A key safeguarding issue was for families and young people in hostels and accommodation where there were no checks on who else might be staying there. CSO1 commented on the issue as follows: “… knowingly, those with responsibility for safeguarding, which is all duty bearers, have allowed this to continue, without securing assurances… If those were children born in this jurisdiction, that would not be tolerated” (CSO1). CSO9 said that the perception was that “these children don’t matter, they just don’t matter as much as other children” (CSO 9). Safeguarding issues also arose for asylum seekers who were young, unable to work, increasingly desperate and potentially subject to exploitation by gangs and criminal elements. W2 participants noted that non-attendance at school could also be a safeguarding issue, but that this was not considered for asylum seeker and refugee children. Some W2 participants also considered that Mears’ general approach to the private and family life of asylum seekers and refugees was restrictive and oppressive. W1 participants said that concerns were originally mainly around contingency accommodation and the vetting of staff, as well as a lack of data about families and children and their needs. However, there was now also some concern that people are being moved from contingency accommodation into areas where they are at-risk as a result of hate crime and violence. CSO9 raised a number of concerns about children and safeguarding. CSO9 considered that there was a “lack of professional curiosity” about children’s ability to engage with services and safeguarding issues on the part of statutory bodies. Instead of seeing children’s rights as a minimum and non- negotiable “floor” , CSO9 said that statutory bodies considered that they were “the ceiling and we would all find our way there” (CSO9). CSO9 said there had been a lack of systemic response to safeguarding issues: “…everything that is happening this way in the devolved space is goodwill… So that was creating a vulnerability for the entire group of children that wasn’t individual” (CSO9). CSO1 agreed: “…[we have] the scenario where we still don’t know if everybody who is working in those hotels has been Access NI checked, and has been provided training, and this is after three years’ intensive work on this by ourselves, and [another CSO]” (CSO 1).
The use of contingency accommodation for families and children had reduced, but this caused some problems in itself, as smaller numbers meant that the issues were less visible: “what we now have is a small, probably, I got the figures the other day, about 150 – 200 children in hotels. And they’re now on no-one’s radar really, because there’s not enough of them now for anybody to merit the resource” (CSO9). W3 participants had a different view, however, and noted that issues had been raised around safeguarding and child protection in contingency accommodation (which they noted were the primary responsibility of Mears and the Home Office) however these issues had now been addressed. Some W3 participants noted, however, that a growing issue related to young people in age disputed cases who were increasingly being housed with adults. From March 2024, a new approach to age checks was bought in where asylum seekers were no longer being given the “benefit of doubt”. This meant some unaccompanied asylum seekers aged 16/17 were initially housed with adults and, consequently, to potential exposure to trauma, drugs and violence.
40 | Access to Public Services and Access to Justice for Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Northern Ireland
Made with FlippingBook Digital Publishing Software