A sneaky amendment to the Immigration Bill 2015 passed its
second reading in the House of Commons last week, and means desperate families
whose appeal rights have been exhausted, and whose circumstances are not deemed
“exceptional” enough to be supported by the Home Office, will no longer receive
a children-in-need assessment. The Bill reaches its report stage and third
reading on 1 December. Children In Need assessments take place under Section 17
of The Children Act 1989, and have been used by social workers to champion the
cause of families seeking asylum, offering the chance to keep families
together.
Jonathan Price, a researcher at the University of Oxford’s
Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, said this change could reduce support
and create an inconsistent system for vulnerable children. “By taking the
support for many families with no recourse to public funds outside of the
Children Act framework and replacing it with immigration legislation, it takes
the focus away from safeguarding issues. The assessments of need are likely
therefore to be more limited in scope. “A breadth of safeguarding issues at
play with vulnerable children and families—exploitation, domestic violence,
neglect—could go unnoticed under the new assessment framework.”
Families with no recourse to public funds as a result of
their immigration status are restricted from accessing mainstream benefits
including welfare and housing. Price added there were questions around what
level and type of support would be provided to meet the needs of children since
the raft of case law discussing what will be provided for this group, under
section 17 of the Children Act 1989, would no longer apply.
The intention of The Immigration Bill is clearly to reduce
the numbers of families receiving vital support thereby acting as a deterrent
to asylum seekers. Assessments could be undertaken by non-social work staff in
Local Authorities without the skills or compassionate values needed to
determine what support is needed.
Provisions under immigration legislation, unlike under the
Children Act 1989, define need by basic measures such as the amount of money in
your bank account and could miss complex areas of need like exploitation and
neglect. Campaigners have said that these new measures would not ensure
vulnerable children were safeguarded.
Councillor David
Simmonds, chair of the Local Government Association’s children and young people
board, said: “There is a question of
whether these changes are realistic. Are MPs genuinely intending to vote
through Parliament a bill that says certain children, because of their
immigration status, will be uniquely disadvantaged? “It is highly unlikely
Parliament really wants to do this. We are extremely clear we have an
unambiguous duty of care under UK law and it is likely children would have to
be supported anyway under other areas of legislation.”
The Children Act 1989 (Section 17)- lays a duty on local
authorities to safeguard, promote the welfare and provide services for children
in need. The definition of ‘in need’ has three elements:
- The child is unlikely to achieve or maintain, or to have the opportunity of achieving or maintaining, a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision for the child of services by a local authority or;
- The child’s health or development is likely to be significantly impaired, or further impaired, without provision for the child of such services or;
- The child is disabled.
Children traumatised by war, terror, homelessness, the death
of a parent and fleeing persecution with their families are clearly eligible
for support under the Children Act 1989. This is why the Tory government wants
to exclude them from its provisions. Asylum seeking children are clearly at
risk of developing social, emotional and psychological problems as a result of
their recent experiences. They probably require the most intensive levels of
support of any group of children in Britain.
The UK was one of the last countries to sign up to the UN
Convention on the of Rights of the Child 1989 and has a poor record of
supporting families compared to other developed countries. A recent Unicef
survey ranked Britain 16th out of 29 developed countries for the welfare of
children, behind Portugal, Slovenia and the Czech Republic. he report
warned that spending cuts to youth and children’s services could lead to a reversal
of the gains in recent years. Britain has the second-worst mortality rate for
children in western Europe and the highest levels of mental illness in
under-25s. Poor children are twice as likely to die as the more affluent.
The UN Convention indicates on a human rights basis what
rights children ought to enjoy and what the obligations of signatory states
are. Three principles underpin the Convention:
- All the rights under the convention must be available to all children without discrimination of any kind
- The child’s best interests must be a primary consideration in all actions concerning them
- The child’s views must be considered and taken into account in all matters affecting them
The Convention goes beyond the principles contained in the
Children Act 1989 and is likely to be used by social workers determined to
ensure children in asylum-seeking families are not neglected. First the
Children Act established that courts have to regard the child’s welfare as the
paramount consideration. But under Article 3 of the Convention the child’s
welfare is a primary consideration across a wider range of settings where
decisions about the child’s welfare are made. So decisions about school
exclusion or asylum hearings could be appealed under this article. Three other
main principles enshrined in the UN Convention reinforce the philosophy of
safeguarding children and young people:
- Children have unique needs which set them apart from adults
- The best environment for a child is within a protective and nurturing family
- Governments and adults in general should be committed to acting in the best interest of the child
These rights are categorised into general rights to life,
expression, information and privacy. More specifically the child should have
protective rights against being exploited or abused. Civil rights are
highlighted including the right to nationality and personal identity, along
with the right to stay with the family. Alongside these is the acknowledgment
that children should be in an environment which encourages development and
offers a foundation for welfare. Special circumstance rights include children
in war zones or other challenging situations were needs for safety have to be
considered. The Children Act 1989 confirmed many of these ideas into British
law and the Children Act 2004 continues the defence of children’s rights
including the right of protection from harm and to education, growth, health
and well being.