Daily Archives: August 16, 2018

Human Rights Committee Asks Government For Details About Its Child Spies

16 Thursday Aug 2018

Posted by in child welfare, Researching Reform

≈ 5 Comments

After it was revealed in July that the Home Office was using children to spy on behalf of the government, and had pushed for legislation to extend the amount of time child spies could work without review, a prominent Human Rights Committee has now requested detailed information about the scheme.

The legislation, which came into force on 20th July, increases the amount of time children can work as spies without review from one, to four months. The proposed legislation raised eyebrows in the House of Lords, which led to a report by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. The dossier set down Committee members’ concerns about the extension and how it might affect the wellbeing of children involved in the scheme.

The news that the government was using children as spies was met with anger online. Several Child welfare organisations and MPs were left disgusted by the practice, with some calling the government’s scheme a form of child abuse, and others suggesting that it was tantamount to recruiting child soldiers.

Chair of The Joint Committee on Human Rights, Harriet Harman MP, has now written to Ben Wallace MP, Minister for Security and Economic Crime, asking him to explain how the new regime complies with Article 3 of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Article 3 demands that the best interests of the child are the primary consideration in situations which include children working with adults in a position of power.

Harman has also asked for information about the number of children used, data on gaps in the level of care across public authorities using child spies, and reasons behind the decision to increase the time period, specifically:

  • Details on how the regime adheres to Article 3 of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) – that the best interests of the child are a primary consideration. MPs and Peers are pressing for more information on what assessments are made in considering both the risks to and the welfare of the children, and what support and advice they are given before, during and after the process.
  • The number of public authorities that have used juvenile CHIS since the legislation was introduced and whether there is a consistent approach across these authorities with regards to assessment, safeguarding and consultation with the child.
  • The number of juvenile CHIS used since the legislation was introduced, disaggregated by age range of child (under 16, and 16 and over), type of crime, and year.
  • Further details on the rationale behind changes to the duration of assignments for children engaging as CHIS.

We will let you know once the Home Office produces its response.

child spy

 

 

Section 20: Councils Bypassing Parents, Targeting Children To Secure Agreements

16 Thursday Aug 2018

Posted by in child welfare, Researching Reform, social work, Voice of the Child

≈ 23 Comments

Alarming reports of councils sidestepping parental consent for Section 20 living arrangements have surfaced this week on Facebook, after the highest court in the land ruled that failing to get parents’ consent could lead to local authorities being sued for breaches under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides a right to respect for private and family life.

Section 20 agreements allow councils to house children in temporary accommodation when parents are unable to care for their children. The agreements are intended to be short term, and voluntary, meaning that children can leave local authority accommodation under these arrangements at any time and without notice.

Children who are considered Fraser Competent, or mature enough to make decisions, can arrange accommodation under Section 20 agreements without parental involvement. The original thinking behind the policy was to ensure that children who felt unsafe or vulnerable in their home environments could reach out to councils for protection or respite.

This caveat now appears to be being abused by local authorities, who are turning to children to secure these agreements when parents refuse to accept the arrangements offered.

Whilst the Supreme Court made it clear last month that parents must be informed about their rights under Section 20, the judges did not cover the need to fully inform children who personally seek out temporary council accommodation, or are approached by councils looking to create such an agreement, and ensure that they fully understand the terms of the agreement, too.

Comments across closed Facebook groups, and text messages this site received, suggest that the practice of targeting children when parents object to a Section 20 arrangement is not new. Several children also posted about their experiences of being coerced into council accommodation, and adoption proceedings. One child told Researching Reform:

“I wish the court had made sure I understood first what was being asked.. which I didn’t at the time. I have grown up to realise as a young adult that I have missed out on so much. I have lost touch with family members as a result, and this concerns me for my health because I lost one of my parents when they were very young. I would like to be able to understand their medical history to see if I can alleviate my own health worries but have nowhere to start.” 

Section 20 arrangements came to the mainstream media’s attention last year after it was revealed that the agreements were being used by councils to remove children from their parents with a view to putting them up for adoption, which is illegal.

More on Section 20:

Many thanks to Michele Simmons for alerting us to this development.

Section 20.png