Alongside the Refugee Conventions, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is the most ratified of all international instruments. It contains a multitude of obligations which span economic, social and cultural rights, and civil and political rights. It is relevant to all government policymaking, and every aspect of children’s lives – as Nelson Mandela proclaimed in 2000, the treaty “enshrines the rights of every child, without exception, to a life of dignity and self-fulfilment”. On the UN’s passing of the UNCRC, the executive director of UNICEF, Jim Grant, declared it the “Magna Carta for child rights”.
The UK ratified the treaty in December 1991, undertaking to implement its obligations for all children resident in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I was in Geneva in 2008 when the Committee on the Rights of the Child was informed that the UK was, finally, removing its last two reservations to the treaty – article 22, concerning refugee children, and article 37(c), relating to the prohibition of detaining children with adults. This was a moment of great anticipation: it looked like the treaty was finally gathering traction among UK ministers. Then in 2010, the coalition government made “a clear commitment that the government will give due consideration to the UNCRC articles when making new policy and legislation”.
This remains government policy today. Directors of children’s services are urged through statutory guidance to have regard to the treaty’s general principles and “ensure that children and young people are involved in the development and delivery of local services”. Those general principles are: the right of every child to enjoy their rights without any form of discrimination (article 2); the duty to treat the child’s best interests as a primary consideration in all actions concerning individual children, and groups of children (article 3); the right of every child to survival and maximum human development (article 6); and children’s right to express their views freely, and to have these views given due weight (article 12).
It is salutary that the Local Government Association has, today, written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer urging him “to provide the funding that children’s social care desperately needs and stabilise the children’s social care system before it is pushed to the brink”. We must hope papers going into the Chancellor’s red box emphasise the government’s obligations under the UNCRC, particularly article 4 – the requirement to allocate the maximum extent of available resources into the fulfilment of children’s economic, social and cultural rights. Then there is article 20, especially relating to children in care, which is intended to guarantee special protection and assistance to every child separated from their family environment.
The care system has been radically restructured in recent years to normalise the absence of care and consistent adult supervision for looked after children aged 16 and 17. The official narrative is that there are ‘some’ children in care who are ‘ready for independence’. Introducing the changes in 2020, the then Education Secretary Gavin Williamson said he could not imagine a circumstance when a child in care under the age of 16 didn’t require care. The absurdity of children aged 16 and 17 being in the care of the state while actually not receiving any day-to-day care has, seemingly, eluded every other Education Secretary since.
That 41 per cent of looked-after children aged 16 and 17 are living in care-less arrangements shows the ‘some children are ready for independence’ argument to be magical thinking at best. It is clearly a rationing device because local authorities are stretched to the limit.
Many in leadership positions must recall the promise of the Care matters 2007 white paper that: “Young people in care should expect the same level of care and support from their carers that others would expect from a reasonable parent…We should not expect young people to make changes that would be difficult for any 16 year old – let alone for vulnerable 16-year-olds where the local authority has had to assume responsibility for their care.”
Like children’s homes, the vast majority of supported accommodation for 16-and 17-year-olds in care is run for profit. Analysis by the Competition and Markets Authority shows it is more lucrative than other profiteering within children’s social care – but prices are presently lower per child per week than for children’s homes. This will undoubtedly change as the ‘market’ evolves, with owners increasing their fees because they are now part of the regulated children’s care system. This is despite the regulatory framework being deliberately designed to be substantially weaker than for children’s homes.
Unaccompanied asylum seeking children – those for whom the removal of that shameful reservation in 2008 was meant to herald equality of protection – are disproportionately placed by local authorities in care-less accommodation. There is a wretched narrative that children who have made perilous journeys to the UK, by land and sea, have higher degrees of resilience that mean they don’t need the ‘at home’ loving care and parenting which is meant to be at the heart of our children’s care system. Article 22 of the UNCRC explicitly entitles refugee children to “the same protection as any other child permanently or temporarily deprived of his or her family environment”. As the Chancellor considers the urgent joint plea from local government and children’s charities (including Article 39) to properly resource children’s social care, now more than ever the UNCRC is the bright beacon for seeing how and why the children’s care system must be transformed.
Carolyne Willow is founder director of Article 39, which takes its name from article 39 of the UNCRC – entitling children who have endured rights violations to recover in environments that nurture their health, self-respect and dignity.
