Joint Committee On Human Rights Tenth Report

5  Treatment of children

172. We discuss the treatment of children in families in other Chapters. This Chapter deals more generally with the UK's obligations under the UN CRC and with the support arrangements for separated asylum seeking children.[244] In the next Chapter we consider the human rights issues arising from the detention of children.

The UK's reservation to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)

173. Article 22 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) guarantees the protection of children seeking refugee status. More generally, the rights protected by the Convention apply to all children within the jurisdiction, irrespective of nationality. On ratifying the Convention in 1991, the UK entered a general reservation as regards the entry, stay in and departure from the UK, of those children subject to immigration control, and the acquisition and possession of citizenship.

174. The UK's reservation to the CRC states that "The United Kingdom reserves the right to apply such legislation, in so far as it relates to the entry into, stay and departure from the United Kingdom of those who do not have the right under the law of the United Kingdom to enter and remain in the United Kingdom, and to the acquisition and possession of citizenship, as it may deem necessary from time to time." The reservation is justified by the Government as necessary to prevent the Convention affecting immigration status.

175. The reservation has been widely criticised by both the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the international monitoring body for the CRC, and parliamentary committees. We and our predecessor Committee have expressed concerns on a number of occasions. Most recently, for example, in our Report on Human Trafficking we said that:

176. We recommended in our previous Reports that the Government's reservation be withdrawn. It is also the view of all of the UK's Children's Commissioners that the Government should withdraw its reservation to the CRC.[246] This is because the reservation sends out a powerful signal that the rights of asylum seeking children are less important than those of other children. Although the reservation relates specifically to the entry of children and their families and is intended to be quite narrow in its application, the evidence presented to us suggests that the reservation has, in practice, been interpreted widely to include issues relating to the welfare and support of children seeking asylum. There is concern among many advocates and practitioners working with children that in the drive to remove greater numbers of asylum applicants and restore public confidence in the asylum system the rights of children as children have been marginalised.

177. The exclusion of the National Asylum Support Service (NASS), Immigration Service and immigration removal centres (IRCs) from section 11 of the Children Act 2004 is viewed as illustrative of this wider failure to treat children seeking asylum as children first and foremost. Section 11 imposes a duty on public bodies to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in discharging their normal functions and to ensure that their services are provided with regard to that need. The exclusion of immigration agencies from section 11 has potentially negative human rights implications for children seeking asylum in the UK. The Children's Commissioner for England told us that:

    "Section 11 of the Children Act 2004 was … a great disappointment to the Commissioners because key agencies responsible for the welfare and support of refugee seeking families were excluded from its provisions…The exclusion of NASS, the Immigration Service and managers of IRCs from the (Section 11) duty brings into question the effectiveness of the statutory provision and associated guidance to provide a comprehensive safeguarding framework for all children and young people. We believe that the exclusions are already having an impact on relations between those who are under the duty and those who are not." [247]

178. Although we did not consider the treatment of children in the asylum determination process during this inquiry, we were told by the Children's Commissioner that there is a widely held view that the UK's Reservation to the CRC has implications for the overall approach to children seeking asylum and therefore for the way in which their claims are assessed. [248] These concerns include the punishment of children who arrive undocumented under section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004, the differential treatment of children from "white list" countries, the lack of access to quality legal advice and representation and a general lack of information provided to children about their rights and entitlements whilst in the UK. Witnesses have suggested that the Government's reservation to the CRC goes against the object and purpose of the Convention. Save The Children told us that "despite the Government's commitment to honour the spirit of the UNCRC in relation to the standards of care and treatment available to asylum seeking children, reforms to the asylum system do not consider the impact on children and continue to move it away from the principles and provisions of the UNCRC". [249]

179. The Government has justified its reservation to the CRC as necessary in the interests of effective immigration control, but has also stated that the reservation does not prevent the UK from having regard to the Convention in its care and treatment of asylum seeking children.[250] In his evidence to us, the Immigration Minister reiterated the Government's view that the reservation to the CRC was necessary to maintain immigration controls. [251] He also told us that its removal was not necessary because the reservation did not have any effect in practice:

    "The advice that I have been given is that if we were to remove this reservation it would effectively weaken our ability to argue that immigration control actually came first and that, second, we achieve the objectives that the Convention has through different kinds of measure, so the fact that we have in place the Children's Act, the fact that we have in place a pretty sophisticated child protection regime in this country effectively allows us to provide and secure more than adequate protections for children who are unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. I think my slight concern, given those protections that we have in place, would be that to remove this reservation would be a gesture and nothing more."[252]

180. As we have made clear in our previous Reports, we consider the Government's concerns in relation to the Convention on the Rights of the Child to be unfounded. Of the 192 signatories to the CRC, only three have entered declarations relating to the treatment of non-nationals and only the UK has entered a general reservation to the application of the Convention to children who are subject to immigration control. We do not accept that the CRC undermines effective immigration controls. Our principal concern is that the practical impact of the reservation goes far beyond the determination of immigration status, and leaves children seeking asylum with a lower level of protection in relation to a range of rights which are unrelated to their immigration status. The evidence we have received testifies to the unequal protection of the rights of asylum seeking children under domestic law and practice.

181. We reiterate our previous recommendation that the Government's reservation to the CRC should be withdrawn. It is not needed to protect the public interest and undermines the international reputation of the country. Even if, as the Minister states (which we do not accept), the removal of the Reservation would be nothing more than a "gesture", we consider that this is important in expressing the value given to protecting the rights of separated asylum seeking children.

182. We also recommend that the Government consider how section 11 of the Children Act could be extended to include authorities providing support for asylum seekers, the Immigration Service and the IRCs.

Care of separated asylum seeking children

183. A significant minority of those claiming asylum in the UK are separated children. Home Office statistics indicate that in 2005, 2,965 children applied for asylum in the UK. This represents 11.5 per cent of all applications for asylum in that year. This figure does not include a further 2,425 (9.4 per cent) of applications made by those claiming to be children whose age was subsequently disputed and who were treated as adults for the purpose of the asylum process and welfare support.[253] Recent research suggests that these statistics are incomplete and that some children seeking asylum do not come into contact with the authorities.[254] Separated asylum seeking children arrive in the UK from a wide variety of countries of origin. The Home Office's statistics indicate that the majority arrive from countries experiencing armed conflict or serious repression of minority groups or political opponents. In 2005 the main countries of origin were Afghanistan (18 per cent), Iran (15 per cent), Somalia (8 per cent), Eritrea (7 per cent), Iraq (6 per cent), China (6 per cent) and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (5 per cent). The number of separated asylum seeking children in the UK is perceived by IND to be a growing problem in terms of immigration control, and creates issues for local authorities about how to provide appropriate accommodation, support and care.


184. Although the Home Office is responsible for deciding whether a separated child should be granted asylum in the UK, it has no power to provide accommodation or financial support whilst the asylum application is being processed.[255] The duty to provide support to separated asylum seeking children falls to local authority social service departments, who are under a statutory duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of any child in need, irrespective of his or her immigration status, under the Children Act 1989. The Government accepts that the provision of services for children should be funded centrally and, in 1996, introduced a grant for separated asylum seeking children. Social service departments claim each year for the costs of services provided for this group of children. A proportion of these costs is then met by the Home Office. The Department of Health (which was responsible for separated asylum seeking children before this responsibility was transferred to the Department for Education and Skills in 2004) issued guidance to local authorities in 2003[256] stating that where an asylum seeking child has no parent or guardian in the UK, there is a presumption that the child will be accommodated under section 20 of the Children Act 1989. Section 20 allows for a child to be taken into the "looked after" system. This would normally entail placement with a foster parent or in residential care for those under 16, although more independent living arrangements, for example in shared flats or supervised accommodation, might be found to be appropriate for the older age group. Once a child is accommodated the local authority has further ongoing duties to safeguard and promote the child's welfare, provide an appropriate package of support and conduct "Looked After Reviews" on a regular basis to ensure that the child's needs are being met.

185. The presumption that separated asylum seeking children should be looked after under section 20 of the Children Act can only be rebutted if the child does not wish to be accommodated and the local authority believes the child is sufficiently competent to look after himself or herself. However, we have heard evidence that separated asylum seeking children are not always provided with an appropriate care package. A study undertaken by Save the Children in 2005 found that some local authorities were not able to allocate all children and young people with a social worker and that the quality of accommodation and support was not always adequate. The study suggests that local authorities are not sufficiently resourced to provide proper and appropriate care for separated children, particularly those who have outstanding immigration issues. Recent research has also found that some local authorities are very reluctant to top up the grants provided by central government towards the accommodation and support of separated children from their own resources. [257] They are therefore reluctant to accommodate them under section 20 and provide them with foster care or supported hostel placements. Instead they choose to assist them under section 17 of the Children Act and place them in what amounts to bed and breakfast accommodation, often with minimal contact or support.

186. In their evidence to us, Save the Children described the current situation as resulting in a "lottery of care" which had very negative impacts on the health and welfare of separated children:

    "It really is a lottery in terms of the services an unaccompanied child get, whether they have a qualified social worker or an unqualified social worker, whether they have a named social worker or an unnamed social worker, whether they have any knowledge of the systems they are going through or whether they do not and…the quality of legal advice, if they get any at all, and access to education and access to health. We are seeing huge deterioration in children's mental health in some of the projects that we are working in, cases of self-harm and issues like that." [258]

In his evidence to us, the Children's Commissioner for England confirmed that a "looked after" service under section 20 was almost always going to be the most appropriate care route for a separated asylum seeking child, but raised concerns, shared by other Commissioners, that some children continued to be provided with a less comprehensive service under section 17 of the Children Act in order to avoid the costs of providing a leaving care service:

    "The Commissioners are concerned that many local authorities continue to provide accommodation to unaccompanied minors under section 17. It is doubtful whether these decisions are based on the young person's assessed needs but rather on the desire to avoid incurring leaving care duties." [259]

187. In addition witnesses told us that some local authorities were routinely "de-accommodating" separated asylum seeking children in order to reduce the costs of providing support. "De-accommodation" is a technical term which means essentially that children are taken out of the "looked after" system and provided with support under the leaving care provisions of the Children Act before they turn 18. These children will be provided with the support package that is provided to care leavers. They will have access to a personal adviser rather than a qualified social worker. Their needs as children will not be assessed or reviewed. The issue of "de-accommodation" was raised by the Children's Commissioner, who expressed concerns about the policy and practice of the London Borough of Hillingdon. Hillingdon has particularly extensive experience of and responsibility for asylum seeking children, because many enter the UK via Heathrow airport, which is located within Hillingdon's boundaries. The Children's Commissioner was concerned that separated asylum seeking children, who are frequently extremely vulnerable, were effectively being removed from the looked after system without due regard to the law, their needs or their welfare, and that their access to an appropriate level of service was thus prevented or restricted:

    "We consider that the Hillingdon policy of de-accommodating UASC children at 16 is inimical to these children and fails to adequately safeguard and promote their welfare. We further take the view that the policy violates the child's right to family life and private life under Article 8 ECHR and discriminates against UASC contrary to Article 14 ECHR. In addition, in introducing such a policy it would appear that the best interests of the child have not been the paramount consideration."[260]

188. There is some evidence that the problem of "de-accommodation" arises from the fact that the financial costs, both direct and indirect, of providing an appropriate accommodation and support package to separated asylum seeking children under section 20 of the Children Act are only partly met by the Home Office's grant. The London Borough of Hillingdon told us that it had no formal or blanket policy to "de-accommodate" separated asylum seeking children and that its practice was to provide services on the basis of assessed need.[261] However, further information produced by the Children's Commissioner,[262] provided clear evidence that Hillingdon had adopted a de-accommodation policy. The evidence stated that, contrary to local authority guidance, there was no expectation that children would remain "looked after" unless there was an "exceptional reason" and advised social workers to avoid placing asylum seeking children in foster care to avoid the "obvious problems" that would arise. Hillingdon also told us that the Home Office grant was insufficient to cover its costs:

    "At the current time Hillingdon is responsible for 1137 UASC… As a consequence of the local authorities support to UASC, this council has faced the following funding problems (Funding Gap 2004/05 £1.6m, Funding Gap 2005/06 £4.7m, Funding Gap Ongoing £6m). London Borough of Hillingdon is currently pursuing a Judicial Review of the Government in respect of retrospective charges to grant funding which has created funding pressures for this Council. All public bodies are required to operate within limited resources and London Borough of Hillingdon is no exception to this, however the pressure on this Council to fund services to UASC is far greater than that of any other Local Authority in the Country. Despite this, London Borough of Hillingdon contends that their practices in regard to support to UASC are neither discriminatory or unlawful. The Council further contends that if greater funding was available there is no doubt that services to children and young people could be improved and enhanced."

189. The Immigration Minister told us that the proposed reforms to arrangements for the support of separated asylum seeking children would not lead to more resources being available to local authorities:

    "Sadly, as the Immigration Minister it is difficult for me to change the local government settlement so I do not think there is recourse for me to change funding that way, nor do I have evidence that the rates we have published in the field are the wrong rates." [263]

190. We are concerned about the detrimental consequences of providing inadequate and inappropriate support and accommodation to separated asylum seeking children. These children, who come to the UK, often traumatised, from some of the most troubled regions of the world, are particularly vulnerable. All local authorities should follow the guidance set out in LAC13 (2003) and provide separated children with support under section 20 of the Children Act. Children should not be "de-accommodated" before they turn 18.

191. We recognise that the difficulties local authorities face in providing an appropriate package of accommodation and support to separated asylum seeking children are compounded by the lack of additional resources available to social service departments, and by a broader political and policy context which pushes the needs of separated children down the already long list of priorities facing local authorities in providing children's services. Local authorities must be provided with sufficient funds to deliver an appropriate package of support and care, including leaving care costs.

192. We have heard evidence that the difficulties that many separated children face in accessing appropriate care and support are exacerbated by the fact that these children, including those who have been granted discretionary leave, are not provided with a legal guardian or advocate who can ensure that they receive the services and support to which they are entitled. Although the Refugee Council's Children's Panel of Advisers is able to support some children, it does not have a statutory role and its resources are limited.[264] One mechanism for ensuring that separated asylum seeking children are aware of their rights and have access to the support to which they are entitled is to provide these children with a guardian, as recommended by the Children's Commissioner.[265] The guardian would be appointed as soon as a separated child is identified and the arrangement would continue until the child reached the age of 18 or permanently left the UK. According to Save the Children such an arrangement would be able to prevent the "lottery of care" which currently exists. [266]

193. We are concerned that there is currently no statutory oversight for ensuring that separated children are able to access the services and support to which they are entitled, and for ensuring that the wide range of bodies in contact with a child act in his or her best interests. This is despite the requirement of Article 19 of the EU Reception Directive, that separated children should be provided with a guardian. We recommend that a formal system of guardianship should be established for separated children subject to immigration control, including separated asylum seeking children. The guardian would have a statutory role and would be appointed by a statutory body to safeguard the best interests of the child and provide a link between all those providing services and support. The guardian should be expected to intervene if public bodies act in contravention of their legal duties towards a child.


194. The Home Office told us that it had been considering a number of improvements to the way that separated asylum seeking children are supported. [267] Its proposals to reform current arrangements for the support of separated children were published as a consultation paper on 1 March 2007. The UASC Reform Programme is of great significance in its systematic and wide-ranging scope and in its attempt to subordinate welfare services provided to unaccompanied children to the objectives of immigration control. An explicit objective of the programme is to realign immigration and child care systems and to ensure that care systems acquire an "immigration focus". These reform proposals could create major challenges for social workers providing services to separated children. The following are among the proposals outlined in the consultation paper:

  • creation of reception and dispersal model for unaccompanied young people;
  • closely aligning immigration and care systems;
  • Home Office commissioned Social work Teams;
  • social workers to work more closely with Immigration Officers;
  • "separate and different" support services for unaccompanied young people;
  • "care planning" in preparation for deportation;
  • attempt to drive down costs and reduce the quality of care;
  • restricted educational opportunities post 16;
  • improved systems of surveillance and supervision;
  • possible use of X rays and dental checks as means of age assessment;
  • planned returns of under 18s and Fast Track deportations of 18 year olds.

195. Many groups working with unaccompanied asylum seeking children are concerned that these proposals will further undermine the safety and welfare of one of the most vulnerable groups in society. For example, the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture[268] stated that the proposed changes amounted to a cost-saving exercise that was a betrayal of the Government's undertaking on child welfare and that the changes, many of which have already been negotiated or even introduced, would have a major and negative impact on the care, support and protection arrangements for child asylum seekers. The Children's Commissioners have described the Home Office's approach to the needs of separated asylum seeking children as "unsympathetic, sceptical and insensitive" and have criticised the focus on enforcement and cost savings:

"Overall these proposals will make it harder for children to seek protection in the UK, restrict their entitlements while here, including access to education, and speed up their removal with little regard for their best interests. The historic failure of the asylum determination system to properly account for separated children's protection needs mean that these proposals present a high risk strategy which jeopardises the Government's commitment to safeguarding children." [269]

196. We recommend that the Government's proposals to reform the arrangements for supporting unaccompanied asylum seeking children should be carefully scrutinised against the benchmark of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to ensure that this group are not excluded from the care, consideration and protection to which all children and young people are entitled.


197. There has been a significant increase in the number of asylum seekers arriving in the UK who state that they are under 18 years of age but whose status as children is disputed by the Home Office and/or a social services department. In 2005 nearly half (45 per cent) of all applications made by those presenting as unaccompanied asylum seeking children were age disputed and the applicants treated as adults.[270] Many of these disputes remain unresolved with implications for the Home Office, for social services departments, for legal representatives, for voluntary sector practitioners and, most importantly, for the unaccompanied children and young people themselves.

198. The Home Office suggests that the key issue is that of adults pretending to be children in order to access services and support to which they are not entitled. According to Jeremy Oppenheim, the Children's Champion for IND, there are three possible reasons for the increase in age disputed cases:

"The first is that, over time, we have improved, with agencies who deal with children, our identification of what we call age disputed cases. Over time it has become something on which we have worked more closely with other agency partnerships in identifying. Secondly, there are some improved methods for revealing age disputed cases than there have been previously and I think that has been going on over the last three or four years Lastly, I think there is a greater evidence of exploitation by people claiming to be one age when they are possibly another. There are significant incentives for people at the moment to claim to be younger than they are…"[271]

199. Evidence from voluntary sector organizations and from the research undertaken by Bhabha and Finch suggests that the Home Office often disputes the stated age of an applicant without taking into proper account the potential risks and violation of rights which arise from wrongly treating as a child as an adult. According to Bhabha and Finch:

"A very significant number of unaccompanied or separated children are denied access to a child appropriate asylum process and to social services accommodation because their age is disputed…This sometimes occurs because the child travelled on a passport with an adult's date of birth, even though the case worker accepts that the passport in question was false. More usually it occurs because the officer simply thinks the child looks like an adult."[272]

200. ILPA is currently undertaking research into the experiences of children whose age is disputed. The research has found that the IND staff do not always give the "benefit of the doubt" in practice and that there are inconsistencies in the process of age assessment currently undertaken by social service departments. Statistical evidence supports the claim that the Home Office does not give the "benefit of the doubt" as its own policy says it should. In 2005 over 60 per cent of those detained at Oakington who were assessed by the local authority were found to be children following a formal age assessment.[273]

201. The Children's Commissioner has expressed his concern about disputes over the age of asylum seeking children and a lack of appropriate procedures for ensuring that children are properly and fairly age assessed and are not simply treated as adults:

"Although Home Office policy is for the immigration officer to apply the "benefit of the doubt" in favour of the applicant in borderline cases, the evidence suggests that in practice this is frequently not adhered to. The result is that a substantial number of asylum seekers who are in fact unaccompanied children are excluded from the protection of the domestic care regime which incorporates the "best interests" principle guaranteed by the CRC." [274]

The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) considers that age determination is an inexact science, and that estimates of a child's physical age from X rays of his or her dental development are only capable of producing a four year age range for 95 per cent of the population.[275] The Royal College of Radiologists has also advised its members that a request from an immigration officer to have an X ray to confirm chronological age would be unjustified both on grounds of accuracy and also because of the risks attached to using ionising radiation for non-clinical purposes.[276] According to the RCPH guidelines, the determination of age is a complex process where various types of physical, social and cultural factors all play their part, although none provide a wholly exact or reliable indication of age, especially for older children. For this reason, assessments of age should only be made in the context of an integrated examination of the child and no single measurement or type of assessment should be relied on.[277] However, the Home Office proposes to introduce dental X-rays in an attempt to assess the age of those presenting as children. According to the Immigration Minister this is to prevent the risks associated with having adults in systems designed for children:

"If it is true that a dental X-ray is able to establish with a more precise range an individual's age than, for example, any other form of X-ray or, indeed, any other form of determination, then I think we have to look very hard at that evidence because we cannot have adults in the children's system. To have adults in the children's system poses a serious threat to our obligation to protect children effectively." [278]

202. We have also heard concerns about the continuing detention of children whose stated age is disputed. The Government has recently conceded that the approach to fast-track detention in disputed age cases, prior to a change in policy in November 2005, did not strike the right balance between, on the one hand, the interests of firm and fair immigration control and, on the other hand, the importance of avoiding the detention of unaccompanied children, save in exceptional cases and limited circumstances.[279] However there is evidence of a gap between the new policy which was introduced to redress the balance and the reality of current practice. Voluntary sector practitioners maintain that age disputed children continue to be detained, especially at the end of the process when the Home Office is seeking to remove them from the UK. The Children's Commissioner states that:

"Home Office policy is not to detain unaccompanied children. This policy was not applied to age disputed cases until a policy change, effective from February 2006, reduced the discretion of immigration officers to authorise detention in the fast track asylum processing regimes operating at Oakington, Harmondsworth and Yarl's Wood removal centres.

Despite the welcome change in policy, the Children's Commissioners have seen evidence that some children are still being processed in the detained fast track." [280]

203. We are concerned by the lack of recognition given by the Government to the risks of having children whose age is disputed in the adult system. We are not convinced that the Home Office is ensuring that the "benefit of the doubt" is given to separated asylum seeking children or that local authorities receive appropriate training and support to enable them to undertake an integrated assessment process. We are also concerned that age disputed children continue to be detained as adults despite Government policy which says that this should not happen; and legal actions, in which the Home Office has conceded that this approach is not appropriate.

204. It is clearly a priority that the gap between current policy in relation to age disputed cases and the realities of current practice are closed. Children must be given the benefit of the doubt because the risks associated with treating children as adults are much greater than those of treating adults as children. We recommend that where an asylum seeker's age is disputed even where the benefit of the doubt has been given, he or she should be provided with accommodation by the appropriate social service department in order for an integrated age assessment to be undertaken, considering all relevant factors. X-rays and other medical assessment methods should not be relied upon, given the margin of error. The process for dealing with age disputes should be reviewed, particularly in light of the evidence and recommendations arising from the research currently being undertaken by ILPA and due to be published shortly, with a view to ensuring that no age disputed asylum seeker is detained or removed unless and until an integrated age assessment has been undertaken.

244   We have chosen to use the term 'separated children' in this chapter because this is the term used in most countries to describe those children who are outside their country of origin and separated from their parents or legal or customary primary carer. In the UK, separated children who have applied for asylum are commonly referred to as unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASC). This term does not include those children who are accompanied by an adult who is not their parent, guardian or primary carer. Back

245   Twenty-sixth Report of Session 2005-06, op. cit., para. 180. Back

246   Appendix 56. Back

247   Appendix 56. Back

248   ibidBack

249   Appendix 74. Back

250   Seventeenth Report of Session 2004-05, Review of International Human Rights Instruments, HL Paper 99/HC 264. Back

251   Q500. Back

252   Q500. Back

253   Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 2005, Home Office. Back

254   Bhabha and Finch (2006) Seeking Asylum Alone: Unaccompanied and separated children and refugee protection in the UK Massachusetts: Harvard University  Back

255   Appendix 69. Back

256   Local Authority Circular (LAC) 13 (2003) Guidance on Accommodating Children in Need and their FamiliesBack

257   Bhabha and Finch (2006) op. cit. Back

258   Q122. Back

259   Appendix 56. Back

260   Appendix 80. Back

261   Appendix 84. Back

262   Appendix 80. Back

263   Q506. Back

264   Q122. Back

265   Appendix 56. Back

266   Q122. Back

267   Appendix 69. Back

268   Press release available at Back

269   Press release available at Back

270   Asylum Statistics UK 2005, Home Office, 2006. Back

271   Q511. Back

272   Bhabha and Finch (2006) op. cit. p.55. Back

273   Appendix 56. Back

274   ibidBack

275   RCPCH (1999) The Health of Refugee Children: Guidelines for Paediatricians, para. 5.6. Back

276   Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (1999), The Health of Refugee Children: Guidelines for Paediatricians  Back

277   Bhabha and Finch, op. cit. (2006). Back

278   Q514. Back

279  Back

280   Appendix 56. Back

previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 30 March 2007