Children's Rights Alliance for England
State of Children's Rights in England
Annual review of UK Government action on
2002 Concluding Observations of the
United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child
November 2005
Human rights represent universal standards that transcend cultural and national boundaries, and that reflect principles and teachings in all the major faiths. They are encapsulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by consensus by the UN General Assembly in 1948, and reaffirmed at the UN World Conference on Human Rights held in Vienna in 1993. They are developed and codified in international law by individual UN treaties, of which six treaties are considered to provide the core of international human rights law.1 Human rights are indivisible, with civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights being mutually dependent and reinforcing.
Adherence to these core international human rights standards is increasingly seen as the benchmark by which to judge governments’ legitimacy.
Foreign and Commonwealth Office (March 2005) Human rights, democracy and governance strategy
… human rights are not a pick and mix assortment of luxury entitlements, but the very foundation of democratic societies.
Alvaro Gil-Robles, Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner, Report on the UK, June 2004
2 Children's rights in numbers
Child homicides 2003/04...... 70
Child homicides, of which baby homicides 2003/04...... 27
Child deaths in penal custody since April 2004...... 4
Child deaths in penal custody since 1990 ...... 29
Painful restraints in private child prisons in past year ...... 768
Average weekly education in Prison custody, 15-17 year-olds.... 8 hours
Child pedestrian and cycling deaths, 2004...... 106
Life expectancy of girl, Kensington and Chelsea...... 85.8 years
Life expectancy of boy, Manchester...... 72.3 years
Children in poverty 2003/04...... 3.5 million
Permanent exclusions from school 2003/04 ...... 9,880
Primary children permanently excluded 2003/04 ...... 1,270
Proportion of excluded children with SEN...... 63%
Proportion of ASBOs issued to children...... 44%
Youngest child to get an ASBO ...... 10 years
Breach of ASBO – children locked up this year...... 328
Asylum-seeking children detained each year...... 2,000
Asylum-seeking children denied state support this year...... 216
Proportion of children gaining average GCSEs ...... 56.5%
Proportion of children in care gaining average GCSEs...... 6%
Government Minister with UK children's rights in portfolio...... Nil
3
Contents
1. General measures of implementation ...... • Children deprived of liberty • Refugee children • Implementation of rights • Allocation of resources • Government coordination
2. General principles...... • Non-discrimination • Right to nationality • Best interests of the child • Plastic baton rounds
3. Civil rights and freedoms ...... • Access to information on parents’ identity • Restraint and solitary confinement • Abolition of 'reasonable chastisement' defence
4. Family environment and alternative care...... • Child deaths • Children in alternative care • Child protection and support for children • Crimes against children
5. Basic health and welfare...... • Inequalities in health and access to health services • Breastfeeding • Female genital mutilation • Teenage pregnancies • Health and sex education • Access to advice, information and support • Support for homosexual and transsexual young people • Child poverty • Youth homelessness • Social security benefits for 16 and 17 year-olds
6. Education, leisure and cultural activities...... • Pupil participation in decision-making • Exclusions • Educational inequalities • Right of children in detention to education • Bullying and violence in schools • Human rights education • Education for teenage mothers • Privatisation
7. Special protection measures...... • Rights of refugee and asylum-seeker children • Rights of Irish and Roma Traveller children • Minimum wage for young workers • Prostitution and sexual exploitation of children • Children and armed conflict • Juvenile justice system • Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child
8. Dissemination of the the Government’s second periodic report, and the Committee's 2002 concluding observations ......
5 Introduction
On October 4th 2002, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child issued a comprehensive report on the UK’s implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Committee’s 'concluding observations' set out actions required by government to make a reality of children’s human rights in the UK.
This was the second time the UK had been examined by the UN - the first time was in February 1995, when the Department of Health led the UK Government delegation to Geneva.
The Committee’s report in 2002 was on the whole extremely critical of the UK’s children’s rights record. There was a real sense of optimism and potential, though, with the Children and Young People’s Unit then taking on responsibility to co-ordinate the implementation of the Convention across the UK. The Unit was disbanded in autumn 2003.
This report summarises key developments – positive as well as negative – in children’s human rights in England over the past 12 months. The review has been undertaken by the Children’s Rights Alliance for England in collaboration with several member organisations. It follows our comprehensive submission to the Committee on the Rights of the Child in 2002, which was supported by 100+ non-governmental organisations (NGOs) including all the major children’s charities. Not all our member organisations will necessarily agree with all of the assessments made in this report.
For the first time, we are able to report on the activities of England's Children's Commissioner. Professor Al Aynsley-Green has only been in post for eight months (four of these part-time), so it is too early to comment on the impact of his office. We should be able to provide a better assessment next year.
We have paraphrased and shortened each concluding observation; we have not included those observations specifically relating to Scotland or Northern Ireland. For easy reference, we have signposted each assessment of progress using the following symbols:
⇓ This indicates deterioration in law or policy in the past year.
⇑ This indicates progress in law or policy in the past year.
⇔ This indicates no significant progress in law or policy in the past year.
Throughout this report we use the term children to refer to children and young people under the age of 18 years.
6 Background Fourteen years ago, the UK with all-party support ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and in doing so took on obligations under international law to implement the full range of economic, social, cultural and civil and political rights of children. Since its adoption by the UN General Assembly in November 1989, the Convention has become the most ratified of all international human rights treaties – accepted by 192 states – all except the US and Somalia. The Convention’s detailed principles and standards are binding on states which have ratified it. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 underlines: “Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith”.
There are 54 Articles in the Convention: 40 of these ascribe direct rights to children, the remaining 14 relate to the measures States Parties must take to implement the treaty. In 1991 the Committee on the Rights of the Child published guidelines for States Parties on preparing progress reports on implementation. These allocated the articles of the Convention into eight clusters, dealing with general measures of implementation, definition of the child, general principles, civil rights and freedoms, family environment and alternative care, basic health and welfare, education, leisure and cultural activities and special measures of protection.
The Committee on the Rights of the Child is an international body of 18 children’s rights experts elected by States Parties to monitor and report on the progress of each country that has ratified the Convention. Current membership of the Committee is:
Ms. Ghalia Mohd. Bin Hamad AL-THANI Qatar Ms. Joyce ALUOCH Kenya Ms. Mary Alison ANDERSON Jamaica Mr. Jacob Egbert DOEK (Chairperson) The Netherlands Mr. Kamel FILALI Algeria Ms. Moushira KHATTAB Egypt Mr. Hatem KOTRANE Tunisia Mr. Lothar Friedrich KRAPPMANN Germany Ms. Yanghee LEE Republic of Korea Mr. Norberto LIWSKI Argentina Ms. Rosa María ORTIZ Paraguay Ms. Awa N'Deye OUEDRAOGO Burkina Faso Mr. David Brent PARFITT Canada Mr. Awich POLLAR Uganda Mr. Kamal SIDDIQUI Bangladesh Ms. Lucy SMITH Norway Ms. Nevena VUCKOVIC-SAHOVIC Serbia and Montenegro Mr. Jean ZERMATTEN Switzerland
The Committee on the Rights of the Child will next examine the UK in January 2009; the UK Government’s next periodic report on
7 implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child is due to be submitted to the Committee in July 2007.
All documents relating to the UK’s examination by the Committee on the Rights of the Child can be accessed on CRAE’s website www.crae.org.uk or on the website of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/crc
8 Overview
In October 2002, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child issued the UK with 78 recommendations, to make law, policy and practice compatible with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The report from the Secretariat of the Children's Rights Alliance for England - a coalition of more than 320 voluntary and statutory organisations committed to children's rights - shows significant progress has been made on just 16 of these recommendations in the past year.
This year, children got a new Children's Minister, and their first ever Commissioner. We very much welcome Professor Al Aynsley-Green's appointment as England's first national children's champion. But still no-one has responsibility in government for co-ordinating the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the lack of information available to children and parents about the Convention is beginning to make children's rights feel like a state secret.
This was the year that Every Child Matters started to take hold of the country, with high hopes that services would now be cast in the image of children, truly fitted around their needs and wishes. The Government's commitment to reform children's services is unequivocal; its focus on change for children impressive. Teenagers finally got their Green Paper, with promises of things to do and people to listen. The welcome emphasis on involving young people in decision-making was, however, tarnished by the threat of removing "opportunity cards" from those that misbehave – precisely the group we most want to steer into the constructive activities offered by these cards.
This was the year that 16 year-old Gareth Price was found hanging in his segregation cell at Lancaster farms young offender institution (YOI). Eight months later, in September 2005, 17 year-old Sam Elphick was found hanging in his cell at Hindley YOI. The Government continued to refuse a public inquiry into the death at Stoke Heath YOI,in March 2002, of 16 year-old Joseph Scholes. Disturbing evidence about the treatment and care of Joseph came out at his inquest: the coroner said a public inquiry should be held to consider matters outside his remit. There has never been a public inquiry into any of the child deaths in penal custody – 29 since 1990.
This was the year that children in privately run "purpose-built" prisons tried to harm themselves 456 times; where staff used painful restraint techniques – the Prison Service's nose, rib and thumb distractions – 768 times on children. The Home Office claims it is used rarely. These figures – obtained by CRAE under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 – show that, for the past year, nose, rib and thumb distractions were, on average, used four times in every establishment every week. Custody is often seen as children's last chance for a decent education: over a third
9 of children in young offender institutions have the literacy and numeracy ability of a seven year-old. Yet last year 15 to 17 year-olds in young offender institutions got, on average, eight hours education per week. These growing boys enjoyed only half an hour's exercise a day.
This was the year where naming and shaming escalated, spurred on by a change in the law that requires children's privacy rights to be discarded so the public know "something is being done". Children's privacy rights had hitherto been partially protected for 70 years. There were more reports of children with autism, Asperger Syndrome and behavioural difficulties being issued with ASBOs: there is no way of checking exact numbers because the Government does not collate information on the background or circumstances of children issued with these orders. Home Office figures show children are issued with 44% of ASBOs yet they make up less than a quarter of the population. This was the year that children with ASBOs started to ring ChildLine.
The Youth Justice Board reported that 328 children between January and June 2005 were sent to custody for offences involving an ASBO breach. Children breaching civil orders being sent to environments that are known to be corrupting and dangerous. In November last year, the UN Committee against Torture criticised Britain's very high prison rate – in 2004 just under 10,000 children were locked up: enough to fill 10 secondary schools.
This year, more disability equality legislation was passed, and there have been strong reassurances that the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights will work with and for children. Welcome progress but not indicative of a broader commitment to equality for children.
The law has been "modernised" so parents can legally hit babies and children so long as they do not cause an injury. The day after the Commons voted in the law, The Times and Sun newspapers carried illustrations with legal advice for readers on how babies and children can and cannot be hit.
Last year, 70 children were killed, most of them by someone they knew; 27 of them babies less than a year old. Yet still we wait for a national strategy on reducing child deaths and child abuse, as recommended by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in 2002.
This was the year when a 14 year-old boy from Richmond, supported by human rights organisation Liberty, successfully challenged new police powers to remove unaccompanied children from the street. The blanket power in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 meant that any child under 16 out on the street after 9pm could be removed by the police, irrespective of their circumstances or reasons for being outside. Lord Justice Brooke could not believe the Government intended to pass legislation that so deliberately flouted children's human rights: "If Parliament were to be taken to have regarded all children found in such
10 areas between the relevant hours as potential sources of anti-social behaviour, a coercive power to remove them might be a natural corollary. However, to attribute such an intention to Parliament would be to assume that it ignored this country's international obligations to treat each child as an autonomous human being."
Last year 9,880 children were permanently excluded from school – 1,270 of them aged 11 and under. Permanent exclusions were highest for Traveller children of Irish heritage (66 in every 10,000) and Gypsy / Roma (62 in every 10,000) – compared to the national rate of 14 in every 10,000. Children with special educational needs (SEN) are more than seven times more likely to be excluded than children without SEN.
This was the year that section 9 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc.) Act 2002 came into force, removing all state support from failed asylum-seeking families. Local authorities say it runs counter to their child-care duties, and they do not want to separate children from their destitute parents. The policy was strongly criticised by the Council of Europe's Human Rights Commissioner, Alvaro Gil-Robles. He also attacked the detention of asylum-seeking children without any judicial scrutiny. This was the year that Manuel Bravo killed himself in Yarl's Wood detention centre so his 13 year-old boy could stay in the country and get a good education. It is understood the father killed himself in front of the boy. The Home Office now says the boy can stay in the UK to complete his education.
This was the year the UN urged the UK to introduce "pro-poor" policies. Without this, the UK is unlikely to meet its goal of eradicating child poverty by 2019. Last year 3.5 million children lived in poverty, in the world's fourth richest economy. A coalition of children's charities and the National Union of Teachers has joined forces to campaign for the end of the hidden costs of the UK's 'free' education system – school uniforms, trips, music lessons, books and so on. The Child Poverty Action Group has, for many years, been pushing for free school meals for all (achieved in Sweden in 1973).
This was also the year when the Prime Minister appointed Louise Casey as respect co-ordinator, set up a task force on school discipline, and supported Bluewater shopping centre's hoodie ban. When Alan Steer's report on discipline in schools came out at the end of October, the press squeal was: "new" restraint powers for teachers. These powers have been in statute since 1997, and legal powers to discipline children relates to only one of the 71 recommendations made by Steer and his team. So why did the press get it so wrong? A trail leads to 10 Downing Street.
It is three years since the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child issued its second set of recommendations on the UK. The next examination is scheduled for 2009. This annual review shows there is a
11 huge amount of catching up to do, to avoid the international criticism of previous sessions.
Human rights are not just for children in distant countries; they are for children here in this country too – the children we live with, that go to school at the bottom of the road, that share our neighbourhoods, and the children that cause trouble and hurt people. If the Convention on the Rights of the Child had a strap line it would be 'respect for children'. The Government’s agenda should be bringing a new respect to children as people and rights holders, not giving the press and public another stick to beat them with.
Children’s Rights Alliance for England November 21st 2005
12 1. General measures of implementation
⇔ Take all necessary measures to end the detention of children in the same facilities as adults and withdraw its article 37(c) reservation.
In a House of Lords debate on the Convention, on October 19th 2005, Lord Roberts of Llandudno asked the Minister, Baroness Crawley, when the Government would remove its article 37(c) reservation. The Minister responded:
The noble Lord will know, because of his interest in this matter, of the steps we have taken in order to do that. So, in the medium term, we hope to be able to withdraw the reservation about custody and accommodation.2
A letter from the Minister to CRAE (November 7th 2005) states the Government plans to conduct its review "over the course of the next 12 to 18 months".
There has been no progress on the detention of asylum-seeking children with adults.
The Asylum and Immigration Act 2002 introduced rules that allow the indefinite detention for immigration purposes of families with children. Children can be detained with their parents at any stage of their asylum application and the decision to detain them rests entirely with an immigration officer and is not subject to any judicial scrutiny. This policy was criticised strongly this year by the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner, Alvaro Gil-Robles.
Save the Children UK has estimated that around 2,000 children are detained with their families every year in the UK for the purposes of immigration control, with lengths of stay between seven and 268 days. Children in detention suffer from weight loss, sleep deprivation, skin complaints and respiratory problems.3
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons has consistently said that children's needs cannot be met in detention centres. She has called on the Government to ensure that detention be used only in exceptional circumstances, and for a matter of days, in line with international law. Following a recent inspection of Yarl’s Wood, the Chief Inspector concluded: • Formal child protection procedures are lacking • There are inadequate links with the area’s child protection committee or the developing local safeguarding children board
13 • Initial and ongoing assessments of children's welfare and care are inadequate • There is no evidence of the detention of children being authorised by a senior Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) official despite this being in the IND’s operational enforcement manual.
The Chief Inspector found at least one case where an independent assessment would have identified a child as ‘failing to thrive’. A five year-old autistic girl had not eaten for four days; a consultant paediatrician confirmed this. When inspectors brought the case to the attention of managers, IND released the child and family from detention. 4
⇔ Reconsider reservation to article 22 [relating to immigration and nationality rights] with a view to withdrawing it.
There has been no progress on removing the general reservation, relating to immigration and nationality. On October 19th 2005, Lord Roberts of Llandudno led a House of Lords debate on the Convention. He asked the Minister when the UK would remove its final two reservations. In relation to immigration and nationality, the Minister, Baroness Crawley, replied:
… in regard to the [reservation] on asylum seeking we believe that we honour the spirit of the Convention in relation to the standards of care and treatment available to children in the UK, including asylum-seeking children. But we have no plans, as yet, to review our decision to maintain our reservation in respect of those immigration matters.5
The four UK Children's Commissioners are expected to release shortly a joint statement pressing the Government to improve its treatment of asylum-seeking children and families, in line with international human rights standards.
⇔ Incorporate into domestic law the rights, principles and provisions of the Convention.
There has been no progress during the past year on incorporating into domestic law the rights, principles and provisions of the Convention. Indeed, in specific policy areas, there has been a marked decline in respect for children's human rights.
Part 1 of the Children Act 2004, which came into force on November 15th 2004, requires England's Children's Commissioner to have regard to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This is the only domestic statute where the Convention is mentioned.6
The Government, in October 2004, removed the remaining five
14 references to 'rights', leading the Conservative MP Tim Loughton to describe the Commissioner legislation as 'rights-lite'.
Labour backbencher, Hilton Dawson MP, tried unsuccessfully to introduce a provision into the Children Act 2004 requiring the Government to 'rights-proof' legislation affecting children.7
The Children's Rights Alliance for England sought an explicit reference to the Convention on the Rights of the Child in the Equality Bill, currently in Parliament. The Bill establishes the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights, which will, inter alia, promote awareness, understanding and protection of human rights. While the attempt to get the Convention written into the Bill was unsuccessful, the Minister gave strong assurances:
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, am I right in thinking that when Clause 9 refers to "human rights", it definitely refers to the rights conferred by the children's rights convention?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely correct.8
⇑ Ensure transparent analysis of budgets across the State party and in the devolved administrations to show the proportion spent on children, to identify priorities and to allocate resources to the “maximum extent of available resources”. Apply this principle in the activities of the Department for International Development.
Government departments are not required to undertake or publish a transparent analysis of their budgets and spending on children.
At a local level, children’s services authorities are, from April 1st 2006, required to publish a three-yearly Children and Young People’s Plan. (“Excellent” children’s services authorities are exempted). Regulations require that each children's service authority sets out its vision for children and young people, says how it will ensure the five aspects of children's well-being are achieved (the outcomes), and provides 'a statement as to how the authority's budget will be used to contribute to those improvements'.9
The Department for International Development publishes an annual report, Statistics on International Development (SID). Its framework is the UN Millennium Development Goals, agreed in September 2000.
The 40th edition of SID, published in October 2005, notes that the Government expects to meet by 2013 the international goal of 0.7% GNI to official development assistance (ODA) (the UN General Assembly endorsed the target in 1970). In 2004, the UK gave 0.36% of its GNI to ODA.10 In February 2005, ActionAid International, Eurodad, and 15 Oxfam International published a briefing paper showing the "heroes" and "villains" of international aid. Four countries have surpassed the UN target, set 35 years ago: Denmark, Netherlands, Luxembourg and Sweden. A further four European countries manage to give more foreign aid than the UK: Belgium, France, Ireland and Finland.11 The UK has the fourth richest economy in the world.
⇔ Assign coordination of the implementation of the Convention to a highly visible and easily identifiable permanent body working across the UK.
The Children and Young People’s Unit served this function until autumn 2003, when it was disbanded and replaced by the Children, Young People’s and Families Directorate in the Department for Education and Skills.
The 'Children's Views and Interests' team in the Directorate has the task of co-ordinating the preparation of the next UK Government report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child. However, it has no cross- department role in disseminating information about children's human rights or co-ordinating the implementation of the Convention.
⇔ Prepare a comprehensive plan of action for the implementation of the Convention in all parts of the State party, taking into account the WFFC [World Fit for Children] and paying special attention to vulnerable children.
The Government has made no progress in preparing a comprehensive plan of action for implementing the Convention.
England’s change for children programme is based on five “outcome goals”, enshrined in the Children Act 2004. These outcomes (with their 25 aims) have now become the focus of all policy and service development, at a national and local level. Six core documents were published at the end of 2004 to support Every Child Matters:
• Every child matters: change for children • Every child matters; change for children in health services • Every child matters: change for children in schools • Every child matters: change for children in social care • Every child matters: change for children in the criminal jutsice system • Every child matters: change for children – young people and drugs.
The Convention does not appear in any of these documents.
The value of the five outcomes vis-à-vis the Convention was debated at length when the Children Act 2004 was passing through Parliament. In
16 the Lords, peers voted to remove the outcomes from the Commissioner's function. This was supported by the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights:
… we consider that putting the five outcomes on the face of the Bill is a somewhat odd way to legislate, freezing in statute the results of a survey conducted at a particular historical moment. In order to overcome excessive particularity they are also, in our view, so vague and generalised that they add little or no definition to the role of the Commissioner.12
When the Bill reached the Commons, the then Children's Minister re- inserted the five outcomes in Part 1, relating to the Commissioner. Cross-party peers made another attempt at removing them from the legislation; this time they were unsuccessful, losing by just 12 votes. Baroness Howe of Idlicote gave an impassioned speech on the value of the Convention:
Contrary to what the Children's Minister insists, there is nothing narrow about the proposed focus [for England’s Children’s Commissioner] on rights and interests: the Convention on the Rights of the Child covers all aspects of childhood.
The UK ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991. It gives all babies and children a comprehensive set of economic, social and cultural and civil and political rights.
So, for example, article 3 provides that the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration in all matters affecting that child. Article 24 gives all children the right to the highest attainable standard of health. The right to education is provided for in article 28, and article 29 describes the aims of education. The right to rest and to play and leisure is provided for in article 31, and the right to maximum survival and development in article 6. Children separated from their parents have the right to special protection and assistance (article 20), and the state has a responsibility to support parents in the upbringing of children (article 18). Children are protected from sexual exploitation (article 34), from abduction, sale and trafficking (article 35), and the Convention places obligations on government to protect children from drug abuse (article 33). There is provision in the Convention for children who are placed for adoption (article 21), for children in trouble with the law (articles 37 and 40), and for children who have suffered abuse and exploitation, and the effects of war (article 39). Disabled children are given the right to “active participation in the community” (article 23) and all children are given the right to express and have their views given “due weight” in all matters concerning them (article 12). Article 19 gives all children the right to protection from all forms of violence, and article 22 gives refugee children the right to “appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance”. The importance of parents
17 is stressed in three separate articles (5, 7 and 18).
The Convention on the Rights of the Child took 10 years to draft. It is the most widely ratified of all human rights treaties – 192 countries in all have undertaken to fully implement it - only two states have not yet ratified (the US and Somalia). It takes a very positive view of children and of the family.
⇑ Establish independent human rights institutions across the UK and at national level compliant with the UN Paris Principles to monitor, protect and promote all the rights of the Convention for all children.
In March 2005, Professor Al Aynsley-Green was appointed as England's first Children's Commissioner. We very much welcomed Professor Aynsley-Green's appointment though regretted that the Department for Education and Skills' press release did not once mention the Convention or "rights".13
England's new Children's Commissioner has the weakest general function in the UK and Europe – promoting awareness of children’s views and interests, rather than promoting and safeguarding their rights. The Commissioner is also the least independent in the UK:
Commissioner Wales Northern Scotland England independence Ireland Secretary of State can direct Commissioner to carry out an NO NO NO YES14 inquiry Commissioner must consult Secretary of State before NO NO NO YES15 holding an independent inquiry Commissioner’s annual report goes directly to Parliament / YES YES YES NO16 Assembly Legislation ties Commissioner to Government policy NO NO NO YES17
It is difficult, at this early stage, to assess the impact of the Children's Commissioner, as the office is still being established. In these first eight months (four of them part-time), Professor Aynsley-Green has made many visits to children and young people, attended a large number of conferences across the country and has been interviewed in the national and professional press about a range of issues. He has been critical of anti-social behaviour and asylum and immigration policies. Below is a summary of media reports, indicating the energy and emerging priorities of England’s first children’s champion:
18 March 2005 – Children's Commissioner's first in-depth interview, conducted by Community Care magazine. At this very early stage, the Commissioner says he has three strands of possible work – children's position in society, the participation of children and young people, and "to focus on some key issues that may require research or inquiry". He says he has already been to 400 or more events across the country, and made visits to many schools. He is asked what is the biggest weakness or missed opportunity in the Children Act, and refuses to comment, adding "I have been a physician for 32 years and I can say with all honesty, and not speaking as a party politician at all, that what is happening now is the best news for children for 50 years in terms of the extent and enormity of the policy". He wants politicial parties to make children a high priority; children's needs mainstramed in organisations like the NHS; and children and young people actively participating in decision-making. He is concerned about the media potrayal of children. On asylum-seeking children he says, "I think there are issues about how we, as a humane society, should be regarding the most vulnrable who come to our shores. It is for politicians, for Parliament, to decide on the legislation. But I would certainly want to remind people that we are talking about human beings here". He speaks positively of "child-proofing legislation", the norm in Sweden (which uses the framework of the Convention).
June 2005 – Professor Al Aynsley-Green says he is proud to wear a hoodie, and explains "Children are bewildered, angry and resentful at being disenfranchised because of the behaviour of a small minority". He says the top issue being raised by young people is bulllying; and stresses he will be independent of Government "I will be the first to celebrate what the Government is doing that is right for children – and there is much to be pleased about. But I will also challenge it for what it is not doing, or that it is doing wrong". He says children's and young people's participation in his office will be crucial and hopes that in two years time every child in the country will know about the Commissioner, and how to make contact with him.
July 2005 – Children's Commissioner is interviewed by Radio 4's Today programme and describes his key role: "Well the key point I want to put across to every child, young person and family and carer listening this morning is that Parliament has now created this post as Commissioner for me to be a watchdog to make sure the views, the needs and the rights of children are being taken very seriously in society … the need for this is obvious: children are vitally important to families and to society. And, whilst the vast majority of our children are loved, are cared for [and] families care passionately about them, the sad reality is that increasing numbers of children are not benefiting with the opportunities the majority have. Children who are vulnerable, who require protection, children with disability and so on and so my job is to make sure that I actually know what children and young people themselves feel about these matters and that their interests are reflected back to all those charged with being responsible for the services provided for them.
July 2005 – Professor Aynsley-Green says he will seek children's and young people's views and experiences before commenting on Government policy. Youth justice is one of four main issues in his postbag.
19 July 2005 – Children Now magazine reports that senior children's services managers have written to the Children's Commisisoner urging him to tackle fast-food giants and other muti-nationals; to fight for a fairer admissions policy in schools; and to challenge the demonisation of children in the media.
July 2005 – In an interview with the Guardian newspaper, the Children's Commissioner urges more "collective understanding" of children's needs and recognition of their capacities; explains he must see the child within the context of the family; and says he is thinking about appointing young assistant commissioners. Professor Aynsley-Green says he would strongly support the Convention being part of national curriculum for schools, adding "But rights by themselves count for nothing unless you get action, and that has to be informed by asking what the needs of children are". He says young people's views should be sought on ASBOs, "From my own fieldwork, I see that they are perplexed. But in communities, people feel very threatened by what they perceive as antisocial behaviour, and this raises an interesting debate about what the responsibilitues of young people are, as well as their rights, and how they will be held to account if they impinge on the rights of others. That's part of citizenship as well".
August 2005 – Children's Commissioner resists calls from the British Association of Social Workers to intervene to help failed asylum-seeking families whose children are threatened with care after all financial support is removed. [The Commissioner’s legislation prevents him from taking on individual cases].
September 2005 – Children's Commissioner supports Anti-Bullying Week, saying "Bullying and the misery and harm it causes children and young people are top of my postbag".
October 2005 – Children's Commissioner describes plans for 'baby ASBOs' as "worrying" and "part of the incessant programme of policy towards punishment and control" of children.
October 2005 – Children's Commissioner urges pain relief for babies and children.
October 2005 – Speaking at a national conference, the Children's Commissioner says the way in which asylum-seeking families are being detained "appeared to be heavy-handed" and explained, "Some children tell me they lie awake at night waiting for the knock on the door". He says he had written to the Home Office about the issue and will soon be meeting with Ministers. The Commissioner also says anti-social behaviour orders could sometimes be "just a sticking plaster" and questioned whether they are "always useful".
November 2005 – Professor Aynsley-Green is interviewed by the Observer and puts his weight behind anti-bullyig initiatives. He says, "I have no doubt that children are being brought up in a society where violence is the norm. I include in this the violence on television, in the workplace and in the home. My first plea in my new post is for adults to look in the mirror before they start castigating children for bullying behaviour". He will soon launch a booklet giving advice to teachers that will be sent to every school in England. The booklet contains the stories 20 of eight children. Aynsley-Green adds "I am going to engage seriously with the issues that children tell me impact on them and I am going to make the adult world listen".
⇔ Systematically collect information on all persons under 18 years for all areas covered by the Convention, including the most vulnerable groups, and use this data to assess progress and design policies to implement the Convention.
The child index system to be established by the Children Act 2004 will collect data on all under 18 year-olds in the country. A national register of unaccompanied children was launched in January 2005 to "ensure continuity of care and prevent abuse of the asylum system", saving an estimated £4.5 million by 2006/07. Non-statutory draft guidance on information-sharing, issued by the DfES in August 2005, proposes that everyone working with children should consider routinely sharing information in order to promote and safeguard their welfare, and to prevent crime. The introduction says:
Sharing information is a vital part of developing early intervention for children who need additional services, effective safeguarding for children at risk of harm, and preventing youth crime.
In addition, every 16 and 17 year-old will have to be registered and hold an ID card, if the Identity Cards Bill passes unchanged through Parliament.
None of these initiatives is explicitly geared towards implementing the Convention. Indeed, they could substantially erode children’s privacy rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child – see pages 42-43.
⇔ Substantially expand dissemination of information on the Convention among children and parents, civil society and all sectors and levels of government, including initiatives to reach vulnerable groups.
A government children’s rights website has been in preparation for nearly three years, and has still not been launched (November 2005).
⇑ Develop human rights training programmes on human rights, including children’s rights, for all professional groups working for and with children.
The Children’s Rights Alliance for England received a major grant from the Department for Education and Skills to develop training and tools to support children’s effective participation in decision-making. The Ready Steady Change participation training materials, launched in July 2005, are based on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Specialised
21 materials cover a range of settings, including education, care, juvenile justice and health.
The Government has made no progress in providing or sponsoring general training courses for professional groups in England on children’s human rights. Indeed, it has missed at least three major opportunities to act on this recommendation.
Common core April 2005 brought the publication of the common core of skills and knowledge for the children's workforce. There are six parts to the common core, which together form the basic requirements for working with children:
• Effective communication and engagement with children, young people and families • Child and young person development • Safeguarding and promoting the welfare of the child • Supporting transitions • Multi-agency working • Sharing information.
CRAE and others lobbied for the inclusion of "values" and the Convention. We were unsuccessful, though the Convention is mentioned four times in the Annex.
Task force on school discipline In June 2005, the Prime Minister established a practioners' group, led by Sir Alan Steer, on behaviour and discipline in schools. The group was asked "whether there is merit in a national code of behaviour setting out the responsibilities of schools, pupils and parents in promoting good behaviour" and invited to consider "any further developments in policy or new powers for head teachers which would help in enforcing school discipline".
Although not asked to consider how to implement children's Convention rights in education, the group's report Learning behaviour makes many strong points about the need to value children, engender mutual respect in schools and provide care as well as discipline.18 One of its core beliefs, shown in the opening page, is "Respect has to be given in order to be received". It stresses that the "great majority of pupils work hard and behave well" and extreme violence remains "exceptionally rare" and points to a number of factors affecting children's behaviour in school – the quality and consistency of teaching and the behaviour of staff; the involvement of pupils and parents in decision-making; the physical environment; the quality of food, and the condition of dining areas, toilets and playgrounds; access to arts, sport and work-based learning; support for parents; and rewards as well as sanctions. It recommends a national behaviour charter, "setting out the rights and responsibilities of all sections of the school community" and says
22 consultation on this must involve parents and pupils, including school councils.
The group makes 71 recommendations to improve behaviour in schools – of staff, parents and pupils. One of the recommendations relates to the power of teachers to discipline students. The group says not all schools are clear about existing powers, including the power of teachers to restrain children, and this should be clarified in a single statute.
The opening paragraphs of the 10 Downing Street press release, on October 21st 2005, focus on discipline:
A wide-ranging package of new proposals put forward by teachers to 'reaffirm respect' in the classroom has been welcomed by Education Secretary Ruth Kelly.
Key recommendations include a 'clear and unambiguous' legal right for teachers to discipline pupils - backed by an expectation that every school has a clear set of rules, rewards and sanctions.
Radio 4's Today programme opened at 6.34am that morning with the announcement that the Steer report was expected to recommend schools are given "more power to punish disruptive pupils and restrain them". Newspapers carried the same kind of headline:
Newspaper headlines on Learning behaviour report October 21st 2005
Daily Mail - Teachers to be given right to use 'reasonable force'
Daily Telegraph – Move to give teachers more powers to discipline children
Guardian - Teachers to get right to restrain unruly pupils
The Independent – Teachers to win stronger powers over discipline
TES – New rights for teachers over disruptive pupils
Times – Schools 'should be allowed to punish disruptive pupils'
Yorkshire Post - Crackdown on unruly pupils
The Advisory Centre for Education accuses the Government of "cherry- picking" punitive headlines from the Steer report, explaining that it largely focuses on providing effective support to parents and children.
The chance to give children a good press, and to advocate the benefits of everyone – staff, children and parents – working together to improve schools was lost to aggressive headlines that bear little resemblance to
23 the actual report. Alternative headlines could easily have been: "School buildings must be designed for learning"; "Support for parents key to good behaviour"; "Teacher training must improve communication skills"; "Good food essential for learning" "Children must be heard, say behaviour experts".
Death of Gareth Myatt in penal custody Another missed opportunity this year relates to the death of a 15 year- old in one of England's privately-run child prisons. Gareth Myatt died in hospital in April 2004 after being restrained in his cell by staff at Rainsbrook secure training centre. He is the only person to have died in UK penal custody after being restrained. Gareth was a black child in care. He weighed eight stone and was five foot tall. He had been detained for just three days before his death. An independent review is still in process: the Government has resisted calls for a public inquiry. The restraint method used has been "discontinued" but the use of painful "distraction" methods continue to have Ministerial backing, and there has still been no guidance to staff about their human rights obligations to children.
24 2. General principles
⇔ Monitor the situation of children who are exposed to discrimination, in particular children with disabilities, children from poor families, Irish and Roma travellers’ children, asylum and refugee children, children of minority groups, children in the care system, detained children, and children aged between 16 and 18 years.
There is no-one responsible within government for monitoring the situation of children exposed to discrimination.
Since November 2004, the Government has published a range of reports that provide statistical and other information about children who are exposed to discrimination. These include:
• Parental background and child outcomes: how much money matters and what else matters? (DfES – August 2005) • Putting young people at the centre: a summary report of the leaving care regional seminars 2003 (DfES – August 2005) • Youth matters (DfES Youth Green Paper – July 2005) • The experiences and needs of refugee and asylum seeking children in the UK: a literature review (DfES research review – May 2005) • Government response to hidden harm: the report of an inquiry by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (DfES – April 2005) • Ethnicity and education: the evidence on minority pupils (DfES – February 2005) • Admissions and exclusions of pupils with special educational needs (DfES research report – February 2005) • Prevention and early intervention in the social inclusion of children and young people (DfES – January 2005) • Children, risk and crime: the on track youth lifestyles surveys (Home Office research report – January 2005) • Government response to getting serious about play (DCMS – January 2005) • Every child matters: change for children (DfES – December 2004) • Homophobia, sexual orientation and schools: a review and implications for action (DfES research report – December 2004) • Collaborating for the social inclusion of children and young people: emerging lessons from the first round of case studies (DfES research report – December 2004)
Non-governmental bodies have published in the past 12 months several reports that show the discrimination faced by different groups of children:
25 • The cost of a free education (Citizens Advice – September 2005) • Employers, young people and gender segregation (Equal Opportunities Commission – September 2005) • At greatest risk: the children most likely to be poor (CPAG – June 2005) • Investigation: pregnant and productive update leaflet (Equal Opportunities Commission – June 2005) • The state of the world’s children (UNICEF – 2005)
⇔ Monitor in a comparative way the enjoyment by children of their rights in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
The International Team in the Department for Education Skills, which had this role, was disbanded in 2003.
⇑ Develop comprehensive strategies aimed at eliminating all forms of discrimination.
The Government does not use a human rights or anti-discriminatory framework for children’s policy and service development. The draft children's strategy, published in 2001, proposed "non-discrimination" as one of six goals for children's well-being. This was not carried over into the Every Child Matters Green Paper, which suggested five outcome goals (subsequently enshrined in the Children Act 2004).
Whilst there is no overarching strategy for eliminating all forms of discrimination against children, there are discrete policy initiatives aimed at tackling different types of discrmination, such as combatting the under-achievement in education of certain groups of children, tackling homphobic bullying, improving access to health care for poor children, and promoting race and disability equality. Of particular significance this year is the new duty on public authorities to promote disability equality, and the provision in the Equality Bill, currently in Parliament, that requires public bodies to encourage positive relations between communities. The definition of communities includes those based on age.
We are still a long way off equality for disabled children, with continuing segregation in education and other aspects of life. The Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education reported this year that "little progress' is being made towards including disabled children in mainstream schools. The percentage of children attending special schools and other segregated settings fell from just 0.84% to 0.82% between 2002 and 2004.19 This year a new campaign was launched by disability equality activists and others – the 2020 campaign – that seeks the end of segregated provision by the year 2020. CRAE is a member of the campaign.20 Government Ministers continue to defend special schools.
26 This year saw the increasing demonisation of children – a development criticised by the deputy assistant commissioner at the Metropolitan Police. Brian Paddick claims adults are suffering from a 'Victor Meldrew' syndrome and says behaviour that would have been tolerated 20 years ago is now being treated as anti-social behaviour.21
⇓ Amend the nationality law to allow transmission of nationality through unmarried as well as married fathers.
This recommendation was achieved on paper in November 2002, when the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 gained Royal Assent. Section 9 removes the distinction in nationality law between legitimate and illegitimate children. However, the new provision is dependent upon an order being made under section 162(5) of the 2002 Act. In July 2005, Baroness Scotland, in a reply to a Parliamentary question from Lord Avebury, reported:
We hope to implement Section 9 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 by the end of the summer.
Section 9 has still not come into force (November 2005).
⇓ Establish throughout the State party the best interests of the child as a paramount consideration in all legislation and policy affecting children, notably within juvenile justice and immigration practices.
The Government is currently (November 2005) consulting on the welfare of the child requirements in assisted conceptions. One of the consultation questions is whether treatment should be refused if there is risk of significant harm to the child.22 It is also resisting attempts to introduce into the Children and Adoption Bill a statutory presumption of co-parenting because it believes this would dilute the best interests of the child. In the most recent debate, the Minister, Lord Adonis, was very clear about the importance of the child's best interests being paramount in family proceedings:
The more I look back at what happened in 1989, the more remarkable it appears. We did something that is now being copied in over 12 jurisdictions across the world … At the heart of our court system is the fact that a child's interests come first; in other words, a child has rights—the paramountcy principle … It is important to reflect on how critical a development that was. It has been heralded across the world.23
The best interests of other children – juvenile offenders and asylum- seeking children – are not being so strongly defended. Section 44 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 requires the criminal court to have regard to the welfare of the child. The forthcoming youth justice
27 Bill is expected to weaken rather than strengthen this provision. In March 2004, the Government declared:
We unreservedly accept that welfare is an important consideration when a court has to make a decision on the appropriate sentence for a young offender. But we believe that the main purpose of a sentence imposed by a court on conviction of a criminal offence by a juvenile should be to prevent their further offending and we shall legislate to clarify this in law.24
Section 141 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 removes the right to privacy from children who breach ASBOs. The privacy rights of children issued with ASBOs had already been eroded by the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. Lord Dholokia led opposition to section 141 in the House of Lords but, unfortunately, the vote was lost by 63 to 125. Baroness Scotland sought to justify the Government's position:
… we feel that it is right that it is known what happens if [an ASBO] is breached, so that everyone is clear about the consequences of a breach. Otherwise the community will lose confidence in the system designed to protect it. However, we are mindful of the distinct issues that surround offenders who are under 18, as I have already made clear. That is why we have issued specific guidance on publicity and highlighted the fact that specific consideration should be given to the age of the individual perpetrators and whether they are vulnerable.
The Minister promised to issue guidance via the Home Office's Together website, as well as "a step-by-step guide on the operation of the new clause prior to its commencement". She said the guidance would clearly refer to welfare and safeguarding issues".
The Home Office guidance was issued at the same time as section 141 came into force, in July 2005:
Home Office guidance on section 141 Anti-social behaviour orders etc: reporting restrictions, July 2005 This section reverses the presumption in relation to reporting restrictions in the youth court in cases for breach of orders made under 1A, 1B and 1C of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The automatic reporting restrictions under section 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 will not apply but the court will retain the discretion to impose them if deemed necessary.
Whilst it is the case that from 1st July 2005 no automatic reporting restrictions will apply in cases for breach of ASBOs relating to juveniles, the court should consider whether reporting restrictions were imposed when the original order was granted. If reporting restrictions were imposed at the original ASBO hearing then it is likely that the court will consider imposing them again at the breach hearing, unless there has been a significant change in the intervening period. If no reporting
28 restrictions were imposed at the original ASBO hearing, then it remains open to the court to impose reporting restrictions at the breach hearing.25
The Government resisted attempts during the passage of the Children Act 2004 to extend the duty to immigration bodies to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. The parliamentary joint committee on human rights described this as “unjustifiable discrimination”.26
The removal of all state support to failed asylum-seeking families, under section 9 of the Asylum and immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc. ) Act 2004, came into force in December last year. The Government is piloting the use of the tough measures in three areas: central / east London, Greater Manchester and west Yorkshire. One hundred and sixteen families are affected by the pilot – 219 children and 36 adults. Barnardo's has carried out research on local authorities' perceptions and experiences of seeking to enforce section 9. It reports, "All informants were clear that s9 runs counter to their established welfare duties and practice under the Children Act 1989".27
The Refugee Council has reported on how local councils are refusing to do the Home Office's "dirty work":
• Bury Council refused to evict the Khanali family. Councillor Tim Chamberlain told the Bury Times local newspaper, "We are in a cleft stick. If we act to do what the immigration authorities want, we would be in breach of our duty under the Children Act. We don't feel that we are the right people to throw them out. The Home Office has washed its hands of the problem and passed it on to us… A functioning family with a supportive background is the best place for children to be. Taking them into care is the very last resort." Even though the family were not evicted, the local council provided no direct financial support and voluntary groups are being asked to give food parcels.
• Bolton Council decided against evicting the Sukula family, which includes five children. The family is relying on handouts and donations from supporters and local charities.28
⇔ Abolish the use of plastic baton rounds as a means of riot control.
The use of plastic baton rounds as a means of riot control has not been abolished. They were first introduced in Northern Ireland in 1981; their first use in other parts of the UK was in February 2002, in North Wales. More positively, Strathclyde Police issued a statement in the run up to the G8 summit in Gleneagles, held July 2005, that "Baton rounds will not be used in a public order situation in Scotland". 29
29 ⇑ Take further steps to promote, facilitate and monitor children’s effective participation, including in schools.
The Children's Minister continues to be advised by a children and youth board. Members of the board were very much involved in the selection process of England’s first Children’s Commissioner.
The Home Office Minister Hazel Blears MP is currently in discussions with the UK Youth Parliament and others about establishing a children and youth board to advise on Home Office policy.
The ‘learning to listen’ initiative, established by the Children and Young People’s Unit in 2001, continues with each Government department producing an action plan for involving children and young people in policy and service development.
Children's participation in decision-making is seen as central to children's services reform, being strongly promoted in Every Child Matters, in the National Service Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity Services, and in the Youth Matters Green Paper.
The Government continues to fund a range of participatory programmes and activities: the development of the Participation Works online gateway (launched by a consortia of organisations including CRAE at the end of October 2005); the development of the Ready Steady Change participation training materials (produced by CRAE and others); the young people's consultation fund (administered by Changemakers); training for early years workers on listening to young children (run by the Coram Family); and so on.
⇑ Consistently reflect the obligations of both paragraphs of article 12 in legislation, and ensure in courts and administrative proceedings that a child capable of forming his/her own views has the right to express those views and that they are given due weight.
Section 53 of the Children Act 2004 amends sections 17 and 47 of the Children Act 1989, to give ‘children in need’ and children involved in child protection enquiries the legal right to have their views given due consideration. This is a major step forward. It came into force on March 1st 2005.30
The Adoption and Children Act 2002, which received Royal Assent in November 2002, provides for increased separate representation of children in family proceedings (section 122). This part of the Act finally came into force on December 7th 2004.31 However, there is concern that the Governmnet is now planning to return to Parliament to seek consent to postpone implementation.
30 Section 7 of the Education Act 2005 requires Ofsted to have regard to the views of registered pupils in a school (as well as other stakeholders) when carrying out an inspection. It came into force on September 1st 2005.32
All public authorities are now under a duty to promote positive attitudes towards disabled persons; and to encourage participation by disabled persons in public life.33 The Disability Rights Commission defines public life broadly:
"Public life” is a very broad term. It incorporates residents associations; neighbourhood forums; citizens panels; public bodies’ market research focus groups; school councils; user groups for a service provided by a public authority; Local Strategic Partnerships; government public appointments; the House of Lords. This is not an exhaustive list.34
Less positively, the education white paper Higher standards: better schools for all (October 2005) does not include any proposal to increase the participation rights of school students (though it says schools will be encouraged to establish school councils). During the passage of the Education Act 2005, in February this year, the Government promised to "quickly" amend the exclusions guidance to give children more of a say in the process:
Baroness Andrews: … I think the noble Baroness will agree with me how serious we are about articulating and amplifying the voice of the child. We are getting better at that in government. We are fully supportive of Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child … we have decided that we can strengthen our guidance in several places to emphasise the importance we attach to the child having a voice in the exclusion process. That guidance has the force of law. We are proposing that head teachers should not only allow pupils to give their version of events, but also—the significant change—positively encourage them to do so. Guidance on review by governing bodies and appeal panels will be enhanced so that in each case pupils should be encouraged to attend. If they do attend, they should be sent copies of the paper. Therefore, we shall make it clear that an excluded pupil under the age of 18 should be allowed and encouraged to speak on his or her own behalf at governing body meetings and independent appeal hearings, if he or she wishes to do so.
… My officials are currently involved in dialogue with Save the Children. We have had warm and positive support for the changes we want to make and for how the guidance will be worded to make clear there are proper opportunities. We are taking careful note of their proposals, and where possible we will incorporate their recommendations into revised guidance. We also need to consult informally with other parties. On the timescale, again we are aware
31 of the need to act quickly. The guidance can be changed online easily and quickly.35
Changes have not yet been made to the guidance (November 2005).
32 3. Civil rights and freedoms
⇔ Undertake all necessary measures to allow all children irrespective of the circumstances of their birth or adoptive children to obtain information on the identity of their parents as far as possible.
As reported in last year's review, children conceived using donated sperm, eggs or embryos can now obtain information about the identity of their biological parents, once they reach 18 years. Donors must supply the following information from April 1st 2005 (it will be 2023, before adults begin to get access to such information).
Access to donor information: on reaching 18, children conceived after April 2005 will be able to obtain the following information: (a) the sex, height, weight, ethnic group, eye colour, hair colour, skin colour, year of birth, country of birth and marital status of the donor; (b) whether the donor was adopted; (c) the ethnic group or groups of the donor's parents; (d) the screening tests carried out on the donor and information on his personal and family medical history; (e) where the donor has a child, the sex of that child and where the donor has children, the number of those children and the sex of each of them; (f) the donor's religion, occupation, interests and skills and why the donor provided sperm, eggs or embryos; (g) matters contained in any description of himself as a person which the donor has provided; (h) any additional matter which the donor has provided with the intention that it be made available to an applicant.
⇓ Review the use of restraint and solitary confinement in custody, education, health and welfare institutions.
CRAE has obtained information on the use of painful restraint in England's four privately-run secure training centres, holding children aged between 12 and 17.
33 Nose, rib and thumb distractions during past 12 months (Information obtained by CRAE under Freedom of Information Act 2000, dated November 7th 2005)
Medway Rainsbrook Oakhill Hassockfield Total No. of nose distractions 178 63 146 62 449
No. of rib distractions 1 6 25 0 32
No. of thumb distractions 61 45 167 14 287
No. of injuries from nose 17 8 4 12 41 distractions No. of injuries from rib 0 0 1 0 1 distractions No. of injuries from thumb 8 0 0 1 9 distractions No. of children receiving 0 0 0 0 0 outside medical treatment following distraction
The letter from the Youth Justice Board to CRAE states that, "These [nose, rib and thumb distraction] techniques were developed by the Prison Service, who issue a manual. The manual is currently being redrafted, and the new version will refer specifically to distraction techniques, and state that these must only be used where there is a dangerous or violent situation and that a person is at risk of harm".
On November 1st 2005, Home Office Minister Fiona Mactaggart MP described "progress" in the Government's review of restraint in secure training centres:
A system of physical interventions known as physical control in care—PCC—was developed in the late 1990s for use in STCs. It was approved by the Secretary of State on the advice of a panel of experts, including medical experts. It was designed to be non-pain- compliant, although … it includes certain distraction techniques that involve the brief infliction of pain. Those techniques may be used where necessary for safety reasons… PCC has recently been reviewed by a panel of experts, again including medical experts. The review began in March 2004. Following the death the next month [of 15 year-old Gareth Myatt] the use of one type of hold previously approved as part of PCC has been discontinued, and others have been modified. My noble Friend Baroness Scotland has approved the
34 new arrangements, and the YJB published a summary of the panel's recommendations in September this year … The YJB plans to publish a full report of the review in the fairly near future. The reason for delaying the full report is that the follow-up review covers a number of other matters, including the recommendations of the expert panel that focus on more general issues of behaviour management.36
Sixteen year-old Gareth Price hanged himself on January 20th 2005 whilst being held in the segregation unit of Lancaster Farms young offender institution. Gareth's parents were interviewed by their local newspaper and explained his troubled past. They said his brother had hanged himself in the garden of the family home: "[Gareth] was only 12 years old when we found his brother. He was never the same after that. He was a number one son before that. A bit of a rogue but never in any trouble".37
The Carlile Inquiry, established by the Howard League for Penal Reform to investigate the use of restraint, solitary confinement and strip- searching in child custody, is expected to report early in 2006.
⇓ With urgency adopt legislation throughout the State party to remove the “reasonable chastisement” defence.
The Government allowed a free vote during the passage of the Children Act 2004 (November 2004) which leaves the defence of “reasonable chastisement” intact in relation to the offence of common assault, removing it only in relation to more severe charges such as actual and grievous bodily harm and wounding. This means that parents appearing in court on a charge of common assault of a baby or child can still use the archaic defence, now called "reasonable punishment".
The European Committee of Social Rights in July 2005 declared the UK to be in breach of article 17 of the European Social Charter, because children do not enjoy the same protection from assault as adults. The Committee concluded:
The Committee notes that corporal punishment within the family is not prohibited. It further notes from the abovementioned source that the defence of "reasonable chastisement" still exists and the State has taken no significant action towards prohibiting all corporal punishment of children in the family. Therefore, it considers that since there is no prohibition in legislation of all corporal punishment in the home, the situation is not in conformity with Article 17 of the Charter.
The Council of Europe’s European Committee of Social Rights this year upheld complaints against corporal punishment in Belgium, Greece and Ireland, because parents in each of these countries can use the defence of 'reasonable chastisement' to justify corporal punishment in the family. It has already criticised nine other European countries for failing 35 to introduce a complete ban, saying that it is in breach of article 17 of the European Social Charter, which gives babies and children the right to social protection. A similar human rights complaint cannot be brought against the UK because it has not signed up to the Council of Europe’s complaints procedure.
In November 2005, the National Parenting and Family Institute and NCH published the report from their commision on the family and well-being of children. It criticises the "reasonable chastisement defence" and describes the negative impact on children of physical punishment.38
⇓ Prohibit all corporal punishment in the family and in any other contexts not covered by existing legislation.
Corporal punishment has not been prohibited in the family.
⇔ Promote positive, participatory and non-violent forms of discipline and respect for children’s equal right to human dignity and physical integrity, engaging with children and parents and all those who work with and for them, and carry out public education programmes on the negative consequences of corporal punishment.
The UK Government has not made any progress towards running the kind of public education programmes envisaged by the Committee. Ministers continue to try to distort the case for equal protection by claiming it will lead to criminalisation of parents for "light slaps" or "taps". This is an insult to babies and children: such an argument would not be used to try to justify violence between adults.
My Lords, on the issue of reasonable chastisement, the noble Baroness will know, because of her interest in the debates we have on this, that anything a court would consider to be common assault or worse has always been against the law. The reasonable punishment defence which can be tested in court can be used against the least serious category of assault charge. We believe that prosecuting parents for a light slap will not help children or their parents.39
In March 2005, the Home Office issued a report on domestic violence, which sets out progress and plans to end domestic violence, officially defined as ‘Any incident of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional) between adults who are or have been intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality.’ The Ministerial foreword describes domestic violence as a "serious public health issue" and the report summarises action taken during 2004 to raise public awareness of domestic violence: a national campaign and advertisements in magazines, washrooms, on the back of till receipts and on the radio. More campaigns are promised.
36 The Home Office has been working with the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit to produce a national domestic violence reduction delivery plan for 2006/07.40 All this, and more, is needed to tackle violence between adults. But why not also for violence against babies and children?
37 4. Family environment and alternative care
⇑ Introduce a system of statutory child death inquiries.
The Children Act 2004 establishes statutory Local Safeguarding Children Boards. The revised Working together statutory guidance and accompanyng draft regulations describe the role of the Boards in monitoring and responding to child deaths in the local area.41
From April 2008, all Local Safeguarding Children Boards must have a sub-committee responsible for considering all child deaths, including unexpected ones, in the area (the child death overview panel). An unexpected death is defined as a death that wasn't at all expected 24 hours before it happened.
When a child or young person dies (or has been seriously harmed), and abuse or neglect are known or suspected, local councils must establish a 'serious case review' to learn lessons about the child's or young person's death (including in cases of suicide).
A serious case review should normally be completed within four months. Each service involved with the child or young person who has died should write a separate review of their own work – explaining how they were involved, what worked well and what didn't work well etc. This management review should say how the child's or young person's wishes and feelings had been heard and addressed. It should say whether the child's or young person's wishes and feelings had been recorded.
The authors of the reviews must not have been involved directly with the child or young person or their family.
A person completely independent of the local council and services must write an overview report, bringing all the lessons together from the reviews by the different services. This should be given to the Local Safeguarding Children Board, which will produce an urgent action plan to try to improve how services and organisations work with children and young people. The Local Safeguarding Children Board will inform the child's or young person's family and the local media about the results of the serous case review. It will also give a copy of the overview report to the DfES and the Commission for Social Care Inspection (the independent body that inspects and checks children's services).
⇔ Develop a strategy for the reduction of child deaths as a result of violence and the reduction of all forms of violence against children.
38 At least 70 children under 16 were the victim of homicide in 2003/04:
Reported child homicides 2003/0442 Babies under one year 27 Children aged one to five years 17 Children aged five to 16 years 26 Total 70
Babies are at greatest risk of being killed – the homicide rate is 61 per million for under one year-olds compared to 16 per million for the population overall.
Of the 70 children that were killed in 2003/04, the suspect was known in 61 cases. Of these, 67% were killed by parents or someone known to the child.
The Government has still not developed a strategy for the reduction of child deaths as a result of violence and the reduction of all forms of violence against children.
The revised draft guidance Working together promises that, every two years, the DfES will publish a report of the main findings of serious case reviews and the changes that need to be made to help children and young people be safe.
⇔ Ensure consistent legal protection for all children in alternative care, including those who are privately fostered.
The Government resisted attempts during the passage of the Children Act 2004 to introduce a compulsory notification scheme for privately fostered children (though its "sunset clause" will allow it to do so in future). A review of Government action on Sir William Utting's 1997 safeguards review reported in January 2005. The review team says the Government’s response to the recommendations on private fostering is "extremely disappointing and concludes, "It is unlikely that the ‘enhanced scheme’ will make much impact or identify those private fostering situations of most concern. Despite estimates of several thousand children being privately fostered, the Social Services Inspectorate has so far been unable to identify enough councils with enough notified cases for a meaningful inspection."43
New national minimum standards and regulations came into force on July 1st 2005. The regulations require local authorities: to arrange for a privately fostered child to be visited when "reasonably requested to do so" by a parent of the child, or any other person with parental responsibility; to visit a privately fostered child at least every six weeks during the first year after it becomes aware that a private fostering arrangement is in place; and, on being notified of a private fostering arrangement, to visit and speak to the child within seven working days
39 to, among others things, establish the wishes and feelings of the child about the proposed arrangement.44
The Children's Rights Director was asked by the Government to consult privately fostered children about the draft guidance and regulations. The children's recommendations include:
• The social worker must see the child on his or her own (not in regulations) • Children should be given information about their social worker (not in regulations) • The social worker should visit every four weeks (Government kept the six week rule) • One group warned against only requiring visits in the first year, believing this could lead to a decline in care after the visits stop (visits can be less frequent after first 12 months).
The children suggested the following rules for private foster carers:
• Make sure the child goes to school • Listen to what the child has to say when they get back each day from school • Follow up anything that needs following up to do with what is happening at school • Listen to the child’s worries and concerns • Help the child with school work • Make sure the child is happy • Treat a privately fostered child the same way as your own child – e.g. going to bed at the same time as the carers’ own child • Give the child the same food as your own children (or any special diet they have) – don’t make the child have to look for their own food • Keep the house clean – doing the washing up and other jobs properly.45
⇔ Carry out public education campaigns and programmes (including through schools) on reducing child death and child abuse with information on the role of statutory and other services.
There has been no announcement in the past 12 months of any Government-led public education campaign or programme on reducing child deaths and child abuse.
In April 2005, the Child Accident Prevention Trust launched a baby safety booklet for parents with poor literacy. I’m only a baby but … uses colourful illustrations to show the accidents that babies are most likely to be hurt in and explains what parents need to do to keep their baby safe. The project was supported by the Department of Health and Sure Start. 40
⇔ Establish effective child protection procedures and support for children, ensuring the abused child is not victimised in legal proceedings and that her/his privacy is protected.
There has been no review of the child protection system from the child's viewpoint. The starting point for such a review would be to explore why children fail to turn to the system for much-needed advice, information and intervention.
As at March 31st 2003, there were 26,600 children on child protection registers. Local councils carried out 65,000 s47 enquiries in the previous 12 months.46 There are 11 million children in England: official statistics massively under-estimate the extent of abuse and neglect.
Cooper and others explain:47
Only a small proportion of the children who are abused are ever reported to statutory child protection agencies. Those referrals by children themselves form an even smaller number.
Featherstone and Evans carried out a literature review of the research relating to ‘maltreated’ children seeking help.48 They summarise:
• The NSPCC prevalence study found that only a quarter of people who were sexually abused as children had told anyone at the time of the abuse: 31% had still not told anyone by the time of their adulthood.49
• From an analysis of the 1,121 letters to the National Commission of Inquiry into the Prevention of Child Abuse, Wattam and Woodward found that only 32% of people had told someone of their abuse as a child; for 13% of people writing to the Commission, it was the first time they had ever told anyone of the abuse.50
• NSPCC research in the mid-1990s asked adults who had been sexually abused as children to identify when and how the abuse had stopped. For 6% of the respondents, the abuse never stopped or continued until after the age of 16.51
The NSPCC's study confirms what has been known for years – that abused and neglected children and young people do not turn to statutory services. Last year, for example, ChildLine counselled 140,000 children; for one in nine of the children, this was the first time they had talked to anyone about their problem.52
As the Committee urged, a review of child protection procedures would also address children's experiences of legal proceedings and the extent to which their privacy rights are upheld at all stages.
41 ⇔ Strengthen the reporting system and train teachers, law enforcement officials, care workers, judges and health professionals in the identification, reporting and management of cases of ill treatment.
Electronic databases holding basic information about every child in the country, to be used by all professionals (and the voluntary sector), were the centrepiece of the Government's response to the Laming Inquiry into the horific torture and death of eight year-old Victoria Climbie. As the then Children's Minister, Margaret Hodge MP, said when introducing the draft legislation into the Commons:
we have to strike a balance between privacy for individuals and their families and safeguarding and protecting children. In the light of the many reports we have had on child deaths, it is critical that we grasp this opportunity to put right the failure of professionals to communicate with each other at an early enough stage about the needs of the child—a problem identified in all the reports—which then leads to things going wrong in the life of that child.53
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights expressed strong reservations over the proposed databases, concluding that they will remove all of children's article 8 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights:
The Government argues that universal coverage is necessary in order to achieve the aim of ensuring the welfare of all children, and that the interference with children’s Article 8 rights is proportionate because there are limits on the type of information recorded and control over access to that information.
… Adults are also the beneficiaries of universal services such as health care and other services, such as community care, for which they may be eligible in certain circumstances. It appears to us that the strict logic of the Government’s position is that it would be a justifiable interference with adults’ Article 8 rights to maintain a similar universal database of all adults in the UK in order to ensure that those amongst them who are or may be entitled to receive certain services from the state actually receive them. We are concerned that, if the justification for information-sharing about children is that it is always proportionate where the purpose is to identify children who need child welfare services, there is no meaningful content left to a child’s Article 8 right to privacy and confidentiality in their personal information.54
Fears about confidentiality feature a lot in the independent research, carried out by the University of Holloway, on the 10 local authority Trailblazers [pilots for electronic information-sharing]. The researchers recommend that children and their parents be consulted about information-sharing, and their consent obtained before any information 42 is stored or shared on a database. Significantly, the researchers report little evidence (yet) of improved outcomes for children and conclude:
It is too early to evaluate the success of the pilots and whether they have improved outcomes for children but it is important that this learning is generated … Outcomes for children will be improved if practitioners communicate and services are delivered in a co- ordinated way. A child index with details of how to contact other practitioners involved could aid this process but must not be seen as a sole solution to protecting children.
An IT system will make no difference to children; it is what practitioners do. (Project Manager)
Technology will not change outcomes for children. (Project Manager)55
Regulations bringing into force section 12 of the Children Act 2004 have yet to be published (November 2005). There are hopes that the Government is having second thoughts, especially after reports that Lord Laming is now doubting the scheme:
A national, all-singing, all-dancing, complicated database accessible to everybody is not only expensive but I doubt it will improve case outcomes. It also breaches reasonable safeguards of data protection.56
⇔ Record in the British Crime Survey all crimes committed against children.
When the UK was examined in Geneva in 2002, officials reported to the Committee that the survey for 2002/03 would include children. It did not include children – neither did the survey for 2003/04 or 2004/05.
Since 1999, the Youth Justice Board has commisisoned MORI to undertake an annual youth survey. Its focus is on young people's offending and truancy behaviour. The 2004 report – following consultation with 5,000+ 11 to 17 year-olds – includes a 10 page-section on young people's experiences and fear of crime.57 This is no substitute for a comprehensive annual analysis of crimes committed against children, from birth to 18 years.
43 5. Basic health and welfare
⇔ Take all appropriate measures to reduce inequalities in health and access to health services
The Government is committed to reducing health inequalities by 10% by 2010 as measured by infant mortality and life expectancy at birth.58
In March 2005, the Government published Delivering choosing health: making healthier choices easier. It outlines objectives to improve the health of the population. This includes the development of Local Area Agreements to be piloted in 21 Local Authorities in 2005/06: one of its priorities is improving the health and well-being of children and young people.59
Meanwhile, inequalities in health continue to be marked.
Life expectancy The latest figures available (for 2002-04) show that there is still a considerable difference between the highest and lowest life expectancy rates in England: • The highest life expectancy for men is 80.8 years (in Kensington and Chelsea) compared to the lowest life expectancy of 73.2 years (in Liverpool) • The highest life expectancy for women is 85.8 years (in Kensington and Chelsea) compared to the lowest life expectancy of 77.9 years (in Liverpool).60
Infant mortality In 2004, (the latest figures available) the infant mortality rate (babies under 1 year), based on death registrations, was the lowest ever recorded in England and Wales – 5.1 per 1,000 live births compared to 5.3 deaths per 1,000 live births in both 2002 and 2003.61
Despite this overall progress, infant mortality rates continue to differ across the country. In 2004, Birmingham and the Black Country had the highest infant mortality rates in England (7.5 deaths per 1,000 live births) compared with the lowest in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight where the rate was 3.3 rate per 1,000 live births.62
Although infant mortality rates have fallen for all socio-economic groups in England and Wales, the difference in rates between the lowest and highest socio-economic groups has widened. In England and Wales in 1994-6, there were 3.3 more infant deaths per 1,000 live births in the lowest socio-economic group than in the highest group. In 2001-3 the difference was 4.5 more infant deaths per 1,000 live births.63
44 Baby health Research by the University of York found that one in five of all babies in the Millenium Cohort Study were living in poverty. The study showed that poverty in pregnancy or soon after the child’s birth has very damaging consequences: high risk of low birth rate, maternal depression and a lower chance that the mother will try breastfeeding. A single pregnant woman on income support will live on as little as £44.50 a week.64
Access to services A study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that poorer people continue to have the worst access to opportunities and services. Researchers used information from the census to assess people’s access to services. They found that areas with the highest levels of poor health have the lowest numbers of doctors, dentists and other health professionals:
Perversely, people living in the poorest neighbourhoods, with the greatest needs, are often the least likely to have access to the services and support that would help them improve their lives and life chances.65
Housing Bad housing has a serious impact on children’s health: one in 12 children in Britain are more likely to develop diseases such as bronchitis, TB or asthma because of bad housing. Homeless children living in bed and breakfast hotels are twice as likely to be admitted to A&E with burns and scalding; people with asthma are twice as likely to live in damp homes; 11 per cent of childhood accidents are a result of badly designed housing and dangerous fittings.66
At the end of October 2005, homelessness charity Shelter published the results of its overcrowding survey. In almost 75% of the 550 families surveyed, children were forced to share a bedroom with their parents; 71% of parents said their children's education and development is being harmed. 900,000 children live in overcrowded accommodation, with 100,000 children in severely crowded homes. Shelter is urging the Government to include in its November 2005 budget a commitment to build 60,000 extra social rented homes. It also wants the antiquated overcrowding laws – drafted in the 1930s – to be updated to reflect modern expectations.67
In January 2005, the Deputy Prime Minister published his five-year housing plan, which aims to bring all social housing into a decent condition by 2010.68
Obesity In Opportunity for all, published in October 2005, the Government says the obesity levels among children are rising, especially among low- income families and those living in deprived areas. National priority
45 targets in England aim to help halt the year-on-year increase in obesity among children under 11 by 2010.69
It is estimated that up to 15% of children in the UK are overweight. The prevalence of obesity in under 10s increased from 10% to 14% between 1995 and 2003. 70 At least one fifth of boys and one third of girls are expected to be obese by 2020.71
In June 2005, the British Medical Association (BMA) called on the health behaviour of the nation’s children to be “addressed immediately in order to ameliorate the long-term effects of poor nutrition and lack of exercise.”72
The BMA reports that children from low socio-economic backgrounds are at greater risk of obesity than children from more affluent households. There is evidence that inequalities exist in the consumption of fruit and vegetables, with lower consumption among children from lower socio-economic groups. It concludes that low income may restrict poorer families’ access to food retailers where healthy food is available and deny them access to the equipment necessary for food storage and preparation.73
School meals In March 2005, Ruth Kelly MP, the Education Secretary, announced a £280 million package to transform the quality of school meals and said that schools should spend at least 50p per child on food ingredients (some schools were spending as low as 37p per child). 74 In addition, £60 million is being made available from the Big Lottery Fund and the Department for Education and Skills to establish a new School Food Trust to give independent advice and support to schools and parents to improve school meals.
In September 2005, new minimum nutrition standards were introduced to cut the salt, sugar and fat levels in processed foods such as beef burgers, sausages and cakes. From 2006, the guidelines will be mandatory.
To help the introduction of the new standards, school caterers can now take vocational qualifications in cooking healthy food and Ofsted now (since September 2005) reviews the quality of school meals as part of regular school inspections.
New or upgraded school kitchen facilities where fresh food can be prepared and served will be made a priority through the Government’s current school rebuilding and refurbishment programmes.
The Chair of the School Meals Review Panel has estimated the cost of implementing the nutritional standards in schools in England to be around £500m over three years. An additional £289m is needed to refurbish school kitchens and dining rooms. So far, the Government has
46 pledged only £220m, though the Education Secretary has acknowledged the need for increased funding.75
The Government has so far resisted supporting The Children's Food Bill, a Private Member's Bill proposed by Mary Creagh MP, that would ban junk food advertising to children. However, its white paper Choosing health (November 2004) reported that Ofcom is studying how foods are advertised to children, with a view to voluntary restrictions on "junk food" adverts. The Government says it will introduce legislation in 2007 if the voluntary restrictions do not work.76
Smoking In England in 2004: • 9% of children aged 11-15 were regular smokers, the same proportion as in 2003 • 23% drank alcohol in the last week, a decrease from 25% in 2003 • 18% had taken drugs in the last year in 2004, down from 21% in 2003 • 10% had taken drugs in the last month in 2004, a decrease from 12% in 2003 • 1% said they took drugs most days and a further 1% took drugs at least once a week. 77
Children seeking asylum Section 11 of the Children Act 2004 came into effect on October 1 2005 but immigration offices, detention or ‘reception’ centres and the National Asylum Support Service are not included in this duty that requires agencies to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.
⇑ Promote breastfeeding and adopt the international code of marketing of Breast-Milk
The Government continues to promote breastfeeding through its National Breastfeeding Awareness Week. This year, the awareness campaign focused on the importance of support during breastfeeding from those closest to mothers – partners, peers and family members.
The Government this year promised to stop the availability of infant formula milk in all healthcare premises. In 2006, it will replace the current milk tokens with a voucher that can be exchanged for a range of healthy foods. It is also reviewing regulations relating to UK infant formula and follow-on formula to see if more restrictions are needed. At a Europe-wide level, the Government is pressing for changes in the EU directive on infant formula and follow-on formula.78
In November 2005, Labour backbencher David Kidney introduced his Breastfeeding etc Bill into the Commons. It proposes a new offence of preventing a baby from being breastfed in public, and requires the Secretary of State to promote breastfeeding. Kidney pointed out that in 47 Norway, 97% of new mothers start to breastfeed, with 80 per cent still doing so at six months. Figures from the 2005 UK infant feeding survey are not available until 2007. In 2000, 57% of newborns in England and Wales were breastfed; at six months, this had reduced to 14%.79
There has been no further progress in adopting the World Health Assembly’s international code, established in 1981. The code bans baby food companies from promoting products in hospitals and shops; it prohibits them from giving out free samples and promoting baby foods and drinks; and bans pictures of babies on baby milk labels.
⇔ Enforce through educational and other measures the prohibition of female genital mutilation
To date there has not been one prosecution under the Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) Act 2003.
Foundation for Women’s Health, Research and Development (FORWARD) is concerned that information about the new law has not reached all the FGM practicing communities and that there is wide-spread ignorance among the public and some health professionals. In research carried out by the Development Support Agency, 50% of those interviewed did not know that FGM was an illegal practice and 31% of those questioned said they intend to carry on doing it.80
The Court of Appeal this year dismissed a woman's appeal against the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s decision that she would not face persecution, in the form of female genital mutilation, if she returned to Sierra Leone. The judge ruled that female genital mutilation is not persecution under the definition of persecution contained in the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and the 1969 Protocol because he concluded that a young, female, uncircumcised women at risk of FGM do not constitute a ‘particular social group’.81 It is unlikely that an appeal will be granted.
⇑ Take further action to reduce the rate of teenage pregnancies
Figures from the Office of National Statistics show that conception rates among under-18s have fallen. There were 42.3 conceptions per 1000 young women in 2003 compared to 42.8 per 1000 in 2002.
The highest rates continue to be in the inner city areas of London, with the London Borough of Lambeth having 104.9 conceptions per 1000, followed by Southwark with 86.8. The lowest rates were in the more affluent areas of Wokingham at 20.5 followed by Windsor with 21.1.82
Although there has been some improvement, these rates suggest that the Government is well short of its target set in 1999 (the Department of Health PSA to reduce the under-18s conception rate by 50% by 2010).
48
Local teenage pregnancy partnership boards, which are in areas with the highest levels of teenage conceptions, are trying to help young people most at risk.83
In May 2005, the new children's Minister, Beverley Hughes MP, said it was now up to parents to tackle teenage pregnancy:
I don't think there is any magic bullet from the government side and local authority side and all the partners on the ground that we can identify that is going to now take another substantial step forward … we really need parents to now see themselves as making an absolutely unique and vital contribution to this issue ... It is a contribution that I don't think anyone else can actually make.84
⇔ Make health education part of the school curriculum, ensuring the inclusion of sex education to all children and the availability of free protection measures
Health education is still not part of the national curriculum although in its election 2005 manifesto Labour pledged to encourage schools to educate children about healthy eating.85 In January 2005, Ofsted published its report on personal, social and health education (PSHE) in secondary schools. It complains that schools do not give enough priority to assessing the extent to which PSHE is changing attitudes and behaviour, and says too few schools involve children in policy development in order to make sure PSHE meets their needs: "Well- planned PSHE curricula, as well as providing for a body of knowledge, ensure that pupils have frequent opportunities to take responsibility for their own actions and make informed choices".86
Parents can still remove their children from sex education in school. A Brook survey has shown that one third of 16 to 18 year-olds having sex do not use a condom87.
⇔ Improve access to confidential and adolescent-sensitive advice, information and support
Draft guidelines published by the London Child Protection Committee88 in July 2005 require that every sexually active young person (aged 17 and under) be professionally assessed. The assessment will cover the young person's emotional health, education and safeguarding needs. 'Sexual activity' criminalised by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 is deliberately broad and vague, and includes kissing. In every case, the draft guidelines state, contact must be made with the police "in order that potential abusers can be identified". The police will record the contact "for intelligence purposes".
49 The revised draft guidance Working together suggests that the London Child Protection Committee's protocol could be used across the country. Sir Michael Bichard, Chair of the Bichard Inquiry, which was established following the murder of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells, has criticised the guidance saying that his inquiry’s call for social workers to share concerns about underage sex with the police was not intended to include normal teenage relationships.
In addition, the draft guidance on sharing information on children and young people, published in August 2005, suggests confidentiality can be breached in a range of situations, and by a range of professionals: [This guidance] is for all adults who work with children and young people in these services, whether they are employed or volunteers, and working in the public, private or voluntary sectors. It recognises that most decisions to share information require a professional judgment, and aims to provide the knowledge and understanding practitioners need to inform their judgement. It covers the main reasons why practitioners may want or need to share information:
• to help children or young people achieve the key outcomes we want for all: be healthy, stay safe, enjoying and achieving, making a positive contribution, and achieving economic well- being;
• to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and young people, by protecting them from maltreatment, preventing impairment of their health or development, or ensuring they grow up in circumstances consistent with the provision of safe and effective care; and
• to prevent children and young people from committing crime.
In January 2005, the Department for Education and Skills published a consultation on information sharing databases that relate to section 12 of the Children Act 2004.89 The government plans have been criticised by the Brook Advisory Service, the British Youth Council, the National Youth Agency, Youth Access and the UK Youth Parliament who argue that confidentiality is one of the main concerns of young people using sexual health services, particularly for those under-16. Research carried out by Brook found that almost all the young people they asked about the proposals would be less likely to use their service if they knew that their details would be recorded on a database.90
One option in the consultation is for information to be only recorded with a young person’s consent, but Brook has major reservations about the extent to which consent would be explicitly sought and that young people might feel too intimidated to refuse.
There has been no review of the National Advocacy Standards, published by the Department of Health in 2002. The confidentiality
50 standard puts a child approaching an advocate in exactly the same position as if they had approached their teacher or social worker. The advocate must refer on any concerns that the child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm.
More positively, the Secretary of State, Patricia Hewitt MP, is currently (November 2005) defending the child's right to confidential pregnancy advice in a judicial review brought by a Manchester mother of two teenage daughters.
⇔ Review differential policies for young mothers under the age of 16 years with regard to benefit entitlements and parenting course.
There has been no review in the past 12 months.
⇑ Strengthen mental health and counselling services; and undertake studies on the cases and backgrounds of suicides
The Department of Health publication Delivering choosing health91, published in March 2005, includes children’s mental health and emotional well-being. It recognises that 10% of children – some 1.1 million – have a mental health disorder, with prevalence rates significantly higher for some vulnerable groups. It aims to: expand help for people with mental illness (access, care planning, referral arrangements); improve the quality of patients’ experiences of mental health services; extend the coverage of child and adolescent mental health services; and set up new services to improve mental and emotional well-being.
In July 2005, Ofsted published Healthy minds – promoting emotional well-being in schools. 92 It examines the role played by schools in promoting the emotional well-being of school students and recommends that local authorities and other agencies: • Ensure that services for pupils with mental health difficulties are co-ordinated effectively within their area and that access to services is clear to schools, parents, children, young people and other service users • Commission, where appropriate, the services of voluntary organisations.
It urges schools and other settings to: • Use the DfES national guidance on mental health difficulties to develop clear procedures, that are known and used by all staff, for identifying and supporting pupils • Ensure that issues concerning mental health are tackled successfully, either through the National Healthy School Standard (NHSS) programme or the PSHE curriculum
51 • Establish arrangements for preventing bullying and promoting positive relationships and monitor their effectiveness • Work together to ensure that the DfES guidance is disseminated to all staff.
In March 2005, the Joint Committee on the Draft Mental Health Bill recommended that the legislation should stop teenagers being admitted to adult psychiatric wards and require age-appropriate facilities, following the lead set in Scotland. The Committee said that a person should not be compulsorily treated unless their decision-making is impaired; and that the level of risk required for compulsory treatment should be raised.93
The draft Bill failed to incorporate the child welfare principles of the Children Act 1989 and the new duty introduced by section 11 of the Children Act 2004. There is not expected to be significant changes when the Mental Health Bill is introduced later in this Parliamentary session.
The Disability Discrimination Act 2005 changes the definition of disability slightly, removing the need for people with mental illness to show that their illness is "clinically well-recognised".
The national inquiry into self-harm among young people continues. The second interim report states that schools do not know enough about self-harming and both school staff and young people need more information and advice about self-harm. It found training and information for teachers to be inadequate. It also found that current Government strategies promoting better health and emotional well- being in schools do not address self-harm.94
In January 2005, the Department of Health published Delivering race equality in mental health care95 in response to research that shows that people from Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) communities continue to suffer from inequalities in access to mental health services. In relation to children it recognises that:
• Mainstream child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) are not meeting the needs of BME children and young people • Not all CAMHS are commissioned with the needs of BME children and their families in mind • There are a number of inadequacies in the system, including a lack of basic ethnic monitoring data, a workforce that does not reflect the diversity of the population it serves, and a failure during assessment and treatment processes to meet the needs of a diverse population.
It requires:
• Specific arrangements to be made to address the needs of refugee and asylum seeking families, including children and young people
52 • Primary Care Trusts and local authorities to ensure that directories of services for BME groups are available to help children, young people and their families obtain appropriate support • The National Institute for Mental Health in England (NIMHE) and the National CAHMS Support Service (NCSS) to support and promote good practice within CAMHS, including by helping to employ BME community development workers • NIMHE will work with other partners in the statutory and non- statutory sectors to support mental health services in responding to the needs of refugees and asylum seeking families.
⇑ Provide adequate information and support to homosexual and transsexual young people and repeal section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988
Section 28 was repealed in September 2003.
In November 2004, the DfES published guidance on how schools can tackle homophobic bullying. The guidance states that anti-bullying strategies must address homophobic bullying. 96
The Department for Education and Skills (DfES) funded a participation training toolkit for young gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered called What’s so queer? as part of the Ready Steady Change participation training materials published by the Children’s Rights Alliance for England.
⇔ Use the maximum extent of available resources to accelerate the elimination of child poverty
The UK has the fourth richest economy in the world. The continuing extent of child poverty and increasing inequality shows that the Government is not using the ‘maximum extent of available resources’ to tackle child poverty.
Official Government figures, published in March 2005, show that 3.5 million children in the UK lived in poverty in 2003/04. Although this is a fall of 100,000 children on the previous year, over a quarter of children continue to live in poverty.
In September 2005, the United Nations warned that the UK Government would miss its target of halving child poverty by 2010 unless it increases taxes for the better off. This year's UN Human Development Report says Britain is now a country where inequality stunts human development, and advocates "pro-poor" policies:97
In an exercise carried out for the Human Development Report the Institute for Fiscal Studies simulated what would happen to child 53 poverty over the next 10 years if the distribution pattern of the 1980s were reversed. So, for example, the income of the poorest 10% was estimated to grow at 3.7% a year, the average rate of growth experienced by the richest 10% between 1979 and 1990, while the richest 10% was estimated to grow at 0.4%, the average growth of the poorest 10% between 1979 and 1990.
The distributional shift would have cut the incidence of child poverty from 23% to 17% by 2010. While this is still above the 2010 target, the simulation does not take into account the potential for fiscal policy to close the gap. In other words, if the next 10 years did for the poor what the 1980s did for the rich, that would bring the United Kingdom within touching distance of the child poverty goals.
The Child Poverty Action Group98 has examined which children are most likely to be poor, and reports:
• Children in lone parent households are twice as likely to be poor than children in two-parent families • Children with a mother under the age of 25 have a 52% chance of being in poverty while children with a mother over 45 have a 21% chance • If the family is a tenant, the child has a 56% chance of being in poverty versus a 15% chance if their family is an owner-occupier • Children who have a Pakistani/Bangladeshi background have a 63% chance of being in poverty followed by Chinese with a 52% chance and Black with a 49% chance • Children living in inner London have a 51% chance of being in poverty followed by a 34% chance in outer London and 32% chance in the West Midlands • Disabled children, children with a parent in prison and children leaving care are more likely to live in poverty.
Speaking on the UN International Day for the Eradication of Poverty at the ‘Poor Relations: Make UK Poverty History’ conference in London, on October 17 2005, David Blunkett, the then Work and Pensions Secretary, reiterated the Government’s commitment to ending child poverty.99
However, anti-poverty charities have expressed concern that that the Government’s forthcoming Green Paper on welfare reform could undermine this commitment.100
A report by Citizens’ Advice, based on 150,000 cases relating to tax credits handled by the charity concludes that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has “failed to live up to its own standards of information, clarity and efficiency of service” in its administration of tax credits which has been subject to a “completely unacceptable level of error”.101
Recently published figures on overpayments show that, at the end of the tax year 2003-04, a third of all tax credit awards (1,879,000) had been overpaid. More than half a million awards (630,000) had been overpaid 54 £1,000 or more - including 40,000 awards where the overpayment amounted to more than £5,000.
In a recent report, the Parliamentary Ombudsman concludes that, “the manner in which recovery of excess payments has been handled has alienated many people and caused considerable financial disruption and real hardship” despite evidence that in a large proportion of cases Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has been the cause of overpayment.102
The Government says that, from mid-November 2005, over payment of tax credits will not be clawed back until claimant disputes have been resolved. However, it has resisted calls from CPAG for an amnesty in respect of all tax credit overpayments in the scheme's first two years. CPAG remains concerned that even this concession puts the onus on the claimant to know that they can dispute the recovery of an overpayment.
There is no right of appeal against overpayment decisions, although the Paymaster General, Dawn Primarolo MP, has said the Government is looking into the possibility of an appeal system being introduced.
More than four years has passed since the Social Security Select Committee (now the Committee for Work and Pensions) called for an urgent overhaul of the discretionary social fund. MPs claimed that without reform and an injection of cash the social fund risked undermining the Government's polices to tackle child poverty and social exclusion.
In January 2005, a survey of people on low incomes by the National Audit Office found only 47% were aware of the Social Fund. Even when claimants know about the Social Fund, they are not well informed about the different types of award or how much money they may receive.103
⇔ Tackle the causes and consequences of youth homelessness
Centrepoint has reported that the Government’s welcome policy of ending the placement of families in bed and breakfast accommodation for more than six weeks has resulted in more 16 and 17 year-olds being placed in this type of housing. Paradoxically, 16 and 17 year-olds in families are being fast-tracked out of bed and breakfast accommodation because the accommodation is deemed unsuitable.104
The Centrepoint research found 16 and 17 year-olds living in unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation without help and support for long periods of time. It found that children are not safe in this accommodation, with children witnessing violence and alcoholism and finding their surroundings intimidating. Some of the girls in the research reported being approached for sex or being sexually harassed by other residents or even by the accommodation staff.105
55
In August 2005, the Youth Justice Board consulted on its strategy for the provision of providing sustainable accommodation for young offenders and for young people at risk of offending.106 However, there are no plans to stop the eviction of families from local authority accommodation if their children have displayed ‘anti-social’ behaviour.
Shelter reports that over one million children in Britain live in bad housing – enough to fill the cities of Edinburgh, Bath and Manchester. Homelessness among families has increased by 17% since 1997. Over a million houses in Britain are unfit to live in; and more than half a million families in Britain live in officially overcrowded housing.107
Homeless children miss out on a quarter of their schooling. One local authority estimated that 400 children were not going to school because of their housing problems.108
56 6. Education, leisure and cultural activities
⇑ Ensure that legislation throughout the State party respects children’s rights to express their views and have them given due weight in all matters concerning their education, including school discipline
Section 7 of the Education Act 2005 requires the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) to have regard to the views of school students, as well as other stakeholders, when carrying out a school inspection. It comes into force on September 1st 2005.
An Ofsted survey found that 88% of children want an increased role for students in the running of their schools.109
In June 2005, the Government established a taskforce of head teachers and other senior teaching staff to advice on bullying and discipline. No children were consulted during the preparation of the Steer report Learning behaviour. When the report was released, in October 2005, 10 Downing Street and the media headlined the need for "new" powers to discipline children, despite this being only one of 71 recommendations (see pages 22-24). Newspapers and the radio were filled with stories of teachers being given new powers to restrain pupils: this "right" already exists in section 550A of the Education Act 1996 (as amended by section 4 of the Education Act 1997).
At the end of October 2005, the Government published the education white paper, Higher standards, better schools: more choice for parents and pupils. The emphasis is on ‘parental choice and participation’. There are no proposals to strengthen children’s participation rights. The Government promises to introduce legislation that requires schools to have regard to the views of parents; that requires Trust schools to have a parents council; it will establish a national Schools Commissioner to “take action where parental choices are being frustrated”; and it says it will expect local authorities to consult parents about schools and extended services. By contrast, schools will simply be encouraged to set up a student council. More positively, the white paper proposes a new duty on local authorities to commission information, advice and guidance for secondary school students (though not for children in primary schools and nurseries).110
⇓ Reduce temporary or permanent exclusions
In 2003/04, the number of permanent exclusions increased by 6% on the previous year.111
57 In 2003/04 there were 9,880 permanent exclusions from primary, secondary and all special schools. This accounts for 0.13% of all school students.
The proportion of permanent exclusions in each type of school has changed very little since 1997/98. In 2003/04, 84% of permanent exclusions were from secondary schools; 13% were from primary schools and 3% were from special schools.
In addition to permanent exclusions, in 2003/04 there were 344,510 fixed period exclusions from primary, secondary and maintained special schools: 84% of fixed period exclusions were from secondary schools; 12% were from primary schools; and 4% were from maintained special schools.
201,780 school students had one or more fixed period exclusions, representing 2.6% of the school population. The majority (65%) were excluded on only one occasion and 19% were excluded twice.112
Guidance issued in November 2004 by the Department for Education and Skills states that “Exclusions should be used as a last resort when all other alternatives have been exhausted.”113
⇔ Ensure that children have the right to be heard before exclusion and have the right to appeal against temporary and permanent exclusion
During the Parliamentary passage of the Education Act 2005, Save the Children sought legal rights for children affected by exclusion (parents, not children, have the right to information and appeal). The Government promised to amend guidance to put children at the centre of the process. This is a poor substitute to giving children legal rights to participate in the process, as required by article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The guidance has not yet been amended (November 2005 – see pages 31-32).
The education white paper, Higher standards, better schools, boasts that, due to the reform of exclusion panels, only 130 students were reinstated following an appeal (there were nearly 10,000 permanent exclusions in 2003-04).114 The Government asked the Steer group whether exclusion appeals panels should be replaced altogether. The group responded:
We do not consider it would be appropriate to abolish the right of appeal to the governing body in the case of fixed period exclusions, nor the two stage right of appeal to the governing body and to an independent panel in the case of permanent exclusions. These appeal mechanisms provide important safeguards which need to be retained in the interests of natural justice.
58 Steer makes five recommendations relating to the exclusion process: DfES guidance should emphasise that in all cases the head teacher and governor representative should be from the same phase of education and, wherever possible, the same type of education as the child being considered; the guidance should be reviewed and amended as necessary to reduce the risk of decisions being overturned on technicalities; where the panel "accepts" the child has "committed the offence" it should not vary the governing body's decision; clerks and chairs of appeals must undergo training before they can serve; and head teachers should be given legal representation. It also urges the Government to toughen up guidance on "unofficial exclusions":
We believe parents or carers should never be pressured into removing their child from the school under threat of a permanent exclusion, nor should pupils' names be deleted from the school roll on disciplinary grounds unless the formal permanent exclusion procedures set out in statute and in the DfES' exclusions guidance have been adhered to.
The education white paper commits the Government to three of the Steer recommendations on exclusions – relating to panels not varying the decision of governing bodies, head teachers and governors being from the same phase of education, and mandatory training for clerks and chairs.
⇔ Ensure that children who are excluded do continue to have access to full time education
The education white paper proposes to make parents responsible for excluded children in the first five days of an exclusion by ensuring that their children are supervised doing school work at home or, for example, at a relative’s house. A new offence will be introduced, with fines for parents if excluded children are found in a public place during school hours.
More positively, local authorities will be required to provide alternative full-time education to excluded students from the sixth day of their exclusion (currently the 16th day)115.
In November 2004, the Department for Education and Skills published new guidance relating to provision for excluded pupils and pupils at risk of exclusion. It states, “We must maintain full-time provision for the permanently excluded and consider how far we can and should make a similar offer to those excluded for a fixed period”.116
The Government does not publish annual statistics showing whether permanently excluded children are provided with alternative full-time education. The Institute of Public Policy Research reports that only half of excluded pupils are receiving alternative full-time provision.117
59 ⇔ Remove the inequalities in educational achievement and in exclusion rates between children
Provisional figures show continuing inequalities in educational achievement across the country, and between private and state schools. Girls continue to do better than boys, and the educational achievement of children in care remains very poor.
In the maintained sector, the three local authorities with the highest rates of 16 year-olds achieving 5+ A-C grades in 2004/05 were: • Redbridge – 69.3% of 16 year-olds achieving 5+ A-C grades at GCSE • Sutton – 67.5% of 16 year-olds achieving 5+ A-C grades at GCSE • Kingston upon Thames – 66.8% of 16 year-olds achieving 5+ A-C grades at GCSE
The three lowest were: • Bristol – 36.1% of 16 year-olds achieving 5+ A-C grades at GCSE • Sandwell – 42.5% of 16 year-olds achieving 5+ A-C grades at GCSE • Nottingham city – 40.1% of 16 year-olds achieving 5+ A-C grades at GCSE
The national average for children in maintained schools achieving 5+ A- C GCSEs at age 16 is 56.5%. Girls continue to do better than boys – 61.6% of girls achieved 5+ A-C grades compared to 51.5% of boys. Almost 19,000 children left school in 2004/05 with no passes at all.
Only 6% of children in care achieved at least 5+ A-C grades at GCSE in 2004 – see below.
In 2004, 53.5% of GCSE entries from children attending private schools achieved an A grade (with 24% achieving an A*). By comparison, 13.4% of GCSE entries from children in state schools achieved an A grade (with 3.7% achieving an A*). The Independent Schools Council, representing the 2,500 independent schools in England, boasts that these figures probably mask more differences between the achievements of children in private and state schools. It accuses state schools of manipulating the statistics by entering children into easier subjects:
It is possible that maintained schools are increasingly concentrating on a core of compulsory subjects and then allowing students to take ‘easier’ GCSEs such as Media Studies (taken in 2004 by 35,000 students – it did not even exist in 2000) to improve the position of the school in league tables. They may also expect students to take GCSE ‘equivalent’ qualifications such as a GNVQ in Information Technology which counts as four GCSEs. As the headmaster of a maintained school in a recent edition of the Times Educational Supplement (11/02/05) explained, teaching the GNVQ allows pupils to reach the 5 A*-C target without actually having to achieve a C in more than one GCSE.118 60 In 2003/04, the permanent exclusion rate for boys was nearly four times higher than that for girls. The ratio of permanent exclusion between boys and girls has remained more or less the same over the last five years, with boys representing around 80% of the total number of permanent exclusions each year.
A similar trend is apparent with fixed period exclusions. In 2003/04, boys accounted for 77% of all fixed period exclusions from primary, secondary and maintained special schools.119
Permanent exclusion rates were highest for Traveller children of Irish Heritage (66 in every 10,000) and Gypsy/Roma children (62 in every 10,000). The overall rate for all school students (of compulsory school age and above) was 14 in every 10,000.120
In 2003/04, around 25 in every 10,000 school students of mixed ethnic origin were permanently excluded from school. This was similar to the exclusion rate for black pupils (29 in every 10,000) – twice that for white school students.121
The recently published education white paper states that the Government continues, “to be concerned at the overrepresentation of black pupils in exclusion figures” and will work to ensure that schools “adhere to principles of equality and fairness when considering exclusion.” 122
School students with special educational needs are more than seven times more likely to be permanently excluded than students without SEN.123
A report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, published in March 2005, notes that poor school attendance, low educational attainment and high levels of illiteracy are acute problems for Gypsy and Traveller children.124
⇔ Ensure that children in detention have equal statutory right to education and improve education in care
During the passage of the Education Act 2005, NCH, supported by a coalition of children’s charities, sought to repeal section 562 of the Education Act 1996 that excludes detained children from statutory rights top education. This amendment failed but the then Minister Lord Filkin promised to hold a workshop on the issue. This has not happened.
In 2004, 43% of looked after children got at least 1 GCSE or GNVQ compared with 75.7% of children from all schools; only 6% of looked after children achieved at least 5 GCSEs at grade A*-C, contrasting to 56.5% of all children. Over half of looked-after children left school with no passes compared to 4.2% of children from all schools.125 61 Research by NCH found that the gaps in achievement are a result of wide-ranging systems failures, such as unstable placements and insufficient training for teachers and carers.126
⇑ Prevent bullying and other forms of violence in schools and include children in the development and implementation of these strategies
A total of 31,077 calls to ChildLine are from children who have been a victim of bullying (including from adults). Over a third of children calling ChildLine report being physically assaulted by other children: this includes being hit, punched, kicked and spat on.127
Homophobic bullying is said to be widespread in schools and exists in a number of forms – from the use of inappropriate language to serious physical assault. The Institute of Education estimates that between 30- 50% of gay and lesbian students in secondary schools may have directly experienced homophobic bullying. Rates could be much higher because many homophobic incidents are likely to go unreported. The researchers found no official figures identifying the extent of homophobic incidents directly experienced or witnessed.128
In November 2004, the Government launched new guidance for schools on tackling homophobic bullying, Stand up for us, which aims to help schools challenge and respond to homophobia.129
The Anti-Bullying Alliance, supported by the Department for Education and Skills, continues to run an annual anti-bullying week in November 2005.130 The DfES continues to maintain a dedicated children's site on bullying (http://www.dfes.gov.uk/bullying/index.shtml).
⇔ Include the Convention and human rights education in the curricula in all primary and secondary schools and teacher training
There has been no significant progress since the Committee's recommendation in October 2002. The citizenship curriculum includes some information on human rights generally, but this tends to have a global perspective and there is no specific mention of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
In June 2005, Children's Commissioner, Professor Aynsley-Green, said he would strongly support the Convention being part of national curriculum for schools, adding "But rights by themselves count for nothing unless you get action, and that has to be informed by asking what the needs of children are".
62 The Department of Constitutional Affairs is currently developing citizenship materials and these will include human rights from a local perspective.
⇑ Develop educational programmes for teenage mothers
The Government rolled out its Care to learn? initiative to support young parents in education in September 2004. An evaluation of the scheme prepared by the Institute of Employment Studies concludes that it has been well received and is having a positive impact on young parents and their children, though there is some evidence that many young parents do not feel ready to return to learning when their child is very young.131
⇔ Evaluate the impact of privatization of schools on the right of child to education
The education white paper proposes an increase in private education providers – including groups of parents, faith organisations and private companies. 132
There has been no Government evaluation of the impact of privatisation on the right to education.
63 7. Special Protection Measures
⇓ Refrain as a matter of policy from detaining unaccompanied minors and ensure the right to speedily challenge the legality of detention. In any case detention must always be a measure of last resort and for the shortest period of time.
There has been no progress in cutting back the detention of asylum- seeking children with their families.
In July 2005, Lord Avebury asked the Government whether it supports the recommendations of the Amnesty International report Seeking asylum is not a crime: detention of people who have sought asylum.133 One of the recommendations is "there should be a statutory prohibition against detention". Baroness Scotland replied:
… we are currently considering the report. Its content and recommendations need careful consideration before offering a response to its recommendations.134
The detention of asylum-seeking families was criticised strongly in a report on the UK from the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner, Alvaro Gil-Robles. He recommends that the detention of children for any length of time be authorised by a judicial authority and subject to a periodic judicial review, and that detention be used as a very last resort.135
A report by Bail for Immigration Detainees and Asylum Aid reveals that, due to the cuts in legal aid, asylum seekers in detention are unable to exercise their right to challenge their detention through the courts, and some are resorting to representing themselves (see below).136
There are no concrete statistics on the detention of children with their families. Instead the Government provides snapshot figures on the number of children in detention on a particular day. Lack of adequate statistics was criticised by the Gil-Robles who recommends that the Government make available comprehensive statistics on the detention of children under Immigration Act powers. 137
In March 2005, there were 50 children detained in removal or ‘reception centres’: 35 of these children had been in detention for 14 or less days; 10 for between 15 and 29 days; and five for between one and three months.138
A study by Save the Children UK estimates that around 2,000 children are detained with their families every year in the UK for the purposes of
64 immigration control. The study found that the length of time varied considerably between seven and 268 days.139
A request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 brought the following information on the detention of children in just one removal centre:
Detention of children at Tinsley House Immigration Removal Centre (Home Office information released on its website July 12th 2005)
We have received a Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) request about the detention of children at Tinsley House Removal Centre.
Tinsley House is an Immigration Removal Centre that is used solely for the accommodation of immigration detainees and currently houses single adult males, single females and families. The Centre is currently managed by Global Solutions Ltd on behalf of the UK Immigration Service. Immigration Removal Centres are an essential part of effective immigration control and help to remove those with no legal right to be in the UK.
1. How many children, under 18 years, have been detained at Tinsley House since 1 January 2005? 160 children.
2. Since 1 January 2005, how many children have been detained at Tinsley House for longer than three days? 43 children.
3. Since 1 January 2005, what is the longest period any child has been detained at Tinsley House for? 36 days.
4. Since 1 January 2005, how many children have been detained at Tinsley House while their asylum application is processed rather than while waiting to be deported? Less than 5 children.
5. Are all staff who come into contact with children CRB checked to an elevated level? From October 2004, all new staff at Tinsley House have been subject to enhanced level checks with the CRB. Existing staff will be checked to the enhanced level when their security checks are due for renewal.
6. What is provided for the children, of all ages, in terms of entertainment and education while they are detained? There is a timetabled activities programme designed to provide a range of entertainment / activities for children detained alongside their parents. This includes, but is not restricted to, painting, board games, jigsaw puzzles, craft activities, video sessions and competitions. There is also a designated and equipped playroom to cater for a wide age range of children, as well as equipment (e.g. junior pool table) for older children. There are two games consoles located in the family accommodation and a variety of games that can be loaded dependent on the age of the children concerned. Formal and informal outside sports activities are also programmed into each day. These
65 are demand and interest led. The provision of formal education for children is neither practicable nor necessary given the normal 72 hour maximum length of stay at Tinsley House for families with children.
7. How much time each day are children allowed out of the family unit to exercise and where can they exercise? There is no upper limit to the length of time that children can spend outside of the family unit pursuing exercise and sports activities. The centre staff try to encourage children and their parents to spend at least one hour in the open air every day. However, there are a number of factors which can limit this occurring including: inclement weather, parental objection, lack of interest, the age of the children concerned (i.e. babies and small children). Activities also have to be scheduled around certain fixed activities such as mealtimes and access to social visits. Parents may also not wish their children to attend activities outside of the family suite when they cannot be in attendance, for example if they are attending one of the activities aimed at adult detainees or if they are visiting the clinic, prayer rooms or attending an interview with on- site immigration officials or their legal representative.
The number of children detained with their families is likely to increase, as the Government is expanding its ‘detention estate’ including the number of family bed spaces. The Labour Party 2005 election manifesto pledged “more use of detention as we expand the number of detention places available”.140
As well as being detained prior to removal, children in families can be detained as part of fast-tracking procedures. The Government seeks to justify this by claiming detention is usually for a short time period. However, Save the Children UK found that seven of the 10 families in its research who had been detained prior to removal had been detained for long periods of time, ranging from 13 to 100 days. Eight were later released on temporary admission.141
In 2002, the Chief Inspector of Prisons recommended that there should be an independent assessment of the welfare, developmental and educational needs of each detained child and that such assessments should inform decisions on the continuation of detention. The Government accepted this recommendation in December 2003, and proposed the assessments would take place after 28 days' detention. This has never been implemented.
Recent reports by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons have shown many failings in detention centres, especially relating to child protection – see pages 13-14.
Many parents told the Save the Children UK researchers about the detrimental effects detention had on their children’s mental health, even after they have stopped being detained.
A BBC report, in March 2005, revealed serious racial abuse of detainees held at Oakington removal centre. The allegations were serious enough
66 for the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture to request that the Home Office release children from the centre on child protection grounds pending investigation of the allegations. This request was rejected by the Government.
Following the BBC report, the Government asked the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) to carry out an investigation into the allegations. The PPO report, published in July 2005, made 54 recommendations, which included strengthening management; improving monitoring of people at the centre; and improving the attitude of staff towards detainees. One of the recommendations was for the IND to commission a race relations audit of the entire immigration estate. This has yet to happen. 142
In January this year, the Home Office Minister was asked whether the Home Office would accept for detained asylum-seeking children the Howard League judgement relating to safeguards for children in custody. Paul Goggins MP responded:
Although the judgment related specifically to children in young offender institutions, the Government accept that its general principles would apply in the context of children detained under Immigration Act powers. The Immigration and Nationality Directorate is meeting the broad principles set out in the judgment to the extent that it is possible for it to do so in the context of immigration detention and the removal of failed asylum seekers and others. 143
The Refugee Children’s Consortium will be supporting an amendment, which will give an automatic right to a bail hearing for all those detained for immigration purposes, when the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill, reaches the House of Lords.
⇓ Ensure that refugee and asylum-seeking children have access to basic services such as education and health, and that there is no discrimination in benefit entitlements for asylum-seeking families, which could affect children
Education A joint report from eight inspectorates on safeguarding children concludes that asylum seeking children (especially those over 14) are not always getting appropriate education.144
In July 2005, new research into the educational experience of refugee and asylum-seeker children reported that schools are struggling to meet their needs and the task is compounded by the Government's controversial dispersal policy, which causes children to live in towns with a largely white population. 145
67 The University of Cambridge's report says families have been dispersed to areas where there are no school placements. Neither the DfES nor local authorities appear to have any significant involvement in dispersal decisions, which are taken by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS), run by the Home Office. The DfES has published guidance for local authorities on the education of refugee and asylum-seeker children, but the research found that only 10 LEAs in the Cambridge research sample referred to the guidance, and Nass practice appears to ignore it completely.
Recent research by the Refugee Council on the education of 14-16 year- old refugees and asylum-seekers146 found that, due to the pressures of league tables, schools are not always willing to admit new arrivals into formal courses.
Where it isn’t deemed appropriate to place a new arrival into GCSE courses, alternative provision is provided but many of those interviewed as part of the study expressed concern that some of the provision does not meet statutory standards of an inclusive education.
The researchers also revealed that, due to the broad categories in ethnicity data, it is often impossible to obtain an accurate picture of the achievement of school students who are seeking asylum or are refugees.
Guidance published by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority acknowledges the particular needs of refugee and asylum seeker children and urges schools to understand the stage the child’s family is at in the asylum process; consider the status of school students and whether they can travel abroad when organising school trips. It also recommends school children be given extra support and understanding during the asylum appeals process.147
Health The Government published Delivering race equality in mental health care (DRE) in January 2005.148 In relation to asylum seekers and refugees it says:
DRE is not about separate mental health services for BME communities… we need equality for all ages… and for particular groups such as refugees and asylum seekers.
It states the Government will:
• Improve the direct clinical care of all BME groups, and improve services for specific populations, including older people, asylum seekers and refugees, and children and young people • Implement the national action plan on leadership and race equality in the NHS • Work with the Health Asylum Seekers and Refugees Portal (HARP) and other agencies to disseminate good practice in the 68 employment of refugees and overseas workers in the NHS, and to consider the potential of HARP’s mapping of recruitment initiatives for overseas/refugee health professionals • Develop a resource pack to help service commissioners and health practitioners to meet the needs of refugees and asylum seekers • Ensure that 80 of the community engagement projects of the National Institute for the Mental Health of England BME Mental Health Programme are projects for refugees and asylum seekers.
While this promise of "equality" is welcome, discriminatory treatment continues in other areas of policy. The Healthy Start scheme replaces the 40 year-old milk vouchers for mothers of babies and young children. Mothers will be able to exchange the vouchers for fruit and vegetables as well as milk. The scheme is being piloted in Devon and Cornwall, before going national. Asylum-seeking mothers are excluded from the new scheme.
Benefit entitlement Asylum-seeking families continue to receive much less financial support from the state than other destitute families. The average adult rate is still just 70% of benefits given to non-asylum-seeking adult claimants.
On November 3rd 2005, the law lords rejected the Government’s appeal on the ruling that Section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 infringes article 3 of the European Court of Human Rights – the right to be protected from inhuman and degrading treatment. Section 55 denies asylum-seekers accommodation and material benefits if they fail to register their asylum claim within two weeks of entering the UK.
Lord Bingham said:
I have no doubt that the threshold [of suffering] may be crossed if a late asylum applicant with no means and no alternative sources of support, unable to support himself is, by deliberate action of the state, denied shelter, food or the most basic necessities of life.
Although section 55 does not apply to families or under-18s it could affect children where their age has been disputed.
Section 9 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc.) Act 2004, which creates a new category of ‘failed asylum seeker with family’ and removes financial and material benefits where the family has reached the end of the asylum process and has not taken reasonable steps to leave the country, came into force in December 2004. The Government is currently piloting the policy.
In June 2005, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), the Council of Europe’s independent human rights monitoring body on racism and intolerance issues, published its third report on the
69 UK. It urged the Government to ensure that children are not separated from their families under section 9 even when families have failed to comply with removal orders.149
A Barnardo's research project on section 9 found that local authorities, including 18 that have been part of the Government’s pilot scheme, believe that section 9 is wholly incompatible with child care legislation.150
The research found that section 9 has: • Resulted in families being made destitute • Jeopardised children’s welfare, health and development • The potential to separate children from their parents and family • Resulted in chaos, uncertainty and confusion.
Attempts made by the Refugee Children’s Consortium to repeal section 9 during Commons Committee of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill failed but the Minister gave a commitment that section 9 would not be rolled out nationally until the results are known of a full evaluation. This evaluation is due to start in the next few weeks (November 2005), though it will not be independent.
He stated that national implementation would only happen if the policy was achieving what the Government had intended it to achieve – more voluntary returns – and conceded that to date there had been no voluntary returns.151
Sections 1 and 11 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill, proposes to withdraw the welfare rights of asylum seekers pending appeal (see below).
⇓ Consider the appointment of guardians to unaccompanied asylum-seekers and refugee children.
The Government has so far missed the opportunity to include in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill, currently before Parliament, a provision for the appointment of guardians to unaccompanied asylum- seeker children.
⇓ Take all necessary measures to prevent the dispersal of children who have settled in a particular area when they reach 18.
Unaccompanied children are not subject to dispersal. Children who are looked after under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 are protected from the dispersal scheme after they turn 18. However, the Home Office and Kent and Manchester local authorities have been piloting 'safe case transfers' since July 2005 – a dispersal scheme by any other name.
70 ⇓ Speed up the procedure for asylum application and avoid the placement of children in temporary accommodation, accommodating them instead as children in need under childcare legislation.
The Refugee Children’s Consortium has serious concerns with section 1 and 11 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill, currently in Parliament, which further reforms the appeals process (see below).
The Government is still planning to introduce a scheme of forced return for separated children under 18 whose asylum claims has failed. Current practice is to grant asylum-seeking children whose applications for asylum is refused discretionary leave to remain until they are 18.
Vietnam and Albania, known to be source countries of child trafficking, are likely to be the first countries that children are returned to. The revised returns framework document, and the local authority / Home Office planning meeting protocol fall well short of the provisions in the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Age-disputed cases (where the Home Office does not believe that the claimant is under-18) continue to be processed through the ‘fast-track’ procedures at Oakington removal centre.
This means that very vulnerable children are being detained and treated as adults; they cannot access the limited facilities for children in families; and they are at greater risk of abuse from staff and adult detainees with whom they share sleeping facilities.
There is a lack of Government data on the number of cases in which an age disputed child is detained. This makes it impossible to assess the extent of the problem. However, Save the Children UK found that between November 2003 and September 2004, 48% of age disputes were found by social services to be children.152
Between March and May 2005, there were 52 age disputes at Oakington which were referred to Cambridgeshire social services for assessment. Of these: • 15 were assessed as minors • 19 were assessed as adults • 8 were not assessed because they were either moved to another area or removed from the country.153
There is a real risk that fast tracking age-disputed cases will result in vulnerable children being returned to their countries of origin without the benefit of an in-country appeal and with no reception arrangements in place, since they are being treated the same as adults.
71 The Government has set itself the target that by the end of 2005, more failed asylum-seekers will be removed per month than the number of unfounded claims made during the same period.
The Government used the Adoption and Children Act 2002 to amend Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 so that local authorities can now provide accommodation to a child without the child being looked after.
⇓ Review the availability and effectiveness of legal representation and other forms of independent advocacy to unaccompanied minors and other children in the immigration and asylum systems.
In April 2004, the Legal Services Commission introduced new funding arrangements for legal work on asylum and immigration issues with the overall aim of reducing spending.
Following the cuts, Bail for Immigration Detainees and Asylum Aid reported that unaccompanied children and immigration detainees are increasingly unable to access adequate legal representation.154 Two case studies demonstrate the difficulties faced by children:
The Children’s Society – Newham Refugee and Homelessness Team [In the case of one child] evidence such as medical reports had not been submitted. As the child was clearly unhappy with the service she decided to change solicitors. In total seven solicitors were approached and all refused to take up the case arguing limited capacity or no longer taking on legal aid cases. As a result, the young person felt she had no choice but to remain with her original solicitors. After the child’s claim was refused, her solicitor informed her that she would need to pay £200 for the court’s determination to be seen by a barrister. The child was unable to pay as she was supported by social services. Five more solicitors were contacted before one finally agreed to take on the case. [The child was left] feeling very frustrated, distrusting all solicitors and having no confidence in the legal system.
The Bridge/b-art project for young refugees, Newcastle under Lyme In Newcastle-under-Lyme, the one firm which was representing members of the Bridge recently closed its immigration department… A great number of legal firms across the country have told members of the Bridge and its workers that before a case could be taken any further… a fee would have to be paid. The amount has varied from several thousand [pounds] to some hundreds. When the money had not been forthcoming, no further work has been done on the case by the legal firms in question.
Problems highlighted in the report include: • Some asylum seekers are experiencing poor quality or negligent legal representation, and as a result are facing rejection removal from the country, without the key facts in the cases being considered fully by the Home Office or the courts
72 • Some are having their asylum claim refused on the basis of ‘non- compliance’ with legal procedures because the applicants were not represented or were not adequately represented • Clients of firms who have ceased to carry out legal aid work are unable to find alternative representation: asylum seekers are forced to attend judicial appeal hearings alone, without any representation • Asylum seekers without English language skills, and those who are traumatised by their experiences, are unable to negotiate the legal process • Asylum seekers are disempowered and disorientated by the lack of communication and continuity in their asylum claim.
⇓ Address the particular situation of children in the on going reform of the immigration and asylum system to bring it into line with the principles and provisions of the Convention.
Ongoing reforms are moving the immigration and asylum system even further away from the principles and provisions of the Convention.
The Refugee Children's Consortium has serious concerns about clauses 1 and 11 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill, currently in Parliament. Clause 1 proposes to deny the right of appeal against a refusal to extend leave and clause 11 proposes to amend section 3c of the Immigration Act 1971 to take away the existing continuing leave to remain provisions for those who appeal against a refusal of their application to extend their leave to remain.
These proposals, if made law, will remove appeal rights, withdraw welfare rights pending appeal and automatically render ‘unlawfully in the UK’ people who have previously been lawfully present. This means that they would be unable to study, receive benefits, access all but emergency health care and would be liable to detention pending removal. During passage of the Bill the government appears to have conceded that former unaccompanied minors should retain the protection of a right of appeal against the refusal to extend leave as, for many, this would be their first opportunity to argue their asylum claim before the immigration courts. The Government has introduced an amendment to the Bill to prevent the prosecution of those who overstay in order to pursue an appeal. However, under the current proposals, they remain ‘overstayers’ and are entitled to very limited education, health and welfare benefits. There appears to be no substantive concession in respect of these children's access to support while pursuing a legitimate appeal thus rendering any restored appeal right very difficult to pursue in practice.
The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill also proposes to privatise those who carry out searches of vehicles at UK borders. This could have serious implications for children unless adequate child protection procedures are put in place. 73
In July 2005, Tony McNulty, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality, announced that refugees would no longer be granted indefinite leave to stay in the UK, but will have their status reviewed after five years in the UK. These proposals are particularly worrying in the light of the proposed appeal reforms outlined above.
For children, five years represents a huge amount of time. They will have learnt a new language, settled into communities and schools, and made friends. Some young children will have been born and spent all their lives in the UK. Forced return to their "country of origin" will represent significant upheaval and potential distress. It will cut short children’s education and healthcare, and it may provoke considerable upset not only in leaving the UK, but also in returning to a country where they once experienced persecution. It will make it hard for families to establish any sense of stability or security while in the UK, with the threat of "return" always looming. The Labour backbencher Helen Goodman responded:
No consideration appears to have been given to the impact of that change on children, who face the prospect of having their lives torn apart twice if the proposal goes ahead.
In June 2005, the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner criticised the UK asylum system and urged the Government to:
• Extend the five-day time limit for the filing of appeals before the High Court against negative Asylum and Immigration Tribunal decisions, so to enable effective representation
• Improve the quality of first instance decision-making in asylum claims by increasing the training for front line immigration staff and an improved internal review of the reasons for high success rates of appeals from claimants from particular countries
• Place the burden of proof on the prosecution to show that the accused has deliberately destroyed his or her identity documents for the purpose of entering the country (under section 2 of the Asylum (Treatment of Claimants etc.) Act 2004). 155
⇔ Irish and Roma Travellers – devise with these groups and their children a plan of action to tackle the obstacles to children enjoying their rights.
In its report on the UK, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance said that it was particularly concerned with the high level of hostility, discrimination and disadvantage faced by Roma/Gypsies and Traveller communities. It concludes that:
74
All evidence tends to show that Roma/Gypsies and Travellers are among the most disadvantaged and discriminated against ethnic minority groups in the United Kingdom and [they] experience among the most severe levels of hostility and prejudice from society in general. 156
In June 2005, the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner criticised the high level of racism which exists in the UK towards Roma/Gypsies and Travellers and the lack of adequate Roma/Gypsy and Traveller sites.157
A report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, published in March 2005, notes that poor school attendance, low educational attainment and high levels of illiteracy are acute problems for Gypsy and Traveller children.158
Evidence from the Traveller Education Service shows that schools are reluctant to register Gypsy and Traveller pupils, who are perceived as low achievers, as they fear it would have a negative effect on their schools’ place in league tables. 159
The Labour manifesto proposed new powers for councils and the police to tackle unauthorised traveller and Gypsy sites, but there were no corresponding proposals to give councils a statutory duty to provide sufficient, high-quality sites, with good access to local services and amenities.
The new statutory requirement for councils to plan for the needs of Gypsies and travellers, under section 225 of the Housing Act 2004, do not give councils a statutory duty to provide sites as they did have under the Caravan Sites Act 1968, repealed by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. At the time of writing (November 2005), Government guidance had not yet been issued on the new rules.
In March 2005, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights called on the Government to introduce a statutory duty on local authorities to facilitate the provision of accommodation in order to fulfil its obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.160
⇔ Reconsider its policies regarding the minimum wage for young workers with a view not to discriminate against the most vulnerable children.
The Government this year increased the two minimum rates for adult workers, but kept the rate for 16 and 17 year-olds at its October 2004 level.
75 The ‘adult’ minimum wage (for those aged 21 and over) has increased from £4.85 per hour to £5.05 and the ‘development’ rate (for those aged 18-21 years) has increased from £4.10 per hour to £4.25.
The announcement follows the publication of the Low Pay Commission’s 2005 report on the minimum wage. The Commission, which monitors the effect of the minimum wage, recommended that the 16 and 17 year- old rate remain at £3.161
In its 2006 report, the Low Pay Commission will be specifically looking at the minimum wage rate for 16 and 17 year-olds.
⇔ Undertake a study of the scope, causes and background of child prostitution.
Last year's Government consultation document Paying the price included a chapter on routes into prostitution that differentiated between children abused through prostitution and adults involved in prostitution.162
⇔ Review its legislation not criminalize children, which are sexually exploited.
A criminal penalty can still be applied against a child who has been abused through prostitution under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and the Street Offences Act 1959.
⇑ Continue to implement international policies and programmes against commercial sexual exploitation of children.
Section 72 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 enables British citizens and residents who commit sexual offences against children overseas to be prosecuted in the UK. It came into force in May 2004.163
Section 11 of the Children Act 2004, which introduced new duties and arrangements for safeguarding children, came into force in October 2005, but it does not apply to immigration officers at ports of entry, the National Asylum and Support Service and immigration detention centres.
⇔ Ensure that adequate resources (human and financial) are allocated to policies and programmes in this area
A recent joint report from eight inspectorates concludes that there is doubt over whether all child protection concerns of asylum seeking children are adequately identified, including whether they are subject to trafficking for sexual exploitation or under-age girls are kidnapped for forced marriage.164
76
ECPAT (End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and the Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes) continues to put pressure on the Government to provide more support to trafficked children.
In July 2005, Home Office Minister, Paul Goggins MP, outlined Government measures to combat people trafficking:
In the case of child trafficking, despite a few high profile instances of children being trafficked into and through the UK, there is insufficient information to say if this is a growing problem. However, the nature of the crime demands that is treated very seriously. Government have introduced criminal sanctions covering child traffickers… Officials from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate met the Metropolitan Police on 15 June 2005 and have agreed to take forward the creation of a permanent multi-agency partnership team based at Heathrow. The team will address the specific safeguarding needs of unaccompanied minors. We have made people trafficking a priority for our presidency of the EU. During our presidency we aim to improve co-operation among member states so that we achieve operational results and prosecutions, making it impossible for organised immigration crime businesses to operate within the EU.165
⇔ Ratify the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict and take all necessary measures to prevent the deployment of persons below the age of 18 years.
The Government has not taken any steps towards removing its far reaching declaration, which reserved the right to deploy under 18s when it considers there to be a ‘genuine need’.
On October 19th 2005, Lord Roberts of Llandudno led a debate on the Convention. He asked the Minister, Baroness Crawley, about the deployment of child soldiers. She replied:
As to the issue of the Armed Forces, by recruiting people under 18 the Armed Forces provide valuable and constructive training and employment for many young people but we are aware of our duty of care.166
There were 28 deaths of children in the armed forces between January 1994 and December 2003. Of these, six were trained service personnel and 22 were untrained.167
⇔ Strengthen and increase its efforts to recruit persons of 18 years and older.
77 A report by the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers shows that between 6,000 and 7,000 under 18s are serving in the UK armed forces.168
The UK has one of the lowest official voluntary recruitment ages of any country, shares the lowest minimum age of recruitment in Europe and enlists the highest number of under-18s in any European State. 169
In March 2005, the Commons Defence Select Committee called on the Ministry of Defence to examine the potential impact of raising the recruitment age of all three services from 16 to 18 years. The recommendation was prompted by the death of four young recruits at Deepcut barracks (when they died, two were aged 17, one was 18 and the fourth was aged 20). The Committee accused those responsible for the training of soldiers of a "catastrophic failure" in their duty of care. On November 4th 2005, newspapers carried reports of criticisms from Devon and Cornwall Police of the way Surrey Police handled the investigations into the young recruits' deaths. The report was commissioned by the Independent Police Complaints Commission but has not yet been released to the public (November 2005).
⇓ Establish a juvenile justice system that fully complies with the provisions and principles of the Convention and other relevant international standards
The UK is even further away from a juvenile justice system that complies with the provisions and principles of the Convention and other relevant international standards.
⇓ Considerably raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility
In June 2005, the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner called on the UK Government to increase the age of criminal responsibility to bring it in line with the rest of Europe.170 The following month, the European Social rights Committee declared the UK to be in breach of article 17 of the European Social Charter because the age of criminal responsibility is "manifestly too low".
In September 2005, the Prime Minister appointed Louise Casey, head of the Home Office's anti-social behaviour unit, as the country's respect tsar. She has a £90 million a year budget (30 times the budget of England's Children's Commissioner). The month after her appointment there was widespread reports of Government plans to introduce anti- social behaviour orders (ASBOs) for under 10s – dubbed "baby ASBOs" by the press. Apparently, these young children are not to be named and shamed.
78 ⇓ Review the orders introduced by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and make them compatible with the principles and provisions of the Convention.
Anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) Section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1988 defines anti-social behaviour as behaviour "that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household". An ASBO is a civil offence – with only the balance of probabilities test – though breach can lead to imprisonment.171 The anti-social behaviour crackdown is, apparently, aimed at putting power back in the hands of local people. However, there has not been any reported case of a child or children seeking an ASBO to stop an adult harassing, alarming or distressing them. In practise, this policy scripts children as the protagonists of community misbehaviour, and adults as the victims.
Home Office statistics show the number of ASBOs has increased considerably in the last year. In 2004, 2,643 ASBOs were issued, compared to 1,040 in 2003. Of this, 1,063 (40.2%) were issued to children (figure in 2003 was 514). Since the policy was introduced six years ago, 44% of ASBOs have been issued to children (children comprise about 23% of the total population).172
The chances of being issued with an ASBO are affected by geography, which is undoubtedly affected by poverty and ethnic origin:
Local authorities with the lowest number of ASBOs between 1999 and March 2005 – Lincolnshire and Wiltshire (21 ASBOs each) and Dorset (32 ASBOs)
Local authorities with the highest number of ASBOs between 1999 and March 2005 – Greater Manchester (816 ASBOs), Greater London (560 ASBOs) and West Midlands (408 ASBOs).173
Children are being banned from swearing, owning stereos and even from playing football in the street. In May this year, a 16 year-old in Manchester became the first person to be banned under an ASBO from wearing a hoodie. The ban is to last for five years. That same month, Bluewater shopping centre in Kent introduced a ban on hooded tops; a move disproportionately affecting children and supported by the Prime Minister (though rejected by the two major opposition parties).
A dossier compiled by NAPO shows strong evidence of children and young people with neurological disorders being inappropriately issued with ASBOs, for example: • A 15 year-old boy with Asperger Syndrome and no criminal convictions was given an ASBO with the condition that he was not to look over and stare into his neighbours’ garden. The neighbours had reported the boy to the police for persistently
79 looking into their garden. The court was aware of his circumstances but still went ahead and issued the ASBO. • A 15 year-year-old boy with Tourettes Syndrome was given an ASBO with a condition that he does not swear in public • A boy who had been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and his mother, were evicted from their home and served with an ASBO because of the son’s ‘bad’ behaviour.174
The Home Office says that those issuing ASBOs have guidance on appropriate procedures to be followed, but the guidance does not include any consideration of the rights and needs of disabled people. In July 2005, John McDonnell MP asked the Home Office Minister to give information on the physical and mental condition of people issued with an ASBO. Hazel Blears MP responded:
Information is not collected centrally about the characteristics or circumstances of persons issued with an antisocial behaviour order.175
The Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 amended the Children and Young Person’s Act 1933 so there is now a presumption of negative publicity for children subject to ASBOs. Section 141 of the Serious Crimes and Police Act 2005 further erodes children’s privacy rights by allowing for children to be named and shamed if they breach an ASBO. When the current chair of the Youth Justice Board was asked by the home affairs select committee (February 2005) whether this constitutes a breach of human rights principles, he said "yes":
HOME AFFAIRS INQUIRY INTO ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
EXAMINATION OF ROD MORGAN: 22 FEBRUARY 2005
Q440 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: Do you believe the publication of details about individual ASBOs contravenes human rights principles? Have you had experience of this practice being counterproductive?
Professor Morgan: Yes … This has been fully discussed by the Youth Justice Board and we are extremely worried about any proposition that there be a presumption in favour of loss of anonymity and publication. There are circumstances where exceptionally it can and should be used but generally speaking we think it is inappropriate and it can be in some instances profoundly counterproductive. I visited a YOT in Brighton recently where a local psychiatrist informed me about a 16 year old girl with very substantial mental health problems who had been made the subject of an ASBO and breached it. She had received two page coverage in the local newspaper and the psychiatrist informed me that it was now virtually impossible to arrange housing and mental health support for this girl who needed it because she had the mark of Cain so indelibly stamped upon her public forehead. You would say that in those circumstances no court would allow it to happen. We think the presumption should absolutely be against publicity.
80
This year ChidLine joined the chorus of opposition to naming and shaming. Children subject to ASBOs are ringing its helpline because they are being taunted by other children and find it hard to keep out of trouble with so much pressure on them.176
The Council of Europe's Human Rights Commissioner has questioned the design and execution of ASBOs, saying "I cannot help but be somewhat uneasy over such transfer of policing duties to local residents". On naming and shaming, he says, "[It is] entirely disproportionate to aggressively inform members of the community who have no knowledge of the offending behaviour, and who are not affected by it, of the application of ASBOs. It seems to me that they have no business and no need to know". The Commissioner pointed out: "ASBOs risk alienating and stigmatising children". He recommended that no child under the age of 16 should be imprisoned for breach of an ASBO, as is the case in Scotland.
Curfews and dispersals The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 introduced curfews for under 10 year- olds. Local authorities did not use the child curfew power of the 1998 Act. This, apparently, frustrated Government Ministers. So, in 2001, legislation was passed extending the curfew power to under 16s (Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001). Again, a broad coalition of childcare and penal reform organisations opposed the legislation. We argued that the 1989 Children Act already empowers the police and local authorities to protect vulnerable children, and we raised concerns about the likely negative impact on relationships between young people and those in authority, particularly the police. We said child curfews were likely to be used disproportionately in poor communities, and in inner-city areas with diverse minority ethnic communities.
The Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 made it easier for the police and local authorities to introduce child curfews (through what are referred to as ‘dispersal zones’). Finally, the Government saw its child curfew policy being implemented, albeit in a different name. In the summer of 2004 and 2005 local authorities up and down the country introduced dispersal zones. Home Office research shows that 42 police forces designated 809 areas as dispersal zones from January 2004 to June 2005. Local authorities were asked about the number of under 16s who were accompanied home by officers: of the eighteen forces that responded, it is estimated 520 under 16s were escorted home from 236 areas.177
In July 2005, the Administrative Court ruled that the police cannot use force to remove a child from a dispersal area. Section 30 of the Anti- social Behaviour Act 2003 allows the police to set up dispersal areas, and to remove under 16 year-olds from a dispersal area between 9pm and 6am.
81 W case The legal challenge was brought by a 14 year-old boy in Richmond. He had been stopped by a community support officer (CSO) after he and his friend came out of some local shops. The CSO said the boys were acting suspiciously and told them about the dispersal area. After that, the boy was too scared to go into the Richmond Town area in the evening without his parents.
Lord Justice Brooke declared, "If Parliament were to be taken to have regarded all children found in such areas between the relevant hours as potential sources of anti-social behaviour, a coercive power to remove them might be a natural corollary. However, to attribute such an intention to Parliament would be to assume that it ignored this country's international obligations to treat each child as an autonomous human being." He went on, "[The Act] confers no power on the police or a CSO to interfere with the movements of someone under the age of 16 who is conducting himself lawfully within a dispersal area between the hours of 9pm and 6am... Section 30(6) merely confers on the police a very welcome express power to use police resources to take such a person home if he is willing to be taken home."
Fixed penalty notices On the spot fines for disorder were introduced by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, and came into national operation in 2003-04. Home Office research shows that 6% of penalty notices for disorder were issued to children (16 and 17 year-olds) in 2004. Fines were registered for 39% of children (compared to 44% of adults). The payment rate for children was 55%, slightly higher than that for adults (55%).178
⇔ Ensure that no child can be tried as an adult irrespective of the circumstances or the gravity of his/her offence.
There has been no progress in the past 12 months.
Young people being tried for violent and sexual offences under sections 226 and 228 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 can have their cases sent up to the higher (adult) courts at an earlier stage, and for less serious offences. This came into force in April 2005.179
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 adds complexity to arrangements for determining the mode of trial and reintroduces situations where children can be committed up to the Crown Court for sentence (as well as for trial). Recommendation 48 of the Auld report, providing for a reconstituted youth court that could deal with all young defendants, has never been implemented.180
⇓ Ensure the privacy of all children in conflict with the law is fully protected.
National and regional newspapers continue to energetically implement the Government’s naming and shaming policy. The Anti-Social Behaviour
82 Act 2003 began the process of eroding the privacy of children in trouble with the law by amending section 49 of the Children and Young People’s Act 1933 to make it the norm for children subject to Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) to be named and shamed.
Section 141 of the Serious Crimes and Police Act 2005 further erodes children’s privacy rights by allowing children to be ‘named and shamed’ if they breach an order. Clause 10 of the Violent Crimes Reduction Bill, currently in Parliament, contains further proposals to erode children’s privacy rights: those subject to drinking banning orders (over 16 year- olds) will be ‘named and shamed’.
Home office Minister Hazel Blears MP explained in a Parliamentary Written Answer on reporting restrictions:
Under the Children and Young Person's Act 1933, section 49, automatic reporting restrictions apply in all youth courts. It has been an established principle in British law since 1933 that juvenile defendants should not have their identity made public in criminal cases unless the court feels that the public interest requires it. The courts do not routinely grant such applications and each case is considered on its own merits.
There are no automatic reporting restrictions on antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) as they are civil orders … Breach of an ASBO is a criminal offence and until recently young people who breached their ASBOs were protected by the automatic reporting restrictions of the youth court. However, provisions in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 removed these automatic restrictions which means ASBO breaches by young people can now be reported. Reporting restrictions have only been lifted on cases of Breach of ASBOs in the youth court, they remain in place for other youth court matters.181
New Home Office guidelines, published in October 2005182, spell out how children and adults subject to ASBOs should be named and shamed. The guidance asserts, “The fact that someone is under the age of 18 does not mean that their anti-social behaviour is any less distressing or frightening than that of an adult” and urges local authorities to use leaflets and newsletters to make a spectacle of people subject to ASBOs. Circulating photographs of children and adults is seen as essential in allaying the fears of older people and housebound residents.
The name, age, address and description of the person subject to the ASBO must be included in the publicity, as well as the names of local businesses and individuals who might benefit from the ASBO.
Local authorities are advised to prioritise the human rights of communities over the human rights of the person with an ASBO, though the document does not explain which human rights are engaged.
83 In June 2005, the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner criticised the breach of privacy rights on ASBO proceedings.183
⇓ Ensure that detention is used as a last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time and that children are separated from adults in detention, and encourage the use of alternative measures to the deprivation of liberty.
The UK continues to have one of highest rates of custody in Western Europe.
During 2004, there were just under 10,000 child admissions to custody – 8,110 to Prison Service custody.
Between 1994 and 2004, the number of children sentenced to penal custody in England and Wales increased by 90%.184 This is at a time when the recorded offending by children has been in decline for several years.
Children from black and ethnic minority populations make up about 8% of the population. Official statistics show they are disproportionately represented in custody: 22% of children in young offender institutions in 2004 were from a minority ethnic community; and 24% in secure training centres and local authority secure children's homes were from a minority ethnic community.
Ethnic origin of children in custody, 2004185 Prison Service Secure training young offender centres and local institutions authority secure children's homes Total 8,110 1,797 White 6,370 (79%) 1,349 (75%) Mixed 385 (5%) 166 (9%) Black or Black British 916 (11%) 148 (8%) Asian or Asian British 362 (5%) 36 (2%) Chinese or other 49 (1%) 20 (1%) Unrecorded 25 78 (4%) 1991 census codes 3
In June 2005, the very high number of children in custody was criticised by the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner, who called on the UK Government to provide greater investment in alternatives to custody for children.186
The chair of the Youth Justice Board, Rod Morgan, has criticised the detention of children with "profound" mental health problems in custody:
If a child has profound mental health problems they should ideally be in a psychiatric institution. And the number of places for
84 juveniles in psychiatric beds is very small in England and Wales. It is increasing and we're working closely with the Department of Health to increase the number of beds but there are very few. And the consequences - and this preoccupies our Crown Court judges more than any other issue - that we have children coming before the youth court and the Crown Court with profound mental health problems who for want of an alternative are currently ending up in our institutions, including the STCs, and they shouldn't be there.187
Children can now be given a custodial order for breach of an ASBO. The Youth Justice Board reported that 328 children between January and June this year were sent to custody for offences involving ASBO breach.188 When the Government was asked what advice is given to courts on sentencing children for breach of an ASBO, human rights minister, Harriet Harman MP, gave the following answer:
At present no specific guidance has been issued to courts on sentencing children and young persons for breach of antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs).189
In its supplementary evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee on anti-social behaviour, the Youth Justice Board reported on its research into the profiles and circumstances of 87 children that were sent to custody for breach of an ASBO:
The majority of breaches involved restrictions with regard to geography and association with others. These are quite challenging restrictions for teenagers—it is difficult for them to understand and abide by the need to avoid their friends or places where they have hitherto spent a lot of time. Equally, breaches of this kind are probably the easiest to prove. In any event, the Board is concerned to see that restrictions are appropriate to the circumstances of this age group.190
A report by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, published in December 2004, questions the placing of children in custody at all. It reminds the Government that in addressing the custodial care of children it is “extremely important for the Government to bear in mind article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child … in which any State action regarding children must have the best interests of the child at its core. This raises the crucial question of to what extent imprisonment can ever be deemed in the best interests of the child”.191
In June this year, during a debate in the House of Lords on deaths in custody, the Labour Peer Lord Judd called for the removal of children from Prison Service accommodation.
… there should be no children in prison at all. It is simply not acceptable for a nation of our wealth to say that we cannot make special provision of secure care under local authority administration
85 for youngsters, instead of putting them into soul-destroying situation of prison – which it will be for the young, inevitably, however, hard- working and dedicated are the prison staff in a formal prison situation.192
A report by the Audit Commission concluded that early intervention to prevent young people offending could save public services more than £80 million a year.193
⇑ Ensure that every child of their liberty has access to independent advocacy services and an independent child- sensitive complaint procedure.
Voice for the Child in Care and the National Youth Advocacy Service are, between them, providing independent advocacy to children across the secure estate.
The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman for England and Wales continues to be concerned about the low number of children making complaints. The Ombudsman's annual report for 2004/04 shows just 5% of complaints (191) came from young prisoners: no information is given about complaints from juveniles. 61% of investigations were completed within 12 weeks, which means over a third take more than three months to resolve – a very long time for children in especially vulnerable circumstances.194
⇓ Take all necessary measures, as a matter of urgency, to review the conditions of detention and ensure that all children deprived of their liberty have an equal statutory right to education, health, and child protection as any other children.
Child protection Twenty-nine children died in penal custody between 1990 and September 2005. Sixteen year-old Gareth Price was found hanging in his cell at Lancaster farms young offender institution in January 2005. Seventeen year-old Sam Elphick died on September 15th this year at Wigan Royal Infirmary after hanging himself. This brings the total number of children who have hanged themselves in penal custody since 1990 to 28 (the youngest was Adam Rickwood, aged 14). Nine of the 29 children were on remand. There has never been a public inquiry into any of these child deaths.
Fifteen year-old Gareth Myatt died in hospital in April 2004 after being restrained in his cell at Rainsbrook secure training centre. He was five feet tall and weighed just eight stone. He was three days into a 12-month prison sentence. Following Gareth's death, the Youth Justice Board suspended the use of the "double seated embrace" where children are forced to sit on a bed or chair with
86 prison officers holding them. The CPS is still deciding whether anyone should be prosecuted. Gareth was a black child.
In her annual report, published in January 2005, the Chief Inspector of Prisons raises serious concerns over the way that physical force is used on children in prison. She questions prison staff’s restraint techniques, which on three occasions at Hindley young offender institution resulted in fractured bones.195
In March 2005, the Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended that cultural awareness training programmes should be further developed for those who might be involved in the use of restraint.196
In September 2005, the Guardian newspaper revealed that prison officers in four secure training centres are authorised to use painful nose, rib and thumb 'distractions' on children, aged 12 to 17. The methods, approved by Ministers, involve inflicting deliberate pain and have led to nose-bleeds and other injuries. Former Labour Minister, Sally Keeble MP, said:
On the face of it there are some vicious techniques for hurting children, without any explanation or justification of who developed them and why. This paints a very grim picture of what happens inside secure training centres. It seems we abolished the birch only to let people punch children on the nose instead.197
The Youth Justice Board's website has, since September 2005, included a section on "physical interventions", with advice for practitioners in penal custody on using nose distractions on children:
Physical Control in Care Review Panel Recommendations to the YJB Recommendations for immediate implementation
Extract relating to deliberate use of pain
- A limit of three minutes should be imposed on Phase 3 restraints where the subject is in a lying position. Staff must then either cease the hold or change position. Staff should record the action they take to monitor this.
- Nose distractions should only be used to bring a violent situation to an end during the course of a Phase 3 hold. There should be a maximum of two nose distractions in the course of a PCC incident.*
- Before applying any technique involving pain, a clear warning should be given to the young person that a pain technique will be used if they do not desist from their behaviour.
* The Board and Ministers approved these recommendations subject to one amendment in relation to the use of the nose distraction technique. The panel recommended that the nose distraction technique only be used during the course of a phase 3 (three person) hold. Following further advice from Prison Service instructors the YJB and Ministers agreed 87 that it might be necessary to apply a nose distraction where a phase 3 hold was not in place, for instance to release someone from an attack, but agreed that it should only be used as a last resort with close monitoring.
On November 1st 2005, Sally Keeble MP led an adjournment debate on restraint in secure training centres. The Minister, Fiona Mactaggart, responded:
… Regrettably, however expert STC staff are at managing behaviour, on some occasions physical restraint will have to be used. Staff may need to act quickly to prevent trainees from harming themselves, another trainee or a member of staff. It may also be necessary to restrain a trainee from damaging property or escaping from custody... A system of physical interventions known as physical control in care—PCC—was developed in the late 1990s for use in STCs. It was approved by the Secretary of State on the advice of a panel of experts, including medical experts. It was designed to be non-pain-compliant, although, as my hon. Friend said, it includes certain distraction techniques that involve the brief infliction of pain. Those techniques may be used where necessary for safety reasons. PCC may be used only by staff who have received the proper training. There are strict guidelines about how incidents involving the use of restraint are managed, and each incident must be properly recorded within 12 hours of its occurrence.
PCC has recently been reviewed by a panel of experts, again including medical experts. The review began in March 2004. Following the death [of 15 year-old Gareth Myatt after being restrained] the next month, the use of one type of hold previously approved as part of PCC has been discontinued, and others have been modified.
… My hon. Friend's focus on the most concerning aspect of physical control in care, which is the use of pain-compliant techniques—she is right to be concerned about that—implies that it is a frequent occurrence in our secure training centres. However, I agree that those techniques must be used only in a tiny number of exceptional cases, and in the context of the number of places available in each centre, the use of any form of restraint is reported less than twice a month per place in our centres.198
Information obtained by CRAE under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (see pages 33-35) shows in the past 12 months:
• The painful nose distraction was used 449 times in the four secure training centres • The painful thumb distraction was use 287 times in the four secure training centres
88 • The painful rib distraction was used 32 times in the four secure training centres • There were 41 injuries from the nose distraction • There were nine injuries from the thumb distraction • There was one injury from the rib distraction.
A Youth Justice Board consultation document, published in June 2005, on "Managing children's and young people's behaviour", gives no advice on children's human rights, or the avoidance of pain in restraint.
This year's report from the eight chief inspectorates concludes that upon entering custody children can “be exposed to significant risks of bullying and intimidation by other children and of self-harming.” 199
A report this year from the Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Youth Justice Board200 shows that:
• A third of children in custody feel unsafe • 89% of children feel unsafe at some point in some establishments • 5% of boys and 3 % of girls feel unsafe most of the time • Feeling unsafe varied considerably between establishments, ranging from 56% to 21% of boys and 89% to 7% of girls • 33% of boys and 31% of girls said that other young people had made insulting remarks about them • 21% of boys and 21% of girls had been hit kicked or assaulted by another young person.
Nineteen percent of boys and 14% of girls said that they had been verbally insulted by a member of staff and 10% of boys and 7% of girls said that they had been hit, kicked or physically assaulted by a member of staff. This rose to 22% in one male establishment and 13% for two female establishments.201
Twenty eight percent of boys from minority ethnic groups reported that they had been insulted by staff, compared to 16% of white boys. Similarly, 15% of boys from minority ethnic groups reported being physically assaulted by staff, compared to 8% of white boys. 6% of girls said that they had been picked on because of their race or ethnic background.
The Chief Inspector found that many children are subject to initiation tests on arrival to penal custody, which include being forced to take part in sexual acts, attacking prison officers or starting fires. Again this varied between establishments, with between 25% and 4% of boys and 29% and 4% of girls being subject to initiation tests.
Boys from minority ethnic groups were significantly less likely than white boys to feel that they had been treated ‘very well’ on arrival at prison (52% compared to 70%).
89 In 2002, the Howard League for Penal Reform won a landmark judgment, which ruled that children in young offender institutions are owed the same duties under the Children Act 1989, and human rights legislation.202 However, the joint Chief Inspectors report found that in young offender institutions the reporting of, and response to, child protection concerns are inconsistent. It reports a wide variation of referrals, reports of unsatisfactory responses from social services and incomplete or poorly recorded investigations. It concludes that there is considerable scope for improvement. 203
The joint Chief Inspectors’ report draws attention to evidence that there are children who are clearly inappropriately placed in young offender institutions.204
During 2004, 3,337 children assessed as vulnerable were, nevertheless, sent to young offender institutions. This figure has increased steadily over the last four years (in 2000-01 the number was 432; in 2001-02 1,875; in 2002-03 2,903).205
A written answer in July 2005 shows the growing problem of children self-harming in secure training centres. Mark Oaten MP asked for numbers of self-harm incidents in each of the four centres, between 2001 and 2004:
Number of self- 2001 2001 2003 2004 harming incidents Medway 49 40 39 219 Hassockfield 29 18 49 138 Rainsbrook 13 35 84 70 Oakhill - - - 29 Total 91 93 172 456
Education Ministers consistently claim that children in custody are getting at least 15 hours per week education. In July 2005, Lynne Featherstone MP asked the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many hours per day (a) 16 to 18-year-old and (b) over 18-year-old prisoners in each young offenders institution receive of (i) compulsory education, (ii) extra curricular education, (iii) sport and (iv) general exercise.
The Minister, Phil Hope MP, explained that age-based information on education and physical exercise in young offender institutions is not available. He provided a table showing weekly average number of hours of education and physical education undertaken by 15, 16 and 17 year- olds at each young offender and juvenile establishment in 2004-05. It shows that, on average, each institution provides just eight hours of education per child per week.
Establishment Education hours PE hours (weekly average) (weekly average)
90 YOI Aylesbury 5.5 3.3 YOI Brinsford* 7.9 3.7 YOI Castington* 10.9 4.0 YOI Coldingley 9.2 2.5 YOI Deerbolt 8.3 3.7 YOI Feltham* 6.3 4.2 YOI Glen Parva 4.0 2.0 YOI Lancaster Farms* 10.1 4.0 YOI Northallerton 7.5 5.8 YOI Onley 6.0 3.7 YOI Portland 5.0 2.7 YOI Reading 5.6 2.2 YOI Rochester 4.4 2.9 YOI Stoke Heath* 5.8 3.0 YOI Swinfen Hall 7.8 3.5 YOI Thorn Cross* 13.3 6.1 Juvenile Huntercombe 8.7 4.5 Juvenile Warren Hill 10.0 4.5 Juvenile Werrington 15.5 7.3 Juvenile Wetherby 9.2 2.8
*Establishments holding both juveniles and young adult offenders. Source: HMPS
A report this year from the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner, Alvaro Gil-Robles, calls on the UK Government to improve the educational and psychiatric support services for children and young people in custody and ensure that purposeful activity targets in young offender institutions are met.206
The Chief Inspector of Adult Learning Inspectorate found that in over 60% of prisons and young offender institutions, the overall education and training provision was inadequate.207
Ofsted inspections of juvenile establishments recorded improvements in many establishments during the year, but there were still problems of insufficient provision or poor coordination. The quality of teaching varied from good to unsatisfactory. With the average length of stay in custody less than five months and the movement between establishments, it was difficult for teaching and support staff to provide continuity, particularly in mixed ability groups of a wide age range. Establishments were working towards, but experiencing some difficulty in meeting, the Youth Justice Board’s specification and standards.208
A Parliamentary written answer (November 2005) outlines plans for improving locked up children’s learning and skills, from August 2006:
Phil Hope: New arrangements for delivering learning and skills to offenders were introduced in three development regions … from 1 August 2005. The new offenders' learning and skills service covers juvenile offenders held in Young Offender Institutions. Action research is being carried out on the new service in order to inform the planned roll-out of the new service across the rest of England from August 2006. 91
The new arrangements emphasise early, intense focus on assessing the offender learner's needs, formulating them into an individual learning plan and addressing those needs in a joined-up way as the offender moves through the criminal justice system and into mainstream learning and skills.209
Health The chair of the Youth justice Board this year raised expressed strong concern over children with "profound" mental health problems being held in custody – see page 85.
The Chief Inspector of Prison's latest annual report, published in January 2005, shows how children's health can sometimes be seriously jeopardised:
A 17-year-old girl with Asperger’s syndrome was in the healthcare department, where she was associating with disturbed adults. Her condition meant that she was prone to copycat behaviour, and she was self-harming, saying that she had seen other women do it. She needed to be protected from adults, but also other patients needed to be protected from her violent behaviour. The alternative was to isolate her from other patients, which was not compatible with good management of her condition. (Eastwood Park)
Ashfield was trying to look after some juveniles with particularly challenging mental health problems. These children should not be in prison. Healthcare and reorientation unit staff worked closely together to look after these very damaged young people in a humane and caring way, but despite their best efforts children deteriorated while in their care.210
Children continue to be routinely strip-searched when they enter and leave penal custody, irrespective of their mental state or history. The recent Chief Inspector of Prison’s report on Feltham young offender institution explains that staff had consulted the Prison Service to see if they could only carry out such searches after a "risk assessment", "but had been told that all children must routinely undergo this procedure".211
⇔ Review the status of young people of 17 years of age for the purposes of remand with the view of giving special protection to all children under the age of 18 years.
In 2004, 5,158 children were remanded into Prison Service custody. Of these, 653 were aged 15, 1,296 were aged 16 and 3,209 were aged 17.212
⇔ Ratify the Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.
92
In January 2004, the Government was asked in Parliament when it intends to ratify the optional protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. The Minister replied:
… we do intend to ratify at the earliest opportunity.213
There has been no progress in the past 12 months.
In a report released in February 2005, Juan Miguel Petit, the UN Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, urged all governments to ratify the Optional Protocol.214
93 8. Dissemination of the the Government’s second periodic report, and the Committee's 2002 concluding observations
⇔ Make widely available to the public the Government’s second periodic report, written replies and the concluding observations.
There is no information whatsoever about the Convention – or the reporting process – on the DfES web pages of the Children, Young People and Families Directorate (information is held on the former Children and Young People’s Unit site).
Only two other Government websites – the Department of Constitutional Affairs and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office – hold any information on the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UN reporting process; and there continues to be no government dissemination in schools or other in other public settings such as health centres, courts, hospitals, jobcentres or post offices and libraries.
References
1 International covenant on civil and political rights (ICCPR), International covenant on economic, social and cultural rights (ICESCR), International convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination (CERD), International convention on the elimination of discrimination against women (CEDAW), Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (CAT), Convention on the rights of the child (CRC). 2 House of Lords Hansard 19 Oct 2005: Column 747 3 Crawley, H. and Lester, T. (2005) No place for a child: children in UK immigration detention: impacts, alternatives and safeguards. Save the Children Fund 4 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (2005) Report on an announced inspection of Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre 28 February-4 March 2005. 5 House of Lords Hansard 19 Oct 2005: Column 747 6 The Convention is also in the legislation for the other UK Children's Commissioners. 7 House of Lords debate 21 June 2004: Column 1064 8 9 Nov 2005: Column 626 9 The Children and Young People's Plan (England) Regulations 2005 10 Department for International Development (October 2005) Statistics on international development http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/sid2005/contents.asp 11 Action Aid International, European Network on Debt and Development – Eurodad and Oxfam International (February 2005) Joint NGO briefing paper. Heroes and villains. Which countries are living up to their promises on aid, trade and debt? 12 Joint Committee on Human Rights (September 2004) Children Bill. Nineteenth report of session 2003-04. 13 Department for Education and Skills press release, March 2 2005 'Professor Al Aynsley-Green appointed as first Children’s Commissioner in England' 14 Section 4(1) Children Act 2004 15 Section 3(3) Children Act 2004 16 Annual report must be sent to Secretary of State who ‘must as soon as possible’ lay a copy before each House of Parliament – section 8(3) Children Act 2004 17 Commissioner must have particular regard to five aspects of children’s well-being (outcomes) – section 2(3) Children Act 2004
94
18 Department for Education and Skills (October 2005) Learning behaviour. The report of the practitioners' group on school behaviour and discipline.. 19 Rustemier, S. and Vaughan, M. (July 2005) Are LEAs in England abandoning inclusive education? Segregation trends in England 2002-2004. Placement of pupils with statements in special schools and other segregated settings. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education 20 http://2020campaign.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/ 21 Independent newspaper, November 16 2005, 'Victor Meldrew syndrome blamed for demonisation of young people' 22 Department of Health (August 2005) Review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. A public consultation. 23 House of Lords Hansard 14 Nov 2005: Column 845 24 Department for Education and Skills (March 2004) Every child matters: The next steps. Youth justice annex. 25 Home Office (July 2005) Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Guidance note for sections 139 – 143. 26 Joint Committee on Human Rights (September 2004) Children Bill. Nineteenth report of session 2003-04. 27 Kelley, N. and Meldgaard, L. (October 2005) The end of the road. Families and section 9 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc.) Act 2004. Barnardo's 28 http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/news/2005/Aug05/curr0805_7.htm 29 http://www.strathclyde.police.uk/index.asp?locID=837&docID=-1 30 Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 847 (C.35) The Children Act 2004 (Commencement No. 3) Order 2005 31 Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 3203 (C.139). The Adoption and Children Act 2002 (Commencement No. 7) Order 2004 32 Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 2034 (C.87) The Education Act 2005 (Commencement No.1 and Savings and Transitional Provisions) Order 2005 33 Section 49A(e) and 49A(f) of Disability Discrimination Act 1995, as amended by section 3 Disability Discrimination Act 2005 34 Disability Rights Commission (October 2005) The duty to promote disability equality: statutory code of practice England and Wales. 35 House of Lords debate on Education Bill 24 Feb 2005: Column 1347 36 House of Commons debate 1 Nov 2005: Column 236WH 37 Inquiry launched into boy's cell death, Northern Echo, January 29th 2005 38 Commission on families and the well-being of children (November 2005) Families and the state. Two-way support and responsibilities. An inquiry into the relationship between the state and the family in the upbringing of children. 39 House of Lords Hansard 19 Oct 2005: Column 748 40 Home Office (March 2005) Domestic violence. A national report. 41 HM Government (2005) Working together to safeguard children. A guide to inter- agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. 42 Povey, D. (ed.) (January 2005) Crime in England and Wales 2003/04: Supplementary volume 1: homicide and gun crime. National Statistics 43 Stuart, M. and Baines, C. (November 2004) Progress on safeguards for children living away from home. A review of actions since the People Like Us report. Joseph Rowntree Foundation 44 The Children (Private Arrangements for Fostering) Regulations 2005 45 Morgan, R. (May 2005) Private fostering. Some views from privately fostered children on the Government's proposals about private fostering. Commission for Social Care Inspection 46 Department for Education and Skills (December 2004) The Children Act report 2003. 47 Cooper, A. Hetherington, R. and Katz, I. (2003) The risk factor: making the child protection system work for children. Demos 48 Featherstone, B. and Evans, H. (2004) Children experiencing maltreatment: who do they turn to? NSPCC 49 Cawson, P. (2002) Child maltreatment in the family: the experience of a national sample of children. NSPCC, London.
95
Cawson, P. Wattam, C. Brooker, S. and Kelly, G. (2000) Child maltreatment in the United Kingdom: a study of the prevalence of child abuse and neglect. NSPCC 50 Wattam, C. and Woodward, C. (1996) “And do I abuse my children? No!” In Childhood matters: report of the national commission of inquiry into the prevention of child abuse: volume 2: background papers. The Stationery Office 51 Creighton, S. and Russell, N. (1995) Voices from childhood. NSPCC 52 ChildLine annual review 2004. 53 House of Commons Hansard 13 Sept 2004: Column 1004 54 Joint Committee on Human Rights (September 2004) Children Bill. Nineteenth report of session 2003–04. 55 Cleaver, H. and others (November 2004) Developing information sharing and assessment systems. DfES research report 597. 56http://www.careandhealth.com/Search/Search_DetailDisplay.aspx?id=12818§ion= News%20and%20Features 57 MORI (July 2004) MORI youth crime survey 2004. Youth Justice Board for England and Wales 58 Department of Health (March 2005) Delivering choosing health: making healthier choices easier. 59 Ibid. 60 National Statistics (10 November 2005) News release – Inequalities in life expectancy persist across the UK. 61 Office for National Statistics (2005) Births, perinatal and infant statistics 2004. England and Wales, and Government Office Regions and Strategic Health Authorities in England. 62 Office for National Statistics (2005) Births, perinatal and infant statistics 2004. England and Wales, and Government Office Regions and Strategic Health Authorities in England. 63 Office for National Statistics (2005) Sustainable development indicators in your pocket 2005. 64 Mayhew, E. and Bradshaw, J. (2005), Mothers, babies and the risks of poverty. Poverty Journal, Summer 2005. 65 Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2005) Life in Britain: using millennial census data to understand poverty. 66 http://england.shelter.org.uk/howtohelp/howtohelp-1426.cfm. 67 Shelter (October 2005) Full house? 68 Office of Deputy Prime Minister (January 2005) Sustainable communities: homes for all 69 Department for Work and Pensions (2005) Opportunity for all: seventh annual report. 70 Office for National Statistics (2005) Sustainable development indicators in your pocket 2005. 71 British Medical Association (2005) Preventing childhood obesity. 72 Ibid. 73 Ibid. 74 Department for Education and Skills press release (March 30 2005) Healthy food in schools - transforming school meals. 75 'Food a recipe for school success' October 14 2005 – BBC News Education http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/education/4342636.stm 76 Department of Health (November 2004) Choosing health: making healthier choices easier. 77 Department of Health (2005) Smoking, drinking and drug use among young people in England in 2004: revised 15 April 2005. 78 Department of Health (March 2005) Choosing a better diet: a food and health action plan. 79 House of Commons Written Answer 18 Oct 2005: Column 925W 80 Cited on http://www.forwarduk.org.uk/ 81 Zainab Ester Fornah and Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 680. 82 Office of National Statistics (2005) England and Wales by countries and, within England, Government Office Regions, counties, London boroughs, metropolitan districts,
96 and unitary authorities; unitary authorities within Wales: conceptions to women aged under 18, 2001-2003 annual numbers and rates. 83 Teenage Pregnancy Unit (June 2005) Implementation of the teenage pregnancy strategy progress report. 84 'Appeal to parents on teenage births. We need help to contain problem says minister' – Guardian newspaper, May 26 2005 85 The Labour Party (2005) Forward not back. 86 Ofsted (2005) Personal, social and health education in secondary schools. 87 Brook and The Centre for Sexual Health Research, University of Southampton (2005) The choreography of condom use: how, not just if, young people use condoms. 88 London Child Protection Committee (2005) Working with sexually active young under the age of 18-a pan- London protocol. 89 Department for Education and Skills (2005) Information sharing databases in children’s services: consultation on recording practitioner details for potentially sensitive services and recording concern about a child or young person. 90 Brook Advisory Service (January 2005) Protecting young people’s right to confidential services: responding to the consultation on information sharing databases. 91 Department of Health (2005) Delivering health. 92 Office for Standards in Education (2005) Healthy minds – promoting emotional well- being in schools. 93 House of Lords House of Commons Joint Committee on the Draft Mental Health Bill (2005) Draft Mental Health Bill Session 2005-05 Volume I. 94 Young people and self-harm a national inquiry (2005) Interim inquiry report 3 ‘Closed settings, closed minds? - Young people who self-harm’. 95 Department of Health (2005) Delivering race equality in mental health care – an action plan for reform inside and outside services. 96 Department for Education and Skills (2005) Stand up for us: challenging homophobia in schools. 97 United Nations Development Programme (2005) Human Development Report 2005 International cooperation at a crossroads: aid, trade and security in an unequal world. 98 Child Poverty Action Group (2005) At greatest risk: the children most likely to be poor. 99 Department for Work and Pensions press release (October 17 2005) Together we will make poverty history – Blunkett. 100 Child Poverty Action Group, Disability Alliance and One Parent Families Press Release (November 2 2005). Trio of charities welcome John Hutton, but warn on welfare reform. 101 Citizen’s Advice (2005) Money with your name on it? CAB clients’ experiences of tax credits. 102 Tax credits: putting things right. Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman report, 3rd report, session 2005-2006. 103 National Audit Office (2005) Helping those in financial hardship: the running of the social fund. 104 Centrepoint (2005) Bed and breakfast: unfit housing for young people. 105 Ibid. 106 Youth Justice Board (2005) Sustainable accommodation: a strategy for the provision of suitable and sustainable accommodation for young people at risk of offending. 107 http://england.shelter.org.uk/howtohelp/howtohelp-1431.cfm 108 http://england.shelter.org.uk/howtohelp/howtohelp-1427.cfm 109 Office for Standards in Education (2005) Citizenship in secondary schools: evidence from Ofsted inspection (2003/04) HMI 2335. 110 Department for Education and Skills (2005) Higher standards better schools for all: more choice for parents and pupils. 111 Department for Education and Skills (2005) Permanent and fixed period exclusions from schools and exclusion appeals in England, 2003/04. 112 Ibid. 113 Department for Education and Skills (2004) Improving behaviour and attendance: guidance on exclusion from schools and pupil referral units.
97
114 Department for Education and Skills (2004) Higher standards better schools for all: more choice for parents and pupils. 115 Ibid. 116 Department for Education and Skills (2004) Improving behaviour and attendance: guidance on exclusion from schools and pupil referral units 117 Reed, J. (September 2005) Toward zero exclusion: an action plan for schools and policymakers. IPPR 118 http://www.isc.co.uk/index.php/409 119 Department for Education and Skills (2005) Permanent and fixed period exclusions from schools and exclusion appeals in England, 2003/04. 120 Ibid. 121 Ibid. 122 Department for Education and Skills (2004) Higher standards better schools for all: more choice for parents and pupils. 123 Department for Education and Skills (2005) Permanent and fixed period exclusions from schools and exclusion appeals in England, 2003/04. 124 House of Lords House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights (2005) The Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Fourteenth report of session 2004-05. 125 Department for Education and Skills (2005) Statistics of education: children looked after in England (including adoptions and care leavers) 2003/04 and Department for Education and Skills (2005) National statistics: first release, GCSE and equivalent results for young people in England, 2003/04. 126 NCH (2005) Close the gap. 127 Information from ChildLine. 128 Thomas Coram Research Unit, Institute of Education (2004) Homophobia, sexual orientation and schools: a review and implications for action. 129 Department for Education and Skills (2004) Stand up for us: challenging homophobia in schools. 130 Department for Education and Schools Press Release (9 November 2005) Anti- Bullying Week. 131 Dench, C., and Evans, C., (2005) Childcare, 16-19 year old parents and further education, Institute of Employment Studies. 132 Department for Education and Skills (2005) Higher standards better schools: more choice for parents and pupils. 133 Amnesty International UK (June 2005) Seeking asylum is not a crime: detention of people who have sought asylum. 134 House of Lords Written Answers 4 Jul 2005: Column WA54 135 Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights (2005) Report by Mr Alvaro Gil-Robles, Commissioner for Human Rights, on his visit to the United Kingdom 4th- 12th November 2004 for the attention of the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly. 136 Bail for Immigration Detainees and Asylum Aid (2005) Justice denied: asylum and immigration legal aid – a system in crisis. 137 Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights (2005) Report by Mr Alvaro Gil-Robles, Commissioner for Human Rights, on his visit to the United Kingdom 4th- 12th November 2004 for the attention of the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly. 138 Home Office (2005) Asylum Statistics: 1st Quarter 2005 United Kingdom 2nd Edition. 139 Crawley, H. and Lester, T. (2005) No place for a child: children in UK immigration detention: impacts, alternatives and safeguards. Save the Children Fund 140 Labour Party (2005) Forward not back. 141 Crawley, H. and Lester, T. (2005) No place for a child: children in UK immigration detention: impacts, alternatives and safeguards. 142 Ibid. 143 Prisons and Probation Ombudsman for England and Wales (2005) Inquiry into allegations racism and mistreatment of detainees at Oakington immigration reception centre and while under escort. 144 Commission for Social Care Inspection, HM Inspectorate of Court Administration, The Healthcare Commission, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, HM Inspectorate of Probation, HM Inspectorate of Prisons, HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate,
98
The Office for Standards in Education (2005) Safeguarding children: the second joint chief inspectors’ report on arrangements to safeguard children. 145 Arnot, M. and Pinson, H. (2005) The education of asylum-seeker and refugee children: a study of LEA and school values, policies and practices. Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge 146 Refugee Council (2005) Daring to dream: raising the achievement of 14 to 16 year old asylum-seeking and refugee children and young people. 147 Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (2005) Asylum-seeker children. 148 Department of Health (2005) Delivering race equality in mental health care: an action plan for reform inside and outside services. 149 European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (2005) Third report on the United Kingdom adopted 17 December 2004 150 Kelley, N. and Meldgaard, L. (October 2005) End of the road: the impact of families of section 9 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc.) Act 2004. Barnardo's 151 Hansard 25 October 2005 152 Crawley, H. and Lester, T. (2005) No place for a child: children in UK immigration detention: impacts, alternatives and safeguards. Save the Children Fund 153 Refugee Council (June 2005) Statistical analysis of age disputes at the Oakingon immigration reception centre analysis completed by the Refugee Council. 154 Bail for Immigration Detainees and Asylum Aid (2005) Justice denied: asylum and immigration legal aid – a system in crisis. 155 Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights (2005) Report by Mr Alvaro Gil- Roberts, Commissioner for Human Rights, on his visit to the United Kingdom 4th- 12th November 2004 for the attention of the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly. 156 European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (2005) Third report on the United Kingdom adopted 17 December 2004. 157 Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights (2005) Report by Mr Alvaro Gil- Roberts, Commissioner for Human Rights, on his visit to the United Kingdom 4th- 12th November 2004 for the attention of the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly. 158 House of Lords House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights (2005) The Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Fourteenth report of session 2004-05. 159 Cited in Commission for Racial Equality (2004) Gypsies and Travellers: a strategy for the CRE, 2004-2007. 160 House of Lord House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights (2005) The Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Fourteenth Report of Session 2004-05. 161 Low Pay Commission (2005) National minimum wage Low Pay Commission report 2005 CM 6475. 162 Home Office (2004) Paying the price: a consultation paper on prostitution. 163 Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 874 (C.38) The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Commencement) Order 2004 164 Commission for Social Care Inspection, HM Inspectorate of Court Administration, The Healthcare Commission, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, HM Inspectorate of Probation, HM Inspectorate of Prisons, HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, The Office for Standards in Education (2005) Safeguarding children: the second joint Chief Inspectors’ report on arrangements to safeguard children. 165 House of Commons Written Answers 6 Jul 2005: Column 512W 166 House of Lords Hansard 19 Oct 2005: Column 747 167 House of Commons Written Answers 21 Dec 2004: Column 1585W 168 Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers (2004) Child soldiers global report 2004. 169 Ibid. 170 Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights (2005) Report by Mr Alvaro Gil-Robles, Commissioner for Human Rights, on his visit to the United Kingdom 4th- 12th November 2004 for the attention of the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly.
99
171 The maximum penalty for children over 12 is a two-year detention and training order, with 12 months in custody. 172 Hazel Blears MP announcement of publication of ASBO report, 29 Jun 2005: Column 60WS 173 http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/asbos2.htm 174 NAPO (July 2005) ASBOs. An analysis of the first six years. 175 House of Commons Written Answer 14 Jul 2005: Column 1212W 176 18 August 2005 press release – Children’s charities condemn decisions to ‘name and shame’ children given ASBOs (Barnardo's, ChildLine, National Children’s Bureau and NCH) 177 Home Office (June 2005) Use of dispersal powers. 178 Home Office (July 2005) Penalty notices for disorder statistics 2004 England and Wales. 179 Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 950 (C.42) The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Commencement No.8 and Transitional and Saving Provisions) Order 2005 180 Auld, Right Honourable Lord Justice (September 2001) The review of the criminal courts of England and Wales. 181 House of Commons Written Answers 2 Nov 2005: Column 1134W 182 Home Office (October 2005) Guidance on publicising anti-social behaviour orders. 183 Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights (2005) Report by Mr Alvaro Gil- Roberts, Commissioner for Human Rights, on his visit to the United Kingdom 4th- 12th November 2004 for the attention of the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly. 184 NACRO (2005) A better alternative: reducing child imprisonment. 185 House of Commons Written Answers 14 June 2005: Column 294W 186 Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights (2005) Report by Mr Alvaro Gil-Robles, Commissioner for Human Rights, on his visit to the United Kingdom 4th-12th November 2004. 187 BBC radio 4 face the facts programme, 26 August 2005 188 Community Care July 7 2005 'Study backs fear that ASBO policy will dash bid to cut prison numbers' 189 House of Commons Written Answers 24 Oct 2005: Column 7W 190 Supplementary memorandum submitted by the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales to the Home Affairs select committee on anti-social behaviour, February 2005 191 House of Lords House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights (2004) Deaths in custody. Third Report of Session 2004-05 volume I. 192 Debate on House of Lords House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights (2004) Deaths in custody, June 9th 2005 193 Audit Commission (2005) Youth justice 2004: a review of the reformed youth justice system. 194 Prisons and Probation Ombudsman for England and Wales (July 2005) Annual report 2004-05. 195 The Stationary Office (2005) Annual report of HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales 2003-2004. 196 House of Lords House of Commons Joint Committee in Human Rights (2005) The Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Fourteenth report of session 2004-05. 197 Alan Travis 'Karate chop approved to restrain children' Guardian newspaper, September 26 2005 198 House of Commons Hansard 1 Nov 2005: Column 236WH 199 Commission for Social Care Inspection, HM Inspectorate of Court Administration, The Healthcare Commission, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, HM Inspectorate of Probation, HM Inspectorate of Probation, HM Inspectorate of Prisons, HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, the Office Standards in Education (2005) Safeguarding children: the second joint Chief Inspectorates’ report on arrangements to safeguard children. 200 HM Chief Inspector of Prison (2005) Juveniles in custody 2003-2004: an analysis of children’s experiences in prison. 201 Ibid.
100
202 R. (on the application for Penal Reform) vs. Secretary of State for Home Affairs and others. Administrative Court of the High Court 29 November 2002. 203 Commission for Social Care Inspection, HM Inspectorate of Court Administration, The Healthcare Commission, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, HM Inspectorate of Probation, HM Inspectorate of Probation, HM Inspectorate of Prisons, HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, the Office Standards in Education (2005) Safeguarding children: the second joint Chief Inspectorates’ report on arrangements to safeguard children. 204 Ibid. 205 House of Commons Written Answers 7 June 2004: Column 200W. 206 Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights (2005) Report by Mr. Alvaro Gil- Roberts, Commissioner for Human Rights, on his visit to the United Kingdom 4th -12th 2004 for the attention of the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly. 207 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales (January 2005) Annual report of HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales. 208 Ibid. 209 House of Commons Written Answers 10 Nov 2005: Column 732W 210 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales (January 2005) Annual report of HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales. 211 Ibid. 212 House of Commons Written Answers 14 Jun 2005: Column 281W 213 House of Commons Written Answers 19 Jan 2004: Column 954W 214 Economic and Social Council (2004) Rights of the Child: report submitted by Mr. Juan Miguel Petit, Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.
101