Skip to content or view screen version

Asylum children maybe forced into care

Observer | 23.11.2003 10:08 | Anti-racism | Migration | Social Struggles

UK prepares to adopt extreme legislation concerning the separation of refugee families, hoping to force more of them into 'Voluntary return' to their countries of origin. Being a foreigner myself, I was wondering what should civil society do against these draconian measures taken against alien families. ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/Refugees_in_Britain/Story/0,2763,1091539,00.html)


Asylum children may be forced into care

Gaby Hinsliff, chief political correspondent
Sunday November 23, 2003
The Observer

Asylum seekers will have their children taken into care in a Draconian attempt to force them to go home, under a government crackdown condemned last night as 'inhumane' by refugee groups.
Parents whose claims have been rejected will be offered a stark choice: take a 'voluntary' flight to their native country, paid for by the state, or lose all benefits in the UK and have their children taken.

Up to 2,000 youngsters could be affected by the clampdown, to be revealed in this week's Queen's Speech. The Prime Minister will follow it by publishing his 'prospectus', a list of manifesto ideas to be put up for public debate to try to show Labour is listening to voters.

Last night, as outraged refugee groups condemned the asylum-seeker plan, former Home Office Minister John Denham warned that parents might simply go underground, surrendering children to the state in the belief that they would be better off raised in Britain.

'Faced with that choice, families might disappear and leave their children in care, thinking that may be the better option, because at least the children would get to stay in Britain and perhaps the adults would get to stay here, albeit working illegally,' said Denham, who chairs the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee.

'It will be important to look closely at the proposals the Government brings forward, otherwise we could end up with quite significant costs of looked-after children without achieving any increase in removals.

'What might seem completely unpalatable to somebody who is looking at it through a traditional British nuclear family might not look quite the same in cultures more used to relying on extended families.' The planned Asylum Bill would also see refugees arriving without identity documents risking jail, and the curtailment of rights of appeal against rejection. The Queen's Speech comes on the eve of quarterly asylum statistics covering September, the month by which Tony Blair promised to halve the number of asylum seekers.

Ministers hope that Labour MPs - many of whom represent white working-class constituents increasingly resentful of immigrants - will be reluctant to oppose a crackdown. The Government was encouraged by surprisingly muted backbench reaction to Home Secretary David Blunkett's plan for ID cards, which he portrayed as a weapon against illegal immigration.

They are, however, braced for a revolt over top-up fees, while MPs will also be furious if - as expected - they are refused another Bill to ban foxhunting because of Downing Street's fears that it will clog the legislative programme.

However, there will be sweeteners for the Left, including new legal rights for gay couples, safeguards for occupational pensions, and planned 'baby bonds' - cash invested at birth for every newborn child.

There will also be new measures to tackle domestic violence; the creation of an independent children's commissioner; and a draft Bill paving the way for a vote on the single currency, although not in this Parliament.

The controversy over asylum seekers surfaced when Immigration Minister Beverly Hughes was questioned by Denham's committee last Wednesday.

Currently, single asylum seekers whose claims fail have their benefits withdrawn pending deportation, which can drag on for years. Families, however, continue to be supported by the state, because of the legal duty to protect children's welfare.

The Home Office has decided it could strip parents of benefits - forcing them to leave faster - if the welfare duty is satisfied by taking their children into care. Ministers hope that, threatened with destitution and the break-up of their families, failed claimants will take 'voluntary' flights home. Families not going voluntarily would still face eventual deportation.

Refugee charities have warned that social workers could be reluctant to co-operate in removing children for immigration reasons.

'This is just inhumane,' said a spokeswoman. 'When you are talking about taking children away from families, that's the point at which the Government has to stop and look at what it is doing in human terms.' The plan was slipped out for consultation only in October, when Westminster was distracted by the Tory leadership drama, leaving too little time to lodge proper objections, she added.

Maeve Sherlock, director of the Refugee Council, said the plan glossed over real failings in the asylum system, such as failure to deport people with no right to stay.

'Breaking up families harms children and should be done only when there is absolutely no alternative,' she added. 'The Government should abandon this plan and work instead to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the asylum system.'

The pressure group Liberty, meanwhile, said there was a 'distinct possibility' of a challenge under the Human Rights Act.

However, the Home Office insisted the measure would affect only those who had exhausted all appeals, with care proceedings a last resort.

'We want to encourage more people to take up the voluntary route, which is easier than if it gets to the stage of having the return enforced,' said a spokesman.

'We would not want children to be made destitute as a result of the actions of their parents.'

Children taken into care could become liable for deportation on reaching adulthood.


Observer

Comments

Display the following 6 comments

  1. sickened — Captain Wardrobe
  2. Blunkett the Children Catcher — chris b
  3. I wonder — social worker
  4. re I wonder — mary
  5. Unison Member? — ex Unison member
  6. link for info + action — kurious