Last month I accompanied Tim Farron on a visit to a British Red Cross centre in Gravesend, Kent to learn about the projects they run for unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASCs). Home to the British end of the Channel Tunnel, Kent has always had a high proportion of UASCs, but 2015 brought an unprecedented number, with over 1000 new children entering into the care of the Local Authority. During our visit we met young people from Sudan and Eritrea who spoke about their experiences both in transit and since they’ve arrived in the UK.
In many ways it was similar to the visit I took with Tim and Catherine Bearder to Cologne in February, but there were also startling differences, and the starkest difference was in access to language courses and education.
In Cologne, language was the absolute priority. The Deputy Mayor, Andreas Wolter explained to us that they had learnt lessons from the 1970s when little attempt was made to integrate the influx of Turkish people to Germany, leaving what he described as “dual societies”, with little effort to teach German to first generation Turks. Now, with the new refugees from Syria and beyond, they were investing in German classes for everyone as soon as possible after arrival. We met Syrian teenagers who had been in Germany for a few months and happily introduced themselves in German- name, age, where they were from and what career they were planning to pursue.
The contrast in Kent was bleak. Only two of the seven kids we met were having English lessons, and they all needed translators for more than the absolute basics, despite some of them having been in the UK for more than six months. Access to ESOL level one- the standardised entry level English as a second language course- is almost impossible for them. None of the colleges in Kent offer it anymore, and the college in Lewisham they used to travel to had recently stopped the course. All the young people were adamant that they wanted to go to school. They want to learn English, get an education and get a job.
Both experiences have provided Tim and our team with incomparable insight of the challenges to integration, of safeguarding for the vulnerable, and the clear value of getting it right. Yesterday, Tim launched a blueprint which answers some of the challenges of implementing the campaign to resettle over 3,000 unaccompanied refugee children from within Europe, with input from experts across the sector and local government officials.
Anyone who is paying attention will realise that the refugee crisis isn’t going away, and my colleagues and I will continue to support Tim in pushing the UK government to stand up for the rights of those fleeing conflict and persecution, both at home or abroad.
Earlier this week Tim also visited the border between Greece and Macedonia with my colleague Vinous, who will to follow this up with a piece on the experience out there in the next few days.
* Fionna Tod is the Parliamentary Adviser on Foreign Affairs, Defence and International Development
10 Comments
Fionna Tod | Fri 15th April 2016 – 10:24 am
Unless there has been a dramatic change of policy this post is confused.
Unaccompanied children do not always seek asylum, or express a fear of returning to their home country, simply because they are children. They need protection and there should be efforts to find a responsible parent or guardian. Many will stay in the UK with a grant of leave to remain until adulthood, at their 18th birthday.
Children who express a fear of returning should be be treated as seeking asylum and interviewed about the asylum claim by a sensitive and suitably trained asylum caseworker. It would not be surprising if there is currently a shortage of such people.
A responsible adult or guardian may be in another safe country if separated in transit or travelling at a different time. For instance the numbers show that Sweden has been generous. If the adult is settled there the child may join the adult and may be expected to learn Swedish in preference to English.
Germany has taken in large numbers of people who are not asylum seekers or who would be refused if they claimed asylum. This is partly because Germany has demographic problems resulting from a declining birth-rate, partly from the nature of the three party coalition in the German federal government. A Conservative-Labour coalition in the UK is unusual except in wartime or economic recession.
Applicants’ solicitors will usually advise their clients to use the independent interpreters that the Home Office pays for unless English is the first language of the applicant.
A mistake that the UK made was in dispersing Vietnamese boat people evenly around the UK. They needed to talk to each other and there was secondary migration as they gathered together.
Seriously,..can someone explain to me Tim Farron’s thinking.? Why is Tim only interested in migrants and refugees to the exclusion of everything else? Are British voters and their myriad of problems even on Tim’s radar screen? And conversely, if the problems of British voters are not on his radar screen, why on earth would British voters see Tim [and Lib Dems], on their radar screen? Indeed,.. why are you constantly baffled that voters reject you when Tim’s sole motivation is to fling open the borders to all comers, seemingly oblivious to the fact that housing, health care, schools etc,.. are already a severe problem for those already incumbent British Nationals,.. i.e. *voters*?
From the outside looking in, it appears that Tim is in the wrong job. Might he be better placed working for the UN or Red Cross, or some such organisation?
@ J Dunn,
So what is your thinking? Given the current issue of mass migration of people from war zones, what would be your solution to the problem?
Much as one might wish otherwise, it is not a problem that is just going to go way.
Jayne Mansfield: According to YouGov 11% (down from 18%) of voters think Tim Farron is doing a good job as Liberal Democrat leader compared to 31% who do not. He does not appeal to the voters because he does not deal with their concerns. However important the problems of immigration may be, and yes they are not going away, the leader of a political party must have wide popular support to be able to deal with issues effectively.
J.Dunn Spot on.
@nvelope
I am unaware of the Yougov poll. When was it commissioned?
Aren’t you jumping to conclusions as to why fewer people, according to a poll, think that Tim Farron is doing a good job as leader?
Former Liberal Democrat voters like myself might think that on this particular issue he is showing real leadership. When the chips are down, one finds out who really supports the most basic human rights and international law, popular or otherwise.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/categories/politics/
Jayne Mansfield: I did not say that Tim Farron’s falling popularity was due to his support for migrants. What I said was that the voters did not see him as addressing their concerns. Now that he has shown support for your concerns are you going to vote Liberal Democrat at the next opportunity ?
nvelope2003,
What are the concerns that in your view, Tim Farron are not addressing?
Tim Farron has to his great credit addressed a pressing, major concern of mine , one that for me has a higher priority than many others because of the utterly devastating consequences for the people involved.
Am I going to vote Liberal Democrat at the next opportunity. As things currently stand, no. There is now a choice of a party with a leader who has the same attitude to unaccompanied migrant children and our obligation to people fleeing war zones.
Whatever my misgivings about that leader, I feel pretty clear about what he stand for. I don’t have the same certainty about Tim . He was considered left of centre, but has spoken of his pride in Liberal Democrat achievements in coalition, and more importantly found himself able to vote for military involvement in Syria.
Much as I try, I really do not know what the Liberal Democrats Party stands for, it seems terribly incoherent.
The trouble is there is still a deep division between the so called classical liberals who are still in denial about the Coalition years and the remaining social liberals (including some who came back post May hoping for better things). Tim’s heart is probably with the latter group but he also has to deal with the first group – an almost impossible scenario which may take years to resolve.
My advice to Tim, for what it is worth, would be to stop looking over his shoulder at the Clegg/Ashdown voices from the past and stand up for what he really believes in – without forever having to nod in the direction of those who played an unpleasant personal card against him in the leadership campaign.
The other point about the polls is that he is still outperforming the party’s rating.
I understand what Jayne M. is saying and it has some force.