Independent Child Trafficking Guardian service: child rights and wellbeing impact assessment (CRWIA)

Child Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment (CRWIA) for the Independent Child Trafficking Guardian service

1. Brief Summary

Type of proposal

• Decision of a strategic nature relating to the rights and wellbeing of children.

The Independent Child Trafficking Guardian (ICTG) service provides assistance, support and representation to unaccompanied children who are, or may be, a victim of the offence of human trafficking^[1]. Examples of Guardians’ responsibilities includes:

• Providing trafficking support, such as contributing to the safeguarding of the young person, and supporting them through the Home Office process for identification of trafficking (the National Referral Mechanism).
• Providing asylum support, advising the young person as they progress through the Home Office’s complex immigration process.
• Helping a child or young person to be actively involved in decisions that affect their life and to get the help they need, when they need it.

The ICTG service launched on 1 April 2023 (original CRWIA here), fulfilling the duty set out under section 11 of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015. The legislation places a duty on the Scottish Ministers to make such arrangements as they consider reasonable to enable a person (a Guardian) to be appointed to assist, support, and represent a child, where a local authority determines that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the child is (or may be) a victim of the offence of human trafficking, or is vulnerable to becoming a victim of that offence, and there is no person in the UK with parental rights of responsibilities in relation the child. Following an open and fair procurement process the contract was awarded to the Scottish Refugee Council who are delivering the service in partnership with Aberlour under the name ‘Guardianship Scotland’ (GS).

The current ICTG service will end on 31 March 2025, one year earlier than contracted, due to unmanageable demand that resulted in financial and contractual challenges. As a result, we are retendering the service to put in place a service that better aligns with the current demand arising from supporting continued high numbers of unaccompanied asylum seeking (UAS) children in Scotland.

The Scottish Government has been exploring options to modify the service in a way that enhances its value for money, but which would also involve introducing changes that differ from the previous service’s functions. We have identified three options for modifying the service:

• Option 1: Limiting the service to trafficking-specific assistance, support and representation only. Activities related to asylum support, age assessment, care planning, and facilitating integration into Scotland would be removed from Guardians’ responsibilities.
• Option 2: Restrict ICTG support to young people up to the age of 18, instead of 26.
• Option 3: Amend specific procedures within the ICTG service while retaining core functions related to trafficking and asylum.

The Scottish Government has chosen Option 3, with the reasons explained in responses to questions 2, 3 and 5.

The National Outcomes which this policy contributes to are, that people:

• grow up loved, safe and respected so that they realise their full potential
• respect, protect and fulfil human rights and live free from discrimination

Start date of proposal’s development: June 2024

Start date of CRWIA process: August 2024

2. With reference given to the requirements of the UNCRC (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024, which aspects of the proposal are relevant to children’s rights?

Option 1: Limiting the service to trafficking support only

This option would see the ICTG’s role reduced to trafficking-specific assistance, support and representation only. Activities related to immigration support, care planning and facilitating integration into Scotland would be removed from Guardians’ responsibilities. All unaccompanied children would receive trafficking support, however the type of support would differ depending on the child’s particular circumstances, such as if they have trafficking indicators and are going through the UK’s National Referral Mechanism process (a framework used to identify and support victims of trafficking).

Restricting support in this way has been considered as caseload management data provided by Guardianship Scotland shows that Guardians’ time is predominantly dedicated to asylum support.

In terms of the UNCRC articles, most of the impacts of this decision are neutral.

However, reducing the service level provided to vulnerable UAS children who are not trafficking victims could have a negative impact on the implementation of Article 3, which prioritises the best interests of the child. Article 6 (2) on ensuring the development of the child could be negatively impacted too. Limiting the ICTG’s functions so that young people no longer receive support with their asylum claims – a critical process for UAS children – could hinder their recovery, reduce their chances of a successful application, and affect their engagement with broader services.

To mitigate the impact of removing support that goes beyond trafficking-specific assistance, the Scottish Government would support local authorities, in their role as corporate parents to UAS children, to help with asylum statements and attending legal appointments to ensure there is no gap in the essential support provided.

Support with asylum claims is also recognised as a key form of trafficking prevention, as it allows Guardians to build trusting relationships with young people who are highly vulnerable to trafficking, exploitation, or re-trafficking. These relationships provide a critical safety net, enabling Guardians to identify risks early and offer protection. In many cases, young people are only recognised as potential trafficking victims after their asylum claims are processed, underscoring the importance of providing early, holistic support. In restricting Guardianship support to trafficking-specific activities only, the following articles could be negatively impacted as they address various aspects of exploitation, trafficking and recovery: Article 32 (child labour), Article 34 (sexual exploitation), Article 35 (abduction, sale and trafficking), Article 36 (other forms of exploitation), and Article 39 (recovery from trauma and reintegration).

In making any changes to the scope of the ICTG service, the Scottish Government will consider how other statutory services and policies can be reinforced to ensure that the changes do not have a negative impact on Articles 32, 34, 35, 36 and 39. To mitigate any negative impacts, where possible, we would:

• Continue supporting local authority children’s services to implement the National Guidance for Child Protection as this provides advice on the specific support needs and concerns of UAS children, and on preventing and responding to trafficking and exploitation.
• In updating the Scottish Government’s 2017 Trafficking and Exploitation Strategy, consider what monitoring provisions and safeguards are best for UAS children.
• Continue to ensure that UAS children have access to legal advice and representation through legal aid.
• Continue to provide education and healthcare, to help UAS children integrate, and to ensure their physical and mental health needs are met.

It is crucial to consider UAS children’s perspectives (Article 12) in order to uphold the spirit of Article 3, which emphasises the child's best interests. Consulting with children and young people about changes to the service’s functions would ensure that their needs and welfare are prioritised, allowing us to make decisions that place their best interests above other considerations, such as cost savings. UAS children’s views of the current ICTG service are outlined in Q3.

Option 2: Restrict ICTG support to young people up to the age of 18.

The Scottish Government considered the viability of retendering a service which would end ICTG support for unaccompanied children at the age of 18 years of age. This would be consistent with the scope of the equivalent service in England and Wales funded by the Home Office, as well as the scope of the majority of EU Guardianship services. Ending ICTG support at 18 years of age would also reduce demands on the service and costs as nearly 50% of the current service’s active cases are young adults aged 18 and above. Secondary legislation would be required to be approved by the Scottish Parliament to amend the existing rules set out in the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Independent Child Trafficking Guardians) (Scotland) Regulations 2023 which stipulate that a Guardian may support a child until that person reaches the age of 26 years (subject to that persons consent).

The impact of this option on UNCRC articles would be limited, as the UNCRC applies only to individuals under 18. Restricting services to this age group does not therefore engage the UNCRC articles.

However, this Option highlights the importance of maintaining consistency in supporting young people up to the age of 26. Continuing Care and Aftercare provisions recognise that some young adults aged 18 and over still require support, and maintaining the scope of the ICTG service to UAS children beyond 18 would align with the approach taken for other looked-after children in Scotland. This would also uphold The Promise, a commitment to ensuring that all UAS children are afforded the same opportunities as any other young person.

The Scottish Government’s ongoing support for care leavers and vulnerable young adults also reflects the principle that a person’s best interests should still be protected as they transition into adulthood. Legislation and frameworks in Scotland are an extension of the child protection principles embodied in the UNCRC, ensuring a smoother transition to adulthood for vulnerable young people.

Option 3: Amend specific procedures within the ICTG service while retaining core functions related to trafficking and asylum.

This option retains core functions related to trafficking and asylum for all UAS children and young people and instead aims to work with the supplier to consider how processes can be streamlined, allocation of resources improved, and to enhance overall efficiency. A decision regarding changes to these procedures has not been finalised; however, examples could include:

• Operating a regional model service of delivery.
• More rigorous case management practices.
• Developing guidance to template best practice and reinforce demarcation of responsibilities between Guardians and other services.

As this option retains core functions, the CRWIA for the provision of the previous ICTG service is relevant herein. As such, this option will have a positive impact in implementing UNCRC, since Guardians will continue to be appointed to all UAS children in Scotland, and will provide assistance and support navigating the complex immigration, asylum and trafficking systems. Additional capacity will be provided to the service to ensure that demands are met and to address the current capacity constraints. The ICTG will continue to represent young people in engaging with the various authorities and speak on the child’s behalf.

The best interests of the child will continue to be a primary consideration in any decisions to amend procedures within the ICTG service.

See previous CRWIA completed in relation to: The Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Independent Child Trafficking Guardians) (Scotland) Regulations 2023 (legislation.gov.uk)

3. Please provide a summary of the evidence gathered which will be used to inform your decision-making and the content of the proposal.

The options were developed with input from the current service provider, desk-based research, and consideration of the views of children and young people. While we did not engage directly with children and young people during the development of these specific options, two relevant consultations on the New Scots Integration Strategy 2024 and Your Voice Matters report captured UAS children’s perspectives on integration and guardianship. The feedback from these consultations played a role in shaping our understanding of the potential benefits and risks associated with each option, ensuring that their views were reflected in the decision-making process. This approach allowed us to incorporate their experiences and concerns into the overall evaluation of the service.

• Your Voice Matters (August 2024).

This report represents a mixture of the 198 responses to a survey, as well as observations from engagements with young people during the New Scots Integration Strategy consultations in Aberdeen, Glasgow and Inverness. The survey found that 75% of young people surveyed felt most comfortable speaking with their Guardian, compared to other adults (e.g. social worker, key worker, foster carer).

Young people also highlighted the importance of Guardianship Scotland as a place to make friends and build confidence.

“Guardianship is very important to us. It helps us to meet other young people and build our confidence”

“Our Guardians use interpreters which is very important”

“We all feel welcomed and loved at guardianship”

• Feedback from Guardianship Scotland

The Scottish Government ran two workshops with Guardianship Scotland. The insights and input from the provider were invaluable, given their extensive expertise as the incumbent (current holder of an office or position) and their long-standing experience delivering the previous non-statutory service for many years.

The workshops focused on:

• identifying the key drivers of workload and assessing the extent to which these could be managed or influenced;
• the resources required to deliver the service effectively in the current context; and,
• strengths and weaknesses of the model of guardianship which provides trafficking, asylum, and care planning support, and the risks and benefits of the different options.

Survivor-informed support for trafficked children in Scotland, University of Stirling (June 2023).

The researchers interviewed nineteen young people supported by the non-statutory Scottish Guardianship Service (SGS) which was the predecessor to the current statutory service. The study also drew on interviews with practitioners and data from the SGS over the past decade. One key finding was that young people indicated a high degree of satisfaction with the support provided by and through the SGS, highlighting activities that provided a structure and that brought them into contact with other people as particularly important.

“But I felt a lot of warmth coming from the Guardianship project, as soon as I met them.”

“They normally talk to me, they asked how I was, how my life was, whether my mood was okay, my mental health was okay, if I needed any help at all. They taught me how to deal with things, how to do things better.”

The research also noted that the number of missing unaccompanied children in Scotland is lower compared to England & Wales and indicated that it is potentially a result of the unique approach in Scotland which provides an ICTG service for all unaccompanied and trafficked children, and a service which had a more child protection, welfare-oriented approach.

Other existing research/reports/policy expertise

• Guardianship systems for unaccompanied children in the European Union, Developments since 2014 (2022)
• An evaluation of the Scottish Guardianship Service: The work of Guardians within asylum determination and National Referral Mechanism processes, Scottish Refugee Council (2021)
• Interim guidance for ICTGs (publishing.service.gov.uk), Home Office (2024)
• Independent Child Trafficking Guardian (ICTG) MSA evaluation, Home Office (2024)

4. Further to the evidence described at ‘3’ have you identified any 'gaps' in evidence which may prevent determination of impact? If yes, please provide an explanation of how they will be addressed.

No.

5. Analysis of Evidence

The evidence highlights the significant positive impact of the guardianship service on the rights and well-being of unaccompanied children and young people. Survey results demonstrate that the service plays a vital role in building trust and providing a sense of security, which is crucial for their emotional well-being. In addition to legal and administrative support, the service addresses mental health needs and promotes social integration by offering a space for peer interaction, helping to create a sense of normality and stability for this vulnerable group during a critical time.

The guardianship service is seen as essential in safeguarding young people, ensuring their rights are protected, and effectively reducing risks, such as instances of children going missing. Both feedback from young people and research studies underscore that the holistic approach of the guardianship model, which prioritises emotional support, protection, and welfare, is the most effective in upholding the rights and well-being of these children.

6. What changes (if any) have been made to the proposal as a result of this assessment?

After assessing the three options for modifying the service, including the associated UNCRC implications outlined in questions 2 and 3, we have selected Option 3—amending specific procedures within the ICTG service while preserving the core functions of the service.