Joint Committee On Human Rights

Joint Committee On Human Rights Written Evidence

4. Memorandum from Children's Rights Alliance for England

CHILDREN'S RIGHTS ALLIANCE FOR ENGLAND

The Children's Rights Alliance for England (CRAE) is a children's human rights organisation. With our 220+ member organisations, we promote the fullest implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the UK Government ratified in 1991.

This submission focuses on racial discrimination faced by children and young people under 18 years of age.

INCORPORATION OF CERD

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination is concerned that British courts will not give legal effect to the Convention unless it is incorporated into domestic law or the Government adopts necessary provisions in its legislation (paragraph 11). There has been no move by the Government to incorporate CERD, or to undertake a full review of legislation in order to give full legal effect to the provisions of it.

The JCHR should urge the Government to incorporate into domestic law the principles and provisions of CERD.

INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 4

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination recommends that the Government reconsiders its strict interpretation of the provisions of article 4 in light of the Government's recognition that freedom of expression and opinion are not absolute rights, and in the light of statements by some public officials and media reports that could adversely influence racial harmony (paragraph 12).

The Government states that it will retain its current interpretation on article 4 as it ensures an appropriate balance between the rights of freedom of expression and association and protecting individuals from violence and hatred.[3]

The JCHR should urge the Government to reconsider its strict interpretation of article 4.

RACE AND THE MEDIA

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination is concerned about the increasing racial prejudice in the media faced by Minority Ethnic groups, asylum seekers and immigrants, and the reported lack of effectiveness of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) in dealing with this issue. It recommends the Government further considers how the PCC can be made more effective and be further empowered to consider complaints received by the Commission for Racial Equality and other organisations working in the field of race relations (paragraph 13).

On racial offence, the PCC code does not allow complaints from anyone not named in the item. This is not in line with codes covering broadcasting and advertising.

A statement from the PCC on the reporting of refugees and asylum seekers was issued on 23 October 2003, following increased numbers of complaints.[4] The statement referred specifically to a discreet group of complaints which had fallen under the broad banner of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code—which had led to a number of breaches of the Code. The PCC highlighted that newspapers should "take care to avoid misleading or distorted terminology" especially drawing attention to the fact that there is no such thing as an "illegal asylum seeker".

However, since the statement was issued there continues to be widespread use of inaccurate terminology in the press, for example—

"The huge scale of the forged passports trade was revealed yesterday after cops smashed a fake ID `factory'—ran by a bogus asylum seeker."

The Sun

"UK Immigration officers began policing the French side of the Channel last Sunday in a fresh crackdown on illegal asylum seekers."

The Express

The PCC statement also drew attention to the fact that a pejorative or irrelevant reference to a person's race, religion, or nationality is already prohibited under Clause 13 (Discrimination) of the Code.

Tabloid newspapers are consistently unfavourable in their coverage of asylum-seekers and refugees, portraying them as fraudsters, criminals or terrorists and a drain on resources. Stories might not refer to a person's race, religion or nationality in a pejorative or irrelevant way but the person's status as an "asylum seeker" frequently is.

A recent study reported that two-fifths of people who felt less positive towards refugees and asylum seekers were influenced by newspapers. It found that no other prejudice was as influenced by newspapers as that towards refugees and asylum-seekers.[5]

In July 2004, the Independent Race Monitor (IRM), Mary Coussey, criticised the continuing ill informed, hostile and inflammatory media coverage of asylum and immigration issues stating that such a negative atmosphere in the media could affect individual decision-making on asylum cases as it makes "caution and suspicion more likely".[6] The IRM urged the Government to take the lead in encouraging a balanced public debate on immigration, and to explain more about the circumstances from which asylum seekers are fleeing.

A Home Office-funded project will monitor the impact and adequacy of the PPC's guidance to editors on reporting asylum seeker and refugee issues. It is expected to start in December 2004. Following the six-month project, recommendations will be made to the PCC about the role of the media in representing accurate and balanced images of refugees and asylum seekers.

There has been an increase in negative coverage in the media of Travellers and Gypsies. The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) has criticised biased and inflammatory media stories that fuel prejudice and make racist attitudes acceptable. Encouraging fair reporting in the media on Gypsies and Travellers is one of its goals in its strategy on Gypsies and Travellers.[7]

The JCHR should urge the Government to take the lead in encouraging a balanced public debate on immigration and asylum and the PCC should be encouraged to take seriously the Committee's recommendation.

RACIAL TENSIONS GENERATED THROUGH ASYLUM ISSUES

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination recommends that the Government intensify its efforts to counter racial tensions generated through asylum issues by developing public education programmes and promoting positive images of asylum seekers and immigrants (paragraph 14).

The political agenda in Britain continues to be dominated by the false notion that most asylum seekers are liars and frauds and the Government's policy and rhetoric on asylum is extremely negative.

A House of Lords written statement, in November 2004, revealed that the Government's policy of dispersing asylum-seekers had been suspended, or partly suspended, to Doncaster, Nottingham, Derby, Burnley, Nelson, Bootle and Manchester following the request of the police because the policy is creating racial tension and violence.[8]

Incidents of the bullying of refugee children in schools by other students have been reported widely in dispersal areas and in one incident school students were allegedly shouting "Pakis out" at refugees in the playground.[9]

There were 36 incidents of racial harassment by accommodation providers reported to the National Asylum Support Service by asylum seekers in the 12 months leading up to October 2001 (latest public figures available). The number of allegations of racial harassment by local communities is much higher: there were 112 reports of racial harassment in October 2001 alone (latest public figures available).[10]

A recent survey of 1,700 adults revealed that prejudice against asylum seekers and refugees was the second most prevalent form of prejudice against any minority group. It found that it was generally socially acceptable to express such views and there appears to be little social sanction against this form of prejudice. The most open and blatant prejudice was directed at asylum-seekers and refugees, often expressed in terms of anger.

The survey found that prejudice was always explained in economic rather than cultural terms and asylum seekers were accused of receiving preferential treatment in terms of housing, benefits, work and health care.[11]

CRAE urges the JCHR to recommend that the Government takes a leading role in a public education campaign which sets out why people seek asylum and positively promotes asylum seekers and refugees. The Government should ensure that accurate information on the benefits that asylum seekers receive is in the public domain.

THE ASYLUM SYSTEM

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination recommends (at paragraph 14) that the Government take measures to make asylum procedures more equitable, efficient and unbiased. However, recent changes to the asylum system, has not made the system better for claimants.

Recent changes to the asylum system

Section 26 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) etc Act 2004 reformed the asylum appeals system to speed up the procedure for asylum applications. This is likely to lead to genuine refugees being returned. It abolishes the current two-tier appeals system and replaces it with a single tier tribunal—the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT). If there is an "error in law" decisions can be referred to the High Court for a review of papers—no oral hearing—within five working days. Only some right of appeal to the Court of Appeal is retained.

Section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Treatment of Claimants Act 2004, introduces a new offence of entering the UK without a passport, carrying a maximum two-year custodial sentence. Guidance on section 2 provides little detail on the treatment of children. Procedures mainly rely on PACE codes of practice (Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984) which, although they do give specific guidance on the treatment of children, were never designed to adequately address the specific needs of asylum-seeking and other accompanied minors, and cover only children under 17 years of age. PACE safeguards would only be in place once criminal procedures had started, which means there is little guidance on the treatment of children prior to this stage.

Section 35 creates a new offence of failing to comply with deportation or removal procedures and carries a 12-month custodial sentence.

The Government recently passed the Serious Crimes Order,[12] which extends the powers in Section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Section 72 sets out the "construction and application" of Article 33(2) of the UN Convention on the Status of Refugees.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has raised concerns that, "The inclusion of such a wide range of offences in the Order . . . undermines the important principle of non-refoulement" enshrined in the Refugee Convention. Even if article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights is relied upon to prevent deportation, asylum-seekers could still be denied refugee status and the benefits that brings.[13]

Article 33(2) sets out the exceptional circumstances when a country could return a refugee to their country of origin in spite of an accepted risk of persecution. These are if there are reasonable grounds for regarding her/him as a danger to the security of the country or if she/he has been convicted by a final judgement of a particularly dangerous crime that constitutes a danger to the community.

Previously, section 72 defined article 33(2) as applying if an asylum-seeker or refugee had been convicted of an offence in the UK, and sentenced to a period of imprisonment of at least two years. The new Order means that Article 33(2) will now apply when a refugee or asylum-seeker commits any of the offences listed in the Order, regardless of the length of sentence imposed.

When section 72 was enacted in February and March 2003, the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) expressed serious concerns that it enforces an approach to article 33 that is at odds with the Convention's objective and purpose. It recommended that decisions on the revocation of refugee status be taken with caution and in consultation with the UNHCR, following its guidance.

The Serious Crimes Order 2004 further diverges from the UNHCR's recommendations. Some of the crimes contained in it do not appear to be "particularly serious" or likely to lead to a future danger to the community, for example, smoking or otherwise using opium (an offence under section 9(a) of the Offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971) and concealing or acquiring criminal property (an offence under section 327(1) (a) and 329(91)(a) of the Offences under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002).

Removal of under-18s

The UK Government is planning to introduce a scheme of forced return for separated children under 18 whose asylum claims have failed. Current practice is to grant asylum-seeking children whose applications for asylum are refused discretionary leave to remain until they are 18. However, Home Office policy enables the return of these children if it believes adequate receptions arrangements are available in the country of origin.

It is likely that returns will be made first to countries deemed to be generally safe. These include countries such as Albania, which is known to be a source country for child trafficking. The Government as yet has no system for obtaining either objective evidence of the situation in "safe countries" for children, or a means of investigating whether an individual child could be returned safely to his or her parents or institutional care. The Government is trying to persuade NGOs to take part in "case conferences" made up of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, social services and NGOs, which will decide to send the child back without reference to the courts. It is crucial that children are only returned when their asylum claim has had a thorough and fair assessment and it is in their best interests to do so in line with article 3 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child.

Removal of failed asylum seekers

In September 2004, the Government set itself the target that, by the end of 2005, it would remove more failed asylum seekers per month than the number of unfounded asylum claims made during the same month. If people are going to be removed at the end of the asylum process it is only right that this is at the end of a fair assessment process. Restricted access to legal advice, poor initial decisions, an inadequate appeals system, will contribute to the very real risk that people will be wrongly returned to their country of origin to face persecution, torture, and even death

Fast track procedure

Age-disputed cases (where the Home Office does not believe the claimant is under 18) are being processed through the "fast track" procedures at Oakington removal centre and the "super fast track" operating from Harmondsworth. Many of these cases will be asylum-seekers from one of the 24 "white list countries" (supposedly "safe" counties). During 2003-04 the Refugee Council recorded 276 age-disputed cases at Oakington and between May and the end of August 2004, a further 88 age-disputes were recorded.[14]

The Home Office has been reasonably flexible in extending the length of detention by a few days to allow age assessments by the local authority to take place. If the assessment concludes that the person is under-18 years the Home Office will release them from the fast track process and the asylum claim will be assessed through the normal procedure for unaccompanied children. However, 43% of age assessment requests made by legal organisations working in the "fast track" centres are no longer needed by the time the Local Authority is able to make the assessment. This is likely to be due to the Home Office refusing to delay the fast track process to allow an age assessment to be made, so the person has probably already been returned to their country of origin.[15]

There is a real risk that fast tracking age-disputed cases will result in vulnerable children being returned to their countries of origin without the benefit of an in-country appeal and with no reception arrangements in place, since they are being treated as adults.

Detention of children

There has been no progress in cutting back the detention of asylum-seeking children with their families.

Refugee children (who have not committed any criminal offence) continue to be detained with adults. In June 2004, 60 asylum-seeking children were being detained in removal or "reception" centres.[16]

Unsuccessful attempts were made to end the detention of asylum-seeking children, during the passage of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004. During House of Commons Committee Stage, in January 2004, the Home Office Minister Beverley Hughes rejected two amendments—one would have ended the detention of children in immigration removal centres, the other would have placed an upper limit of 28 days detention for children. She said:

Recent Home Office asylum statistics show that the detention of asylum-seeking children has increased six-fold in the last six months. In June, 60 asylum-seeker children were detained in removal or "reception" centres.[18]

This was double the number of children detained in March 2004 and six times as many as in December 2003. The number of children detained with their families is likely to continue to increase, as the Government is expanding its "detention estate" including the number of family bed spaces.

Of the 60 children detained in June, 16% had been detained for longer than 14 days, five (8%) had been detained for between 15 and 29 days and 5 (8%) for between one and two days. The other 50 children (84%) had been detained for less than 14 days.

Dispersal

Since Department of Health guidance[19] was issued in June 2003, most unaccompanied children should now receive support under section 20 of the Children Act 1989. However, for those children receiving support under section 17 there is still a risk of dispersal at 18 years.

Accommodation centres

Planning permission has been obtained for the building of the country's first accommodation centre, legislated for under the Immigration, Nationality and Asylum Act 2002. Asylum-seeking children will be segregated from the rest of the community and provided education, health and other facilities within the institution.

Support

Asylum-seeking families continue to receive much less financial support from the State than other destitute families. The average adult rate is still just 70% of benefits given to non asylum-seeking adult claimants.

Regulations, which came into force in June 2004, removed the right of asylum-seekers to apply for a Single Additional Payment (SAP), every six months, of £50 for essential "living needs."[20] SAP payments were originally introduced following criticism that NASS support was inadequate.

Section 12 of the Asylum (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004 removes the right of refugees to receive back payments of support once they have been granted refugee status Section 13 will replace this entitlement with an "integration loan" to which refugees will be allowed to apply.

Fees

No review has been carried by the recent reductions in Legal Services Commission funding for immigration and asylum work, which has driven out many good quality solicitors out of business and encouraged others to provide a "cost effective service", to the detriment of vulnerable clients including children.

Legal aid for appeals is now only available if it is perceived that the claimant has a 50% chance of winning. There is a real risk that asylum-seekers with a genuine claim are being denied the chance to appeal if they have failed the 50% "merit test" and cannot afford to pay for legal costs.

Lack of independent advocacy for children in the asylum system

The most recent Refugee Council statistics for the Children's Panel of Advisors show that out of the 6,404 referrals in 2002-03, only 1,500 were allocated a named advisor.[21]

CRAE urges the JCHR to press the Government to reform the asylum system so it is in line with the Committee's recommendations and other international human rights treaty monitoring bodies' recommendations.

SECTION 19D OF THE RACE RELATIONS ACT 1976 (AS AMENDED BY THE RACE RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) ACT 2000

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination recommends that the Government consider re-formulating or repealing section 19D of the Race Relations Act 1976 (as amended by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000) (paragraph 16), which exempts the immigration service from the Act's provision.

There has been no move by the Government to re-formulate or repeal section 19D.

The IRM, who was set up to monitor the effect of the immigration service's exemption from the coverage of the Act, issued her second report in July 2004.

The IRM recommended that the Asylum Directorate continue to monitor decisions to assess whether standards have become unfairly restrictive; that there is an independent element included in the initial decision-making of all asylum cases; that patterns of refused nationalities on arrival at the UK should be monitored to check whether refusal rates are increasing, and, if so, whether there is evidence that entry decisions have become unfairly restrictive; and that negative comments made by immigration staff about particular nationalities should be dealt with as an aspect of unsatisfactory performance.[22]

The JCHR should urge the Government to repeal section 19D and at the very least take forward all the IRM's recommendations.

ANTI-TERRORISM, CRIME AND SECURITY ACT 2001

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination draws the Government's attention to its statement of 8 March 2002 in which it underlines the obligation of States to "ensure that measures taken in the struggle against terrorism do not discriminate in purpose or effect on grounds of race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin" (paragraph 17).

The Government continues to intern 11 non-British nationals under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. There is no special provision for those under18 years, so non-British citizen children could also be held under this legislation.

The Government announced in the Queen's Speech that a Draft Terror Bill would be introduced in this parliamentary session. As it has not yet been published, it is impossible to assess its likely impact on children, especially those from Minority Ethnic groups.

The JCHR should urge the Government to ensure that all anti-terrorism legislation is consistent with the committees' statement, the European Convention on Human Rights and other international human rights treaties.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination recommends that in its next periodic report the Government should give detailed information on the new police complaints system and the new Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPPC) that was established in April 2004 and include details of the number of complaints that are racially motivated and the outcome of the complaints (paragraph 18).

It is crucial that the IPPC is fully accessible to children and young people and monitors how many complaints are made by under 18 year-olds. There are currently no resources specifically for children and young people on the IPPC's website.[23]

In his 2003-04 annual report the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) for England and Wales, expressed regret over the lack of access to his office by children. The annual report shows that of the 3,132 prison complaints received in the past 12 months just 108—or 3%—were from children in young offender institutions.

The ombudsman's juvenile project team found that there was little knowledge of the work of the PPO amongst children; and children were unwilling to use a formal complaints system.

To help to overcome these barriers, the PPO has produced posters and leaflets targeted specifically at children; it has developed further training programmes for staff and children in juvenile establishments; and it is currently working with the Prison Service to develop a simplified complaints system for use in juvenile establishments. Similar work should be carried out by the IPPC.

CRAE urges the JCHR to recommend that the IPPC ensures that it is fully accessible to children and young people.

The Committee does not make specific recommendations on discrimination in the justice system as a whole but CRAE feels it is important to highlight here the continuing wide-spread racial discrimination to be found throughout the juvenile justice system.

A research project commissioned by the Youth Justice Board found that at various points through the juvenile justice process there was evidence of discriminatory treatment.[24]

The report found that:

— The chances of a case involving a Mixed-Ethnicity young male being prosecuted were 2.7 times that of a White young male with similar case characteristics.

— Higher proportions of cases involving Black (10%) and Mixed Ethnicity (13%) males than White males (8%) had been remanded in secure conditions.

— Substantially higher proportions of Black (26%) and Mixed Ethnicity (28%) males had been sentenced to a more restrictive community penalty than White (21%), Asian (23 %) or other ethnicity (16%) male offenders. These differences were mainly found in young males aged 12 and 15 years.

— The chances of an Asian male offender being sentenced to custody were slightly higher, at 1.2 times that of a White male.

— Black young males were 6.7 times more likely than young white males to be given a custodial sentence at a Crown Court of 12 months or longer.

— A considerably higher proportion of Black (7%) than White (2%) females were sentenced in the Crown Court. Though this could perhaps be explained by a higher proportion of Black cases being sentenced for robbery, a considerably lower proportion of Black than White females had been identified as persistent young offenders.

The report found that the recording of young people's ethnicity by Youth Offending Teams was unsatisfactory.

Home Office research shows similar findings. In 2002, Black people (58%) and those of Mixed Ethnicity (58%) are less likely to be given unconditional bail than White (66%) and Asian (63%) young people.[25]

Black young people (8.4%) and young people of Mixed ethnicity (8.7%) are more likely to be remanded in custody then Asian (5.3%) and White people (5.2%).[26]

During 2002-03, 6,524 children aged between 10 and 17 years received a custodial sentence.[27] The Government acknowledges itself that "greater use of custody for juveniles is made in England and Wales than in most other industrialised, democratic countries."[28]

Black people are six times more likely to be sent to prison than White people and more likely to be imprisoned for a first offence. A report by HM Inspector of Prisons found that Black and Minority Ethnic groups make up 23% of the male juvenile prison population and 26% of the female juvenile prison population.[29]

The CRE has reported that young Black people are three times more likely to be in prison than studying at university.

Little research has been carried out on the experiences of young Gypsies' and Travellers' experience of the juvenile justice system. However, work carried out by the CRE found that there were high levels of racist incidents towards Gypsies and Travellers; lack of trust in the police; inequalities in sentencing; including pre-sentence reports and sentencing outcomes; and difficulties in obtaining bail.[30]

During the past year, 3,337 children assessed as too vulnerable for prison service accommodation were, nevertheless, sent to young offender institutions. This figure has increased steadily over the last four years (in 2000-01 the number was 432; in 2001-02, 1,875; in 2002-03, 2,903).[31]

Children in prison are robbed of a statutory right to education. In March 2004, Home Office Minister, Paul Goggins, gave the following information about educational provision for "inmates" in young offender institutions (aged 21 and under):

In 2003, official reports showed that the proportion of prisoners from Black and Minority Ethnic groups account for 22.7% of the prison population.[33] This has implications for children from minority ethnic communities who are disproportionately more likely to have a parent in prison.

The JCHR should urge the Government to undertake a thorough review followed by urgent reform, to eliminate racist practice in the juvenile justice process. It should also ensure that custody is only used as a last resort and for the shortest possible time in line with Article 37b of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Recent Children's Society research on Black young men (under 18s) in custody found evidence of racist abuse by Prison Officers. The following quotes are some examples of the types of comments that young people heard in prison:

"I've been called a `chimp' before. I was also called a `golliwog' by one of these Officers. I ended up getting into trouble for that, and I was put into on adjudication."

The JCHR should urge the Government to ensure that recruits to the prison service are personally committed to developing a positive culture, which respects diversity and that additional training for prison staff and effective performance review on anti-racist practice should be introduced with urgency.

Children's Society research also revealed the lack of awareness of the prison's formal complaints procedures—in particular the Race Relations Liaison Officer and the Race Relations Management Team (only five of the 45 interviewees had heard of either of them) and other formal processes including the PPO.[35]

Investigations by the CRE concluded that the prison service fails to make services accessible to prisoners with low reading skills, making it less likely that they are able to fill out complaint forms.[36] A Social Exclusion Unit Report found that nearly half of all children in custody have literacy and numeracy levels below those of an average 11 year-old and that over a quarter have literacy and numeracy levels equivalent to an average seven year-old.[37]

The JCHR should urge the Government to improve the level of awareness amongst children and young people of the role of the RRLO, the RRMT and the PPO and develop a vastly simplified complaints system for children and young people.

DEATHS IN CUSTODY

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination asks for details of deaths in custody in the Government's next periodic report (at paragraph 14).

Two children have died this year in custody bringing the total number of child deaths in custody to 27 since 1990. Of this number two were from Black or Minority Ethnic groups—one Black, 15 year-old and one White Irish, 17 year-old.[38]

The CRE's formal investigation of the prison service found that Irish Travellers had difficulty coping in Prison, and that a number have committed suicide.[39]

Gareth Myatt, a Black 15 year-old boy, died in April this year, after being restrained in Rainsbrook secure training centre, one of four privately run child prisons. A boy's account of being restrained is given in the Children's Society research on Black children in custody:

The JCHR should remind the Government of its responsibilities under Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights—the right to life—and take urgent steps to ensure that there are no further deaths of juveniles in custody.

THE POLICE FORCE

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination encourages the Government to undertake measures to make the police force more representative (paragraph 18). Despite Government efforts the police force is still not fully representative.

The Metropolitan Police now has a Gypsy and Traveller independent advisory group. This should be rolled out across the country.

The JCHR should urge the Government to continue its commitment to make the police force fully representative.

STOP AND SEARCH

The Committee is concerned that a disproportionately high number of stops and searches are carried out by the police against members of Minority Ethnic groups (paragraph 19).

Minority Ethnic groups continue to be disproportionately represented in stop and search statistics. Black people are six times more likely to be "stopped and searched" than White people. This has increased from 2001-02 statistics when Black people were five times more likely to be stopped and searched. This over representation is apparent for the majority of police forces.

869,164 stops and searches of individuals were recorded by the police in 2002-03 under section 1 of the Police and Criminal Justice Act 1984 and other legislation. 118,548 (14%) were Black people (which make up 2% of the population) and 58,831 (7%) were Asian (making up 4% of the population).[41]

For stops and searches under section 44 (1) and (2) the Terrorism Act 2000 Asians were disproportionately represented. For the period 2002-03 there were a total of 21,557 individuals stopped and searched under this legislation: of this number, 13.85% were Asian and 8.09% were Black.[42]

Research by the Commission for Racial Equality has concluded that Gypsies and Travellers are also disproportionately more likely to be stopped and searched.[43]

People from Black and Minority Ethnic groups are more likely to be arrested following stop and searches than White people. There has been a small fall in the proportion of stop and searches resulting in arrests from 2001-02 for Black and Asian people.[44]

A report, in March 2004, by the then Police Complaints Authority (now the Independent Police Complaints Commission) shows that Black people feel more victimised than White people, when stopped and searched by police. It found that four out of 10 black people lodged complaints about stop and search. The study showed that Black people make 10% of all complaints about the police; and initiate 40% of complaints about stop and search. Asians were also over-represented in police complaints statistics—making up 8% of complaints.[45]

Section 1 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 extended police stop and search powers under PACE. There are also proposals to extend police powers to stop and search for fireworks under clause 106 of the Serious Crimes Bill.

In July 2004, the Office for Criminal Justice Reform, on behalf of the Home Office, the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Law Officers' Department published its five-year crime strategy.[46] The strategy includes a commitment to reduce unjustified racial disparities in stop and search and sentencing.[47]

The JCHR should urge the Government to take all appropriate action to ensure that the commitment to reduce unjustified discrimination is met fully.

EXTENSION OF CRIME OF INCITEMENT TO RACIAL HATRED

The Committee is concerned about reported cases of "Islamophobia" following the 11 September attacks and recommends the extension of the crime of incitement to racial hatred to cover offences motivated by religious hatred against immigrant communities (paragraph 21).

In the Queen's speech, in November 2004, the Government announced that it would be introducing a Religious Hate Crimes Bill which would outlaw discrimination on the basis of religious belief.

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

The Committee refers to the earlier commitment of the Government to consider establishing a Human Rights Commission in order to enforce the Human Rights Act and the possibility of granting such a Commission comprehensive competence to review complaints of human rights violations and recommends an early decision in this regard (paragraph 22).

In the Queen's speech, the Government announced that it would be introducing a Bill in the next parliamentary session to establish a single equality and human rights commission, replacing the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Disability Rights Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality. The Bill has not yet been published.

The JCHR should urge the Government to ensure that the new Commission has children and young people in its framework from the start, tackling age and other forms of discrimination and promoting human rights and equality for all of Britain's children and young people.

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST GYPSIES AND TRAVELLERS

At paragraph 23 the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination raises concern about the discrimination faced by Gypsies and Travellers and recommends that the Government develop national strategies to tackle such discrimination by State Bodies, persons or organisations. It also draws the Government's attention to its general recommendation XXVII.

In April 2004, the CRE said that all the evidence shows that Travellers and Gypsies are some of the most vulnerable and marginalised Minority Ethnic groups in Britain."[48] It concluded that discrimination against Gypsies and Travellers is the last "respectable" form of racism and drew attention to the acceptability of putting up "No Traveller" and "No caravan dwellers" signs in shops and pubs, even though this is in blatant breach of the law.

The CRE has stated that Gypsy and Traveller children are often taunted and bullied at school and the Scottish Traveller Education Program has identified bullying as an endemic problem in schools in Scotland and, attributes the high drop-out rate among Gypsy and Traveller children to the failure of schools to tackle this problem.[49]

In a recent report it was found that Gypsies and Travellers were the minority group that people were most likely to express prejudice against—more than one-third of the adults who took part, admitted being personally prejudiced against Gypsies and Travellers. Like asylum seekers, this group attracted openly prejudiced comments and aggressive prejudice. Prejudice was often express in economic terms but criticism in cultural terms was also evident.[50]

The JCHR should urge the Government to urgently develop national strategies to tackle the wide-spread discrimination against Gypsies and Traveller children and communities and ensure that these children can enjoy the same rights as other children.

FACILITATING DIALOGUE WITH GYPSY AND TRAVELLER COMMUNITIES

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination recommends that the Government develop further communication systems to facilitate communication and dialogue between Gypsy and Traveller communities and central authorities (paragraph 23).

The Commission for Racial Equality reports that only 22% of local authorities in Britain have a forum where Gypsies and Travellers are represented, and that their needs are rarely considered properly by local authorities when drawing up policies on planning, housing and homelessness, community cohesion, and social exclusion; and are rarely consulted or involved in discussions and decisions about the provision, location, design, or management of sites.

It concludes that there is no reliable national system for determining the needs of Gypsies and Travellers.[51]

The JCHR should urge the Government to develop further communication systems between Gypsy and Traveller communities, ensuring that they are appropriate for children and young people in line with Article 12 of the CRC, so that they can be fully engaged in the development of local and national policy.

ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination expresses concern about how discrimination faced by Gypsies and Travellers is reflected in their higher child mortality rate, exclusion from schools, shorter life expectancy, poor housing conditions, lack of available camping sites, high unemployment and limited access to health services. It is further concerned that besides Gypsy and Traveller populations, certain other Minority Ethnic groups experience discrimination in the areas of employment, education, housing and health and urges the Government to continue to take affirmative measures to ensure equal opportunities for full enjoyment of their economic, social and cultural rights (paragraphs 23 and 24).

Child poverty

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights noted, in its 2002 Concluding Observations, particular concern over the high levels of child poverty among certain groups of society.[52]

The UK has the fourth richest economy in the world, yet in 2002-03 (latest figures available) 3.6 million children, or 28% of all children, were living in income poverty (below 60% of median income after housing costs).[53] In 2003, around 2.2 million children, or 17% of all children, relied on income support.[54]

For Bangladeshi and Pakistani children living in Britain, this figure rises to 73%; and for Black African children it is 63%.[55] Pakistani and Bangladeshi children face an extremely high risk of income poverty—three out of four being income poor compared to a national average of 28%.[56]

Eligibility for free school meals is accepted as an indicator of relative poverty. In England nearly one in three Pakistani and Black pupils are eligible for free school meals, and over half of Bangladeshi, Gypsy / Roma and Travellers of Irish heritage pupils are entitled to free school meals.

The Government has committed itself to eradicating child poverty by 2019. It is questionable whether this commitment extends to some of the most vulnerable children in our country—those seeking asylum.

Regulation 4 of the Asylum Support (Amendment) (No 2), which came into force of June 4 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.

Section 12 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc.) Act 2004, stops 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.

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

The JCHR should urge the Government to use the maximum extend of available resources to accelerate the elimination of child poverty in all sections of society, including refugees and asylum seekers.

Housing

Muslim children in Britain are almost four times as likely to live in overcrowded conditions according to a recent study conducted by the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies. By looking at data from the 2001 census, the study reported that nationally 12% of children live in overcrowded homes. Among Muslim households, the proportion is 42% and rising to 53% in London. The study also found that 28% of Muslims live in council housing, compared to 20% of the wider population; and only 50% of Muslims own their own home compared to 69% of the wider population.[57]

A Committee of MPs has this month recommended the reintroduction of the statutory duty on local councils to provide sites for Gypsies and Travellers, removed 10 years ago by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. There are 3,500 Travellers with no legal place to stop. The Committee chair described the situation as a "disgrace" in a so-called civilised society. [58]The Commission for Racial Equality has estimated that 3,000-4,500 extra pitches on public sites will be needed in the next three years. [59]

Research by the CRE has found that public sites are often located in polluted and hazardous environments, on land that would never be developed for housing, and are entirely unsuitable for children. [60]

Section 60 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 introduced measures to move Traveller families if it is reasonably believed that there is space available at an approved site. There is no sub-section to prevent a family being split up or any reference to the need to ensure that a child continues their education in the same school if their family is forced to move.

The JCHR should urge the Government to use the maximum extent of available resources to ensure that all groups in society have access to satisfactory housing and that the statutory duty on local councils to provide sites for Gypsies and Travellers should be reintroduced and such sites should be safe and child friendly.

Health

The difference in infant mortality rates between the most deprived areas and the most affluent areas of England and Wales is 70%.[61]

The proportion of low birth rate babies (less than 2,500 grams) born in the UK is highest among mothers born in East Africa, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.[62]

The life expectancy of male Gypsies and Travellers is 10 years shorter than the general population and 12 years shorter for female Gypsies and travellers.[63]

A recent Government consultation includes proposals to exclude overseas visitors from eligibility to free NHS primary medical services. The proposals exclude children whose families are at the end of the asylum process or whose immigration status is unclear, from access to free primary health care, except in emergency situations.[64] This follows the move to end free hospital care for failed asylum seekers, which came into force in April 2004.

Immigration officers, detention or "reception" centres and the National Asylum Support Service are not included in the new Children Act 2004 duty, requiring agencies and some individuals to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.

The JCHR should urge the Government to take all appropriate measures to reduce inequalities in health and access to health services

Education

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in its 2002 Concluding Observations raised concern 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.[65]

The Government published guidance in May 2004 to help schools meet the educational needs of school students from minority ethnic groups[66] and in July 2003 it issued guidance to raise the achievement of Gypsy and Traveller school students.[67] A new system for monitoring the racial groups of students in all schools in England will help to monitor the progress of Gypsy and Traveller students' experiences at school.

The JCHR should urge the Government to ensure that the Aiming High guidance is implemented fully.

The UK has had a free, compulsory education system for children aged 5-16 for almost 60 years. However, official statistics continue to reveal sharp differences in outcomes for children according to their socio-economic background and to other factors such as disability, ethnic origin and care status.[68]

In 2000, 69% of children with professional parents in England and Wales attained five or more high grade GCSEs, compared to only 30% of children with unskilled manual parents.

In 2002, the lowest levels of GCSE attainment were among Black Caribbean students. Only 23% of Black Caribbean boys and 38% of black Caribbean girls achieved five or more A*-C grade GCSEs. Students from Other Black, Black African and Bangladeshi groups had the next lowest levels of attainment.

In 2003, 23% of 228 Roma Gypsy students and 42% of 161 Irish Traveller students in England obtained five or more A*-C GCSEs, compared with an overall average of 51%; 11% of Roma Gypsy students and 17% of Irish Traveller students obtained no passes, compared with 6% on average.[69]

In December 2003, a report by OFSTED concluded that the provision of education for Traveller children must be dramatically improved. It found that in all 11 Local Educational Authorities taking part in the research, Traveller children generally performed worse than children from any other minority ethnic group. OFSTED expressed concern about the lack of flexibility in the curriculum to respond to Traveller children's needs. Many schools reported widespread prejudice and ignorance among local communities about Traveller people and their culture. It also found that the average attendance rate for Traveller students is around 75%. This figure is well below the average attendance rate and is the worst attendance profile for any minority ethnic group.[70]

Evidence from the Traveller Education Services shows that schools are reluctant to register Gypsy and Traveller pupils, who were perceived as low achievers, as they thought it would have a negative impact on their school's place in league tables.[71]

During 2003-04, Black Caribbean children were more than three times likely to be excluded than White children.[72] Boys continue to be massively over-represented in permanent school exclusion figures.

Exclusion rates are highest for Traveller children of Irish heritage (51 in every 10,000), Black Caribbean (37 in every 10,000) and Gypsy / Roma (36 in every 10,000) compared to the average of 16 per 10,000.[73]

Since September 2002, local education authorities have been expected (there is no statutory obligation) to provide all permanently excluded children with alternative full-time education. The Government does not publish annual statistics showing whether this is being achieved.

However, in December 2003, the Local Government Association published an interim report on the extent to which LEAs can meet the target.[74] From an audit of 60 LEAS, the Local Government Association found:

— 30% of LEAs had no capacity to provide full-time education to excluded Key Stage 1 students (aged 5 to 7)

— 21% of LEAs had no capacity to provide full-time education to excluded Key stage 2 students (aged 7 to 11)

— Only 2% (one LEA) had no capacity to provide full-time education to excluded Key Stage 3 students (aged 11 to 14)

— All LEAs had some capacity to provide full-time education to excluded Key stage 4 students (aged 14 to 16).

The Government has said that it is disseminating guidance on good practice to help LEAs improve the effectiveness of Pupil Referral Units.

In June 2004, a 15 year-old girl from Luton lost her battle in the High Court to wear the jilbab (a long flowing gown) to school. The girl's lawyers argued that her right to practice her religion is being infringed under article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; and article 10, the right to freedom of expression.

However, the application for judicial review was turned down because the judge did not believe that the school's refusal to allow her to wear the jilbab amounted to a breach of her rights. He said this was because the school's current uniform policy allows Muslim girls to wear the shalwar kameez—a tunic over trousers—and the policy had been adopted after full consultation with parents, pupils and the local mosque.

The judge said the jilbab could also present a health and safety risk. He also accepted the school's argument that limitations were "for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others" in a multi-cultural, multi-faith secular school.

Tahir Alam, chairman of the education committee of the Muslim Council of Britain, said his organisation was "very surprised and concerned" by the ruling.[75]

RIGHT TO PETITION

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination recommended that the Government give "favourable consideration" to accepting the optional declaration of the right to individual and group petition provided for in article 14.

In the recent report on the Government's Review of international Human Rights Instruments, the Government has said that it will review the right of individual and group petition under article 14 of CERD after it has reviewed the merits of the right of individual petition under Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women.[76] We cannot see any reason to defer the right to petition under CERD, now that the Government has accepted the principle that individuals should have the right to seek remedy through the UN system.

The JCHR should urge the Government to, without delay, implement the right to petition to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

DISSEMINATION

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination recommended that the Government reports are made readily available to the public from the time they are submitted and that the observations of the Committee on these reports be similarly publicised (paragraph 30).

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

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

December 2004