An obscure arm of the Home Office which uses children to spy for the government has come to light, after a report by a House of Lords Committee was published this month.

The report, produced by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, examines the Home Office’s request to extend the period of time it can use of a person under 18 years of age as a spy, or covert human intelligence source (CHIS) as they are known.

A desire to gather information about suspected terrorists within specific communities may be at the heart of the proposal. Activity around alleged county lines drug gangs could also be motivating the Home Office’s demand.

The committee was deeply concerned by the request, viewing the demand to be more about accommodating the Home Office – which has to place an application to renew authorisation every month in order to keep the child spy on a particular operation – than the welfare of the children involved.

The Home Office defended its proposal, saying that child spies felt pressure to complete their tasks within the month and so the extension would offer relief.

The Lords though, were not convinced by the reasons offered, and had this to say:

“We were concerned, from the material presented in the original Explanatory Memorandum, that the change is founded on the premise of administrative convenience. The associated Code of Practice is very vague on how the welfare obligations indicated are to be fulfilled. We were unclear whether the risks to the CHIS would be different over the extended period and how the welfare of the young person in this situation would be protected. We asked the Home Office for a more detailed explanation. The correspondence, published in an appendix to our Report, is helpful but does not fully satisfy our concerns about the extent to which juveniles are being used for covert surveillance nor whether their welfare is sufficiently taken into account in practice.”

The Lords also observed something interesting about the original request:

“While the Government state that the rationale for the change is that the one month authorisation for juvenile CHIS increases pressure on the CHIS and their handlers to get results swiftly in order to justify the renewal of the authorisation, the predominant tone in the EM originally presented was about the administrative convenience of the authorities concerned.”

In conclusion, the Lords took the view that the request raised some serious questions about how an extension might affect the children’s mental and physical wellbeing, the lack of clarity over safeguards for these children should an extension be allowed, and any attempts to weigh up the benefits of these operations against the negative effects on these children.

The practice of using child spies has been widely condemned. Tory former cabinet minister, David Davis, called the recruitment of child spies “morally repugnant”, and Corey Stoughton, advocacy director at Liberty, said: “This practice is deeply troubling. Vulnerable children are just that – they should be protected, not co-opted by the government into potentially dangerous activities.”

The revelation has also ramped up anxiety levels within minority communities, who, in the wake of rising terrorism, feel targeted and under attack by the government.

Massoud Shadjareh, who is the chair of the Islamic Human Rights Council, compared the practice to the government’s Prevent strategy, calling it “a community-wide spying programme that sees mothers spying on their own children.”

He goes on to say:

“While it is shocking to even consider the abuse of children in this manner, it is not far removed from the spirit of Prevent and the ever-increasing criminalisation of innocent communities in the name of security”.

For those who would like an in-depth analysis of this development, there is an excellent piece over at Just Security, written by barristers Shaheed Fatima Q.C. and Hanif Mussa, which offers a detailed and very well informed view.

Researching Reform is disgusted by the practice, though not surprised.

Children and education complaint decisions by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) have revealed that the law prevents the independent body from investigating matters which have been raised inside the family courts.

Child protection reports, family assessments for court proceedings and adoption orders are just some examples of documents which the Ombudsman is unable to review as a result of the legislation. 

This exemption appears to be little known, as the LGSCO’s weekly publication offering details about the decisions it has made, shows an ongoing spate of cases requesting that the reviewing body intervene in alleged family law malpractice and misconduct.

The LGSCO’s most recent update features a significant number of cases where parents have asked it to look into social worker misconduct, report production, faults within the adoption order process and duty of care breaches towards children going through the courts.

There is also a complaint about Section 20 agreements, which is topical, after the Supreme Court ruled yesterday that councils must provide parents with full information about their rights, and the process regarding Section 20 arrangements. 

The complaint involves a mother and her child. The child was placed in a care home after the mother signed a Section 20 agreement. The mother contends that she was not fully informed of her rights under the agreement. The social worker alleged that she had explained those rights under the agreement several times to the mother. Unfortunately, as there is no law requiring these agreements to be written down, there was no way of proving whether or not this was the case. The facts within the complaint are detailed and not as simple as this brief summary suggests, but what is also important is that the mother alleges she was coerced into signing the agreement.

It really doesn’t take a genius to figure out why written agreements are a win-win for everyone.

You can access the latest children and education complaint decisions by the LGSCO here.