Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1
- 19)
THURSDAY 17 JANUARY 2008
Ms Kathleen Spencer Chapman and Ms Louise King
Q1 Chairman:
Good morning. Can I welcome you both to this meeting of the Select
Committee where we are looking into issues in relation to the
European Treaty and those issues that interest this particular
Committee and, as children's affairs and health et cetera is one
of our issues, then we are delighted that you are able to be here
today so we can investigate some of these issues with you. Could
I make a few points to let you know that this session is open
to the public and that things are being recorded for public broadcasting?
A verbatim transcript will be taken of your evidence and this
will be put on the public record in printed form and on the Parliamentary
website. A few days after this session your office will be sent
a copy of the transcript to check it for accuracy, and please
advise us of any corrections that are needed as quickly possible.
You may submit supplementary evidence after the session to clarify
or amplify any points which you have made during your evidence
session and any questions which may come later. Could I draw your
attention to the fact that an accurate record is being made and,
therefore, we would be grateful if you would speak as clearly
as possible for that record, and would you, please, start your
evidence by stating for the record your names and your official
titles? Do you wish to make an opening statement before we begin?
Ms Spencer Chapman: Yes, just a brief one.
Q2 Chairman:
Very good. If you would like to do that and then, following that
statement, we will move into the questions.
Ms Spencer Chapman: My Lord Chairman, firstly,
I would like to thank you for inviting the NSPCC and Save the
Children here today. My name is Kathleen Spencer Chapman; I am
the European Adviser for the NSPCC. As our submission explained,
we believe the Treaty is a step forward for children. The NSPCC's
mission, as you will be aware, is to end cruelty to children and
it is in this light that we have been active at EU level since
the mid-1990s in recognition of the increasing impact that the
EU has on children's lives in the UK. We consider that participating
in EU policy-making is an important dimension of ending cruelty
to children to ensure that its policies and activities have a
positive impact on children. The NSPCC and Save the Children are
both founding members of the European Children's Network, Euronet,
which has been working to promote the better integration of children's
rights in EU policy-making, also since the mid-1990s, and Euronet
is now made up of 35 national and transnational children's organisations
from across the EU. It can claim a significant role in achieving
the inclusion of children's right in the EU Treaty, which we are
discussing today.
Ms King: My Lord Chairman, my name is Louise
King; I am the UK Policy Adviser for children's rights. Save the
Children, since its establishment, has worked to seek the realisation
of children's rights from 1919 until the present day. Our concern,
primarily, is with the implementation of the UN Convention on
the Rights of the Child and we work both in the UK and internationally.
Save the Children UK is a member of the Save the Children Europe
Group, which is basically an organisation made up of organisations
of Save the Children's working in the European Union, and we have
an office in Brussels where we lobby to seek the realisation of
children's rights at that level.
Q3 Chairman:
Thank you very much. I will ask you the first question. In your
written evidence, you explain that, up to now, the EU has not
had to consider the effects of its actions on children or to ensure
that they are in line with the international children's rights
standards and that opportunities for the EU to address cross-border
risks to children have been limited. Could you provide us with
some examples of the instances in which the current legal framework
has proved to be an obstacle to protecting children's rights?
Ms King: Yes. Clearly, EU policy does have a
clear impact on children. Yet, despite this, we have found, working
at a Brussels level, that quite often policy, when it is made,
does not actually consider whether or not it has an impact on
children's rights. It is very ad hoc. There is nothing systematically
put in place to ensure that it happens across the board. Where
it does actually happen it tends to be because particular individual
MEPs have an interest or it is because NGOs, like NSPCC and Save
the Children, have worked to raise the issue to ensure it gets
considered. The lack of legal base has also meant that other considerations,
basically, take precedence rather than children's rights considerations,
for example commercial or industrial concerns. A key example of
this, in terms of other concerns taking precedence is consumer
protection that has impact on children, this was highlighted by
the European Child Safety Alliance, and they have called for an
evaluation of a number of EU regulations, standards and directives
to make sure that certain things are actually making sure children
are safe. For example, in terms of child restraint systems in
cars, pedestrian protection, building safety, child care articles,
a whole range of things, where they feel other interests have
taken precedence over actually considering safety implications
for children. Another key example is in the area of asylum and
immigration, where many directives are actually made at EU level.
Quite often the policy is made thinking primarily about the impact
on adults without actually considering how it impacts on children
as well. A key regulation which has had a very strong impact on
children is the Dublin II Regulation, which you might be familiar
with. This policy was established to ensure that asylum seekers
were not able to claim asylum in several different Member States
so that, if they were unsuccessful in one State, they could then
go to another State. It also set up the EURODAC database, which
stores fingerprints. Therefore, if an asylum claim is made, their
fingerprint is checked on this database to see if they have claimed
asylum in another State and, if that is the case, they are returned
there. This also applies to children, and in our work we find
it has quite a drastic impact on children. Could I cite a particular
example we came across following some research carried out by
Save the Children UK and impacts on trafficked children in the
UK? We came across a case where a child from the Democratic Republic
of Congo had actually been separated from his family during the
civil war. He was then taken in by a man who subsequently trafficked
him to Spain, where he was forced into prostitution. He was then
subsequently trafficked to France and then to England. When he
got to England, fortunately, a sympathetic person put him in touch
with the local authorities; he was taken into care in this country;
he then claimed asylum; so he was actually safe for once, for
the first time in many years. After he claimed asylum, checks
against the database found that he had previously claimed asylum
in Spain. The Home Office then returned him back to Spain. The
local authority could not intervene, despite him actually disclosing
to them the situation and the problems that he had experienced—the
fact that he had been trafficked and had gone through his horrific
situation. He was then returned and we now have no idea what has
happened to him since. That is just an example where policy has
been made without actually thinking about the impact it can have
on children, and quite a drastic impact as well. Another example
to give about how difficult it is sometimes to ensure that policy
remains thinking about children is the Returns Directive, which
is currently being discussed at the moment at EU level and it
is in tri-dialogue. Initially there was a principle in it that
the best interests of the child would be considered when returning
a failed asylum seeker back to their country of origin, which
is, obviously, quite a clear safeguard for children to make sure
their best interests are considered in any decision-making processes.
We are now concerned this might actually be removed, because there
are discussions between Member States on whether or not it is
necessary to have that principle included. We are concerned that
this is going to be removed and that safeguard will not actually
exist; so we have to work hard to ensure that it actually remains.
That is just a few initial examples in that policy area where
it has actually had a negative impact on children.
Ms Spencer Chapman: My Lord Chairman, may I
add one or two other points to that question? Another obstacle
in the current legal framework, we found, is that it is very difficult
to target EU funding specifically at children. An example of this
is the Daphne Programme, which funds projects which contribute
to combating violence against women and children. This was adopted
in 1998 but it was very difficult to find a legal basis for that
programme, which decision-makers at that time agreed was an extremely
important priority to adopt, but, despite that, it was very difficult
to find a legal basis because of the lack of reference to children's
rights in the EU Treaty. Eventually a legal basis was found, luckily,
but the debate around that emphasised the obstacles. Another obstacle
caused by the lack of legal base is that it has been quite difficult
to establish sufficient institutional mechanisms to ensure that
children's rights are taken into account across EU policy-making,
even where there is some recognition that that is important. For
example, the European Parliament yesterday adopted a resolution
about a proposal for a European children's rights strategy. The
report calls for a European Parliament unit to be set up to co-ordinate
actions for children's rights, but it says this should be done
in accordance with the Lisbon Treaty, and this indicates that,
without this Treaty, it is very unlikely that this kind of unit
or co-ordinating mechanism could be set up to make sure that children's
rights are better integrated.
Chairman: I think we might just want
to move on now, if we may, unless there are any supplementary
questions to that first answer.
Q4 Lord Lea of Crondall:
Could we just clarify: is there just one reference in the Lisbon
Treaty that you are alluding to, or are there more than one? Could
you give us the numbers that you are referring to?
Ms Spencer Chapman: The primary article which
we are interested in is Article 2, which is the objectives of
the European Union, and children's rights are included both in
relation to internal policies and external policies of the Union
in that article.
Q5 Lord Lea of Crondall:
Is that new?
Ms Spencer Chapman: That is new, yes. Children's
rights have never been included in that article previously.
Ms King: Which is why some of the problems have
become apparent, because there has been that lack of legal base
previously.
Q6 Lord Trefgarne:
Ms Chapman referred to an organisation could Euronet. That is
a European grouping of organisations like the NSPCC, is it?
Ms Spencer Chapman: That is right.
Q7 Lord Trefgarne:
You are President, are you?
Ms Spencer Chapman: That is right.
Chairman: We will move on to our second
question. Lady Perry.
Q8 Baroness Perry of Southwark:
Could you articulate for us in what way the changes relating to
discrimination, social exclusion, education and the protection
of human health add value for children over and above the current
legal framework?
Ms Spencer Chapman: Yes. The Treaty changes
referred to there, the two new so-called horizontal articles,
5A and 5B, will lay down obligations on the EU to take into account
requirements linked to social protection, social exclusion, education
and health across EU policy-making and also requirements related
to discrimination, and that includes combating discrimination
on grounds of age, which is particularly relevant for children.
The reason we have highlighted these articles is that, of course,
children and young people are vulnerable to the effects of poverty
and social exclusion, they are vulnerable to discrimination and
public health and education issues, of course, also impact on
children. We believe that these changes, while it will remain
to be seen to what extent they have a real impact on policy-making,
will hopefully have an impact in making sure that those considerations
are taken into account across EU policies, whether it is internal
market policies, for example making sure that air travel is accessible
for people with disabilities including children. That is one example
where the European Disability Forum has raised a lot of concerns.
Another example is in relation to liberalising services in the
internal market, when there was a proposal from the Commission
a number of years ago there was no real impact assessment of what
impact that proposal could have on social protection issues and
social services, and eventually social services were excluded
from that directive, the Services Directive, thanks to lobbying
from a number of groups; but it just shows that at the moment
those concerns are not being taken into account and that these
articles should ensure they would be, which will benefit children
as well, we believe.
Q9 Baroness Young of Hornsey:
Good morning. Could you tell me: are there any, or do you think
there should be, specific arrangements for children in institutional
care across Europe? Obviously that has been a big issue of over
the years, and it is slightly different in each country, but I
am just wondering if there is anything specific that needs to
be articulated.
Ms Spencer Chapman: That is not an issue that
we have raised as a particular area for EU action, but obviously
it is a problem in a lot of Member States, and we believe it is
an area where it can be useful, and we discussed this in the network
of NGOs that we referred to, to actually exchange experience and
learning between Member States. There is a lot of value in that,
but it is not an issue that we have specifically raised at European
level as NSPCC.
Ms King: It is an issue of concern to Save the
Children, although we have been working more internationally rather
than at an EU level to try and end these institutions for children,
because we do not think that is the best place for children to
be; we prefer them to be based in the community if they do need
to be looked after. In terms of the EU, in terms of the accession
criteria, we think, because there is now a reference to children's
rights in the Treaty, when they are actually looking at new states
coming in they will have to take into consideration children's
rights issues, and so things like whether children are held in
institutions will actually be considered, so hopefully it will
be able to add leverage to countries where it is a big issue to
actually address some of those concerns. We found before it has
been quite ad hoc whether or not these issues have been raised
before.
Q10 Lord Trefgarne:
How do you handle the matter of new countries coming into the
EU where clearly, very often, their standards are very poor? There
was a piece the other day on the television where in Romania,
for example, the children are being kept in little cages. Are
you able to lobby on those sorts of things?
Ms Spencer Chapman: What we are saying about
the Treaty is that we believe that having children's rights in
the objectives will help make sure that those kind of issues are
taken into account during accession negotiations, which was to
some extent the case with Romania and Bulgaria, though more with
Romania. There has been improvement since then, and what we have
found with other Member States is that being part of the EU and
being involved in processes—there is an open co-ordination
process on combating poverty and social exclusion, for example—those
issues can be raised within those processes.
Q11 Lord Trefgarne:
You lobby on these issues, do you?
Ms Spencer Chapman: As NSPCC, we do not. As
the European Children's Network these issues are discussed but
not specifically lobbied on at the moment.
Ms King: Save the Children does. One of its
protection objectives globally is about ending the institutionalisation
of children. That is one of the things that we actually work on
at a UK level and at an EU level but globally as well.
Q12 Lord Trefgarne:
This relates to the enforcement of existing provisions, not what
may arise from new ones.
Ms Spencer Chapman: As far as I am aware, there
is no EU provision specifically about how children are treated
in institutions—certainly no legally binding provisions—but,
as I said, we believe that having children's rights in the Treaty
will help put pressure on these countries to do more, more quickly.
Ms King: Within the countries that have ratified
the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, that is very clear
about how children should be looked after, and there are clear
standards, and it would not be advocating institutional care for
children. There is obviously that mechanism already, and we think
that is not always as effective as it could be. Having that added
base at the EU level in terms of children rights is extra pressure
to be put on them. Especially if they are keen to join the EU,
it is obviously quite a good mechanism to put on a country.
Q13 Lord Lea of Crondall:
You say that changes in the decision-making processes in justice
and home affairs will facilitate the adoption of child protection
initiatives. Does that mean legislation competence? Can you give
us an example of the sort of problem which does require European
level competence? Is that the transfer of competence from the
nation state? Are there other articles in the Lisbon Treaty that
we are talking about, because you have mentioned number two. Did
you say numbers 5A and 5B?
Ms Spencer Chapman: Yes.
Q14 Lord Lea of Crondall:
The old 5A and 5B, because I cannot see in the new text where
the 5A and 5B comes from.
Ms Spencer Chapman: This is in the Treaty on
the Functioning of the European Union, which is the second part
within there. It is confusing.
Q15 Lord Lea of Crondall:
I see. We are not really ourselves up to speed on this because
it is quite hard to follow, but the first reference is in the
front part?
Ms Spencer Chapman: Yes, that is right.
Q16 Lord Lea of Crondall:
Can I summarise my question again then. I am sorry; it is a question
of relating it to the Treaty. Can you give us an example of where
the competences will give the possibility of, presumably, justiciable
things like a directive, to give an example, or are we just talking
about some principles here? Is that the same as giving a competence
to produce directives on children's rights across Europe? Can
you just enlarge on that?
Ms Spencer Chapman: Certainly. In relation to
the broader inclusion of children's rights, that does not give
any extra competence. What it does is put more pressure and a
greater ability to make sure that children's rights are taken
into account in areas where there is already a competence. In
the area of justice and home affairs, or freedom, security and
justice, there is no extra competence specifically in relation
to children, but the changes in decision-making procedures, we
believe, will help lead to the adoption or strengthening of legislation,
which is helpful, in our view, for the protection of children,
and on those issues I can give a few examples. The NSPCC is currently
calling for EU action to address the current difficulties in vetting
workers from other EU countries to ensure that unsuitable persons,
such as convicted sex offenders, are not able to gain employment
with children by moving between Member States. There was a proposal
for a piece of legislation which would make sure that one Member
State would recognise a disqualification imposed by another Member
State on someone from working with children if they had been convicted
of a sexual offence against a child. This particular initiative,
although there was general agreement about the importance of the
idea, never got anywhere, and arguably this was, as well as it
being a complex issue, because of the prospect of needing unanimity
to adopt such a proposal. We believe that with changes to this
area where it will, firstly, enable the EU to adopt directives
rather than only framework decisions, which are more legally binding
but also make it easier to adopt legislation by not requiring
unanimity, it will enable adoption of more progressive legislation.
If I can expand on the problem with framework decisions, the main
distinction between directives and framework decisions—there
are two main distinctions—framework decisions do not entail
direct effect and the Commission cannot take legal action before
the Court of Justice if a Member State fails to implement a framework
decision; so it is harder to ensure that the Member States implement
these decisions which they have greed to. There is a framework
decision from 2003 on combating the sexual exploitation of children
and child pornography, and the European Commission has recently
reported on the implementation of this. There are some gaps in
implementation and also some gaps in reporting from Member States
on how far they have implemented it. We believe, under the new
provisions, it would be possible to make such a framework decision
a directive, which would just give a bit of an extra push to ensure
that these proposals, which we believe are in the interests of
children, are adopted and implemented.
Ms King: There are similar examples with child
trafficking as well where there have been framework decisions
which are positive and will have a positive impact, but, again,
if they are a directive they would be a lot stronger in terms
of making sure that countries adhered to those directives; so
it would help in the battle to actually try and combat child trafficking.
There are a number of areas where this will strengthen legislation
in terms of addressing some of these serious issues.
Q17 Lord Lea of Crondall:
So it is not a direct competence of producing a directive on this
question, it is that other areas where a directive is already
possible, or will be possible, can cover some of these possibilities?
Ms Spencer Chapman: Yes. To clarify again, it
does not bring in new broad competence for children's rights,
but in the area of freedom, security and justice, which we refer
to, it changes slightly the decision-making procedures on areas
where they can already adopt initiatives which relate to child
protection. It changes the decision-making procedures, which will
slightly strengthen those possibilities.
Q18 Baroness Gale:
My question is: could you comment on the implications for children's
rights of the UK opt-out, which would allow the UK to choose not
to participate in measures promoting and protecting children's
rights in the area of freedom, security and justice?
Ms Spencer Chapman: On this issue the biggest
impact that we see is the political impact, that it weakens the
UK's negotiating position in this area. One comment which I have
heard, the issue that I have just mentioned about mutual recognition
of bans on unsuitable people from working with children, is the
UK has been very supportive of EU action in this area, which we
welcome. The prospect of its opt-out under the Treaty weakens
its negotiating position if it wants to encourage action under
these articles of the Treaty, and that has already been reflected
to me as a possible problem in terms of winning other Member States
over to its point of view, and also, when it negotiates on any
initiatives in that area, it has got the potential to weaken its
negotiating position. Of course, in terms of the concrete impact,
it would depend very much on what this concrete initiative was
that it was opting out from, and we would, of course, hope that
the UK Government would always choose opt-in on any initiatives
which were beneficial for children.
Ms King: There is an issue that if they did
choose to opt-out, then we could end up being quite out of sync
with what is happening and some positive things going forward,
we could actually fall behind that, so that is obviously an issue,
and our organisations will be working hard to ensure that they
did opt into anything which was going to have a positive impact
on children. Just to reiterate, I think the main concern is the
fact that if the UK Government wanted to actually bring in something
positive for children, it would be very difficult to actually
persuade other Member States to do that if they were not so keen,
because they could just say, "Well, you do not have to opt
into some of these things when we want to do something, so why
should we listen to you." So, it could actually cause some
problems there.
Q19 Baroness Gale:
The UK can opt out, and some other countries can opt out of whatever
the issue is?
Ms Spencer Chapman: It is only countries who
have actually agreed provisions in order to be able to opt out
in the Treaty.
Ms King: No, they will not be able to do it
going forward. Unless they have said that they are going to opt
out now, it is not possible in the future. It is because of the
changes in the decision-making process that the UK decided that
they would want to opt out—that is the reason for them doing
it—but not all countries have decided that they are going
to have that opt-out clause.
|
