Memorandum submitted by ECPAT UK
ECPAT UK is a UK registered charity (Charity
no. 1104948) and the UK national representative of the global
ECPAT movement with partner organisations in over 70 countries
around the world campaigning against the commercial sexual exploitation
of children, including child trafficking. In the UK we represent
a coalition of eight leading charities. They are Anti-Slavery
International, Jubilee Campaign, NSPCC, Save the Children UK,
The Children's Society, UNICEF UK, World Vision UK, and The Body
Shop Foundation.
ECPAT UK is contributing to this consultation
as a result of our expert knowledge on child trafficking. We have
framed answers accordingly and will not be responding on adult
victims of trafficking.
Policy development on safeguarding child victims
of trafficking has increased substantially over the past two years.
ECPAT UK welcomes the recognition from the Department of Children,
Schools and Families (DCSF) and the Home Office that special efforts
are needed to safeguard children from abroad, and specifically
the inclusion of child trafficking in the DCSF `Staying Safe'
consultation document and the 2007 guidance document `Safeguarding
Children Who May Have Been Trafficked'. However, significant gaps
still exist between policy and practice.
ABOUT ECPAT UK
ECPAT UK (End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography
and the Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes) has thirteen
years experience of campaigning against the sexual exploitation
of children, including child trafficking. As the only UK charity
with child trafficking as part of our name and core business ECPAT
UK has developed a high level of expertise in this area. We work
both in the UK and with international partners to campaign, research
and advise key stakeholders and train professionals on safeguarding
child victims of trafficking. ECPAT UK participates in the following
groups:
— The Joint Ministerial Stakeholder
Group on Human Trafficking
— The Home Office Stakeholder Group
on Child Trafficking
— The ACPO group on Child Trafficking
— The UK Human Trafficking Centre Independent
Advisory Group
— The UKHTC/CEOP group on child protection
for Pentameter 2
— Various Local Safeguarding Children
Board sub-groups on Trafficking
ECPAT UK also works in partnership with NSPCC
to provide the `National Advocate for Children' during Operation
Pentameter 2. This role has been approved by Gold Command to follow
up, on a case by case basis, each child identified in Pentameter
2 operations.
ECPAT UK supports the All Party Parliamentary
Group on Trafficking of Women and Children (APPG) by providing
guidance, advice and contacts for experts in the UK and internationally.
The APPG has been highly successful in raising over 100 parliamentary
questions and several debates on human trafficking over the past
eighteen months.
ECPAT UK has published several research reports
on child trafficking including research across London (What the
Professionals Know, 2001; Cause for Concern, 2004) and Manchester,
Newcastle and the West Midlands (Missing Out, 2007). ECPAT UK
and UNICEF co-published the report Rights Here: Rights Now in
September 2007 measuring current UK policy and practice on safeguarding
child victims of trafficking against the UNICEF Global Guidelines
for the Protection of Trafficked Children and the Council of Europe
Convention on Action against Human Trafficking.
SUMMARY OF
RECOMMENDATIONS
ECPAT UK recommends that the Government:
a. Declare which Articles of the Council of Europe
Convention on Trafficking require primary or secondary legislation
amendments, and begin to implement the remaining aspects of the
Convention without delay while those amendments are going through
the parliamentary process.
b. Remove its Reservation to the UN Convention
on the Rights of the Child on immigration and nationality and
ensure that the forthcoming review process is transparent and
reports to Parliament.
c. Ratify, without further delay, the Optional
Protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child on the
Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography.
d. Sign and Ratify the Council of Europe Convention
on Sexual Exploitation and Abuse of Children.
e. Immediately withdraw the recently announced
Home Office policy to forcibly remove unaccompanied children under
18 who have failed asylum claims.
f. Remove any child who is a victim of trafficking
out of the immigration system whilst a decision is made about
his or her future.
g. Establish a system of Guardianship for children
suspected or identified as trafficked that has a statutory duty
to support the child in their legal, practical and emotional needs
and who can advocate on their behalf.
h. Establish multi-agency safeguarding teams
(such as the Metropolitan Police Paladin Team) at each port to
identify, and respond to, concerns about separated children and
young people entering or leaving the UK.
i. Treat age disputed young people as minors
whilst they are awaiting independent assessment by a multi-agency
panel.
j. Review the use of the European Union (EU)
Dublin II agreement on third country returns with respect to victims
of trafficking where removal may cause harm and place young people
at risk of re-trafficking.
ESTIMATING THE
SCALE AND
TYPE OF
ACTIVITY:
Child Trafficking
1. ECPAT UK has mapped over twenty-five
countries where trafficked children have originated from over
the past five years. In contrast to the numerous media reports
of the trafficking of Eastern European adult women into sexual
exploitation, ECPAT UK's research in London (2002[33],
2004[34])
and Manchester, Newcastle and West Midlands (2007)[35],
presents a much more complex picture for children. The majority
of trafficked children are already highly vulnerable in their
home country before they become the targets of traffickers. Some
children trafficked to the UK have already been exploited and
abused, and many appear to have been living in households with
adults who do not have parental responsibility. The circumstances
of them travelling with traffickers are often the result of being
deceived, sold or coerced rather than abduction or kidnapping.
2. Significantly, many children believe
they are coming to a better life, some not having any idea they
are coming to Europe, and innocently go along with offers of education
or employment. Once in the UK children experience exploitation
through domestic servitude, forced labour, sexual exploitation,
cannabis cultivation, street crime, forced marriage and benefit
fraud. ECPAT UK research shows that the vast majority of children
appear to come from Africa, China and Vietnam. In Operation Pentameter,
launched in 2006 to identify and rescue trafficked women in saunas
and brothels around the UK, 84 foreign females were identified
as victims of trafficking, 12 of these were under 18: of those
12 children 9 were of African origin and 3 were European.
3. Trends change and current information
gathered from local authorities and police suggests that: the
trafficking of Chinese children has increased over the past six
months and coincides with the numbers of Chinese children going
missing from local authority care; the trafficking of Vietnamese
children for cannabis cultivation has increased and so too the
trafficking of Roma children from Romania and Bulgaria for street
crime such as bag-snatching.
4. ECPAT UK has been gravely concerned by
the number of Vietnamese children who have been prosecuted and
convicted for drug and immigration offences following raids of
so called `Cannabis Factories'. These children are victims of
crime and should be seen as child witnesses' not as perpetrators,
yet case evidence available to ECPAT UK shows children as young
as 14, both boys and girls, being convicted for drug offences
and immigration offences who have been sentenced and awaiting
deportation.
5. It is important to note that UK legislation
for trafficking offences included within The Sexual Offences Act
2003 and the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc.)
Act, 2004 is inadequate to deal with the many offences that constitute
what we now understand of child trafficking, specifically the
trafficking of children for criminal activity; and the trafficking
of babies and young children who cannot speak for themselves.
The latter is relevant because of trafficking for benefit fraud
and illegal adoption.
6. Until 2007, when the Government published
A Scoping Project on Child Trafficking in the UK (CEOP, 2007)
there were no government estimates on the number of children trafficked
into the UK. The UK, with its devolved government structures,
separate police forces and local authority responsibility for
child care, will continue to have problems producing a national
picture of trafficking until one single agency becomes responsible
for analysing data provided by victim care agencies, alongside
information on prosecutions and immigration statistics. Without
a comprehensive annual audit of child trafficking data it is almost
impossible to assess the resources needed for the development
and allocation of specialist support across the country.
7. Without a national picture it will never
be possible to monitor and evaluate the Government's protection
and prevention strategies for safeguarding trafficked children.
ECPAT UK believes that because of the covert and deceptive nature
of trafficking, victim identification is a process rather than
a precise moment. Children very rarely disclose they have been
trafficked at the moment of entering the country or when being
initially assessed by local authorities. Many children might not
even know they are being trafficked or exploited. Data must be
compared across agencies and over time to assess risk and reduce
harm to children who may have been trafficked.
8. ECPAT UK believes that a National Rapporteur
on Human Trafficking, with a specific responsibility for children,
should be established with statutory powers to request information
from police, immigration authorities, child protection agencies
(both government and non-government) and to analyse information
and report annually to Parliament.
Effectiveness of the co-ordination between public
authorities in the UK:
9. Child victims of trafficking remain a
highly vulnerable group within our society, even after they are
identified and placed in Local Authority care. Our responsibility
to them as children is not diminished simply because they come
from abroad; indeed our responsibility to them is substantially
greater because most trafficked children have no family within
the UK; they are victims of crime and many live in constant fear
of being returned to the criminals that exploit them. From our
experience of working with trafficked children and their care
givers, children's experience of the asylum system does not make
them feel secure and away from harm.
10. ECPAT UK, along with other children's
organisations, believes that a system of guardianship for separated
children is the only mechanism that will ensure that all actions
and decisions with respect to that child will be made in their
best interests. This is particularly important for trafficked
children. A Guardian would assist the trafficked child navigate
across the boundaries of statutory services, legal advisors and
non-government agencies to support the child in every aspect of
their wellbeing. ECPAT UK research shows that when trafficked
children go missing from local authority care there has been very
little cooperation between agencies, and across local and international
boundaries, to trace children and make contact with their families.
11. ECPAT UK has been very outspoken over
the extremely high numbers of suspected and known trafficked children
who have gone missing from local authority care. This remains
a priority area for investigation and action. ECPAT UK would like
to remind the Home Affairs Select Committee that the solution
to trafficked children going missing is much more than simply
providing a safe house in a suburb. In order to bring safety to
children a comprehensive package of joined-up support is required
including safe accommodation (especially enhanced foster care),
guardianship, expert legal advisors, qualified interpreters, physical
and sexual health support and particularly mental health support.
The concept of "safeness" can only be fully realised
when children believe that they have a safe haven that affords
them more protection than being back on the streets or with the
traffickers.
12. ECPAT UK welcomes the recent efforts
of government to develop new policy on safeguarding child victims
of trafficking. However, we are increasingly concerned that policy
development around trafficking is being seen in a vacuum, and
not seen as a cross cutting theme in related areas of policy and
practice guidance. For example, on January 10, 2008 the Secretary
of State for Children, Schools and Families announced a new cross-government
working group on young runaways and a review of policy and practice.
It is imperative that these initiatives are inclusive of children
who may have been trafficked.
The treatment of those who have been trafficked
but have no legal right to remain in the UK, including the requirements
imposed by the Council of Europe Convention on Action against
Human Trafficking:
13. A renewable residence permit system
for victims of trafficking is essential to create clarity for
social care practitioners, legal advisors and children themselves.
A renewable residence permit system would provide children with
an alternative to immediately claiming asylum and allow them to
understand the options available to them without being forced
down a track they do not understand, which is more often than
not a dead-end. Even with residence permits, some trafficked children
may well choose to seek asylum on the basis of expert legal advice
but the "breathing space" that a residence permit provides
should ensure that decisions are made in the best interest of
each child.
14. ECPAT UK's research on child trafficking
and training workshops with social service teams across the UK
clearly indicate children known or suspected of being trafficked
are often already in the asylum system when their experiences
of trafficking and exploitation come to light. In other words
the social workers did not know at the initial intake and assessment
phase and that routine plans were made without knowing the child's
past history. This can lead to trafficked and exploited children
being seen first as "asylum seeking children" and placed
in completely inappropriate accommodation, receiving little support
and getting no expert legal advice. The nature of their exploitation
often only comes to light when a child's immigration solicitor
does more extensive interviews during the immigration appeal process
and when discretionary leave entitlements come to an end. Children
very rarely use the word "trafficking" to explain what
they have been through, and often think that they will not be
believed or have been led to believe that what they have experienced
is somehow normal or to be expected.
15. On the basis of past research and interviews
across local authorities around the UK, ECPAT UK estimates that
at any given time a minimum of 600 children, known or suspected
of being trafficked, will be in the asylum system or will have
been in the asylum system before going missing from local authority
care. This represents 10 percent of the Home Office quoted figure
of 6,000 total number of unaccompanied asylum seeking children
supported by local authorities (p6 of the 2007 Home Office consultation
document called Planning Better Outcomes and Support for Unaccompanied
Asylum Seeking Children`). The ECPAT UK figure of 600 children
is a very conservative estimate based on limited data.
16. Although some trafficked children do
claim asylum upon arrival due to the tactics of traffickers, many
more end up in local authority care, after what can be long periods
of abuse or exploitation; being advised by non-specialist immigration
solicitors to claim asylum. While some trafficked children do
go on to obtain protection under Article 3 of the European Convention
on Human Rights (ECHR), many do not. It is worth noting that this
group of children who are victims of crime and human rights abuses
are referred to the asylum system by default by UK professionals
and are a long way from the picture of systemic abuse painted
by the Home Office in various documents as "those who are
not in genuine need of asylum".
17. Although it will be appropriate for
some trafficked children to be voluntarily returned to family
or guardians in their country of origin, many trafficked children
will be living in fear of violence, stigma, sexual abuse and re-trafficking
if they are forced to return to their own community. The asylum
claims of trafficked children are routinely rejected. Appeals
on the ground of human rights violations are often met with a
culture of disbelief from the Home Office and the Asylum and Immigration
Tribunal and we have regularly seen trafficked children's appeal
statements being rejected and claims refused because of a basic
lack of awareness and concern about human trafficking from both
the Home Office Border and Immigration Agency (BIA) staff and
immigration solicitors.
18. ECPAT UK would like to stress that any
Home Office proposals related to "failed unaccompanied asylum
seeking children" will have a direct impact upon trafficked
children and risk increasing the harm to children unless robust
child protection measures are embedded in BIA policy and practice.
19. ECPAT UK welcomes the aspirational statements
on page 8 of the recent Home Office publication Better Outcomes:
The Way Forward. Improving the Care of Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking
Children (January 31, 2008) but we are appalled at the introduction
of enforced removals of unaccompanied children under 18 who refuse
voluntary return. This has taken away a vital safety-net for trafficked
children who may well be living in fear of traffickers should
they be returned.
20. It is worth noting that no conviction
for a trafficking offence has taken place in the UK related to
an African child victim and yet African children figure prominently
in the statistics of known or suspected trafficking victims in
both the governments' own research and that of ECPAT UK. There
is incongruence between the numbers of trafficked children who
are in local authority care and the low number of investigations
and prosecutions of traffickers for child trafficking, particularly
for domestic servitude. Much more examination is required to see
to what extent trafficked children in the asylum system are supported
as child witnesses.
Co-operation within the EU (including EUROPOL);
and control of the EU's external frontiers:
DUBLIN II
i. The Dublin II Regulation came into effect
from 1 September 2003, and is part of the European Union efforts
to harmonise asylum policies and processes across Europe. The
Dublin II Regulation provides the legal basis for establishing
the criteria and mechanism for determining the State responsible
for examining an asylum application in one of the Member States
of the EU (excluding Denmark, but including Iceland and Norway)
by a third country national. The regulation applies to the following
countries: Austria, Belgium, France, Greece, the Federal Republic
of Germany, Finland, the Republic of Iceland, Ireland, Italy,
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the Kingdom of
the Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
ii. Asylum applicants are fingerprinted and their
fingerprints checked against a European wide database that informs
the UK whether a person has previously passed through another
EU member state or made a claim for asylum in another member state.
Under Dublin II separated children can only be returned on the
basis that they previously made an asylum claim in that country.
This is referred to as "taking back". However, children
who have been age disputed in the UK by Immigration authorities
can be returned on the lesser proof that the person has simply
transited through the third country and this is called "taking
charge".
iii. With time limits attached to the application
of the regulation the opportunity to fully risk assess the child
is compromised. The UK must formally request another member state
to "take back" an applicant within 3 months of the claim
for asylum in the UK. A decision must be made on this request
within two months and the UK has a further six months to enforce
the transfer. (ECPAT UK. Missing Out, 2007)
21. ECPAT UK is gravely concerned by the
inappropriate use of the EU Dublin II regulation to return young
people who may have been trafficked back to the first place they
claimed asylum. Case evidence has emerged to suggest that the
UK is removing unaccompanied young adults back to European transit
countries where they passed through as children as a result of
being trafficked.
22. ECPAT UK has raised this issue numerous
times without response from the Home Office. It was included in
the ECPAT UK submission to the Joint Committee on Human Rights
Inquiry into Trafficking, the ECPAT UK submission to the Home
Office Consultation for A National Action Plan and the ECPAT UK
report Missing Out. The Home Office Third Country Unit has never
provided a response to explain what actions they have taken to
prevent trafficked people from being removed back to places where
they first experienced exploitation.
23. At an event hosted by the All Party
Parliamentary Group on Trafficking of Woman and Children, held
in the House of Commons on January 29, 2008, the Director of ECPAT
UK asked Lin Homer, the Chief Executive of BIA, what the Home
Office policy was on using the Dublin II regulation to remove
victims of trafficking. Ms. Homer was unable to answer the question
and said she would ensure a written response was sent following
the meeting.
24. A response was received from Ms Homer's
office on 12/02/08 which included the following statement:
"To adopt a policy that allows a claim
of trafficking to provide a blanket override of provisions of
Community law in the form of the Dublin Regulation risks opening
a potential area of abuse. This is why it is important that the
UK does not provide a general exemption for victims of trafficking
which would undermine the intent of the Dublin Regulation, but
considers claims on an individual basis."
25. ECPAT UK strongly urges the Home Affairs
Select Committee to make robust enquiries regarding Home Office
third country returns and how this policy works in practice to
safeguard victims of trafficking from being returned to a place
of harm.
26. In addition to UK Dublin II removals,
ECPAT UK is also concerned at the possibilities of trafficked
children who first claim asylum in the UK, but who go missing
from local authority care, and who may end up being processed
as a "Dublin case" in another EU country and sent back
to the UK without the knowledge of police, support agencies and
local authorities. To our knowledge the Dublin II process has
never been interrogated for EU wide data to trace missing children,
including those suspected as trafficked who have been identified
as adults in Europe.
27. A recent child trafficking case being
prosecuted in the Netherlands has shown just how relevant this
is. The following is an excerpt from an Irish press article from
January 18, 2008.
"The High Court yesterday ordered the extradition
of a West African man wanted in the Netherlands for allegedly
trafficking children from Africa to Europe for use as prostitutes.
The Dutch authorities had sought the extradition of Jackson Smith,
aka Peter Kwame Sarfo (38). They allege he is involved in the
trafficking of children from Nigeria into both Spain and Italy.
Yesterday, Counsel for the State, Patrick McGrath, said the Dutch
authorities had claimed that, between January 2005 and October
2007, Sarfo was involved in the sexual exploitation of children
and people trafficking at "a national and international level".
Mr. McGrath said that the Dutch were claiming that Sarfo arranged
for girls from Nigeria to travel to the Netherlands. When there
they would seek asylum, and because they were minors they would
be put into the care of a guardian. Then, Sarfo and others would
arrange for the girls to abscond from where they were residing
and end up as prostitutes in Spain and Italy." (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/court-orders-extradition-of-child-trafficking-suspect-1268454.html).
28. It is clear to ECPAT UK that children
are trafficked to and through the UK on to other European countries.
Greater co-operation with European institutions such as EUROPOL,
EUROJUST and the European children's charities would enhance our
ability to protect children and close in on the criminals that
traffic them.
4 February 2008
33 Somerset, C (2002) "What the Professionals
Know". ECPAT UK. Back
34
Somerset, C (2004) "Cause for Concern". ECPAT UK. Back
35
Beddoe, C (2007) "Missing Out". ECPAT UK. Back
| 
