The proposals outlined in the Home Office’s ‘family returns’ consultation will remove safeguards for migrant families, pushing children into street homelessness, abuse and exploitation.
We unequivocally oppose the use of destitution as a tool of immigration enforcement. Restricting child welfare provisions and forcing social workers to prioritise immigration status over safeguarding concerns will place already vulnerable children at risk of serious harm. These proposals would entrench a two-tier safeguarding system, where children without secure immigration status receive a lower standard of protection and care.
Changes to ‘Section 17’ support
Section 17 support (Children Act 1989) is designed to prevent escalating risks, underpinned by the principle that every child deserves to be safe from abuse and exploitation. Proposed restrictions to the application of Section 17 would prevent social workers from providing ‘child in need’ support to nearly all destitute undocumented children, as an explicit means to force their parents to leave the UK.
Using the safety of children as leverage is abhorrent. It undermines the Home Office’s responsibility to promote the welfare of children in the UK and is irreconcilable with the government’s wider policy objectives – the Home Office cannot fulfil its obligation to reduce child poverty and homelessness if it is actively implementing it as policy design.
Evidence also shows this strategy is ineffective. A previous Home Office pilot using enforced destitution achieved less than a 1% success rate in encouraging removals. Reintroducing this failed model will inevitably cause preventable harm to children.
Use of force policy
We are horrified by the proposal to change the Home Office’s use of force policy to allow physical restraint of children for immigration enforcement purposes, including the handcuffing of children who do not let go of their parent’s hand.
The use of force against children is prohibited to prevent physical and psychological harm. Forced removals are frightening experiences for children, and we do not believe it will be possible for officers to adequately assess ‘risk’ in this scenario. Ultimately, there is no way to physically restrain children without harming their welfare. Despite the existence of safer, less costly alternatives, the Home Office is once again choosing to disregard evidence and safeguarding principles in order to achieve political aims.
Access to legal advice
The proposed changes to asylum support contain a cliff-edge and no right of appeal. Families who are refused section 95A support, or cannot apply within the ‘grace period’, will be forced into street homelessness, without the means to challenge decisions. At the same time, Section 17 support for undocumented families will become conditional and highly restricted.
Most of our service users struggle to access legal representation. Without this, families cannot determine their eligibility or make applications for support or leave to remain. Expecting social workers to make decisions based on immigration matters risks unregulated immigration advice being provided, which is a criminal offence. There are clear risks of fundamental rights breaches in these proposals that will harm vulnerable families.
Support for victims and survivors of violence against women and girls (VAWG)
Despite promising to centre VAWG in all government decision-making, we cannot see any evidence that the dynamics of abuse or the experiences of victims and survivors have been considered in these proposals.
The proposed approach directly mirrors the threats that migrant victims and survivors endure from perpetrators. That, if they do not comply, they will be forced into homelessness. That no one will support them if they ask for help. That they have no rights as victims and survivors of abuse because of their immigration status.
For undocumented mothers – who are excluded from refuges, benefits, employment and housing – Section 17 support is often the only lifeline to flee abuse. Restricting access will not just make victims unsafe, it adds another barrier to justice. Many women have ongoing National Referral Mechanism (NRM) claims or active police investigations. Some victims only feel secure enough to report abuse when they reach safe accommodation. These proposals will make it much harder for perpetrators to be held accountable for serious crimes committed in the UK.
We are also concerned that, in situations where perpetrators have leave to remain and the victims do not, these proposals will be weaponised to further abuse. For example, if victims are pushed into street homelessness or forced to leave the UK, children may end up in the care of the perpetrator. Overriding child welfare considerations will create serious safeguarding incidents in the context of domestic abuse.
It is clear that the UK is following in the footsteps of the US by placing immigration enforcement over child safeguarding in a misguided attempt to garner political support. The recent death of 2-year old Orlín Josué Hernandez Reyes in the US tragically highlights the consequences of this approach. After Orlín’s mother was deported despite claiming asylum, her child was left in the custody of an unsafe relative. Safeguarding considerations were ignored, and Orlín was killed¹.
We urge the Home Office to listen to the objections from charities, social workers and local authorities, and to look again at the wealth of evidence weighing against this approach. If these proposals are pushed through, migrant victims and survivors of VAWG and exploitation, and their children, will be at serious risk of harm.
Recommendations
We completely reject the harmful and short-sighted proposals set out under the Family Returns consultation. We call on the government to:
- Maintain Section 17 protections under Children Act 1989
- Maintain existing prohibition on the use of force against children during removals
- Properly consider migrant families in the implementation of cross-government strategies
If the proposals should go ahead, either in part or in full, we urge the government to:
- Urgently publish impact assessments
- Introduce exemptions for victims and survivors of Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) and exploitation
- Improve access to legal advice and representation to prevent breaches of fundamental rights
References:
1. Marcus, Josh. “ICE blames a mother it deported for her two-year-old son’s alleged murder in the US months later.” Online: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/ice-murder-orlin-hernandez-reyes-florida-b2977904.html