It happened without fanfare, but in September 2008 the UK finally agreed to protect and promote the wellbeing of every child on British soil – irrespective of their immigration or asylum status.

Until then we were one of the few countries – Somalia was another – which maintained a reservation to the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. We reserved the right to treat children going through the immigration or asylum process less favourably than other children, as though they had been responsible for doing something wrong.

We saw no need to develop a legal framework for identifying the protection needs of minors who had been traumatised as child soldiers, for example, or had experienced persecution, human trafficking or sexual exploitation. We did not, in the words of Jacqueline Parlevliet, the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) deputy representative in London, ‘recognise that children in the asylum system are children first and foremost, and as such need special attention’.

That’s all changed now. This month the UNHCR reported on how well we are meeting our new commitments. The report looks at the quality of decisions made by the UK Border Agency (UKBA) in cases where children apply in their own right. It concludes that we’re doing well, but we’re not doing great.

There have been some improvements, but equally some errors are so basic they beggar belief – and could only happen in the parallel universe that is the asylum system. Some UKBA interviewers don’t prepare for interviews, for instance, and don’t trouble to read up on the country from which the applicant claims to have fled. More seriously, they fail to take into account the age of the applicants (which is not rocket science, given that they are children).

The report lists:

  • Failure to take into account the applicant’s age when judging the consistency and detail of his or her statement;
  • Failure to provide a child-friendly interview environment, appropriate seating or occasional breaks;
  • Failure to adapt standard information so that it can be understood by a child;
  • Failure to pursue other sources of evidence, but insisting the child ‘proves’ elements of his or her story, when this is clearly impractical; and
  • Failure to consider child protection issues, including evidence of trafficking or mistreatment in the UK, when making decisions on an asylum claim.

Clearly, there is a crucial role for immigration practitioners here, but little or no legal aid funding. Kids are kids, even if they are from overseas – but then we don’t have a great record of protecting our own either.