The Trade in Human Beings: Human Trafficking in the UK - Home Affairs Committee Contents


Memorandum submitted by Save the Children

  1.  Save the Children fights for vulnerable children in the UK and around the world who suffer from poverty, disease, injustice and violence. We work with them to find lifelong answers to the problems they face.

  2.  As a global organisation, we are uniquely placed to ensure that the rights of all asylum seeker, refugee and trafficked children in the UK are protected, promoted and respected in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), other international human rights instruments and relevant domestic legislation.

THE SCALE OF CHILD TRAFFICKING IN THE UK

  3.  The internationally recognised definition of trafficking (in the Palermo Protocol) defines child trafficking as children being transported for purposes of exploitation within or across national borders. This includes situations where children have voluntarily consented to travel but are exploited on arrival.

  4.  Many children who are trafficked are handled by highly organised criminal networks, but children are also trafficked through personal and family connections. Perpetrators are anyone along the trafficking chain—recruiters, middlemen, document providers, transporters, corrupt officials and employers.

  5.  Due to the illicit nature of trafficking there are few reliable estimates of the number of trafficked children in the UK. There is no single statutory agency within the UK that has a responsibility for gathering data and reporting annually on child trafficking, which means it is impossible to get a true picture of the scale of the problem.

  6.  Research carried out by ECPAT UK and Save the Children in 2006[89] uncovered 80 cases of known or highly suspected child trafficking across five local authorities in three regions in England. This is likely to be just the tip of the iceberg.

  7.  In 2006, the Home Office commissioned the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) to undertake an intelligence-gathering project to try and establish the level of existing information and understand of child trafficking. The research team gathered data from the police, law enforcement agencies, 20 Children's Services teams, BIA and eight NGOs. From these referrals the research team identified 330 cases that fitted the profile of child trafficking.[90] Again this is unlikely to be an accurate figure.

  8.  Children are exploited in a wide variety of ways and not just through sexual exploitation, which may vary according to their age and gender and race. The ECPAT UK/ Save the Children research found examples of:

    —  Domestic Servitude.

    —  Restaurant/catering labour.

    —  Benefit fraud.

    —  Sexual exploitation.

    —  Underage forced marriages.

    —  Manual labour.

    —  Cannabis factory labour.

  9.  Trafficking can have a devastating impact upon children. They are separated from families and in danger of losing all contact with them. They are at risk of losing their identity as traffickers often destroy their papers and change their names. During the journey, unsafe transportation places them at risk of death or injury.

  10.  On arrival they are likely to experience violence, abuse and dangerous working conditions that are harmful to their health and wellbeing. They are at risk of suffering long term damage, including HIV/AIDS.

  11.  The trafficking of children is not an illegal migration issue, driven by people's desire to come to the UK. It is a global human rights abuse that requires national, regional and international co-operation to protect children.

  12.  Children who have been trafficked should first and foremost be protected—their immigration case can then be considered after their protection needs have been met.

THE RIGHTS OF TRAFFICKED CHILDREN

Council of Europe Convention against Trafficking

  13.  The Government's announcement to ratify the Council of Europe Convention against trafficking in Human Beings by the end of 2008 is extremely welcome.

  14.  Ratifying the Convention would require the Government to take specific measures which would help to protect these vulnerable children, for example, reduce children's vulnerability to trafficking, notably by creating a protective environment for them (Article 5); ensuring that relevant authorities have trained and qualified professionals in identifying and helping victims, including children (article10); and issuing child victims of trafficking temporary residence permits in order to ensure the child's best interests are safeguarded (article 14).

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

  15.  Save the Children very much welcomes the Government's announcement on 14 January 2008[91] to review its general reservation on immigration and citizenship as part of its consultation on a Code of Practice for the Border and Immigration agency.[92]

  16.  The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has twice called on the Government to remove the reservation, which they have described as "against the object and purpose" of the Convention.[93] The UK Government will be assessed on its implementation of the UNCRC in this autumn. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has also condemned the UK for maintaining this reservation, most recently in its report on the treatment of asylum seekers.[94]

  17.  The Government has made assurances that it honours the spirit of the UNCRC in relation to children subject to immigration control but in practice the effect of the general reservation has been to create a lower standard of care for children from abroad, which undermines efforts to combat child trafficking.

  18.  A key example of this is the omission of immigration agencies from the duty to "safeguard and promote the welfare of children" introduced by Section 11 of Children Act 2004—immigration agencies are the only significant statutory body to be excluded. While Save the Children welcomes the proposed Code of Practice[95] through which the Home Office acknowledges the need to offer children subject to immigration control protection to ensure their safety, we do not believe that this goes far enough as the proposed Code will be weaker than a statutory duty.

Departmental responsibility for separated children

  19.  Save the Children is concerned by the increasing development of dual systems of care and support—one for citizen children and one for trafficked children and other children who are subject to immigration controls (see below).

  20.  Wider child protection and children's policy sits within the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). With the Ministry of Justice now holding joint responsibility with the DCSF for juvenile justice issues, it is an anomaly that the responsibility of separated children remains with the Home Office. When challenged on whether policy affecting separated children should be a dual responsibility area between the Home Office and the DCSF, Ed Balls told the Children Schools and Families Select Committee, "I should be very happy to listen to the views of the Committee on that."[96]

  21.  Save the Children is calling for:

    —  The Government to ensure that the Convention is ratified by the end of 2008 and that it fully implements obligations set out in the Convention as soon as possible.

    —  The Government to remove its general reservation on immigration and citizenship to the UN Convention on the Rights of the child. The Government must ensure that its review of the Reservation is comprehensive and fully involves stakeholders, in order to be credible.

    —  Section 11 of the Children Act 2004 to be amended so that immigration agencies are included in the duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.

    —  The Department for Children, Schools and Families to take the lead in safeguarding these vulnerable children or at the very least a joint unit must be established between the Department for Children, Schools and Families and the Home Office.

TRAFFICKED CHILDREN GOING MISSING FROM CARE

  22.  Of particular concern to Save the Children is that research has found that a significant number of non-citizen children are going missing from care. These cases first came to Government attention over ten years ago when in 1996 West Sussex police investigations revealed that children from West Africa were going missing soon after arrival. Similarly, Scotland Yard investigations found that over just a two month period, between July and September 2001, 300 black boys between the ages of four and seven had gone missing from school.[97] Of these boys, 299 came from Africa and one from the Caribbean. An international police search was only able to locate two of the 300 boys who had gone missing.[98]

  23.  More recently, Save the Children asked local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales a series of questions under the Freedom of Information Act about children from abroad going missing from their care.[99]

  24.  Of the 109 local authorities who responded to the request, detailed information was provided in 94 (86%) of the responses[100] and of these cases 238 cases of children had gone missing from care. Of these cases 132 (55%) children remain missing and have not been located since; 66 (27.7%) have since been found and information was not provided in the remaining 40 cases.

  25.  35 of the children who had gone missing were suspected cases of child trafficking. However, in many cases local authorities reported a lack of understanding of what was meant by the term trafficking, and others reported "no cases of trafficking to their knowledge" so it is likely that a higher proportion may well have been were victims of trafficking. However, even if child trafficking was not evident Save the Children does not believe that these cases represent any less of a child protection concern.

  26.  Of the 238 missing children, information as to their gender was provided in 150 (63%) of these cases. Of these, 43 (28.6%) children were female, and 107 (71%) were male.

  27.  Detail concerning the age at which the children had gone missing from care was provided in 123 (51.7%) cases. Of these 123 cases:

    —  12 (9.8%) were under the age of 14. Two of these cases were 11 year old boys from Afghanistan, and one was a 12 year old boy from Kenya.

    —  61 (49.6%) were between the ages of 15 and 16 years old.

    —  49 (39.85) were 17-18 years old.

    —  One was over the age of 18.

  28.  Information about the country of origin of the missing children was provided in 149 cases. Of these, 37 (24.8%) came from Afghanistan, 15 (10%) came from Eritrea, 14 (9.4%) came from Vietnam, 13 (8.7%) from Romania and 12 (8%) from Nigeria. The full list of country of origin information can be found in annex A.

  29.  Research carried out by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) and ECPAT UK and Save the Children research have also revealed that significant numbers of children are going missing from local authority care.

  30.  The CEOP research identified 330 cases that fitted the profile of child trafficking and of this number 183—or 55% were found to have gone missing.[101] Similarly, the research carried out by ECPAT UK and Save the Children in five local authorities in England, found 80 reported cases of known or suspected child victims of trafficking, 52 (64%) of which had gone missing. Only four of these children had since been located.[102]

    In September 2005, six Chinese girls aged between 16 and 17 were stopped at Birmingham airport boarding a plane for Toronto. It is understood they had been in England for up to two years but they had previously not been detected by any government agency. Immigration services identified that one of the adults with whom they were travelling was wanted for human trafficking in Singapore. The girls were separated and placed in the care of two different authorities. Three of the girls went missing within 72 hours. Of the remaining three, one was suffering mental health problems and appropriate foster care could not be located. Shortly after being placed in residential housing, she went missing.

    The other two girls remained in foster care for a further nine months until the younger one went missing. She has subsequently returned to foster care although has not disclosed where she has been in the interim. No information about the missing four girls has come forward.

    From Missing Out: A study of Child Trafficking in the North-West, North East and West Midland.

  31.  As the majority of children who have gone missing have never been traced, there is little information available to explain why they went missing. However, information from the small numbers of missing children who have later been found in the ECPA UK/Save the Children research indicates that in some cases, while children are registered with social services, the trafficker maintains control over the child and seeks to remove the child as soon as possible or that children run away from care in attempt to escape the trafficker.[103] In addition to actions taken by the traffickers and the child themselves, gaps within care planning and service provisions also contributed to children being at risk of going missing.

  32.  It is clear from the limited research that is available that significant numbers of children from abroad are going missing from care. While we welcome the recent Government proposals to establish arrangements to monitor and take appropriate action when children go missing from care,[104] we also see an urgent need for an independent inquiry to be held into cases of children from abroad going missing. Such an inquiry would further evidence why this is happening and help to build up a picture of emerging trends across the UK so this highly concerning issue can be fully.

Lack of practical guidance

  33.  Extremely concerning is the fact that children who have been identified as victims of trafficking are still going missing from care. Many of the suspected cases of child trafficking from the ECPAT and Save the Children study had not been investigated or recorded as such by social services at the time that the children went missing.[105] Concerns have been raised that this is due to a lack of awareness among professionals of child trafficking—something that the Government has pledged to tackle.[106]

  34.  While Save the Children welcomes and acknowledge the Home Office and DCSF guidance "Safeguarding Children" who may have been trafficked[107] we see it only as a much needed first step in addressing some of the failures in the care and protection of trafficked children. We are concerned by the lack of practical guidance to support local authorities and social services to plan, protect and care for trafficked children in their care on a day to day basis.

  35.  We hope that the proposed staff training in the Code of Practice consultation[108] and the proposals to develop identification and referral mechanisms for child victims of trafficking in Better Outcomes: The Way Forward will help address this deficit.[109]

  36.  As noted by CEOP, children who have been trafficked and exploited need specialise aftercare and support—trafficked children have experienced abuse and exploitation and might also have suffered sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancies and miscarriages, trauma, depression, drug addiction and psychological instability.[110] Any guidance on safeguarding trafficked children must include protocols on victim care that can be incorporated into existing local authority pathway planning procedures.

  37.  The lack of safe and appropriate accommodation provision is particularly concerning, especially given the evidence that some children in care who had already been found to have been trafficked and exploited, subsequently went missing again.[111] Following the identification of girls being trafficked in West Sussex, West Sussex Social Services established a safe house for child victims of trafficking. This safe house was subsequently closed after a lack of government funding.

  38.  The ECPAT UK/Save the Children research found that children went missing from a range of support arrangements—the majority from emergency accommodation, but also from foster care and from a housing provider who was supposed to be providing 24-hour surveillance.[112]

  39.  Save the Children therefore welcomes the recent proposal to provide "safe accommodation arrangements for foster placements in order to protect them from the people who bought them into the United Kingdom."[113] The Government must take forward this proposal as soon as possible in consultation with stakeholders, including trafficked children and young people.

  40.  Save the children is calling for:

    —  An independent inquiry to be held into the cases of children from abroad going missing from care.

    —  More practical guidance and resources for the development of a multi-tiered response child trafficking including 24 hour supervised and safe accommodation and carefully selected and trained foster placements with the accommodation provided based on the level of support and protected needed by the individual child.

    —  Detailed guidance and training for professionals on the identification and management of cases of child trafficking.

GAPS IN SERVICES FOR ALL SEPARATED CHILDREN

  41.  While training and more sophisticated information about indicators of trafficking should help increase the number of children who are identified as potential victims of trafficking, it will still be the case that some children will not initially display any signs of having been trafficked.

  42.  Trafficked children arrive and are looked after as separated children, and research and evidence[114] shows that in many cases there is a dearth of resources and a lack of adherence to legislation, regulation and statutory guidance which has led to the failures of services to meet the specific care and protection needs of separated children in the UK. A Save the Children study found that some local authorities were not able to allocate a social worker to all children and young people from abroad and that the quality of accommodation and support, provided by some private semi-independent accommodation service deliverers, was not always adequate.[115]

  43.  Save the Children does not believe that the care and protection of potentially trafficked children can be separated from the care and protection of the broader population of separated children. Both are vulnerable groups and as has already been suggested, it can take time for a separated child to display an indication that he or she might have been, or is vulnerable to being trafficked.

  44.  We welcome the positive statements about trafficked children in Better Outcomes: The Way Forward. However, we remain concerned that some of the proposals will have a significantly negative impact on child victims of trafficking as well as separated children generally:

    —  A key concern is the proposals to enforce the removal of under-18s whose asylum claim have failed back to their country of origin. We are not against the return of separated children in all circumstances but the return of a separated child must only take place if it is in the child's best interests and if appropriate reception arrangements and safeguards are in place. We are particularly concerned about the significant risks of return in relation to trafficked children, where without adequate safeguards in place the child is very likely to be at risk of further exploitation.

    —  Despite opposition from children's organisations, the Refugee Children's Consortium (RCC), the Children's Commissioner for England and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health,[116] the proposal to introduce x-rays to determine age has not been ruled out. Save the Children have serious concerns over the use of x-rays in age assessment procedures: They are unethical as it is an invasive practice which will expose children to unnecessary radiation and inaccurate due to the two-year margin of error for this procedure. If this proposal is implemented there is a real risk that vulnerable separated children, including trafficked children, will be treated as adults. A more accurate and holistic approach to age assessment is needed.

    —  We do not object in principle to the establishment of new "specialist authorities" to address the uneven spread of specialist local authority provision for separated children and welcome the Government's acknowledgement that "any move towards pacing children outside London and the South-East of England clearly requires careful management." However, we are aware of the risks that improper management and insufficient funding of dispersal could bring about especially for trafficked children.

  45.  Save the Children is calling for:

    —  The proposals in Better Outcomes: The Way Forward to be assessed against the principles and provisions of the UNCRC.

    —  Matters regarding all separated children to be wholly contextualised within a child protection environment.

    —  The return of separated children to their country or origin to only take place if there are satisfactory structures and mechanisms to adjudicate on the "best interests" principle, including a system of guardianship (see below).

    —  The Government to explore the establishment of independent, multi-agency age assessment panels as recommended by the Separated Children in Europe Programme.[117]

    —  The development of Specialist Authorities to incorporate the positive learning from the Safe Case Transfer project.

A GUARDIAN FOR ALL SEPARATED CHILDREN

  46.  There is no systematic provision of independent oversight on matters involving separated children from abroad—trafficked as well as asylum-seeking children. As noted above, separated children may be placed in inappropriate accommodation with inadequate support, and can also go unrepresented in asylum claims. In particular the long term durable solutions for each child may not be fully explored.[118]

  47.  Based on this evidence, UNICEF UK has recommended that a guardian is appointed for trafficked children as soon as a child victim is identified, or there are reasonable grounds to believe that the child is a victim.[119] We agree.

  48.  Article 10 of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings states that; "As soon as an unaccompanied child is identified as a victim [of trafficking] ... each Party shall provide for representation of the child by a legal guardian, organisation or authority which shall act in the best interests of that child."

  49.  In addition, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) has clearly outlined the responsibility of States to provide guardians for unaccompanied and separated children:

    "States are required to create the underlying legal framework and to take necessary measures to secure proper representation of an unaccompanied or separated child's best interests. Therefore States should appoint a guardian or adviser as soon as the unaccompanied or separated child is identified and maintain such guardianship arrangements until the child has either reached the age of majority or has permanently left the territory, in compliance with the Convention and other international instruments."[120]

  50.  It is crucial that a system of guardianship set up for separated children in the UK follows international standards. The functions of the guardian are set out in the UNCRC General Comment number 6, which sets out that, inter alia:

    "The guardian should be consulted and informed regarding all actions taken in relation to the child. The guardian should have the authority to be present in all planning and decision-making processes, including immigration and appeal hearings, care arrangements and all efforts to search for a durable solution..."[121]

  51.  The Separated Children in Europe Programme (SCEP) Statement of Good Practice[122] also recommends that as soon as a separated child is identified, a guardian or adviser should be appointed—in a long-term perspective—to advise and protect the separated child. The Statement sets out the role and function of a guardian as follows, based on the experiences of member countries:[123]

    —  To ensure that all decisions taken are in the child's best interests.

    —  To ensure that the child has suitable care, accommodation, education, language support and health care provision.

    —  To ensure that the child has suitable legal representation to deal with his/her immigration status or asylum claim.

    —  To consult with and advise the child.

    —  To contribute to a durable solution in the child's best interests.

    —  To provide a link between the child and various organisations who may provide services to the child.

    —  To advocate on the child's behalf where necessary.

    —  To explore the possibility of family tracing and reunification with the child.

  52.  The Government has responded to calls for guardians by stating that:

    "We consider that the children already receive sufficient assistance from the local authority social workers assigned to their care. The children are also referred to the Refugee Council Children's Panel, which provides additional advice and signposts the individuals to appropriate services. Legal assistance is of course available to assist with asylum applications."[124]

  53.  The local authority is not adequately resourced to fulfil the effective functions of a guardian as set out by UNHCR[125] and the UNCRC. The UNCRC guidance states that, "agencies or individuals whose interest could potentially be in conflict with those of the child's should not be eligible for guardianship."[126] The RCC believes that local authority children's services are such an agency. For example, recent research from RCC member ILPA, highlights the potential conflict of interest for local authorities in carrying out age determinations of young people, because of the resource implications of determining that someone is a child.[127]

  54.  The Refugee Council's Children's Panel is often quoted as providing a guardianship role for unaccompanied children in the UK. However, this has been refuted by the Refugee Council.[128] The role of the Panel is not a statutory one although it is funded by the Home Office. There is no obligation on children's services to work together with the Panel of Advisers or vice versa and it has no mandate to report, make recommendations or ascertain the feelings of a child. Valuable NGO agencies such as the Refugee Council Children's Panel are no substitute for statutory guardianship.

  55.  Save the Children is calling for:

    —  Every separated child who arrives in the UK to be appointed a guardian who has powers to represent the child's best interest.


89   ECPAT UK and Save the Children (2007) Missing Out A Study of Child Trafficking in the North-West, North East and West Midlands Back

90   CEOP, BIA and Home Office, 2007: A Scoping Project on Child Trafficking in the UK, p8 Back

91   Home Office Press Release 14 January 2008 "Home Secretary Moves to Ratify the Council of Europe Convention Against Trafficking in 2008" Back

92   Border and Immigration Agency (2008) Code of Practice for Keeping Children Safe from Harm pro forma for responses question 16 Back

93   UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2002) Concluding Observations on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Paragraph 6 Back

94   House of Lords House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights (2007) The Treatment of Asylum Seekers: Tenth report of Session 2006-07. Back

95   Border and Immigration Agency (2008) Code of Practice for Keeping Children Safe from Harm Back

96   Uncorrected transcript of oral evidence to be published as HC213i: House of Commons Children, Schools and Families Committee, Wednesday 9 January 2008. Back

97   This investigation was carried out as part of the "Adam" case in which the torso of an unidentified young African boy was found in the River Thames. Back

98   BBC News online, Friday 13 May 2005 Hundreds of Children "vanishing" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4541603 Back

99   Please note this submission includes interim findings only. The full research findings will be available shortly. Back

100   15 (14%) local authorities responded that they were not able or willing to provide the information. In 5% of these cases the information was not provided because the local authority did not hold records with this type of information. Some of the local authorities who were not able to provide this type of information have high populations of non-citizen children in their care. Back

101   CEOP, BIA and Home Office (2007) A Scoping Project on Child Trafficking in the UK Back

102   ECPAT UK and Save the Children (2007) Missing Out: A Study of Child Trafficking in the North-West, North-East and West Midlands Back

103   ECPAT UK and Save the Children (2007) Missing Out: A Study of Child Trafficking in the North-West, North-East and West Midlands Back

104   Border and Immigration Agency (2008) Better Outcomes: The Way Forward Improving the Care of Unaccompanied Children. Section 3 Back

105   ECPAT UK and Save the Children (2007) Missing Out: A Study of Child Trafficking in the North-West, North-East and West Midlands Back

106   See for example Border and Immigration Agency (2008) Better Outcomes : The Way Forward, Improving the care of asylum seeking children Back

107   Home Office and Department for Children, Schools and Families (2008) Working Together to Safeguard Children: Safeguarding Children who may have been Trafficked Back

108   Border and Immigration Agency (2008) Code of Practice for Keeping Children Safe from Harm Section 3 Back

109   Border and Immigration Agency (2008) Better Outcomes: The Way Forward Improving the Care of Unaccompanied Children. Section 3 Back

110   CEOP, (2007) A Scoping Project on Child Trafficking in the UK Back

111   CEOP, (2007) A Scoping Project on Child Trafficking in the UK Back

112   ECPAT UK and Save the Children (2007) Missing Out: A Study of Child Trafficking in the North-West, North-East and West Midlands Back

113   Border and Immigration Agency (2008) Better Outcomes: The Way Forward Improving the Care of Unaccompanied Children. Section 3 Back

114   See for example, save the Children (2001) Cold Comfort Back

115   Save the Children UK (2005) Local Authority Support to Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Young People. Changes since the Hillingdon Judgement Back

116   Press statement March 1 2007 Children's Commissioners respond to Home Office Proposals for unaccompanied asylum seeking children Back

117   Separated Children in Europe Programme. Statement of Good Practice Back

118   See for example Crawley H (2006) Child First Migrant Second, ILPA Back

119   Unicef UK & ECPAT UK, 2007, Rights here, rights now: Recommendations for protecting trafficked children Back

120   General Comment No.6 (2005) on Treatment of Unaccompanied and Separated Children outside their Country of Origin; articles 18 (2) and 20 (1) paragraph 33 Back

121   http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/comments.htm articles 18 (2) and 20 (1) paragraph 33 Back

122   Separated Children in Europe Programme, Statement of Good Practice 2004 see appendix Back

123   Ibid Back

124   House of Lords Hansard, 14 November 2007, Col No. XXX. Our emphasis in bold. Back

125   UNHCR, Guidelines on Policies and Procedures in dealing with Unaccompanied Children Seeking Asylum, Geneva, February 1997, p.7. Back

126   http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/comments.htm articles 18 (2) and 20 (1) paragraph 33 Back

127   Crawley, H, 2007, When is a Child not a Child? ILPA Back

128   Refugee Council Response to UK Implementation of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005, laying down minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 14 May 2009