this as a very important Committee, and it is very important that we get the process right.
James Brokenshire MP: As I say, I am grateful for the point being raised in this way. I understand very clearly the message that this Committee is giving, and I know that by extension that will have been heard by officials. No doubt you will be able to return to the issue with the Permanent Secretary.
Q70 The Chairman: We can pursue some of the detailed issues with the Permanent Secretary when he appears before the Committee. Thank you for that. I will just get Mr Timpson, who is waiting outside.
Good morning, and thank you for attending this morning. As you know, we are taking evidence on unaccompanied minors. I think you are both very familiar with the rules of engagement. This session is public. It will be webcast and appear on the parliamentary website. You will have the opportunity to amend anything, and we would be very grateful if you could send us any supplementary evidence afterwards. Before I start, do you wish to make any introductory comments?
James Brokenshire MP: No, Chair. We are quite happy to move into questions. We take very seriously the pressures that the number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are placing on a number of local authorities around the country. You have taken evidence from Kent and others. The new Immigration Bill will provide a statutory underpinning mechanism to, I hope, ease some of those pressures and see a more equitable dispersal of recently arrived, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children to local authorities.
Last week, I wrote to local authorities on the funding arrangements that will take us through to July. We will look at the position further at that stage, when the new dispersal arrangements will take greater effect. I want to underline the fact that we see this very much as a voluntary arrangement. I want this to be led in that way and from a regional perspective, building on existing systems. We have strategic migration partnerships, which are basically groups of local authorities around a region that can influence matters, but clearly we have the reserve power in the Immigration Bill to act if the voluntary arrangements that we are working on with the Local Government Association and others do not take effect. We very much look forward to the evidence session and equally, with the Minister for Children and Families alongside me, to explaining how we are very much working together on this, recognising that both our departments have a direct stake and interest in ensuring that these matters are addressed appropriately.
The Chairman: Do you wish to add anything, Mr Timpson?
Edward Timpson MP: Yes. I wish to reassure the Committee that this is not the first time that I and the Minister for Immigration next to me have sat down and discussed this issue. This has been very much a joint enterprise over many months, whether in trying to establish a more coherent national dispersal scheme or trying to deal with some of the specific pressures in parts of the country—Kent being the most obvious. Whether at ministerial level or at official level on the ground, there has been very close co-operation. I hope that is reflected in some of the work that you have seen over the last few months and in what is to come, as my colleague has just set out.
Q71 The Chairman: Perhaps we can start by trying to establish the exact figures. How many unaccompanied minors are currently in the UK? Do you know their age, gender and nationality?
James Brokenshire MP: Perhaps I can first give you an indication of how many asylum applications there were from unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in 2015, just to give you a sense of the immediate challenges that we have seen. There were 3,043, which is an increase of 56% from the 1,945 that we saw in 2014. That represents about 9% of all main applications for asylum. Breaking that down further, the vast majority were from male applicants. Of that number, 2,755 were male applicants, while 275 were female applicants and 13 were unspecified. In terms of the nationalities, the largest groups were from Eritrea—the leading country, with 694—Afghanistan, with 656; Albania, with 456; and Iran, with 208. Obviously I am very happy to provide further figures, as needs be, to assist the Committee.
Further to that, in terms of the total number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the UK—clearly cases are processed that either see asylum being granted or not—at the present time there are 4,029 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the UK. I hope that those overall figures give some indication of the numbers, and equally of the breakdown that sits underneath that.
Edward Timpson MP: Perhaps I could just add a couple more statistics that help to provide a bit more context. We know that the 3,043 figure for 2015 is not the peak that we have seen. In 2008, for example, the figure was 3,096. It is helpful for us to look at the flow through the prism not just of one or two years but of a number of years to demonstrate how the system has managed to cope with even higher levels of asylum claims. Of those 3,043, 62%—almost two-thirds—are aged 16 to 17, as judged by the age assessment process. That gives a good indicator of the profile of the young people coming over to the UK.
The Chairman: What data sources do you use to reach these assessments? Are there any gaps?
James Brokenshire MP: The data has been obtained from our management information and includes all unaccompanied minors in local authority care. That is the data that we use to come up with those figures. Clearly, it is all based on the children who are in the system. Those are the numbers that we have consistently used, as the Minister for Children and Families has indicated, over a number of years. That therefore gives us those comparables back to when there were higher levels, back in around 2008.
Edward Timpson MP: The other thing that we have tried to do is look at the sources of data that we have in individual departments and work better at trying to collate it to get a clearer picture. In the Department for Education, for example, we have an annual snapshot through the statistical first release, which gives us our figure. Of course the Home Office has, as a way of indicating numbers, the daily payments that are being made to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in local authorities. This is about how we try to marry up that data so that we get the clearest possible picture of the exact numbers.
The Chairman: Is there any cross-border exchange of data from other European countries?
James Brokenshire MP: There are some forms of research. For example, we participate in the European Migration Network, which has a role in providing up-to-date, objective, reliable and comparable information on migration and asylum topics at EU and member-state level. It disseminates policy developments from other member states and maintains a series of online research reports. Obviously, that is one way in which there is a mechanism to share information on this and on other migratory issues too.
The Chairman: Could the EU be doing more to improve the quantity and quality of the data?
James Brokenshire MP: I am sure that further steps could always be taken and that there could be further input. We have other external sources of information and research. The European Asylum Support Office, for example—EASO—is another route for looking at some of the nationality-type information. We know that good qualitative research is done by others. You can look to groups such as the NGO community—UNICEF and Save the Children provide some further data and information that enriches the picture. Various different groups produce research based on their own particular interests, at the European level and through external bodies. That helps to inform the position further, but clearly we will continue to keep this under review.
Lord Soley: I am sure that figures of the type you have given are good estimates, but they are often regarded as an underestimate overall. Germany certainly takes that view, along with one or two other European countries. Do you take the same view: that it is likely to be an underestimate? Secondly, I am slightly puzzled at the countries of origin, as people from Syria or north African countries were not mentioned. Is that because they are in Europe—continental Europe—and not here?
James Brokenshire MP: To take the last point first, clearly the nationality mix will fluctuate over time. We are obviously in the midst of a migration crisis at the moment with different flows for different nationalities. We have touched previously in this Committee on the different nationality mixes that may for example be coming through the southern Mediterranean route, up through Libya or Egypt into Italy, as well as through the eastern Mediterranean route, which has tended to be more Syrian-based migrants or refugees. It is difficult to draw too many conclusions, and the different numbers and overall nationalities can fluctuate from year to year.
We believe that the numbers we have referenced give a fairly strong indication of the overall numbers, as these are largely children who are in need of support and help and are coming into contact with local authority services or wanting to regularise their stays in the UK and therefore claiming asylum and being picked up in that fashion. So it gives as good a picture as we can expect it to. As I think the Minister for Children and Families has indicated, we seek to look to join up our information across the departments to give the clearest picture that we can.
Lord Soley: But are you aware that other countries often regard their own figures as an underestimate because of the hidden factors of trafficking and so on?
James Brokenshire MP: Obviously we take the issue of people smuggling and trafficking very seriously. We as a Government have taken steps in confronting modern slavery, and the inputs and insights that we gain from Kevin Hyland, the Anti-Slavery Commissioner, are really stepping up our approach and our response. Indeed, we are also looking to the commissioner to support our own thinking on some of those challenges in other European countries, so that we can consider how we can best assist them in so many different ways. Clearly it is something that we keep under review and analysis.
Then there are some of the steps that are taken based on advice and guidance to Border Force officers on the front line on better identifying risks of trafficking or smuggling. We absolutely remain vigilant on that issue.
Edward Timpson MP: I can briefly add something from my perspective. We have hard intelligence, if you like, from the data collection, but we should not underestimate the value of some of the soft intelligence that we can pick up, which can give us a much better understanding of where there may be gaps in our knowledge and information. We should never see the figure that we have as an overestimate, and we should be vigilant about the fact that there may be better and further particulars, if you like, that we can establish through some of those other routes outside the data, including from the work that charities are doing with many of these children and young people, that would help us get that broader and more detailed view and to give us greater confidence than we have at the moment.
Q72 Lord Jay of Ewelme: You have already answered quite a bit of my question in that I wanted to ask about the extent to which you use or rely on research in other countries. But do you think that further cross-border work needs to be done with other countries in order to get some sort of sense of where people are coming from or how others are treating them? The flow is quite complex across the EU, and just looking from a UK perspective does not seem to quite get there.
James Brokenshire MP: I suppose I would point to the additional funding that we announced at the end of January, which the Department for International Development is leading on, to support the needs of vulnerable refugee children in Europe, which is called the Refugee Children Fund for Europe. On the one hand, it will provide targeted support for those children in transit and on the move, but it will also create better systems, processes and procedures to, I hope, identify a much clearer picture on some of this. Obviously we receive inputs from FRONTEX in respect of the debriefing and other assessments that it undertakes, and EASO provides further inputs. There are different sources of data and information, but clearly we are looking to the work of that new fund to assist and to add a different complexion, working with NGOs to, I hope, better identify, and therefore be better able to provide support to, children who are being caught up in this appalling crisis in Europe.
Lord Jay of Ewelme: Thank you for that. You have talked a bit about relations between NGOs and the academic community. Do you have a regular mechanism for consulting others, or is it a bit haphazard?
James Brokenshire MP: We held a round table following the announcement that I made in January, and I am giving careful consideration to establishing more regular mechanisms to be able to draw on the expertise and knowledge of various different agencies and bodies on this issue of unaccompanied children. I take a very holistic view of the support that we are providing in region—in the conflict areas in the Middle East and north Africa, and around Syria—with the assistance that DfID is providing to literally hundreds of thousands of children in the region, back through to the internal Schengen border and the processing and reception there, through Europe and then on to the juxtaposed controls and the situation in Calais and in-country too. It is important that we see that broader picture, which is where the Government are.
Q73 Lord Morris of Handsworth: Could you share with us how the responsibilities for addressing the needs of unaccompanied minors are divided between your departments? Is there any overlap, and how do you co-ordinate your work?
James Brokenshire MP: Perhaps I might start, and the Minister for Children and Families will no doubt follow on, on the basis that the Home Office deals with the initial reception of unaccompanied migrant children and everything to do with the processing of the asylum claim, or indeed family reunion where that may be appropriate. That means checking that the immediate welfare needs are met, checking whether the individual is a potential victim of trafficking, registering identity details, taking biometrics such as photographs and fingerprints and making an initial age assessment at that stage. The Home Office is responsible for informing the local authority’s children’s services in the location where the child first arrives or is encountered. Once the immigration formalities I have just set out have been completed, the individual is then transferred to the care of a social worker. That, I suppose, is how we have the front end of that. Obviously we then provide financial support to local authorities in respect of the additional costs that may be borne in respect of the ongoing support that is then provided to that child. The question then is how we transfer that care to local authorities, and in dealing with children in care, where the Department for Education and all the policies and everything like that inform the activities. That is perhaps the best place for me to hand over to the Children’s Minister.
Lord Morris of Handsworth: Before you do that, are you talking about separate budget headings for those provisions?
James Brokenshire MP: Budgets are provided to local authorities in respect of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. They are in essence broken down on different daily rates for 16 and 17 year-olds and for children aged under 16. A further allowance is also made for leaving care provision. Rather than perhaps going through all the different figures and rates now, I would be very happy to write to the Committee setting out those numbers so that you can see the differentiation. We also have different rates available at the moment, for those who are willing to take unaccompanied asylum-seeking children from Kent, to provide added incentive and financial support for that. There are a number of different numbers, and perhaps rather than labouring at it at this stage it may be best to write to you.
The Chairman: That would be very helpful.
Lord Wasserman: Can I come back to the financial question? Why does this money for children come out of the Home Office provision? You are not responsible for ensuring that there is value for money. You are not responsible for the children, because they have already gone through to the Department for Education, so why does this come off the Home Office budget?
James Brokenshire MP: Ultimately the Home Office has the responsibility for assessing and processing the asylum claim, and in the same way in which we provide support to adult asylum claimants, again, a support package and mechanism is adopted in that framework. It is rather that there is that parallel for children, in the same way in which we provide some financial support for adult asylum seekers. That is probably how this has historically been the case, given that immigration policy is obviously a lead responsibility of the Home Office, albeit that support for adults and accommodation is given through a contracted mechanism, our COMPASS contracts. In respect of children, it is through local authority delivery, with the normal children’s social service mechanisms that rightly apply, which is where the expertise is. Therefore, we hold budget ownership over the whole of the asylum system, rather than perhaps disaggregating children from adults.
Lord Wasserman: So the Home Office Permanent Secretary is the budget holder for the provision of services to children, rather than the Permanent Secretary at the Department for Education, who controls the services.
James Brokenshire MP: Yes, it is our budget line that the funds are provided for, you are absolutely right. There is therefore that need for partnership and join-up with the Department for Education, which is practically there. I know, for example, that the National Audit Office has looked into the overall cost of care leavers more generally, but on some of the policy leads, on getting the right advice and guidance, the expertise clearly resides with the Department for Education, working in parallel with local authorities. I think there is good and clear join-up. Yes, we hold the budget line on that, but working in close partnership.
Edward Timpson MP: I will add to that and then try to extrapolate on Lord Morris’s question. It is worth remembering that any unaccompanied asylum-seeking child, once they have been through the immigration process, becomes a looked-after child, so they become the responsibility of the local authority. They are the budget holders for the majority of the care that is then provided. That budget comes through the spending review process, predominantly through the Department for Communities and Local Government, because they fund local authorities, but of course other departments have an interest in ensuring that the wider system in which that young person or child is living—whether that is through immigration, through leaving care or through their education—will also want to see what they can do with their budgets to help to support that child in their local area. In crude terms, the Home Office is responsible for immigration policy, and the Department for Education is responsible for social care policy and child protection. There is that handover point when a social worker is allocated. That child becomes a child in the care system, and the local authority takes responsibility.
Of course, as my ministerial colleague alluded to, there are other budgets in central government departments that help to support local authorities. For instance, a child in care receives, through the pupil premium, which is provided by the Department for Education, what is called a pupil premium plus, which is an additional £1,900 to support their education. A whole host of other bursaries, for further and higher education, are also provided. We should not see an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child in our care system in isolation, away from other departments that have responsibility for supporting them. That should be co-ordinated at the strategic level as well as an operational level. An example at the strategic level would be the dispersal scheme: we need to work in a co-ordinated way to make sure that that works. At the operational level, take the pressure that has been on Kent in recent months. Officials from both our departments have been working very closely with the Local Government Association and with officials on the ground in Kent to make sure that we tackle that problem as best we can. It is about understanding where the lead responsibility is at any moment, but recognising that there is a collective responsibility as that child progresses through the various processes and hoping that they get really good care once they have been through them.
Q74 Lord Ribeiro: Minister, you started your presentation by referencing Kent. We know that Kent has been one county that has had a tsunami of migration problems coming its way. You also referred to the voluntary arrangements that were in place. We heard some evidence early on that it was Kent that looked to other local authorities to help them out. Can you explain who actually came up with this voluntary arrangement? Was it you or the local authority in Kent?
James Brokenshire MP: We have been working very closely with the Local Government Association, the Association of Directors of Children’s Services and the devolved Administrations, as well as with local government, over a number of months, recognising the discussions that we had with Kent and the pressures that they were identifying to us about what they were experiencing, and how in essence they were bearing more of a national load as a consequence. That led to us putting forward the financial arrangements, which I hinted at in a previous answer, to encourage other local authorities to take some of those children from Kent, to see that transfer of responsibility and to see the financial support to allow that to take place. That work was done probably towards the middle and latter part of last year. Since then, we have had this ongoing discussion with the Department for Education and others about the creation of a broader dispersal scheme. That is the broader phase of work that we are now moving into—the strategic migration partnerships that will effectively take a more regional lead to see greater dispersal. We will make further announcements in respect of the detailed implementation of that in the coming weeks. As I say, my intent is that that should be a voluntary arrangement. The statutory mechanisms that we have with the Immigration Bill underpin that if those arrangements do not operate in the way that we, the LGA and the ADCS anticipate. I suppose that is the chronology of how this work has progressed. It has therefore very much been part and parcel of an ongoing discussions and dialogue.
Lord Ribeiro: What sort of feedback have you had from local authorities about the financial incentive that you are putting forward? Clearly, several counties have had no impact at all from unaccompanied minors coming in.
James Brokenshire MP: That is why we think it is necessary to establish the more formal arrangements that I have identified on a voluntary basis. The Children and Families Minister and I held a very instructive round table with local government and others just before Christmas, which again has been part of this process of informing the approach that we have taken and the need for us to take further action to see greater dispersal. That has been the basis of the work, and I think there has been recognition that the financial incentive has provided some element, although not as much of an element as I would have wanted to see, of local authorities coming forward and dealing with some of those pressures. None the less, we are now moving into a more formal stage, and I hope to be in a position to make further announcements on the funding arrangements for that and to give more detail on how that operates, following the local government elections.
Lord Ribeiro: Are you both confident that introducing this national dispersal mechanism will ensure the observance of the best interests of the child principle?
James Brokenshire MP: Absolutely. That lies at the heart of all the work that we do—what is in the best interest of the child. There are statutory duties that sit behind this, but that is very much informing the approach that we take. If local authorities are under pressure and under strain—Kent is the clearest example of that—we need to see that those children receive the best support. Kent has transferred some children outside the local authority, although it still takes the safeguarding role—that is understood. It is safeguarding and the best interests of the children that underpin all the thoughts that we have about this. Indeed, as we move forward on the dispersal arrangements, we need to ensure that there is a good understanding and good knowledge of the issues that people will need to consider. This is about some of the very good guidance that the Department for Education has provided to local authorities, children’s social services and foster parents, but equally about how we learn from the experience of councils such as Croydon or Kent, which have had experience of dealing with numbers, and how we can ensure that that good practice and knowledge is best shared with local authorities that might not have had that same knowledge or experience because they have not have had to deal with this in this way before.
Edward Timpson MP: I will briefly add something. It is worth emphasising that throughout this we have been working extremely closely with the LGA and ADCS to consider very seriously a whole range of different potential models to make this work in the best interests of children, so that we get it right. The last thing we want to do is set off in a direction that makes it more difficult for children to be put in the right placement for them. It will mean that in some parts of the country that have very limited involvement and experience of dealing with unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, we need to set up a mechanism that ensures that they can garner that knowledge and experience as quickly as possible. This is a national issue, but at the moment it is the preserve of some local authorities that are having to take the pressure beyond what they are capable of absorbing in the long term. That is why we need to get on with it, but also to make sure that in doing so we really get this model right so that it can endure and sustain beyond the lifetime of the current crisis.
Q75 Lord Ribeiro: You mentioned early on that in 2008 there was a peak of about 3,000-odd people coming in. You will be aware of Lord Dubs’ amendment to the recent Immigration Bill, which focuses on us taking in an additional 3,000 migrants, but from Europe as opposed to those who have reached our shores. What impact will this have on the very things we have been discussing, and what pressure will it put on local authorities who are currently voluntarily dealing with this? If that amendment goes through, are you going to have to introduce a national scheme?
James Brokenshire MP: I announced at the end of January that the Government were considering carefully how they would take further steps to respond to the particular needs of unaccompanied children, following on from the work that the Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme has already undertaken from the region around Syria. As you know, that intends to see the resettlement of 20,000 people over this Parliament. Of the 1,000 who were resettled before Christmas, half were children, so that scheme alone is likely to see the resettlement of several thousand children from the region. We have been taking advice from the UNHCR on what further steps we may take. Our focus has always been on how best to resettle children from the region, rather than from Europe, and the different stance that we take from Europe, how best we can support European countries to provide the care and support and to meet the needs of children there, and how we can support the better reunification of children separated from families. For example, there is the £46 million that DfID has already committed to responding to refugees in Europe, and the additional £10 million fund that I have perhaps already referenced in this session. I intend to make a further announcement in the coming days, following on, as I said that I would, from my announcement at the end of January to give further detail on the advice: in other words, how the feedback that we have received from the UNHCR is informing our next steps. We will be looking at resettlement from the regions and vulnerable children, in addition to the 20,000 who we have already committed to resettling, but also how best we support children in Europe through the mechanisms for assisting European countries. Ultimately, Europe should be that safe space and should have the ability to meet their needs, and we will look at what role the UK can play in support to ensure that that happens.
Lord Ribeiro: So your answer is really that there needs to be better burden sharing among the member states rather than us having to take those people from Europe.
James Brokenshire MP: You talked about what is in the best interests of the child. The data that we have from Europol is that, of those who arrive and claim asylum, 90% have been trafficked at some stage of that leg. Therefore, my concern is always about not seeing more children dying as a consequence of the actions that we take in the hugely difficult scenario to which we are responding at the present time. We know that the people traffickers and smugglers seek to present information in a twisted way to extort money out of people to traffic them into Europe. Therefore, we have to be very careful about how we respond to this so that we do not inadvertently see more children being put out to sea as a result of being given false hope. That is why our efforts have been focused on the region to stop that movement but, equally, how we have a responsibility, working with our European partners, to help countries such as Greece and why we are having ongoing discussion with the European Commission and with the Greek Government as to the practical support that we can give Greece to best assist that country in dealing with the pressures that it is experiencing and, equally, in identifying and supporting children.
Q76 Lord Wasserman: All this talk about children turns on the question of age, because at a certain stage—boom—they are no longer children. Since they come at 16 or 17, they come up against the stops, so the age assessment is key. If you are over 18, you are not a child. Who makes the age assessment? How do they do it? How are they trained? Are there national standards, or does it depend on the individual or the regions?
James Brokenshire MP: There are two ways in which I would break that down. First, an initial age assessment is made—in other words, where a child presents themselves to an immigration enforcement officer—to try to establish the age of the child arriving in the UK and claiming asylum from the identity documentation that they have travelled with. Obviously many of those who are claiming asylum and claiming to be unaccompanied children do not have documentation and therefore do not have that necessary evidence to support their age claim. In such cases, where there is any doubt about the age of someone claiming to be a child, the Border Force—or, as needs be, immigration officials—will carry out that initial age assessment and treat an age-disputed individual as an adult only if the individual’s physical appearance or demeanour very strongly suggest that they are significantly over 18 years of age, so the balance is struck on that basis.
All other individuals are referred to local authorities, which carry out their own age assessments, which are informed by what is known as the Merton-compliant age assessment, which in essence was informed by a court case. That court judgment has helped to prescribe and given some general guidance. In general, the decision-maker must seek to interview and to get various general information on background and education, and it is that process that is undertaken by local authorities in that secondary stage in its overall assessment. The decision-maker forms the provisional view that the applicant is lying, for example. The applicant has to be given the opportunity to address the matters that have given that perspective.
Clearly there are other ways in which some European countries have sought to do this. Some European countries may, for example, X-ray bone development and use other mechanisms. We have not taken that view, and we look to this mechanism, this approach, to address age assessment issues. But it is a developed policy that has been taken account of following the High Court judgment in 2003, so that, I suppose, informs the approach that is taken to age assessment.
Lord Wasserman: So it is a bit subjective. I know that it is tricky, but there is no scientific way of doing this that is a national standard, is there?
James Brokenshire MP: It is for each social services department to undertake that Merton-compliant age assessment. Therefore, that guides very firmly and very clearly the sort of factors that local authorities need to take into account. In some ways, that provides the overarching framework for the assessments that are carried out. Clearly we want that to be as good as it can be, and we continue to remain open to ways in which this can be improved, but there is no single solution to this. That is how I would present it to the Committee, but obviously we keep this under review.
Lord Wasserman: It is a bit more difficult than counting tree rings, is it not?
James Brokenshire MP: Absolutely.
Edward Timpson MP: I would describe it almost as a filtering system; you have to try at each stage to eliminate possibilities, to the extent that you can be as sure as you can that this person is an adult or a child. It starts off with immigration involvement: are these genuine documents? Of course, we know that there are a lot of falsified documents, and there is a need to be astute about that. Then it moves into the more physical presentation and the background circumstances. The hope, at the end of that process, is that we have got as close as possible to the right decision. Of course, we know that there is no overarching, fool-proof mechanism for doing so, and we need to continue to learn from some of the research that is being done, scientific and otherwise.
Lord Wasserman: But so much hangs on it. If you come in and you are assessed at 16, you have two good years. If you are assessed at 17 and a half, you will have only six months to stay before there is trouble, so a lot hangs on the decision made by the particular age assessor.
The other question that I was going to ask comes back to the time when the Minister and I worked together on biometrics. Is there any attempt to make sure that, having assessed someone as being 17, it is the same person? Do we take fingerprints? Do we know that James Brokenshire, having been assessed as being 16, is the same chap who comes before another local authority for a claim? He calls himself James Brokenshire, he has the same date of birth, but he is not the same person. We know that from the work that has been done.
James Brokenshire MP: That, I suppose, is why I made the initial point about the screening that is undertaken when someone claiming asylum in the country is processed by officers at the outset. It is that photograph, that fingerprint, that is taken, so that we have those basic biometrics when someone is encountered. Again, that is on our systems and enables us to match people in that way. Equally, there is also the utilisation of the EURODAC system, an EU system that also has that ability, and we can search against it in relation to asylum and migration issues. So those biometric issues are very much at the forefront of our mind, and we continue to put pressure on other European countries to ensure that those basic steps are taken when someone first arrives in Europe at the external Schengen border.
Lord Ribeiro: This is an additional question about X-rays, which you mentioned. The science is that it is possible, using X-rays, to determine whether somebody is over 18 or under 18, because that is the point at which the long bones fuse with the articulating surfaces. But that would be pretty invasive, and you said that some countries do that, which is interesting.
James Brokenshire MP: They do. That is why I say that we are not against the use of science or scientific procedures, such as dental analysis and bone density, but they may be quite invasive, which is why we have decided not to do that, but other countries do.
Q77 Lord Cormack: Clearly, we are dealing with very sensitive issues here. To go on from the questions that have just been asked, you made it quite plain at the beginning that, first of all, the vast majority of these people are male and, secondly, that a very significant majority are in the upper age group—16 to 18. Are you satisfied that we have adequate vetting measures in place to ensure, so far as we possibly can, that the wrong people are not admitted? I ask this in the context of terrorism, in the context of Paris and Brussels, in the knowledge that some of those who participated in those outrages were alleged to have been recent migrants to Europe. The last thing we would wish to do is to make things difficult for children who are fleeing and who need every possible care and help, but we have to be vigilant. Are you confident that we are being vigilant enough?
James Brokenshire MP: We are vigilant, which is why I made the point that I did around, for example, the initial screening of someone who is detected in this country. That is not about taking biometrics simply for future reference, but equally to identify what traces there may be of that individual and therefore to best assess who they are and what that might mean. We take that rightful care before someone is then moved through into the asylum process. You have that, which obviously builds on the broader work that we do with 100% checks on scheduled flights and crossings coming into the UK, the work of the juxtaposed controls in northern France, the continuing work that we undertake with the French Government and the screening that takes place of vehicles that cross through the juxtaposed controls. We keep that under careful review, and are having further discussions with the Dutch and the Belgians on issues in other parts of Europe as well. There is real vigilance around the challenges and risks of having a strong, robust and vigorous border control. That is something that Border Force will continue to do. Indeed, the introduction of things such as e-gates at airports is, again, about better identification of those who may be seeking to gain entry, through different forms of documentation, and about being very vigorous around that.
Lord Cormack: That is reassuring. Another way of being certain, so far as one can be, that the person who claims to be James Brokenshire in Luton is the same person who claims James Brokenshire in Birmingham is to have a system of guardianship. We have had quite a lot of evidence before the Committee from people saying that we would improve our system in every way, but particularly in terms of the welfare of children, if we had a system of guardianship such as they have, for instance, in Scotland. I am interested in the response from both of you on this. What do you feel about that? Is it something we should aspire to or is it something we could not cope with? What are your views?
Edward Timpson MP: Perhaps I could respond first, Lord Cormack. You will know my background and my absolute determination to make sure that any child who needs the care and support of the state gets it, for as long as they need it, wherever that may be in the country. That is my motivation in looking at any of these issues, particularly for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, who we know have particular vulnerabilities which need to be taken into account when coming up with the right care plan for them. In addressing this issue, it is important that those who challenge us should recognise that the purpose of our approach is not to try and make life more difficult for asylum-seeking children, but to make sure that we have the best possible system, people, governance and accountability in place.
In doing so, it is worth also reminding ourselves that once an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child comes into care, they will have an allocated social worker, they will have an independent reviewing officer—whose role is to independently review the care plan and the care that that child is receiving—they will have access to an independent advocate, and they will have an independent visitor, who can ensure that the environment in which they have been placed is sufficient for their needs. So there is already a whole degree of involvement and oversight of professionals, both those directly employed by the state and those who are there to give an independent injection of accountability for what the state is doing on that child’s behalf. We have to ask ourselves whether an additional person would help improve that system or not, and what value they would bring. We wanted to make sure that we had as good an understanding of what the impact of a guardian could be in that situation, which is why we trialled it for a year, from September 2014 to September last year. We had an independent evaluation—I understand the Committee has had some evidence from some of the authors, from the University of Bedfordshire, about that. There are some very positive elements to the pilot that we undertook that we want to learn from and reflect upon, but we also know that that pilot was inconclusive in determining whether the outcomes for those particular children had improved as a consequence of having that additional person involved in their lives. We also know that the prospect of them going missing from care did not reduce as a consequence of that guardian supporting them. So we are not convinced that this is the right way to go.
Lord Cormack: May I just put something to you? We have had evidence from the Refugee Council, which said: “Most places have better guardianship systems than those in the UK in that they are independent … The best systems are those where the guardian is representing the child’s best interests as well as instructing a legal representative on their behalf”. Obviously, that is just one piece of evidence from one individual representing the Refugee Council, but how would you respond to that?
Edward Timpson MP: I would say two things. First, I am not sure whether this is what the Refugee Council was alluding to, but in relation to the care proceedings during which a decision is made about that child’s future, every child has a guardian appointed to represent them through that case. For me, what is most important for any of these children who come into our care is them building a trusting relationship with an adult who can then glean a much better insight into what the potential vulnerabilities they may have are and therefore how we can protect them from those. The vast majority of these children and young people will go into foster care. Some go into children’s homes and some go into supported accommodation, but the vast majority go into foster care, and it is the foster carer who is looking after them day in, day out who is in the strongest possible position to be that trusted adult, to build that relationship and to be able to protect them from some of the dangers that they could be exposed to, should they for instance go missing. We have looked at the Scottish model and want to learn from that. We will look at other models, in our European partners, but we want to do something that will actually, in practice, improve the prospects of these unaccompanied asylum-seeking children during their time in our care. We will continue to reflect on many of the strong points that have been made from the research that has been carried out, but for me what is at the heart of this is ensuring we have really strong, high-quality social work practice, making good decisions on these children’s behalf, backed up by foster carers and other carers who can support and care for them in a way in which no one else is able to.
Q78 Lord Soley: Can I turn to the proposals in the Immigration Bill, where you bring in the concept of a young adult migrant at 18? The Government have done a lot in increasing pathways and support for youngsters leaving care at 18, but that is abandoned in the Immigration Bill as proposed at the moment. I wonder whether you can explain why that is. As I ask that, I would remind you that many of those youngsters will stay on for quite a while—they will not automatically be sent back, as it depends on other aspects of their life at that time—and also ask you to bear in mind that many of them will have come from conflict zones where their ability to cope with threatening situations is limited. It is therefore a problem for society as well as the youngster. Why this sudden lack of care under the Immigration Bill compared to what I would quite honestly say is the very good work the Government have done on post-18 support otherwise?
James Brokenshire MP: I am very conscious that these issues were debated at length in the Lords recently during the consideration of the Immigration Bill. Lord Bates, the Lords Minister—who I pay tribute to for his work and who is now on his walk and fulfilling a number of his real passions; I pay tribute to him in so many different ways—set out some of those clear thoughts on how we view the existing Children Act provisions as being very much focused on providing that pathway and support for young people whose future remains in the UK and preparing them for that life in the UK. By contrast, in respect of those whose appeal rights are exhausted—those who have not established a well-founded need for support as a refugee or in claiming asylum—their pathway is in a different direction. In other words, they will leave the UK and establish their life in the country that they are returned to. We have simply sought to put in place that process: for those who are leaving care and have obviously established their claim as asylum seekers, there is clearly that different mechanism under the Children Act, as contrasted with those who have not established that. That underpins the position and is the simple basis for this. There is also the need to consider the burdens on local authorities around all this as well. We would draw that fundamental distinction.
Lord Soley: I can see the financial implications of it. I understand that, but I would put it to you that you cannot be sure that the youngster who is identified in the Immigration Bill is going to be sent back straightaway. There may be a number of reasons why they are not: they might put in a new application or they might have started an educational course at 17, which might trigger the 25 years aspect, which would have problems. However, I am puzzled. Although I can understand why you might want to have a difference between the system under the Immigration Bill and the conventional system, I do not understand and find it hard to justify, both in terms of the impact on the public and for the reasons I gave, why there is almost a total cut-off here: “You are over 18, you are now a young adult, that’s it”.
James Brokenshire MP: The Children’s Minister may want to come in, but I would say that different support is then provided under the Immigration Bill. If there are barriers to someone’s departure—in other words, they cannot get the documentation, or there are medical issues there—then support is provided through the mechanism of the Immigration Bill. That separation of pathways is the right approach and the one that we take for someone who becomes an adult. Obviously, at that stage, if they have not established a claim to remain in the UK through all the different process and appeals—we can come on, if you would like, to the way in which we consider the asylum claims when someone arrives as a child in the UK—ultimately there comes that point where they are an adult and they do not have the right to stay in the UK, and therefore the focus should be about encouraging that movement so that they can establish their life moving forward in their home country.
Lord Soley: I know it is still a Bill, but can you describe a bit more clearly how you would see that additional support being given to a young person at 18 who, for whatever reason, stays on and who may be being returned to a country which has conflict in parts of it? It may not be all of it, which is why you can send someone back to a country that has conflict. Can you explain what support you think that 18 year-old should have as a young adult, as described in the Immigration Bill?
Edward Timpson MP: Perhaps that is something for me to pick up. This is a really important question. I was conscious of the fact that we have made significant progress in improving the support for those leaving care beyond the age of 18, in recognition of the fact that just because you have hit your 18th birthday, it does not mean that all your life’s woes dissipate. We need to be much more vigilant about the fact that even for those of us who have been lucky enough to be brought up within the bosom of our own family, the average age that people now leave home is around 25 and increasing. We have subsequently made strides to improve the situation for care leavers. Recognising the point that the Immigration Minister has made about being clear about the different pathway that they are now on, as they no longer have a lawful basis to remain in the UK, their route now is back to their country of origin, albeit we do not know how long that process will take. We need to be careful that there is not, as you say, an immediate cut-off point where they are cast adrift. That is why the Immigration Bill and, I think, paragraph 10B about regulations make it clear that there are still responsibilities around providing accommodation, subsistence and also, where appropriate, social care, because they may have specific issues.
Lord Soley: What, where appropriate?
Edward Timpson MP: Social care. They may have specific issues around medical presentation and their ability to look after themselves, and that needs to be put in place. I would also remind the Committee that this is not a retrospective position. Those who are already at that stage will not be affected; it is only new cases who will start to be moved through this different process.
Lord Soley: When you use the phrase social care, do you mean by that personal support for a young person who is suddenly presented with the possibility of going back to a country which has conflict zones in it, from which he or she has previously come?
James Brokenshire MP: It could do. It could include social work support for a young adult coming to terms with their situation. The scope of new paragraph 10B, introduced by the Bill, gives that latitude. The Children’s Minister is right to point to that factor and that element on the nature of the support and the ability to consider the individual circumstances.
Lord Soley: Who would give that support? The local authority or the Home Office?
James Brokenshire MP: It would be the local authority.
Edward Timpson MP: It is also right that we give some thought to how we ensure that local authorities understand what to do in these circumstances going forward. I am keen, and I know my colleague is too, that as we develop guidance and best practice in this area, we work with some of the charities in some of the areas in the country where we know this is a more prominent part of their work, so that as it starts to come online there is a clear understanding of what is the best way to approach this rather than asking, “How do I comply with the new law?”. For me, getting the practice right is as important if not more important than simply following the rules that have been put in place.
The Chairman: Do you have any indication of the numbers involved?
James Brokenshire MP: As I think the Children’s Minister has indicated, this would only be in respect of new cases. I suppose the number of adult migrant care leavers whose appeal rights have been exhausted is—in totality, including the historical position—around 750. But that is looking back. That may be helpful in giving some sense of the current overall position, but as we have indicated, this is not applicable to them. It is a question of the new cases moving forward. We want the whole system to be looking towards that. All the measures in the Immigration Bill, as part of the broader reforms, will I hope see a greater number of people making a decision to depart and leave themselves rather than it being necessary to look at more formal means of enforcement on removal.
Lord Soley: Let me come back briefly, if I could. My concern in this sense, as you will be aware, is that you can make a perfectly good case for a young person of 18-plus being sent back to Nigeria, for example, which is a fairly common country, because large areas of Nigeria are safe. But other areas are very unsafe, particularly for girls. I just wonder whether it is right to ask a local authority to deal with a child who is being sent back to Nigeria, and to know what judgments to make about where to send them and the gender of the child.
James Brokenshire MP: I think this comes back to the point the Children’s Minister made about how we implement this and the guidance that is provided. Indeed, some local authorities now have immigration enforcement officers embedded within the local authority, to work smartly with them in partnership to deal with family cases and to ensure that there is a better recognition of how to respond. We hope that some of the simplification of the process—it is quite dense and complicated at the moment—and streamlining and clarifying it through the Immigration Bill will help with what has been the duplication of human rights assessments on this side, and will assist with seeing clearer decisions being made by local authorities around all this. Obviously, this is something that we are continuing to discuss, as regards implementation, with the Department for Education but also with local authorities directly.
Q79 Lord Jay of Ewelme: I want to ask a question about the treatment of unaccompanied minors in EU hotspots. I have never been entirely clear how the EU hotspots work. Indeed, some of the evidence we have had recently has been that the nature of EU hotspots has been changing quite swiftly and in a rather undesirable way, in that they are becoming almost more like detention centres and that various NGOs are withdrawing from them because they are not sure they can really play a useful role there. I wondered whether that is your impression. Are the Government worried about or monitoring how unaccompanied minors are being treated in what look like being less and less attractive places to be?
James Brokenshire MP: Obviously, we are providing operational support through EASO and experts who have been seconded. We have provided six national experts and an interpreter to assist EASO in Greece, and sent one expert to Italy. We have an expert presently deployed in Athens, supporting the registration of asylum applicants; another is deployed to the Greek Dublin unit, for family reunification and obviously the return to where you first claim asylum routes. A further expert has been nominated for deployment to Italy. I also hinted earlier about how I think the £10 million fund has a further role to play in identification and getting a better picture. As I have indicated, we get information from EASO and FRONTEX. We are also looking at how we might look at getting better support into some of the hotspot regions as well, to support the systems but also, I hope, to be able to share expertise around this issue of identification and support of children, and equally, where children may have that ability to reconnect with their family in Europe. So there is a much broader perspective, and we are looking very carefully at how we can do more around this. It is also about supporting those countries that are on the external Schengen borders—so particularly Italy and Greece—to strengthen their screening and to do that sort of activity on the front end. That, again, helps us to get that better picture.
Lord Jay of Ewelme: So are you saying that an important part of the job of the experts who we have sent there is looking at the position of unaccompanied minors? Are they specifically doing that?
James Brokenshire MP: We are certainly supporting Greece and others in respect of this work. The funds that DfID has provided to assess and support people who are in transit across Europe helps in doing that as well, although that is obviously delivered more through the NGOs rather than through the Government. But yes, we are conscious of this issue of how best to identify people. We are doing work with the French Government at the moment to see speedier matching of children who are seeking their families and who have that connection to be reunified with family here in the UK through the Dublin III arrangements. I think that is seeing much better processing: we are seeing applications processed in weeks rather than in months, as some have been suggesting. It is an area of focus for the Government.
The Chairman: I think your question has been more or less answered, Lord Wasserman, so we will move on to Lord Condon.
Q80 Lord Condon: It would be helpful if we could have some information on family reunification, which you have mentioned a couple of times. The UK has not opted into the EU directive on the right to family reunification. We realise that the UK’s current rules do not recognise the child’s right to be reunited with their parents but regard it as a matter of discretion. Could you help us with how many unaccompanied minors have been reunited with family members within the UK? Who is responsible for monitoring these reunification decisions? How do you try to reconcile the best interests of the child, and the overarching responsibilities globally, with not opting into the EU directive?
James Brokenshire MP: There are two elements to this. We have the family resettlement applications that can be made under our existing Immigration Rules. I can tell you that 4,596 claims were granted in 2014. Over the last five years, from 2010 to 2014, the total number of grants has been around 21,710. The data that I have—
Lord Condon: Are they all in relation to minors, or to more age groups?
James Brokenshire MP: No. I was about to say that that is the totality of the numbers. The data that I have do not break down in terms of the number of children within that, which will be a mixture. That is on the one side. The second side to this is the arrangements under the Dublin convention. Data on cases progressed under that is not maintained on the main immigration database, so the data is not currently held in a way in which information about unaccompanied minors can be reported on automatically. We effectively need to go through all the records to do that, and therefore it is more difficult to discern on that basis, albeit it is something that we are looking at quite closely in terms of the information that we hold. We are looking at ways in which we can improve this further and are working with the British Red Cross to see how we can simplify the process on the main immigration-based route. With the work we are doing with the French Government and, more broadly, in relation to other Dublin units, we are looking carefully at how, if children have been separated from family, we can see them reunited, whether as a legitimate claim or with the discretion contained with that. Dublin, I think, is slightly wider than our immigration-based routes, but none the less, mechanisms are there. But ultimately, if children are in another European country, the essential thing is that they claim asylum in the other European country so they get into the system. Practically, this is work that the French Government for example are doing in and around Calais with the French charity Terre d’Asile—to better identify children, get a better picture of how many children there are there and get those who may have those claims into the system. That is the clear message that I would give to everyone involved in this: to see that the children are better identified and therefore that we meet any obligations we have or hold.
Lord Condon: Do you feel comfortable that you can reconcile the UK not opting in to the directive with the overarching responsibilities under the UN convention, the European Convention on Human Rights and so on?
James Brokenshire MP: Yes, I think we can. It is interesting that the rules and measures under the family resettlement route—not the Dublin route, but our main family resettlement route—go further than the convention would oblige us to, at a time when some other European countries are seeking to scale that back. We can, absolutely, reconcile that. There are very clear routes. We are looking carefully at the family resettlement mechanism and are considering advice that we have had from the British Red Cross as to how we can make that process simpler and improve it.
The Chairman: Can I be clear about who is actually responsible for tracing family members? You mentioned the Red Cross. Is it local authorities or is it the Red Cross? Who has the responsibility for actually tracing the family?
James Brokenshire MP: That is an important point around this. The systems across Europe need further support and work. That, in part, is why we announced the £10 million scheme that DfID announced at the end of January, to see how we can improve some of those systems and processes. Clearly, some extended people around a child will perhaps seek to assert that they have family. It is quite notable the way in which communications have transformed a lot of this. When we see the refugees or migrants in some areas, the thing that they all hold is a mobile phone. Therefore the connections that they may make into Europe and other parts of Europe and elsewhere are often very direct. Indeed, some of the challenges that we have are the way in which smartphones and the information available through social media are exploited by the people traffickers to try to tell people to do this or do that and actually put their lives at risk with some of these twisted and perverted packages that are available through some of the smugglers to offer a particular route, whether that will be detectable or not. There are connections that lie, in some ways, behind a lot of the movement and a lot of the ways in which some people seek to take advantage of certain routes or certain areas. Sadly, some have sought to exploit that for criminal advancement.
The Chairman: That is all from us. I thank both of you for your evidence this morning and for answering all our questions. It would be helpful if you could send us information on budgets. When are you intending to announce the formal arrangements with local authorities on burden-sharing?
James Brokenshire MP: We obviously have local authority elections coming up in May, and so I think we will be looking to announce the detail of the funding of the arrangements around the dispersal picture post the local elections, just in terms of giving a sense of timing. Obviously work is progressing and discussions are proceeding but it is that sort of timescale. We are probably looking to July for the formalisation of some of these new arrangements for dispersal.
The Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
Examination of Witness
Ms Anne Longfield OBE, Children's Commissioner for England
Q81 The Chairman: Good morning, and thank you for your attendance this morning. I am sorry to have kept you waiting for about 10 minutes or so. The format is that this is a public session and is being webcast. You will be sent a transcript, and if you wish to make any corrections or add anything that you want amplified, feel free to do so. Before we get into the questions, could you please say a little bit about your role and what your responsibilities are? I know you are independent of government, but where does your funding come from, for example? That would be very helpful.
Anne Longfield: Sure. I am the Children’s Commissioner for England. The role was established 11 years ago, and I am the third one. I have been in post for about a year, and it is a six-year term. It is an independent role and is a public appointment. The commissioner has been answerable to Parliament since the position was strengthened in 2014. Accountability is developing but is largely through the Education Select Committee. My funding and budget come via the DfE, which is my sponsor department and the one I meet with on the most regular basis as part of that contract management.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for that. From your point of view, what are the key challenges faced by unaccompanied minors in the UK? Are the Government doing enough to meet these concerns?
Anne Longfield: Okay, big question there. Not only in the session you have just had but in the sessions you have had to date, you have heard some of the extraordinary challenges that these children—first and foremost that is what they are—face. Regardless of their starting point for this, they enter the country often very traumatised, having undergone the most extraordinary experience, which most of us as parents could never conceive any of our own children undergoing. An awful lot of them enter the country with no documentation. Many say to me that they cannot remember the journey because they have been drugged for most of it, which could be a substantial period of time. They are of course without the guidance and support of their family, which leaves them very vulnerable and often very confused. They often have experiences where they have been exposed to traffickers, or indeed other officialdom along the way, that they have deemed to be negative. Sometimes children entering the countries as unaccompanied asylum seekers can be quite withdrawn and quiet. When I have been to Dover, what has struck me first is how quiet some of those youngsters are. They had been brought to the Dover holding area for assessment. There was a blanket, a pre-packaged meal and a drink, and they sat there waiting, often not talking but just waiting for the assessment and for that process. It is a very difficult time for youngsters who have been through a very difficult process.
We can come on to a range of areas, some of which you have already touched on this morning, which are the particularly critical points that some of those youngsters tell me they find difficult. In broad terms, just to give you my impression, in this country we do some things and offer support and protection in a reasonably coherent, good way. I think that is the starting point: it is not perfect, but when I have looked at other countries—I have said a few things about France in particular over the last couple of weeks—I think we uphold our moral and legal responsibilities with integrity overall. I know you have heard from some local authorities that have had some severe challenges about how they respond, but there has been a very genuine intent and genuine use of the Children Act throughout as the guiding legislation for protection. In discussion with some of my colleagues in different parts of Europe, that is quite a surprise to them. It is not their experience in their countries, which we can come on to a little later.
There are some critical points on the radar, and there is some work in progress, but they still present some real difficulties to the young people themselves. One is around where they live and access to services. You have heard from Kent, Dover and Croydon about the challenges they face with the sheer numbers of individuals coming into the country. I would support the dispersal scheme, and have had dialogue with Ministers, officials and the LGA over the last year about it. I understand that there is going to be a further communication going out, and I too will write to local authorities to encourage them to come forward. There are still too many young people who go missing from their accommodation. Age assessment, which you have been looking at, was one of the first things that I was told about when I first met a group of unaccompanied asylum seekers when I took up the post last year. With independent accommodation for 17 and 18 year-olds, there has been some feedback from them in terms of their level of safety. Then there is access to therapeutic support, because these are traumas that people need help to recover from. Those are some of the things that emerge as areas where young people tell me they need more help. Overall, young people coming to the country in this way need their basic needs to be met, safety and stability above all—because that is the thing they have not had—protection from the threats of trafficking and exploitation, legal assistance to regularise their status and indeed, sometimes within that, family reunification.
Q82 Lord Ribeiro: You mentioned early on your experience with your European counterparts. You have obviously met a few. Do you think the challenges in the UK differ from those faced by your European counterparts in terms of unaccompanied minors? In particular, do they share similar data to that we had earlier this morning—that 62% of unaccompanied minors are over the age of 16 and are mainly male?
Anne Longfield: I am part of a network of children’s commissioners across Europe, and you would not be surprised that this issue has been of significant concern for them. There is a report on this, which I think we forwarded to you as background, which was written at the end of last year. Overall, the critical challenges that each country faces reflect the fact that there are commonalities in the challenges for the children too. There are variations across all the states, in my understanding, but no perfect solution comes out of this, and states make their decisions along the way. What I find the most challenging to comprehend are the issues around protection for children. I think Andrew Ireland raised this in his reflections, about Kent. First and foremost, protection is needed now. I think we heard the Minister talking about children getting themselves in the system, which, in essence, is about getting protection as well. Again, going back to my starting point, I think the basic premise that we should offer children protection if they are unaccompanied is something that we hold very genuinely here.
Lord Ribeiro: The Minister said, in answering the question about guardianship, that we have in the UK a good infrastructure of social care, support, advocates et cetera. Is there similar support in Europe on that basis?
Anne Longfield: For protected children?
Lord Ribeiro: Yes.
Anne Longfield: It will vary, and I think that our system is relatively well developed in that area. Some across Europe will also have guardianships—you know of course that they do in Scotland. There are huge variations across Europe. My analysis is that in this country we take those duties seriously. There is a particular emphasis on children in care, which has created a good amount of momentum. Again, I would not want to sit before any of you and say that it is perfect; I do not think the Minister would say that either. None the less, there is a good momentum behind that, and some very good work is being done to develop within that.
Lord Condon: You mentioned Dover and taking the views of the unaccompanied minors and so on. We are aware that you have a statutory responsibility to take steps to hear what they are saying. Could you tell us a little bit more about how you actually try and understand the views of the unaccompanied minors and how that then translates into trying to get better policy here and in the EU?
Anne Longfield: A statutory part of my role is to consult with children and young people. There is a strong element of raising awareness with children and young people, which is something that I am keen to do over my period in office, particularly for vulnerable young people—unaccompanied asylum seekers would absolutely be part of that now. That means meeting with young people, hearing their views and experiences, and then using that information to influence decision-making. I meet regularly with the Home Office, with the DfE and indeed with local authorities and others, including NGOs. We have been very involved, including before my time in the office, in myriad different aspect of the process, shall we say, around this. We were very involved in helping to construct what kind of questions to ask children when they first arrived. We were very involved in looking at what the best interests of the child were in terms of the accommodation that was being offered when they first arrived and were being assessed. That has been improved as a result in Dover. We were also very involved in the age assessment discussions and debates as well. Those feed in directly in that way. I am currently planning to meet with some children who arrived from Syria, because I want to know about their experience. I meet with children regularly in general, but also make it part of my work to meet with unaccompanied asylum seekers. That has been with the help of the Refugee Council in Croydon, as well as in Dover. My team regularly make visits to areas, and we will normally include some groups of unaccompanied asylum seekers if that is possible—for instance, most recently, in Bradford. I have powers of entry so that I can enter places where children are living away from home, and we regularly visit some of the residential centres and some of the holding areas as well. I also have data collection powers, so that I can get data from public authorities, which again is something I have used over time. It has been particularly relevant in the last year around family immigration into the UK. So there are a whole range of ways, although there is a lot more to be done. I am embracing the digital world with a digital network, with very high numbers of targets to meet many more children. That will be something that those young people will be very open to.
Lord Condon: Have you been surprised by any of the information that has come out of that process?
Anne Longfield: Yes, the stories of young people themselves never fail to astonish. I had a 16 year-old boy who sat before me who was quite confident on the surface but clearly extremely vulnerable due to his experience. He had been in the UK I think for less than two months, and the way he described it to me was, “Well, I have been travelling for five to six months. It has not been easy, but that is just what you have to do”. That is so alien to our experience, but it is the experience of young people who have been trafficked. I have met Vietnamese girls who have experienced terrible pressures, challenges and experiences, and indeed girls who have been sexually exploited as well. I know not as many girls come to the UK, but their experiences have been terrible. The amounts of money that their traffickers demand for release from this are astonishing. That in itself has been a surprise and a shock. Then there is the resilience of some of those young people to be able to go forward and create positive futures and careers. A lot of those I meet are on college courses and are looking at their futures and at being active participants. That resilience is very reassuring. A lot have told me that they find age disputes very difficult, which we can come on to if you like.
Q83 Lord Cormack: You clearly have a great degree of empathy with these young people, and we are all grateful for that. I have two factual questions. You talked about your team on one or two occasions. How big is your team?
Anne Longfield: It currently stands at 25, so not the most enormous team, but big enough to do useful things with.
Lord Cormack: Is it composed mainly of previous social workers and people like that?
Anne Longfield: Some within the team were social workers. I have an advice line, which is for children who are living away from home. That is for children in care, but I also used it as an additional support for children who were coming into Dover last summer when there was a large number. I made that phone line available in some of the residential centres in Dover. There are a number of people who have a social work background. Some have a policy background, while some are looking at research into how we find out more.
Lord Cormack: You talked also about fellow commissioners in other European Union countries. How many of the 28 countries have your equivalent?
Anne Longfield: I think Germany is one of the only ones that does not.
Lord Cormack: Really? The largest country.
Anne Longfield: Yes. It is not that Germany thinks it is not a valid role, as I understand it, but they believe they have the infrastructure but in a different way. So it is a uniform position across Europe, which I think in itself is very valuable. You may have heard me saying some things about visiting Calais recently. That came through because of communication with my French counterpart. I was very concerned about young people entering the country and putting their lives at risk—there had been at least one fatality in recent weeks and several near misses—and my communication with her enabled that to be established.
Lord Cormack: Do you routinely communicate with and meet the other 20 or whatever number it is?
Anne Longfield: Yes, and there is also a commissioner in each of the UK countries. The UK commissioners and the ombudsman in Ireland meet every quarter and look at areas of common interest. We also submit evidence together to the UNCRC for its periodic reviews, which happen every five years. So there is a closer relationship with them. The European network—ENOC, the other is BINOC—meets on an annual basis. The ENOC group has a special task force on children on the move.
Lord Cormack: What measures do you think need to be taken for these unaccompanied minors that have not yet been taken? What particular improvements would you like to see introduced on a European and indeed a UK basis?
Anne Longfield: The report that you have from the ENOC group recommended a number of core things: first, that children are recognised as having particular needs and vulnerabilities when migration is being looked at; prioritising children in any EU relocation scheme; making better use of legal opportunities to enter countries, including through family reunification; having a children’s rights perspective in humanitarian support and aid; minimum standards around reception and transit centres; and comprehensive data collection, which I think you have already looked at. Along with all of that, a right and an expectation of protection would be the thing that I would bring in.
Lord Cormack: How often do you have need to talk to Ministers? Are you satisfied that you have good and ready access? Do you feel that the lobbying route is open to you as a commissioner here in England and that a similar route is open to other Ministers throughout the European Union?
Anne Longfield: I cannot speak about the access most have in Europe to their own Ministers. I just do not know the detail on that, and it will vary. In France, the French commissioner had put forward quite a thorough report around children in Calais, but to my knowledge had not met with the French Interior Minister to talk about that and take it forward.
Lord Cormack: Really? What about you? Have you met with our Minister?
Anne Longfield: Yes, and I have also asked to meet the French Interior Minister. I meet regularly with Minister Timpson on a range of issues. I have certainly briefed him on the Calais issue since I have been there. I have not met Minister Brokenshire yet, but have had dialogue with his officials, and my understanding is that there is a meeting pending. Access to influence in terms of briefings is open. There is a broad commitment to children’s best interests here. There are many complexities, as you will be well aware, that need to be got through, but there is a broad dialogue which I feel I can access at any point. Does that mean I will always get what I think is needed instantly?
Lord Cormack: Of course not.
Anne Longfield: No. Does it mean that it will all happen? No, and I would not expect it to.
Lord Cormack: If you want to see the Minister, can you?
Anne Longfield: I would certainly hope that if there was an issue that was pressing, I would be able to do that. I would certainly be able to see officials at very short notice.
The Chairman: You said you are accountable to the Select Committee.
Anne Longfield: The Education Select Committee.
The Chairman: How often do you see them?
Anne Longfield: The accountability changed a couple of years ago under the Children and Families Act, and the new cycle of accountability has not yet been put into place. It is being looked at just at the moment. I am proposing that there is an annual cycle of meetings to scrutinise my annual report, essentially.
Q84 Lord Morris of Handsworth: You have certainly enlightened me, and I am sure the Committee, about the challenge that you face and the work that you do. How do you carry out your statutory duty to promote and protect children’s rights, with regard to unaccompanied minors specifically?
Anne Longfield: The role is about protecting and promoting children’s rights, and there are a number of ways to do that. One is straightforward advice. I have an advice line, which is something that came into the role a couple of years ago when the role was strengthened. I am looking to develop that and expand it quite radically over the next year. My ambition is that every reception centre where asylum seeker children might be would have access to that—it could be something they are offered when they enter the country. At the same time, my ambition is that 25% of children in care will know about that this year and nearly all of them next year.
The advice line in itself is really important: it is not just an advice line, it is an advice, assistance and referral line. That means that if there is a child in the system somewhere who cannot find their way through and needs help—that might be a child in care who does not feel their best interests are being taken into account, a child who feels they have been moved too many times in placements, or someone in asylum-seeking accommodation who does not feel they are being given the support they need—what I can do is, first of all, listen. We have very good people to do that, and I can then write to the director of children’s services or whoever is the responsible person. I do that on a very regular basis: I seek to represent on about a third of all the calls that come in. I will typically write to a director of children’s services and say, “I have had contact with a child. They say this is a problem and do not feel they are able to resolve it locally. I understand that I do not know what the issues are in full, but can you please look into this and get back to me?”. That is a powerful route and something which I am seeking to expand on.
I put that advice line in to Dover last summer and will do that again if I think there is a particular need for it. Most recently, that has involved some communications with the British volunteers working in Calais, who I met when I was there. That brought the use of the line starkly to light. When I was in Calais, I met a very good British volunteer there. I suggested that, if they were fearful about the number of children going missing and about a child that they thought was missing in England, they should ring the line or me directly. The French children’s commissioner agreed to do the same if it was in France. That weekend, we had two calls about children who were missing. I got in touch with the children’s champion at the Home Office on Sunday afternoon. She came back to me within literally an hour, and the child was found and with a foster family in Waltham Forest by 2 pm. I was pleased, clearly, about that, both in terms of the safety of the child but also because it was a system that worked on a Sunday afternoon.
There was another example, where British volunteers had put credit and their numbers on children’s phones, and a child rang from the back of a lorry saying they were running out of air. They texted and said that. Straightaway they came through again. They rang the police and the police were able to track the child down by their mobile signal.
Lord Cormack: They got to a service station.
Anne Longfield: In Leicestershire. That was a seven year-old boy. These mechanisms have been honed, in this instance because they need to be honed. This has been a particularly recent development. Those were life-or-death cases, which have benefited from these developments. As I have said, I can go and visit, and I can collect data.
Q85 Lord Morris of Handsworth: You must have one of the toughest jobs in the country. When we come to review the evidence and write our report, what specifically would you like us to focus on that would make your work more effective and bring about greater awareness?
Anne Longfield: I think the best interest lens of children, throughout all the decisions that are made. You have had good commitment to that this morning, but clearly it is something which needs reaffirming at each stage.
The Chairman: And proper implementation.
Anne Longfield: Yes, absolutely. Intent, clearly, is very valuable, but so is reflection at any stage. There are, as I say, issues around age assessment and issues around care. The dispersal scheme is a really important next step to give those children the opportunity to grow up in areas around the country where they are not now. I am keen to back that. Then there is the terrible experience of those who are trafficked. There are also very good voluntary organisations working here. They can speak for themselves, but we need to give good support to them.
Lord Morris of Handsworth: How do we bring these organisations together so that they can share common experience and best practice?
Anne Longfield: I think there is a good degree of co-ordination and there has been some good representation here. I have an advisory group that includes several organisations, including the Refugee Council, Coram and others, which is very valuable. These organisations are clearly very committed and work together in many ways. I have talked about the British volunteers in Calais: Help Refugees is one and SOS Calais is another. They are doing invaluable work. Through that co-ordination, they can often reach the parts that others cannot. In my view, they are doing that there.
Lord Wasserman: How many calls do you get to your advice and assistance line every month?
Anne Longfield: It is not hundreds—that is what I am seeking to extend. It is about 1,000 a year, and about a third of those are ongoing representation. It is a relatively new function, which I value greatly and am seeking to extend.
Lord Wasserman: Do you have facilities for other languages? If someone calls you in another language, how do you deal with it?
Anne Longfield: We have some very talented staff who can speak many languages, but we also have access to translators and interpreters if need be.
Lord Wasserman: Do you have an easily remembered number? How do they call you? What is the number? What do they dial to get you?
Anne Longfield: There is an 0800 number which I cannot for the life of me remember. The name has to be changed: at the moment it is called the Advice, Assistance and Representation Service. Some creative people are looking at a zappy title that will be memorable.
Lord Wasserman: That is useful because if you are in the back of a lorry and running out of air, it would be a bit much to have to remember that name.
Anne Longfield: They got to me, though.
Lord Wasserman: That is very good.
Anne Longfield: They did not need a snappy name, but any suggestions would be gratefully received.
Lord Jay of Ewelme: You said earlier that you have regular meetings with the other commissioners in the United Kingdom, and I think you said Ireland as well.
Anne Longfield: That is slightly different as there is an ombudsman there.
Lord Jay of Ewelme: Are these individual meetings with Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland or are they collective?
Anne Longfield: They are collective meetings, every quarter.
Lord Jay of Ewelme: Are they “getting to know you” sessions or are they practical, problem-solving sessions, dealing with difficult cases and sharing information? What is the contents of the meetings you have?
Anne Longfield: They are practical sessions. Since I have been in post there has been a lot of emphasis on the UNCRC and on periodic reviews. There are policy discussions around these issues and about children who have been abused. There is the ability to come forward with common statements which we have on the issue of unaccompanied asylum seekers.
Lord Jay of Ewelme: Do you facilitate these yourself?
Anne Longfield: Yes
Lord Jay of Ewelme: Are you the lead?
Anne Longfield: No. We rotate; I take the lead on some non-devolved matters but it is all done in collaboration.
Lord Jay of Ewelme: Does that work well? Is it satisfactory?
Anne Longfield: It is practically fine.
Lord Jay of Ewelme: What particular issues arise with Ireland?
Anne Longfield: In terms of unaccompanied asylum seekers?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: Yes.
Anne Longfield: The numbers are very low. I do not know the figures for Ireland. In Northern Ireland the figures are around 10—they are very low. I do not have a definite figure for Wales but it is less than 100, and Scotland is roughly the same. In other countries, we are talking about many fewer.
Lord Jay of Ewelme: So this is overwhelmingly an English issue within the United Kingdom.
Anne Longfield: Clearly, there are issues for the unaccompanied refugee children in those countries, but the numbers are drastically different. Of course, the populations are very different.
Q86 Lord Soley: You describe quite fully the way you work with ENOC and other organisations. If there were just one or two things you could pick up that would improve cross-border co-operation over and above what you are already doing, what would they be?
Anne Longfield: My focus has been on Dublin III over the last few weeks, so I will rest on that for a moment. The starting point for me, as I say, was around communicating with my counterpart. That allows you instant access to the issues and experiences of children. When I went to Calais, I met the officials in the Calais camp and some of the French NGOs there. Some of the facilities are quite impressive, but I was struck by a delay in the system, not only in the process but also in the fact that there was not the impetus to register children, offer them instant protection and then proactively look at how to get them through the process with some speed. Focus and speed around some of this would be the first thing, looking at where there are children who are potentially able to find legal routes and putting forward a coherent action plan that could resolve that.
There are issues around some of those young people not wanting to talk and be involved with the authorities in France, as they are very driven to come to this country, but that is where the British volunteers come in, because they know the children and have been offering some care to them, so there is a trusting relationship. There has been some cross-border secondment, which I think is valuable, but there are also opportunities to work together on this to offer a speedy resolution for this group of children. A rapid calculation of what that might cost would be somewhere around £75,000, so we are not talking about an immense amount of money in the great scheme of things.
Lord Soley: You have picked up a number of things that you say need to be done. Could I assume from that that maybe the ENOC itself needs better strategic planning in order to communicate to the EU what needs to be done to improve aspects of the operation?
Anne Longfield: There is certainly a job for the European Network to effectively take its lobbying forward at that level. It has been very clear about things that have come to the attention of the members, and certainly there have been letters to the European Commission at the end of last year and one most recently around the situation of children in Turkey and Greece. There is the potential for a pan-European priority to be given to children, which is essentially what the European Network is asking for.
Lord Soley: Would the ENOC agree with you that that is what it needs, and would it agree that it needs to come forward with proposals to deliver it?
Anne Longfield: I think that it is coming through with proposals, but that is not resulting at the highest level in the action that is needed at the speed that is needed. Yes, it would agree with that—it was one of the five key points that came from the European report. I will attend the next meeting in Paris in June, which will certainly look at how that can be implemented.
Lord Soley: On a slightly separate point from that, do you have any comment to make about the earlier evidence on those who are post-18 and children who have been in conflict zones? Do you have any particular views that you would like to express about that?
Anne Longfield: We have raised concerns around the potential change in support for children over 18. That is on the record as part of the response to the Immigration Bill and it is something that the commissioners have raised, certainly the Scottish commissioner. Again, as you pointed out, there is good work more generally at the moment around children who are leaving care. We would be concerned if that action was implemented without looking at the best interests of the child.
The Chairman: Did you want to come in, Lord Cormack?
Lord Cormack: Very quickly, I will ask a simple question. Would your work be made easier if we had a statutory guardianship system in England similar to that in Scotland?
Anne Longfield: Anything that helps to secure and support children in these situations will be very valuable. There are differences in the numbers, so there is a practicality issue. I am very aware of the pilot programme with the children who have been trafficked. It is inconclusive, of course, but there are useful starting points for a next phase. There is a strong case to be made to reflect on those findings, to refine that process, possibly to look at another pilot stage for those children who have been trafficked, to learn from that and potentially, if that is seen to be working, to roll it out to the wider system. I am mindful that for local authorities—the Minister is right about this—the system for children who are under 16 is complicated. I know that some local authorities have said that they feel that the system already supports children in that place. Particularly for 16 and 17 year-olds, potentially there are benefits to be had and I would advocate that next-stage reflection from the Home Office and piloting.
The Chairman: That is all from us. Thank you very much indeed. It has been very interesting. Thank you for your time and good luck with a very difficult job.
Anne Longfield: Thank you.