Further memorandum submitted by ECPAT
UK and NSPCC
I wanted to take you up on your offer to provide
some further evidence for the committee to consider in the coming
months. These comments are made in the absence of a robust evaluation
of what happened to victims in Pentameter 1 and Pentameter 2 and
in the light of a Pentameter 3 that may potentially be focused
upon children. Providing evidence on this is felt by our agencies
(NSPCC and ECPAT UK) to be important as a result of significant
concerns about welfare of children recovered under both operations.
As you are probably aware during Pentameter
1—nine children were identified in brothels or sex parlours,
two of whom were pregnant and it is still unclear what happened
to these children. With Pentameter 2 there continue to be problems
with children being returned and going missing without appropriate
follow up support or assistance. I hope that the attached comments
are not seen as unduly critical but as constructive. We are keen
to continue to work together with the police and children's services
and offer our resources and expertise but we continue to respectfully
ask that some key issues (in the attached note) are taken into
consideration.
EXPERIENCES FROM
PENTAMETER
It was our experience that it was 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 feel that that the need for
a specialist response to children should be recognised and understood.
This applies not only in relation to the particular vulnerabilities
of children but also simply in relation to the different procedures
and laws that will affect them.
In relation to Pentameter 2 the NSPCC and ECPAT
UK were granted permission to offer a specialist response to children
(in the form of developing and promoting an interagency protocol
concerning children and offering a 24-hour dedicated helpline)
only after the operation was already underway in some areas. The
NSPCC established a unique 24-hour seven-day helpline number for
referrals to be passed to us as soon as a child/young person was
picked up as part of P2. The National Advocate role was not intended
to be that of the primary service provider, this belongs to Children's
Services; rather as a conduit to oversee the service response,
offer advice, contribute to an overview and track any young people
that might go missing after being picked up.
Despite the fact that we consider the "National
Advocate" model to have been effective in addressing some
of the problems experienced during Pentameter 1 we are concerned
that the scheme was not as effective as it could have been. Due
to the fact that information was circulated late there was not
sufficient time to inform local children's services and key LSCB
members about Pentameter 2 and to make them aware of the Pentameter
2 interagency protocol or their responsibilities within it. This
led to significant difficulties in getting children accommodated
and supported appropriately. There was also a lack of awareness
about the agreed response to children on the part of local police
undertaking the operation.
Some local authorities were unwilling to accept
the terms of the Pentameter 2 protocol that they should give children
the benefit of the doubt in relation to the age of a child when
this could not be immediately verified. This led to one children
being left in inappropriate adult facilities. Again, this resulted
from a lack of preparation for the operation as a whole and a
lack of time for planning.
We are concerned that there are specific issues
with children identified under Pentameter 2 being sent back to
their country of origin without a welfare assessment, and with
children going missing. There was delay in hearing about Pentameter
2 referrals, this was sometimes weeks not days, and this seriously
impacted on our ability to ensure a child protection response
within statutory timescales.
As a result of these concerns we would like
to make the following recommendations to improve the response
to children identified during future operations:
Recommendations for future policing operations:
— Policing operations should helpfully
recognise the particular vulnerabilities of trafficked children
and the need for a specialist response in line with the different
duties and responsibilities relating to children. Children recovered
from an anti trafficking operation targeting brothels and sex
parlours are highly vulnerable and an appropriate response needs
to fit within agreed child protection procedures and timescales.
The first few hours can be critical to ensure children that can
feel safe and do not run away. In addition while children may
wish to return to their country of origin the authorities need
to recognise that there may be a high risk of re-trafficking and
a welfare assessment should be carried out.
— Operations should include a strategy
for children and this should be "mainstreamed" within
the operation by those co-ordinating the operation nationally
and for 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 for the event of recovering child victims.
— During the operation there should
be one clear and distinct referral pathway for children which
provides specialist advice and clear routes to access services.
This should be agreed by all agencies and there should be clear
expectations about what information is passed on and within what
timescale.
— Future policing operations should
identify and fund a children's champion or advocate with a thorough
understanding of practice, policy and procedures relating to vulnerable
children who can help to co-ordinate planning and ensure that
children are appropriately supported following identification.
During Pentameter 2 NSPCC and ECPAT UK staff agreed to provide
a 24-hour on call service as an emergency response but because
this role was not recognised or planned from the start this led
to confusion and undermined its effectiveness.
— Future operations should be given
the go ahead following agreed protocols between children services
and the local police to assist and protect child victims. Local
protocols should be developed that provide specific details about
local leads on this issue and identify local service provision.
Specifically appropriate local foster carers and guardians should
be identified who can provide follow-up support in areas where
the operation will run.
February 2009
| 
