Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
(NSPCC)
1. INTRODUCTION
The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty
to Children (NSPCC) is the UK's leading charity specialising in
child protection and the prevention of cruelty to children. The
NSPCC's purpose is to end cruelty to children. We seek to achieve
cultural, social and political change—influencing legislation,
policy, practice, attitudes and behaviours for the benefit of
children and young people. This is achieved through a combination
of service provision, lobbying, campaigning and public education.
1.1 The Committee has invited further evidence
in relation to:
— Any progress you have made in assessing
the scale of the traffic in the UK;
— Any developments in source countries
of types of trafficking;
— Any views that you may have on whether
the police and/or immigration officers have become more aware
of the problem of trafficking and better able to identify and
support victims;
— Whether the UKHTC has been a success
in promoting understanding of the problem and co-ordinating the
various agencies involved in tackling it;
— Any trends in the prosecution of criminal
gangs;
— Any improvements in international co-operation
to tackle trade; and
— Any changes in provision for services
for victims.
1.2 The NSPCC has already provided evidence
to the Committee on many of these issues. We do not therefore
repeat them here.[195]
In this further submission we focus on the following three issues:
professional awareness of child trafficking; the role of the UK
Human Trafficking Centre (UKHTC) in co-ordinating responses and
the continuing lack of provision of services for victims.
3. Have police and immigration officers become
more aware of the problems of trafficking and more able to support
victims?
3.1 First, we are please to note that we
consider professional awareness of child trafficking to be increasing.
One reason for setting up the NSPCC's Child Trafficking Advice
and Information Line (CTAIL) was our awareness that various public
authorities (as well as a wider constituency of voluntary organisations)
did not know who to contact and which other agencies to work with
when they became aware that a child may have been trafficked.
We have aimed through our CTAIL activity to promote and improve
the way in which children's services, the police, immigration
services and other agencies respond to child trafficking; since
its inception, CTAIL has received a steady stream of referrals
from both immigration and the police. On an individual basis we
have been encouraged by some extremely concerned and committed
individuals who have contacted our service to clarify the steps
they should go through to adequately protect and safeguard a child.
3.2 However, we continue to experience substantial
problems with the response to trafficked children across a range
of agencies. A lack of awareness is understandable, and one of
the reasons that CTAIL was set up (with funding from the Home
Office and Comic Relief) was to raise awareness and support practitioners
across the UK where there are concerns about trafficking.
3.3 In particular we are concerned that
we are receiving referrals where there are clear and serious child
protection issues as well as trafficking indicators but these
are not recognised by the agencies involved and no action is taken—despite
the fact that they concern child who is suffering or likely to
suffer significant harm. Examples include: children found in brothels,
very young children going missing, children being raped, and children
having multiple pregnancies. It is not always clear why child
protection issues are not recognised in relation to trafficked
children but sometimes our advice line staff have sensed that
some practitioners consider that migrant children have a lesser
entitlement to protection, and stereotyping about cultural beliefs—a
belief for example that certain caring or living arrangements
are inevitable within certain communities and a reluctance to
explore and investigate to ensure that children are safe.
3.4 We would also like to point out that
despite the efforts and goodwill on the part of some individuals,
the immigration and asylum systems and processes do not encourage
and support victim protection. The immigration and asylum system
remains confusing and discriminatory for children and young people
who remain highly unlikely freely to disclose their experiences
of trafficking, and in our experience a lack of understanding
of trafficking often ultimately leads to asylum claims being rejected.
We consider that children who have been trafficked should be removed
from the Asylum system so that they have time to recover and decide
whether or not they want to apply for Asylum. This should be achieved
by a system of renewable residence permits.
3.5 At local authority level, resource issues
create an inbuilt disincentive to identify trafficking and/or
the often complex needs of separated children from overseas. Similarly,
we are aware that the police are often unclear about the vulnerability
of trafficked children and the fact that trafficked children are
victims and should not be prosecuted. In this regard we are specifically
concerned about children found in cannabis production. We note
that this is an ongoing problem and that advice and guidance issued
by the CPS that children should not be prosecuted is not sufficiently
clear or categorical enough to stop it happening—and does
not appear to carry enough weight.[196]
It is wrong that we are prosecuting the child victims of trafficking
for the very labour for which they are exploited. There is an
urgent need for prosecution guidance to be strengthened in this
regard and for police and prosecutors to be clear that children
found in these circumstances are the victims of exploitation and
should not be prosecuted. We also have specific concern about
the recent anti-trafficking operations Pentameter 1 and 2 and
these are detailed below.
4. Failures to consider children's issues
under Pentameter 2
4.1 We have significant concerns about
the failures by the police to make adequate plans in relation
to the care of child victims in the major anti-trafficking operations
Pentameter 1 and Pentameter 2. We found it difficult to persuade
the Pentameter 2 leadership that a separate or specialist
response for children was needed. While we can understand the
complexities and pressures of undertaking a force-wide anti-trafficking
operation of this nature we strongly consider that that the need
for a specialist response to children should be recognised and
understood. This applies not only to the particular vulnerabilities
of children and the need to ensure that they are provided with
immediate protection and care but also simply to the different
procedures and laws that affect them.
4.2 In relation to Pentameter 2 (P2)
the NSPCC and ECPAT UK were granted permission to offer a specialist
response to children only after the operation was already underway
in some areas. This took the form of developing and promoting
an interagency protocol concerning children and offering a 24-hour
dedicated helpline. The NSPCC established a unique 24-hour 7-days-a-week
helpline number for referrals to be passed to us as soon as a
child/young person was picked up as part of P2. This role was
known as the 'National Advocate' scheme. The National Advocate
role was not intended to be that of the primary service provider,
Children's Services, but rather as a conduit to oversee the service
response, offer advice, contribute to an overview and track any
young people who might go missing after being picked up.
4.3 Overall we are concerned that the scheme
was not as effective as it could have been because it was not
developed as an integral element of Pentameter 2. Information
was therefore circulated late, with insufficient time to inform
local children's services and key Local Safeguarding Children
Board (LSCB) members about Pentameter 2, the interagency protocol
and their responsibilities within it. This led to significant
difficulties in having children accommodated and supported appropriately.
In addition, the local police undertaking the operation lacked
awareness about the agreed response to children.
4.4. We recommend that future policing operations
should include a strategy for children that is 'mainstreamed'
within the operation by those co-ordinating the operation nationally
and by those undertaking it at local force level. The issues regarding
the operation should be brought to the attention of local children's
services and put on the agenda of local LSCB meetings so that
there is multi-agency collaboration and an opportunity for local
planning to meet the needs of recovering child victims. There
should also be one distinct referral pathway for children which
provides specialist advice and routes for accessing services.
This should be agreed by all agencies and there should be clear
expectations about what information is passed on and within what
timescales. We recommend the development of effective local protocols
that can be used not only in relation to specific police operations
such as Pentameter but also more generally.
5. Has the UKHTC been successful in promoting
understanding of the problem and co-ordinating the various agencies
involved in tackling it?
5.1 We are concerned that some of the failures
relating to the Pentameter operation (described above), and in
particular the apparent reluctance to develop a separate specialist
response to the needs of children, may be a result of the UKHTC
still being essentially an adult-focused unit—without child
protection expertise. Whilst we are keen to work with the UKHTC
now and in the future to improve the operational response to children
we have been concerned that there has not always been an appropriate
understanding of children's vulnerability, child protection procedures,
and the statutory timescales relating to child protection which
we would expect from a major agency dealing with child victims.
We strongly recommend that a more effective way to embed child
protection into the core aims and values of the UKHTC is found
and that child protection is mainstreamed within all proactive
operational work and all decision-making. We would recommend that
the UKHTC consider ways in which they might incorporate child
protection and children's rights into their core aims and values.
5.2 We are particularly worried about the
lack of a child-centred perspective as a result of the prospective
and current role of the UKHTC in making decisions about children's
trafficking status. We recommend that this agency should operate
fully within internationally agreed standards and definitions
of trafficking and be conversant with UK child protection principles
and legislation. We have experienced a lack of understanding of
the definitions of child trafficking under the Palermo Protocol
that children cannot consent to trafficking and must be understood
as having been trafficked when found in circumstances of exploitation.
We have also experienced a lack of awareness of child trafficking,
a lack of understanding of children's vulnerability and a failure
to apply child protection policies and procedures. We have, in
addition, serious concerns about the proposed new system for referral
of trafficked children in which the UKBA and UKHTC will make central
decisions about whether children have been trafficked. It is currently
unclear what framework and knowledge base will be used for making
these decisions. These must be in accordance with the Children
Act 1989/2001 and with the UK's obligation to children under
Council of Europe Convention and the UNCRC.
6. Have there been any changes in service
provision for victims?
6.1 Our Child Trafficking Advice and Information
Line is often asked (mostly by Children's Services and the police)
whether there are services in their area specifically working
with trafficked children who can give practical support to the
child and help them with the stress and trauma they have suffered.
Sometimes we are able to find services but we are aware that currently
there is both a lack of co-ordination about what services are
available as well as a continuing shortfall in service provision
for this group.
6.2 Under the terms of the Council of Europe
Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings, the
UK Government is obliged to provide special protection and assistance
to victims of child trafficking. However, despite the range of
protection measures outlined under the Convention, namely guardianship,
safe accommodation, psychological and material assistance, there
appear to be no plans to provide specialist responses to child
victims beyond the introduction of some form of residency permit
which is the minimum legal requirement for ratifying the convention.
To our knowledge, there is no intention to provide any further
specialist resource beyond what local authorities currently provide,
nor does there appear to be any intention to explore options for
safe and secure accommodation for victims.
6.3 We have been deeply concerned by the
lack of improvement in service provision for child victims, despite
the Government's welcome ratification of the Council of Europe
Convention on Trafficking in Human Beings in 2008. This appears
to us to go against the spirit of the Convention which aims to
promote a more victim-centred approach.
6.4 Currently, all care planning is left
to local authorities and we know that there are serious and unresolved
resource issues relating to care for unaccompanied minors and
trafficked children. In effect this creates pressures and disincentives
against identifying trafficked children and responding to them
within a child protection framework. Further, it is contrary to
work to promote an understanding of trafficking issues. We are
worried that there does not appear to be any specific planning
for the needs of trafficked children within the new UASC dispersal
areas.
6.5 We consider that the Government must
commit further specific resources to implementing the 'specific
protection measures' outlined in the Council of Europe Convention.
This should include the residence permits for children and the
legal advice which are necessary for ratification. Children who
have been trafficked should have access to independent legal guardians
or advocates as soon as possible in order to provide them with
emotional, practical and legal support. There is also an urgent
need to provide safe, appropriate and secure accommodation for
child trafficking victims. This requires a Government strategy
on foster care which looks at developing long-term foster care
placements specifically for child victims of trafficking as well
as emergency accommodation that can run at low occupancy and respond
to short-term need.
195 NSPCC Response to the Home Affairs Committee Inquiry
Into Human Trafficking http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/policyandpublicaffairs/Consultations/2008/HumanTrafficking_wdf61914.pdf Back
196
The CPS guidance for prosecutors, advises them that when a youth
might have committed an offence involving cannabis cultivation
and there is information that they have been trafficked-there
is a strong public interest in not prosecuting them at all. We
are also aware of more recent CPS guidance, 2 February 2009 'Human
Trafficking and Facilitation' which advises referring cases to
the UKHTC, and which is still not categorical that children that
must not be prosecuted and that a full assessment should be carried
out. Back
| 
