Letter from the Rt Hon Michael Howard, QC, MP, Home
Secretary, to Lord Hoffmann, Chairman of Sub-Committee E
Thank you for your letter of 17 December[1] concerning
the proposed EU Joint Position on Unaccompanied Minor Asylum
Seekers. Although Sub-Committee E has decided to refrain from
undertaking a detailed enquiry in this matter, it has asked for
clarification on a number of points.
Data on the numbers of unaccompanied children has been maintained
separately only since 1992. The numbers of applications are:
1992 - 190
1993 - 275
1994 - 416
1995 - 597
1996 - 262 (to end June)
Figures are not available for decisions before May 1995, when
a specialist caseworking unit dealing with asylum applications
from unaccompanied minors was established. From May 1995 to November
1996 the following decisions were made:
As at 1 December 1996, there were 470 applications outstanding.
The Sub-Committee has asked whether we will be able to
secure a change to the draft text to include children abandoned
after entering the country. Discussions on the text are still
at an early stage but there seems to be an acceptance that a
more flexible definition of unaccompanied minor will be required.
Article 3 (Reception) reflects among other things the use
of reception centres for children. Although this is not the practice
in the United Kingdom, some children may be accommodated by local
authorities in residential homes. We recognise that accommodating
young people over 16 in independent living arrangements may, in
appropriate cases, be the best way of meeting their needs, and
the text should allow for this.
It has already been agreed that Article 4 (detention) should
be amended to more accurately reflect the arrangements across
EU Member States. It remains the policy of the United Kingdom
Government that unaccompanied minors are detained only as a last
resort and normally temporary admission is granted so that the
child can be placed in the care of a suitable sponsor or the relevant
Social Services Department. The legal basis for detention derives
from Schedules 2 and 3 of the Immigration Act and no age limits
are specified. In deciding whether to detain, account is taken
of all individual circumstances. It is already our policy to detain
unaccompanied minors, whether asylum seekers or not, as a very
last resort and every effort is made to keep periods of detention
to an absolute minimum. The authority of an Immigration Inspector
is required for the detention of anyone under the age of 18 and
detention is reviewed by an Assistant Director within 24 hours.
A check of detention records on 2 January showed only two people
in detention claiming to be under the age of 18: both are believed
by the Home Office to be over 18.
Where detention is considered unavoidable minors are accommodated
in immigration detention centres, which are run on the lines
of secure hostels. Although some immigration detainees are held
in Prison Service accommodation under powers in the Immigration
Act 1971, this does not apply to a person under the age of 18.
On the question of age assessment (Article 7), information
is not available on the number of applications where adults have
claimed to be minors, but there are certainly cases where this
has happened and it is a problem that other agencies have encountered
(Mrs Williamson refers to it in the Refugee Council's submission
to the Sub-Committee). It is common for asylum seekers to have
no documentation; where this involves young people, they are
frequently given the benefit of any doubt about their ages. Our
general position remains as outlined in paragraph 20 of the Explanatory
Note. Where there is an age dispute the burden of proof rests
with the applicant and if acceptable documentary proof cannot
be provided, due weight will be attached to any medical age assessments
that the child or his representatives wish to present. If a decision
is reached that the applicant should not be accepted as a child
then that decision can be questioned and reviewed at any appeal
proceedings. If the dispute involves someone who is detained
then there is the opportunity for the applicant to state his case
at a bail hearing. These are practical and independent safeguards.
The submissions to the Sub-Committee agree that any medical
examination must be by consent and this is explicit in Article
7. However, if the burden of proof rests with the Secretary of
State, there is a real risk that more people who are over 18
would destroy their documents and claim to be children, knowing
that if they withheld their consent to a medical examination
it would be very difficult to disprove their claims.
3 February 1997
1 Printed in Correspondence with Ministers, 5th Report, Session 1996-97, p. 35. Back
