EMN IRELAND REPORT ON UNACCOMPANIED MINORS - 2014

The European Migration Network (EMN) Ireland last week produced a report detailing the policies, procedures and circumstances surrounding unaccompanied minors. Unaccompanied children can be defined as children who are not in the care of a responsible adult. The report coincides with a general upward trend in the numbers of unaccompanied minors in the EU and a decrease in the number of unaccompanied minors in Ireland. The primary reason for this was cited as economic factors. 

In the report, many of the shortcomings of the system are called into question. The report accepts that major improvements have been that have addressed the specific issues faced by these children. Prior to the reforms, unaccompanied children were placed in hostel-based care. The report notes that this was wholly inadequate as it failed to recognise that the children were already in a uniquely vulnerable position and hostel-based care was unsuitable for the needs of children. The report states that the lack of regional oversight and inconsistencies in care around the country have been improved on greatly in recent years. However, the report states that more resources are required outside the Dublin region and explain that there is a lack of comprehensive data on the situation facing children in rural Ireland especially. 

In recent years, TUSLA have been given the responsibility of supporting these children through foster care and residential placements. This is far more child-friendly than the hostel-style care in place before. The recent ease on the State resources (due to the reduction of unaccompanied children in Ireland) has contributed to the improvements in the system. 

There is one noteworthy recommendation contained in the report in relation to family reunification. There is no policy in Ireland for the repatriation unaccompanied children however the report recommends that there be follow up family reunification as part of the after-care of children. The report concedes that this is a difficult task as these children often have a general mistrust of people and therefore are unlikely to divulge any information about their family or country of origin. 

The report notes that the lack of legal status afforded to this group places them in a position of unique vulnerability. Often, the children are sent to Ireland to seek work or to reunite with family. It would seem from the report that the principle difficulty with the situation is that the unaccompanied children fall into the categories of children and immigrants. There is a natural tension therefore between the child protection concerns and the immigration concerns. It appears that greater legal recognition of the status of such unaccompanied children will afford them greater protection. It may also act to reduce their vulnerability, improve their quality of life and ensure that difficulties in regularising their status when they turn 16 are averted. 

Rebecca Keatinge 

MIGRANT ACCESS TO SOCIAL SECURITY & HEALTHCARE: POLICES AND PRACTICE IN IRELAND

Migrant access to social security has proved controversial across Europe, with a widespread perception that migrants account for a larger proportion of social security recipients than nationals. However, administrative data proves this to be incorrect, illustrating that in a number of social security areas there is actually an under representation of migrants as opposed to nationals. 

A recent European Migration Network (EMN) study finds that in terms of jobseekers benefit there is a disproportionately low level of migrants receiving payments at 14.7% of recipients, compared to their 15.4% share of the labour force. It was also found that the number of EU nationals between the ages of 15 and 28 receiving jobseekers allowance and jobseekers benefit were disproportionately high at 9.7% and 8.7% respectively while only accounting for 7% of the total labour force. In contrast non-EU nationals were found to be underrepresented only accounting for 3.1% and 1.6% of each benefit despite making up 4.1% of the labour forces. The study and its findings can be viewed here: http://emn.ie/files/p_201407170618162014_Migrant%20Access%20to%20Social%20Security.pdf

As well as looking at the numbers of migrants in receipt of the key social security benefits in Ireland, the EMN study also looked at the related policy decision making. In practice, Ireland applies the same rules governing access to social security to migrants as to non-migrants, however, their impact can differ greatly.

Firstly, the necessity of meeting the Habitual Residency Condition (HRC) was examined. While both groups are subjected to the same requirements, the impact on each can be substantially different. This is mainly due to the fact that there is not a sufficiently clear definition of Habitual Residence leaving a huge amount of discretion to the deciding officer in the Department of Social Protection. A number of NGOs have characterised the assessment of Habitual Residence as “too subjective and complex” to allow consistency in decision making. A 2008 Barrett and McCarthy study suggests that this discretion might very well be the reason for the lower proportion of migrant recipients. 

Difficulties can also arise from the assessment of the applicant migrant’s right to residence. In theory it entails a straight forward assessment of their status. In reality, it is much more complex due to the various permits available and the different rights each confer. Ten years on from its 2004 introduction, the system undoubtedly needs significant updating.

The EMN study also highlighted the ambiguity which has arisen from the separate evolution of the Irish immigration and social security policies. By way of example, would the holder of a work permit for a specified job be categorised as ‘available for and genuinely seeking work’? What exactly qualifies as ‘becoming a burden on the state’?

Similar issues are faced in regards to access to health services with migrants having to satisfy ‘ordinary resident’ conditions of having resided in the state or intending to reside in the state for at least a year. Despite its formal introduction in the Health Services (Amendment) Act 1991, no formal definition was provided, once again causing ambiguity and uncertainty.

As noted by the EMN study and from our own experience, there are clearly issues and discrepancies which need to be addressed in relation to migrants access to social security and health services.

Caroline Grogana

Brophy Solicitors