| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
24 May 2007 : Column 512WH—continued
I wish to concentrate on children, child trafficking and child asylum seeking. The hon. Member for Hendon kindly indicated that I would speak on those matters. We agreed that it would be appropriate for me to do so. My focus is on one specific point to do with children in the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the treatment of asylum seekers, which was published on 30 March 2007.
The UK has been transfixed by the horrific disappearance of three-year-old Madeleine in Portugal. Millions of pounds have rightly been offered by way of a reward to find her, and thousands of police all over Europe are looking for her. She has a devoted family who provide dedicated round-the-clock support for each other. There are lawyers involved, and everyone is desperate to find her.
In contrast, ECPAT, which works to end child prostitution, child pornography and child trafficking, and which co-ordinates work done by Anti-Slavery International, Save the Children UK, UNICEF, the Children’s Society, World Vision, the Jubilee Campaign and the Body Shop Foundation, in a report published in January highlighted the fact that in three regions of England—the north-west, or Manchester; the north-east, or Newcastle-upon-Tyne; and the midlands, or Birmingham, Coventry and Solihull—48 victims of child trafficking disappeared last year from social services care. They just disappeared. Sadly, not only did they disappear, they have never been found. Not one Madeleine but 48 children. No massive rewards have been offered for them to be found, as far as I know. I do not know how many police, if any, have looked for them—the Minister might know, or he might have been told whether there is a massive police hunt for 48 missing children—and whether the media had a small paragraph in a Sunday newspaper, I believe, saying that 48 children had disappeared, and how careless the local authorities were. The children are missing, and I find the dramatic contrast between the worldwide search for Madeleine and the plight of the 48 missing children in Britain extraordinary.
It is true that in Africa and the far east children go missing daily. They are viewed as commodities that can be exploited, traded and dispensed with, and nobody bothers very much about them. The 1989 United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which the UK ratified in 1991, obliges the Government to protect children from such exploitation and abuse. How do the Government square the fact that they have signed up to the convention with the fact that 48 children have been lost in three local authority regions? Heaven knows how many more children are missing. The indifference of the Government, the media and the police to that scale of missing children defies belief.
The UK was one of the few countries, if not the only country, to put in a reservation on immigration to the convention. If children were not disappearing, and if unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who arrive in this country were properly cared for, I doubt whether the Joint Committee would have asked the Government to lift the reservation. The Committee asked them to lift it because such things are happening. It felt that if the Government were to lift the reservation, they would not be able to allow such things to happen.
There is a serious question as to whether the time has come to lift the reservation and show the world that the welfare of the child remains of paramount importance in Britain and their best interests prevail. We might say, “Oh, we believe that children are of paramount importance,” and we do, of course, care about them and have good child care services, but those are just weasel words when we have lost 48 children. It is a tremendous indictment of the Government and the way in which they view themselves that they allow the ECPAT report to go unpursued day after day.
It is worth noting that the Government signed the optional protocol to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography of 2000, which is intended to protect children from exploitation, but that, again, they did not ratify it. We are good at signing things, and the Home Secretary and the Minister were at the signing of the optional protocol—indeed, there was a picture of the pen signing it—but nothing happened, and there was no ratification. I would like to know about the ratification, because that, not the signing, is the test.
The Home Office’s current reform proposals for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the Minister’s consultation paper, which is entitled “Planning Better Outcomes and Support for Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children”, will make it impossible for the Government to ratify the Council of Europe convention—the two things are totally at loggerheads and oppose each other. The reason is simple: the reforms proposed in the consultation paper do not provide even the most basic protection measures required by the convention, such as the provision of representation by a guardian ad litem or child protection until the child is 18. If implemented, the consultation paper would not allow the Government to sign the Council of Europe convention, because the consultation proposals do not provide for the basic requirements that the convention insists on for children under 18.
Does the Minister agree, for example, that by enacting the enforced returns programme set out in the consultation paper, under which we would send failed unaccompanied child asylum seekers back to war-torn countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Angola, we are removing safeguards for trafficked children, rather than protecting them, as we agreed to do when we signed the Council of Europe convention and adopted the national action plan?
Let me explain why the Government do not view the welfare of children from abroad as being of paramount importance—they say that it is, and I am sure that they believe that it is, but that is not the case. The Government’s approach is causing the disappearance of trafficked children and those applying for asylum. Indeed, rather than encouraging children to help the authorities investigate and prosecute traffickers, the bureaucracy and formalities tend to make children fear for the future and therefore to go to ground. Such children have no rights of identity, no passport and no guardian ad litem. Nor are they are helped to shop their traffickers; if they were, it would not be the case that only 30 traffickers had been convicted in the whole country in past four years.
Trafficked children regularly fail to qualify for asylum because of the limited definition of refugee law. With the Government proposing no residency permit option, such children are categorised as failed unaccompanied asylum-seeking children when they are nothing of the sort. In their response, the Government say that they
“are committed to the welfare of children”
“do not believe that the reservation”—
“leads to neglect of their care and welfare. Children who have been identified as having been trafficked are accommodated by local authorities Children’s Social Services under the requirements of Section 20 of the 1989 Children Act. We consider that there are sufficient checks and balances in place to ensure that children receive an adequate level of protection and care whilst they are in the United Kingdom.”
The Home Office reform programme says that accommodation and support arrangements depend on an assessment of need, which means that any model for service provision must contain the flexibility to deal with individual circumstances. It says that a local authority will consider a child to be in need of support under section 20 and that the child will be accommodated in residential homes or foster care, which, it is widely accepted, is likely to be the appropriate option for those who enter the care system when they are under 16. Section 20 does not restrict the age of the child to be supported. On the contrary, section 20(3) states:
“Every local authority shall provide accommodation for any child in need within their area who has reached the age of sixteen and whose welfare the authority consider is likely to be seriously prejudiced if they do not provide him with accommodation.”
Under section 17 of the Children Act, children between the ages of 16 and 17 are provided with support, such as unsupported accommodation in bed and breakfasts, hotels and semi-independent housing.
There we have it. Those hon. Members who are here will be interested in that distinction. Section 20 says that a child must have close care. They must be in the care of the local authority, in residential care or foster care, and they should have adequate support and be assisted in every way. That is proper support. However, section 20 children are the very ones who have disappeared, according to the ECPAT report. They are not section 17 children—those who are probably over 16, who live in hostels, bed and breakfasts and semi-independent housing and who are much more at risk. The children who disappeared were actually under the care of local authority social services. That is why I take this issue so seriously, and I wonder whether the Minister would like to look into exactly what happened to each of those children.
Is what I say about sections 17 and 20 the case? The pressure that the Home Office places on local authorities to return unaccompanied asylum-seeking children is causing social services to place vulnerable children, many of whom have been trafficked, in inappropriate section 17 accommodation facilities and removing all rights to special protection. Hon. Members might say that it makes little difference whether children are under
section 17 or section 20, because those under section 20 disappear and those under section 17 are vulnerable to trafficking. What I am saying is that the Children Act is failing such children, whether they have been trafficked or whether they have applied for asylum.
Only section 20 can really provide the framework to safeguard child victims of trafficking and afford them the special protection measures in the Council of Europe convention, which we have signed but not ratified, and which will be in total conflict with the document that is out for consultation until the end of the month. No doubt the Minister will discuss with his legal team whether he can proceed with the consultation paper recommendations without flying in the face of the Council of Europe convention recommendations.
The Government say that they are committed to the welfare of children and do not believe that the UN reservation has led to the neglect of child care and welfare. They say:
“Children who have been identified as having been trafficked are accommodated by local authorities Children’s Social Services...We consider that there are sufficient checks and balances”.
That is all well and good, but as I have said about three times—I will keep on saying it and I have said it on the Floor of the House, too—48 children have disappeared in three local authority regions, according to one report. If I were the Minister, I would have asked for the details of each of those children. I would have asked the police what inquiries they had made. I would be reading the riot act to the local authorities that had lost those children. Has the Minister been doing a little reading of the riot act?
We have been waiting for a report giving us statistics to corroborate the ECPAT report, and the Government promised last year that the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre—I must say that the names the Government choose require very clear articulation and are real tongue-twisters—would publish a report last August. Like everybody else, I was waiting for it. Indeed, I came back from the country to get it, but it did not come. We have been waiting and waiting. The date slipped. I think that we were then told—the Minister will put me right if necessary—that it would come at the end of the year. In a written answer on 5 February 2007 the Home Office told us that
“the report will be published and therefore made available to Parliament by April 2007.”—[Official Report, 8 February 2007; Vol. 456, c. 1085W.]
I therefore decided to put an oral question to the Home Office on 30 April. I said that in his parliamentary answer in February the Minister—the same one who is here, who I hope will be a Minister for a little longer—
“said that he would publish the research report on the exploitation and abuse of children in this country by a funded organisation, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre—CEOP—and that that would give us an idea of the nature and scale of child abuse and exploitation. He undertook to publish it by April.”
“Will he produce the rabbit out of his hat this afternoon?”
“I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman”—
although he has done so on a number of occasions—
“but I cannot produce the report that he mentions today. However, the report that CEOPC is in the process of producing is extremely important. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will look at it in due course, and we will publish it as soon as possible.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2007; Vol. 459, c. 1229W.]
It is now nearly the end of May. I wonder whether the Minister knows what has happened to it. I want to know whether many more children besides the 48 children whom I have mentioned will be disappearing or have disappeared, or whether the report will help us to find out what is happening. The longer we are without it, the more difficult things will be. Will the Minister help the House this afternoon to know when we can expect the report? I certainly do not want to come back from the long recess in August, a year on, and find that it has not been produced.
We know from a parliamentary answer of 17 July last year from the Department for Education and Skills that 50 children disappeared from local authority care in 2002-03; that 70 disappeared from local authority care in 2003-04; and that 90 disappeared from local authority care in 2004-05. I do not know whether they were section 20 children or section 17 children, but those were the figures given. Heaven knows what the current figures are. Children who are accommodated by local authorities are proved to be far from safe. If as extensive an outcry had gone up over the children missing in this country as that which has understandably gone up over Madeleine, they might well have been found. When CEOP produces its report we shall get a better idea of the scale of the problem and the number of missing children. However, that will not change the situation, which is already pretty bad.
The Home Office consultation paper—the Minister’s consultation paper—states that
“targeted and protective services, including access to experienced legal advisors and specialist health care can be further improved upon.”
He can say that again. Will what is envisaged really give children a better deal, and how will it work? Presumably there will be massive legal aid, medical and other costs, since 17,100 case decisions were made on applications in the past four years. That figure represents unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. I wonder whether the Minister has any idea of the cost of all that, and of which Department’s budget accommodates it.
Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, as well as victims of child trafficking, disappear from social services, I believe, for one reason only. They know that they will be deported to their country of origin as soon as they reach 18. Unaccompanied children who go missing from social services are very vulnerable to exploitation by traffickers in the UK, as they usually end up in the streets, and have nowhere to go. Victims of child trafficking will be moved straight back into the hands of their traffickers when they disappear from social services, because they simply have no other option. However, under the consultation paper, children will receive limited leave to remain not until they are 18, but only until they are 17 and a half. Why is that? I have asked the Minister about it before: what is that 17 and a half about? Is there a hidden agenda that the House does not know about? If they are under 18 do they not get the rights
that they get on turning 18? Is the appeal procedure quicker if they are under 18? What is the mystical thing about the figure of 17 and a half? If it makes sense, will the Minister explain?
The rumour from the human and child rights organisations is that the limit of 17 and a half has been chosen to allow the Government to send large numbers of children back early. Many of those children have a real fear of returning to face exploitation in their country of origin, or of running the risk of being trafficked. I asked this morning whether the Secretary of State for Education and Skills would ensure that children who have been trafficked, or who are unaccompanied asylum seekers, would be entitled to full-time education until the age of 18. The Minister gave a sterling reply, saying that not only would they have full rights until that age; they would have grants and everything else. It strikes me as extraordinary: if we want to help those children go through the system until they are 18 and get qualifications, why do we cut them out of the system at 17 and a half? Before they have finished their exams they will get on the plane and go back. I find it puzzling. I wonder whether the Minister can, again, help me. He now has an inter-departmental working group. Does he discuss with the Education Minister the question of 17 and a half and 18? There is a lot of interest in that. I hope that the Minister will have plenty of time in his wind-up speech to talk about that in the context of education.
The figures for unaccompanied children applying for asylum in the UK are in the consultation paper. Is it surprising that children go to ground when only 3 per cent. of the 3,440 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children were granted asylum in 2004, whereas 24 per cent. had their applications refused and 73 per cent. were granted limited leave to remain? That 73 per cent. represents, I think, the ones for whom the Government want the relevant age limit pushed back from 18 to 17 and a half. In 2005, fewer decisions were made. Only 6 per cent., however, of the 2,835 who applied for asylum were granted it; 31 per cent. were refused and 63 per cent. were granted limited leave to remain.
A question that arises in this context is what happens to unaccompanied children who are granted asylum. Is there any monitoring? Do they just get a bit of paper and shake hands, then off they go? Who cares for them? What happens to those who are refused? Are they sent back immediately? Surely the Government have figures on who was sent back and what the cost was. Would it be possible to visit some of the children who are waiting for their asylum cases to be dealt with? Should a group from the Joint Committee visit—if it has not already—some of the section 20 and section 17 children in care? What happens to those who are granted limited leave to remain? How limited is the leave; what is it all about? Are they granted limited leave to remain so that they can have an education here? If they are to have that, why are they sent back early? Where are they accommodated?
Unaccompanied children who enter our country are inevitably vulnerable. The majority arrive from countries that are experiencing armed conflict or serious repression of minority groups or political opponents. Some of them may have been sold by their parents to traffickers—unbelievable but true—or given
away to family members in the hope of a better life for the child elsewhere, which is quite normal. Once they arrive in the UK they are not sent back immediately, but there are no figures for the numbers who may have been trafficked into the UK. The Minister’s reply to a question from me on 23 January was:
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |