1/ There's some confusion about the government's proposal to change the law concerning unaccompanied child asylum seekers. Here's an explanation.
2/ A comparison of the existing law with the government's proposed replacement. Note that the govt is *not* proposing to "remove rights from child refugees" (as widely reported) but to remove an obligation to *negotiate* on this issue.
3/ We can't be sure that the EU *would* negotiate on this anyway. The political declaration on the future relationship doesn't mention it. But I don't know offhand if the govt *tried* to negotiate this issue as required (does anyone have a link to any govt clarification on this?)
4/ Currently the "Dublin III" rules on responsibility for asylum seekers' applications contain rules on family reunion for asylum seekers. They will apply between the UK/EU until the end of the transition period. As I said, no mention of future talks in the political declaration.
5/ The withdrawal agreement doesn't even set out rules on what happens to *pending* Dublin transfers of asylum seekers at end of transition. UK has a unilateral rule (see sch 2 here: legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/745/…) but EU might take different view. WA Joint Committee can adopt rules.
6/ The current rules on unaccompanied child asylum seekers are Art 8 of the Dublin III Reg: eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/…
The Member State where the child has a family member (which will usually be the parent) or sibling legally present will usually be responsible for the asylum claim.
The Member State where the child has a family member (which will usually be the parent) or sibling legally present will usually be responsible for the asylum claim.
7/ Failing that, the Member State where the child has a relative (defined as aunt, uncle or grandparent) who is legally present and can take care of the child is responsible for the asylum claim. If there's no family, the default is where the child claimed asylum.
8/ A post-Brexit UK/EU deal might not simply copy these rules in the Dublin III Reg, and would also have to include rules on the details of sending and replying to requests to take responsibility, and to transfer the child asylum seeker, which are the same/comparable to Dublin.
9/ There's no legal or practical reason for the govt's proposed amendment to remove the obligation to negotiate on family reunion for child asylum-seekers. I suggest lobbying the Lords to vote this clause down, and the EU side to show an interest in future negotiations on this.
10/ Note that this is a distinct issue from the earlier Dubs amendment of 2016 on unaccompanied child refugees, which the govt is reportedly implementing badly:
More details of that law here: childrenslegalcentre.com/section-67-lea…
More details of that law here: childrenslegalcentre.com/section-67-lea…
11/ As I noted before Johnson's reply to @joannaccherry on this proposal was Orwellian. It's not the opposition which seeks to tack child asylum seekers onto the withdrawal agreement bill, but the govt which seeks to remove its separate current obligation:
