Joint Committee On Human Rights

Joint Committee On Human Rights Written Evidence

8. Supplementary memorandum from the Children's Rights Alliance for England

THE NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) is concerned that the minimum wage protection does not extend to workers under 18 years of age (paragraph 15)

In April 2004, the Government accepted the Low Pay Commission's recommendation[55] that a minimum wage should be introduced for 16 and 17 year-olds[56] This will come into force in October 2004.

However, the proposed rate is just £3 per hour. By setting such a low rate, the Government will miss an opportunity to make a significant difference to the lives of the poorest young people in our country.

The CESR is concerned that the minimum wage is discriminatory on the basis of age, as it affords a smaller proportion of the minimum wage to persons between 18 and 22 years of age (paragraph 15)

Introducing yet another tier to the minimum wage exacerbates the discrimination identified by the UN Committee. The minimum wage for 16 and 17 year-olds is significantly less than other workers: 18-21 year-olds are entitled to £3.80 per hour and workers aged 22 years and older, £4.50 per hour. This is set to rise to £4.10 and £4.85 respectively in October 2004.

There is no factual evidence to support the view that young people have lower living costs. Clothes, food and housing cost the same for all age groups, and young people face additional pressures related to setting up home for the first time.

Many young people cannot rely on their families for financial support—young people from low-income families and young people estranged from their families. Insufficient protection through the minimum wage could cause severe and genuine hardship for these young people. The argument that young people should or can live on lower incomes is unjust and inaccurate.

We hope the JCHR will confirm that the UK's obligations under the Covenant requires the Government to extend minimum wage protection to young people without discrimination.

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

The Committee recommends that the physical punishment of children in families be prohibited in line with the recommendations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (paragraph 36)

The Children Bill, introduced to Parliament in March 2004, does not include any proposal to remove the Victorian defence of "reasonable chastisement". An "equality" amendment has since been tabled which would remove the "reasonable chastisement" defence and give babies and children the same legal protection from assault as adults.

An "inequality" amendment has been tabled by Lord Lester of Herne Hill, which would not give children equal protection from assault. It only prohibits assault "that causes physical or mental harm". This seriously compromises children's human rights and equality, for it simply replaces the Victorian "reasonable chastisement" defence with another obstacle to equal protection. This amendment will increase confusion and prevent positive public education. It presupposes there is a harmless way of hitting babies and children—a similar proposal for women, or for ageing dependent relatives, would be seen to be scandalous.

Such a compromise would not satisfy our human rights obligations under the Covenant or the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The Committee on the Rights of the Child specifically emphasised in its Concluding Observations on the UK in October 2002 that proposals to limit rather than to remove the right to use corporal punishment "do not comply with the principles and provisions of the Convention". The Committee stated: "Moreover, they suggest that some forms of corporal punishment are acceptable, thereby undermining educational measures to promote positive and non-violent discipline."[57]

The JCHR should emphasise that the UK's obligations under the Covenant as well as under the UNCRC and the European Social Charter require the Government to legislate to completely remove the "reasonable chastisement" defence, thereby giving babies and children equal legal protection from assault as adults.

CHILD POVERTY

The Committee also notes with particular concern the high levels of child poverty among certain groups of society (paragraph 18)

POVERTY TARGETS

The Institute of Fiscal Studies and the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee agrees with the Government's Pre-Budget Report 2003 that the Government should comfortably meet its target of reducing child poverty by a quarter by 2004-05. However, it will not be possible to know for certain if the target has been met until 2006, when the data covering that period will be published[58]

The JCHR should reiterate that the high level child poverty and the discrimination faced by certain groups of children are unacceptable in a rich industrialised country, and in conflict with the UK's obligations under the Covenant.

The JCHR should urge the Government to undertake all necessary measures to accelerate the elimination of child poverty, ensuring a rapid improvement for children in the poorest families and narrowing of the income gap between them and the most affluent.

MEASURING POVERTY

In a recent report[59], the House of Commons Work and Pensions Select Committee raised concerns over the proposed use of the "before housing cost" measure in relieving child poverty.

Currently, the Government defines children as poor if they live in households with incomes below 60% of the national median on both a "before housing costs" and "after housing costs" basis. The "after housing costs" is regarded as the better measurement by the research and campaigning community, and is the most commonly quoted. There are currently 3.6 million children defined as poor on that basis.

Central to the new proposals is a shift in this relative measure, to solely rely on "before housing costs" data. The net effect would be to reduce the most quoted number of children living in poverty from 3.6 million to 2.9 million children.

We urge the JCHR to express concern relating to the Government's expected move away from including housing costs in its measure of childhood poverty, and the impact this might have on policies aimed at reducing childhood poverty. At the very least, the Government should commit itself to ensuring that there is a numeric continuity between the numbers of children counted as poor under its old and new measurement regime.

TAX CREDITS

The Government has promised to increase the per child element of the Child Tax Credit (CTC) in line with earnings until the end of this Parliament. In April 2004, the per child element increased by £180 a year—this is £130 above average earnings growth.

However, the family element of the CTC has been fixed at April 2003 levels and the Institute of Fiscal Studies has speculated that that this could be the case indefinitely (with only the per child element increasing with average earnings)[60] In contrast to social security benefits, there is no requirement in law to ensure that CTCs are reviewed annually to ensure that they retain their relative value in comparison to general price levels (although the annual review does not mean that benefit levels are automatically increased).

The Government should commit itself to ensuring that CTC, especially the per child element, continues to be increased in line with earnings. If the per child element of CTCs loses value over time, it will fail to contribute to the Government's target to end child poverty by 2020.

CHILD TRUST FUND

The Child Trust Fund Bill received Royal Assent on 13 May 2004, to become the Child Trust Fund Act 2004. The trust will provide every child with an initial endowment at birth of £250. Children from the poorest third of families will receive £500. This will be backdated to include all children that were born from September 2002. Parents and other family members will also be able to make additional contributions.

Although the aims of the Fund are commendable, we are concerned that in reality the poorest families will not be able to contribute to the fund and that tax relief will actually benefit the better off disproportionately, as they will be more likely to add to the fund.

THE SOCIAL FUND

Despite calls from the Child Poverty Action Group, One Parent Families and Family Welfare Association, the social fund has still not been reformed.

SOCIAL SECURITY

Following a joint-review carried out by the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions in 2003, the Government is currently consulting on different options to financially support 16-19 year olds[61]

REFUGEES AND ASYLUM SEEKERS

Regulation 4 of the Asylum Support (Amendment) (No 2), which came into force of 4 June 2004, removed the right of asylum-seekers to apply for an additional single payment of £50 for essential "living needs" such as clothes and shoes. The payment was previously available for asylum seekers who had been supported by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) for at least six months. The provision was first announced in June 1999 as a concession by the then Home Secretary, Jack Straw, following widespread concern about the low level of NASS support, which roughly equates to only 70% of the basic rate of income support.

The Government claims that SAP payments were abolished because "now that support is provided entirely in cash [rather than the original asylum vouchers] asylum seekers are no longer limited to where they can shop, and can get the best value for their money." It is clear from statements made by Ministers in 1999 that SAP was introduced to partially address the low level of support asylum seekers receive compared to Income Support claimants.

The Government introduced a new amendment to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Bill, on 15 June 2004, to stop refugees receiving back payments of support once they have been granted refugee status.

Currently a refugee is allowed to claim back the 30% differential between the cash element of support received from NASS and income support backdated to the time when they made their asylum claim.

The amendment is likely to be in breach of article 23 of the 1951 UN Convention on the Status of Refugees, which requires state parties to accord to refugees the same treatment with respect to public relief and assistance as is available to their nationals.

On 20 May 2004, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court ruling that the Government breached human rights by denying shelter to three asylum seekers under section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 because they had not made their asylum claim within three days of their arrival in the UK. At the end of June 2004, the Government announced it would now support asylum seekers in line with the Court of Appeal's judgement, though it still hopes to reverse the judgement in the House of Lords.

The High Court previously ruled that section 55 breached article 3 of the ECHR. The Appeal Court was asked to give guidance on when refusals of support under section 55 could be a breach of article 3. It is crucial that such guidance is produced.

Although section 55 does not explicitly apply to under-18s, it does apply to pregnant women and NASS treats young people in age disputed cases as adults until they can prove otherwise.

The Home Office has been given permission to appeal to the House of Lords.

The JCHR should urge the Government to ensure that any change to the asylum system is compatible with children's human rights and the Government's target to end child poverty by 2020.

DISCRIMINATION IN EDUCATION

The Committee is concerned about the persistence of de facto discrimination in relation to some marginalised groups in society, especially ethnic minorities and persons with disabilities, in various fields including . . . education (paragraph 14)

CHILDREN IN CUSTODY

A recent Audit Commission report states that the Government is unlikely to meet its target, announced in May 2003, to have 90% of young people in the youth justice system in full-time education, training or employment by the end of 2004[62]

SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

A recent DfES report states that the Government intends to retain some separate "special" schools[63] Retaining some of these schools will perpetuate discrimination, stereotyping and isolation. While we welcome some of the positive proposals in the Government's strategy to promote inclusion, we fear that the continuing existence of special schools will jeopardise progress in mainstream schools.

It remains the case that disabled children have no absolute right to attend their local schools.

The JCHR should urge the Government to promote inclusive education and allocate further resources to schools to enable full admission of disabled children to mainstream schools.

MINORITY ETHNIC GROUPS

The Government published guidance in May 2004 to help schools meet the educational needs of school students from minority ethnic groups[64] and in July 2003 it issued guidance to raise the achievement of gypsy and traveller school students[65]

The JCHR should urge the Government to ensure that this guidance is implemented.

In January 2002, the Government introduced the Pupil Level Annual School Census (PLASC), which enables analyses of educational achievement across different groups. The statistical returns for the first year confirm anecdotal evidence that overall Black Caribbean children and white working class children (ie those in receipt of free school meals) have the lowest achievement levels[66]

A report published by Ofsted, on 7 May 2004, found that Bangladeshi heritage pupils have below average attainment, which is among the lowest of any minority ethnic community[67]

EXCLUDED CHILDREN

The Government asserts that local education authorities are now providing all children who are permanently excluded from school with full time education. It has not published supporting evidence for what appears to be huge progress (only 6% of local education authorities were providing full-time education to excluded pupils in September 2001). On 24 June 2003, in a parliamentary written answer, Education Minister Ivan Lewis noted:

"The information received from LEAs about the education of permanently excluded pupils in response to a survey in spring 2002 was not sufficiently robust to provide a reliable picture of the type of education provision they received. Eight LEAs did not reply, and those who did used different methodologies to calculate their figures, some of which were incomplete. Some also expressed concern about the reliability of their own returns. For this reason I do not intend to place the results of this survey in the House of Commons Library.

However, all local education authorities confirmed that they were able to achieve the target of providing full-time education for all permanently excluded pupils by September 2002 and all but two currently report that they are sustaining such provision".

During 2001-02, children in special schools were three times more likely to be excluded than those in mainstream schools; and Black Caribbean children were three times more likely to be excluded than White children[68] Boys continue to be massively over-represented in permanent school exclusion figures.

The JCHR should urge the Government to address the over representation of Black Caribbean Children and boys among excluded school students ensure that all excluded children have access to full-time education.

DISSEMINATION

The Committee is concerned that human rights education provided in the State Party to school children . . . does not give adequate attention to economic, social and cultural rights (paragraph 13)

There continues to be no systematic dissemination of information about the Covenant to children or adults. Recent statutory guidance on citizenship education mentions human rights but does not specifically mention the Covenant. Non-statutory guidance for citizenship in primary schools (where citizenship education is not compulsory) does not refer to human rights.

The Committee requests the state party to disseminate the present concluding observations widely at all levels of society (paragraph 44)

There continues to be little evidence that the Government has disseminated the concluding observations widely to all levels of society, especially to children and young people.

The JCHR should urge the Government to disseminate the Concluding Observations widely and to produce a child friendly version.

June 2004

55 Low Pay Commission (2004) Protecting Young workers: The National Minimum Wage Low Pay Commission report 2004. Back

56 Copy to come. Back

57 Committee on the Rights of the Child (2002) Concluding Observations on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Paragraph 35. Back

58 Brewer, M (2004) Will the Government Hit its Child Poverty Target in 2004-05 The Institute of Fiscal Studies briefing Note No 47 and House of Commons Work and Pensions Select Committee (2004) Child Poverty in the UK Vol 1. 2004 HC 85-1. Back

59 House of Commons Work and Pensions Select Committee (2004) Child Poverty in the UK Vol 1. 2004 HC 85-1. Back

60 Brewer, M (2004) Will the Government Hit its Child Poverty Target in 2004-05 The Institute of Fiscal Studies briefing Note No 47. Back

61 61HM Treasury, Department for Work and Pensions and Department for Education and Skills (2004) Supporting young people to achieve: towards a new deal for skills. Back

62 Audit Commission (2004) Youth Justice 2004: A review of the new youth justice system Paragraph 170. Back

63 DfES (2004) Removing Barriers to achievement. Back

64 Department for Education and Skills (2004) Aiming High: Understanding the Educational Needs of Minority Ethnic Pupils in Mainly White Schools DFES/0416/2004. Back