 |
|
Response
to OFMDFM’s consultation on the Draft Strategy for Children
and Young People
Children’s Law Centre
February 2005
Contents
Introduction
3
General Comments
3
International Children’s Rights Standards
3
UNCRC Committee on the Rights of the Child Concluding Observations
6
Consultation
8
Chapter 1 – The Purpose of this Consultation
9
Rights and Responsibilities
9
Chapters 2 and 3 – Setting the Scene
10
Data Collection
10
The Issues for Children and Young People
11
The UNCRC Committee
13
Co-ordination of Government Strategies
13
Chapters 4, 5 and 6 – Setting the Agenda
14
Vision
14
Operational Principles
15
A Rights-Based Whole Child Approach
15
Developing a Ten Year Strategy for Children and Young People
16
Draft Actions - General Comments, Monitoring and Implementation
17
Resources
18
Rights and Equality
20
Participation
24
Provision
26
Built and Natural Environment
26
Family and Community Support
27
Achievement, Enjoyment and Learning
27
Research and Information
29
Physical, Mental and Emotional Wellbeing
30
Protection
32
Poverty
36
Additional Draft Actions Relating to Cross-cutting Themes
39
Chapter 7 – Delivery and Monitoring: A Child Centred Whole
System Approach
42
Co-ordination across Government
42
Political Responsibility and Oversight
45
Chapter 8 – Assessments in Relation to Equality and Good
Relations, New TSN, Human Rights and Rural Proofing
46
Conclusion
49
Appendix 1 The UNCRC Committee’s Recommendations and
Concluding Observations 2002
50
Introduction
The Children’s Law Centre is an independent charitable organisation
established in September 1997 which works towards a society where
all children can participate, are valued, their rights respected
and guaranteed without discrimination and every child can achieve
their full potential.
We offer training and research on children’s rights, we make
submissions on law, policy and practice affecting children and young
people and we run an advice/information/representation service.
We have a dedicated free phone advice line for children and young
people called CHALKY and a youth advisory group called Youth @ clc.
Our organisation is founded on the principles enshrined in The United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, in particular:
• Children shall not be discriminated against and shall have
equal access to protection.
• All decisions taken which affect children’s lives
should be taken in the child’s best interests.
• Children have the right to have their voices heard in all
matters concerning them.
From its perspective as an organisation, which works with and on
behalf of children, both directly and indirectly, the Children's
Law Centre is grateful for the opportunity to make this submission
to the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister’s (OFMDFM)
and to offer further assistance in developing the Draft Strategy
for Children and Young People (Draft Strategy).
In responding to OFMDFM’s Draft Strategy, we consulted with
Youth@clc, the Children’s Law Centre’s youth group which
is made up of young people aged between 15-21 years, from various
backgrounds who aim to ensure that the voices of children and young
people are heard at local and national levels of decision-making.
The primary aim of Youth@clc is to promote awareness of children’s
rights, with an ultimate goal of every child and young person in
Northern Ireland being fully aware of their rights and the laws
that affect them. The views expressed by Youth@clc feed into this
response.
General Comments
International Children’s Rights Standards
The Children’s Law Centre welcomes the development of a Children’s
Strategy for Northern Ireland and hopes to have a valuable and constructive
input to the final version of the ten year Children’s Strategy.
However, we have a number of concerns about the Strategy and its
compliance with international standards. The first comment we wish
to make relates to the originally stated intention in formulating
and developing a ten year draft Strategy for children and young
people in Northern Ireland, as stated in the Working paper of October
2003, that the Strategy would be Northern Ireland’s, “implementation
plan for the Convention (UNCRC)”. The draft Strategy in its
current format appears to no longer aim to be the implementation
plan for the UNCRC and we urge OFMDFM to reconsider this as we see
it as vital that the draft Strategy is the implementation mechanism
for the UNCRC in Northern Ireland. The Convention is a set of non-negotiable
and legally binding minimum standards and obligations in respect
of all aspects of children’s lives which the Government has
ratified. It is important to note that Government will again be
reporting to the UNCRC Committee in 2007 and will have to address
the issues raised and detail any progress made in relation to the
UNCRC Committee’s concluding observations (2002) (see Appendix
1 for the UNCRC Committee’s concluding observations). It is
important that the Government addresses all of the Committee’s
previous recommendations and is seen to be making real progress
in addressing the failings identified in the Committee’s 2002
report. The fact that the UNCRC had not been recognised across all
jurisdictions in the UK by the UK Government as the appropriate
framework for the development of a national strategy was criticised
by the Committee in its concluding observations. The Northern Ireland
administration for its part, in reporting to the Committee in 2007
will have to address why this is still not the case, despite the
Committee’s clarity on the subject. The Committee urged the
Government to,
“...expediate the adoption and implementation of a comprehensive
plan of action for the implementation of the Convention.”
(CRC/C/15/Add.188 para15)
The UNCRC Committee has been unequivocal in stating that a national
Children’s Strategy must be developed within the framework
of the UNCRC and should act as the implementation tool for the UNCRC
in the relevant member state. The Committee asks member states,
in its General Guidelines for Periodic Reports, to,
“... indicate any steps taken or envisaged to adopt a comprehensive
national strategy for children in the framework of the Convention,
such as a national plan of action on children’s rights and
the relevant goals established” (CRC/C/58/para 17) (Our emphasis)
There is also ample evidence from the concluding observations issued
by the UNCRC Committee in respect of various other countries that
it fully expects national strategies/ plans of action to act as
the implementation plan for the UNCRC in those countries,
“The Committee recommends that the State party develop a coherent
and comprehensive national plan for the implementation of the Convention
that is clear and understandable to all, children and adults alike,
and can easily be implemented at the central, regional and local
levels” (CRC/C/Add137 para 22)
The UNCRC Committee has repeatedly criticised countries for failing
to adopt national action plans firmly based on children’s
rights,
“Despite the adoption of various national action plans and
strategies concerning children’s rights, the Committee is
concerned that the implementation of the Convention has been ineffective.
This is due in large part to insufficient allocation of resources,
a lack of a comprehensive, human rights-based national plan and
poor co-ordination. The Committee recommends that the State party
elaborate a comprehensive rights-based national plan of action that
covers all of the principles and provisions of the Convention, and
is accorded adequate human and financial resources”. (CRC/C/Add199)
(Our emphasis).
The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action World Conference
on Human Rights called on states to integrate the UNCRC into their
national action plans. (A/CONF.157/23 para 47)
OFMDFM has moved markedly away from a commitment to the Children’s
Strategy being the mechanism for the implementation of the UNCRC.
While references to children's rights and the UNCRC can be found
throughout the draft Strategy including in the vision, the values,
the operational principles, the rights basis, the strategic objectives
and setting the agenda, it is less than clear that the Strategy
will become the implementation plan for the UNCRC. The draft stops
considerably short of stating this, limiting it along the following
lines,
“...the strategy will have an important link to the CRC”
(para 1.2.4) and “policies and services shall be delivered
in such a way as to carry NI closer to the principles enshrined
in the CRC and other international human rights instruments.”
(para 4.4.3)
This is a serious concern, not least in light of the evidence above.
We strongly recommend that OFMDFM returns to the original objective
of the Strategy being the implementation tool for the UNCRC and
learns from the mistakes of other member states who have failed
to give effect to the UNCRC and have produced ineffective national
plans which have failed to deliver on the promises made to children
and young people. In order to ensure the effective operation of
the Children’s Strategy for Northern Ireland, it must take
account of the concluding observations of the UNCRC Committee and
all aspects of the Convention and give effect to the minimum set
of rights for children and young people contained therein. It is
our fear that without this commitment to the UNCRC and Committee
recommendations that the Children’s Strategy will fail to
make a reality of rights for children and young people in Northern
Ireland and the commitment shown and extensive work to date as well
as the promises to our children and young people will be lost.
The UNCRC is the minimum standard that children are entitled to
in terms of their rights. Adequate weight needs to be attributed
to the Convention to ensure the promotion and awareness raising
of children’s rights and the mainstreaming and full implementation
of the UNCRC. The Children’s Law Centre recognises the opportunity
that this draft Children’s Strategy presents for all children
in Northern Ireland, but in particular, for those children who are
excluded and marginalised and those most in need. We see the full
implementation of the UNCRC through the Children’s Strategy
as the only way to deliver on the Strategy’s vision and values
and to secure the meaningful realisation of the rights of children
and young people in Northern Ireland.
Youth@clc also expressed concern that there isn’t enough emphasis
placed on the UNCRC in the draft Strategy, they felt that an explanation
of the term UNCRC should be given and its significance for children
and young people explored in order to raise awareness of the UNCRC
and that a firm commitment be made to the UNCRC in the Strategy’s
vision . Youth@clc agreed that the UNCRC should be a basis and fundamental
part for the whole of the Strategy as all the action areas and priorities
are underpinned by the Convention. They felt that the UNCRC should
take precedence throughout the document and be clearly explained
throughout. They felt that it should not be stand alone throughout
the document but, rather, a fundamental part at the heart of Children’s
Strategy. They highlighted that the UNCRC was essential to the Strategy
and that the Strategy should reflect this by being the implementation
plan for the UNCRC.
The UNCRC Committee has also made it clear that member states are
expected to adopt a national plan of action which will give effect
to the outcome document from the General Assembly Special (UNGASS)
session on Children in May 2002, “A World Fit for Children”
“The Committee recommends that... the State party expedite
the elaboration and adoption of the current plan of action to implement
the outcome document of the General Assembly Special Session on
children held in May 2002, entitled ‘A World Fit for Children’
and ensure that the plan of action takes into account all aspects
of the Convention.” (CRC/C/Add.227) (Our emphasis)
The UNCRC Committee has also expressed concerns around the potential
lack of harmonisation between a country’s national plan of
action and its plan for implementing the UNGASS outcome document
and recommended synchronisation of both plans, recommending that
member states should,
“Ensure the harmonization between the National Plan of Action
and the plan for the implementation of the UNGASS outcome document”
(CRC/C/Add. 198)
There is no reference made to the UNGASS outcome document in the
draft Children’s Strategy and the UK Government does not appear
to have taken any steps to produce an action plan to implement the
UNGASS outcome document across the four jurisdictions. We recommend
that the Government utilises this opportunity to address its compliance
with the UNCRC in Northern Ireland, progress on the UNCRC Committee’s
concluding observations and also to formulate an action plan, which
operates in harmony with the Children’s Strategy, for the
implementation of the UNGASS outcome document. If, as it presently
appears, it is not Government’s intention to ensure that the
Children’s Strategy is the mechanism for implementation of
the UNCRC, we are anxious to know what the Government intends to
do in order to implement the UNCRC.
UNCRC Committee on the Rights of the Child Concluding Observations
The UNCRC Committee made almost 30 recommendations in its concluding
observations, some of which were multi-part recommendations. Given
the lack of action on many of these recommendations in the intervening
two years plus since they were made by the CRC Committee, it is
all the more imperative that the Children’s Strategy explicitly
and fully addresses the Committee’s concluding observations.
However many of the Committee’s recommendations appear to
be addressed by the Strategy either inadequately or not at all.
We are of the view that much greater weight must be attributed to
the concluding observations of the UNCRC Committee in the formulation
of a Children’s Strategy for Northern Ireland. The concluding
observations should be clearly referenced throughout the Strategy
so that progress on these issues can be followed. Strategic objectives
and outcomes should incorporate each of the UNCRC Committee’s
recommendations. This is not least in an effort to address those
issues raised previously by the Committee, many of which involved
serious violations of children’s rights and demanded urgent
action, but also to ensure that when the Government reports to the
UNCRC Committee again in 2007, that there is substantial progress
made on the issues which it highlighted five years before.
The draft Children’s Strategy fails to address a great number
of the Committee’s concluding observations and due to the
vagueness of a great deal of the draft actions, it is unclear whether
other strategies are going to be tasked with undertaking the failings
of the draft Children’s Strategy. (See Appendix 1 for the
UNCRC Committee’s concluding observations) Among others, the
draft Children’s Strategy does not aim to,
• Monitor the comparative enjoyment by children of their rights
in Northern Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales (para 22b)
• Develop comprehensive strategies containing specific and
well-targeted actions aimed at eliminating all forms of discrimination
(para 22c)
• Adopt the best interests principle as the paramount consideration
in reviewing existing policies and legislation affecting children
and young people (para 26)
• Abolish plastic bullets as a means of riot control (para
27)
• Address issues around separate representation for children
in court proceedings (para 28)
• Review use of restraint and confinement in custody (para
34)
• Adopt legislation to remove the ‘reasonable chastisement’
defence and outlaw physical punishment (para 38a) or carry out a
public education campaign around the negative impact of physical
punishment (para 38b)
• Introduce system of statutory child death inquiries (para
40a)
• Develop a co-ordinated strategy for reduction of violent
child deaths and all forms of violence against children (para 40b)
• Undertake large scale public education campaigns to reduce
child deaths and child abuse (para 40d)
• Make provisions for information and support for young gay
men and lesbians (para 44d)
• Review social security provision for young people aged 16-18
(para 46c)
• Ensure education legislation and policies reflect Article
12 including on discipline and exclusions (para 48a)
• Introduce measures to reduce suspensions and exclusions
(para 48b)
• Ensure an equal statutory right to education for children
in detention (para 48d)
• Increase the budget and support for integrated education
(para 48g)
• Halt the detention of unaccompanied minors (para 50a)
• Ensure refugee and asylum seeking children have access to
basic services including education and health and suffer no discrimination
in benefit entitlement (para 50b)
• Address the appointment of guardians for unaccompanied minors
(para 50c)
• Address the accommodation of refugee and asylum seeking
children under 18 as children in need rather than placing them in
temporary accommodation (para 50e)
• Undertake a review of independent advocacy/ legal representation
for unaccompanied minors and other refugee and asylum seeking children
(para 50f)
• Address position of children in Northern Ireland in reforms
of immigration and asylum systems (para 50g)
• Undertake a study on child prostitution (para 58a)
• Review legislation to end the criminalisation of sexually
exploited children (para 58b)
• Implement international commitments regarding the sexual
exploitation of children (para 58d)
• Raise the age of criminal responsibility considerably (para
62a)
• Ensure no child is tried as an adult (para 62c)
• Ensure that detained children and adults are held separately
(para 62e)
• Widely disseminate the Government’ report to the UNCRC
Committee and the Committee’s concluding observations (para
65)
There are obvious concerns in relation to the number of the Committee’s
concluding observations which have not been addressed by the draft
actions in the Children’s Strategy, some of which are dealt
with in more detail at the relevant sections of this response. Many
of the Committee’s concluding observations outlined above
addressed serious violations of children’s rights and demanded
urgent action from government which has not been forthcoming to
date. We strongly recommend that the draft Strategy is extensively
amended to address the UNCRC Committee recommendations and to ensure
that the Northern Ireland administration can report progress made
in its report to the Committee in 2007.
The Children’s Law Centre has had a great deal of involvement
in the various stages of the draft Children’s Strategy to
date and members of staff have sat on a number of OFMDFM’s
task groups and been involved in events, such as the Future Search
event in Armagh. We have a significant vested interest in the development
of the Children’s Strategy, particularly in light of our involvement
with the CYPU throughout its development. We are concerned to note
that the Children’s Strategy in its current format does not
provide the same level of protections and rights to children and
young people as the previous drafts did and as was envisaged at
all stages prior to this point in the consultation process. We are
very disappointed that this is the case, particularly as these concerns
were highlighted by the NGO Forum in a letter to OFMDFM in September
2004. We are anxious that the final Children’s Strategy provides
real rights and protections for children and young people, founded
on and implementing the UNCRC and addressing the UNCRC Committee’s
concluding observations and fully and accurately reflects the contribution
made by children, the Children’s Law Centre, and other key
stakeholders of this process to date.
Consultation
We wish to inquire how OFMDFM has carried out direct consultation
with children and young people in respect of this draft Strategy
document. There have been a number of recent problems in relation
to direct consultation with the section 75 groups, especially children
and young people, some of which have resulted in invoking the Equality
Commission’s formal complaints procedures. It is vital that
the CYPU, in developing a Children’s Strategy, is seen as
carrying out, promoting and encouraging meaningful and direct consultation
and participation with children and young people as per section
75. This is particularly important in complying with Article 12
of the UNCRC, one of the principles of the Convention – Respect
for the Views of the Child. In examining the Government’s
compliance with Article 12, the UNCRC Committee recommended that
the Government,
“...take further steps to promote, facilitate and monitor
systematic, meaningful and effective participation of all groups
of children in society”.
We are aware that the CYPU has set up a Young People’s Advisory
Forum to contribute to the development of the draft Strategy. We
stress the need to be as representative and inclusive as possible
in order to hear the voices of all children and young people, including
marginalised young people whom consultation processes generally
do not reach, for example, children in the youth justice system,
children being looked after, members of minority ethnic groups,
such as Traveller children etc. Youth@clc have also questioned the
representativeness of the Young People’s Advisory Forum and
have queried the inclusion of the voices of marginalised children
and young people in the Children’s Strategy. We also note
that the Young People’s Advisory Forum, while in operation
since October 2002, and undoubtedly very active in the preceding
stages of the consultation process, has ceased to operate since
26th June 2004 and will not be reconvened until Spring 2005. As
a result, the Young People’s Advisory Forum has not been in
existence for all of this most recent part of the consultation process
and we wish to know how direct consultation with children and young
people is now being carried out. While we commend OFMDFM for setting
up the Young People’s Advisory Forum and carrying out consultation
with them, we reiterate the need for inclusivity and meaningful
participation, which involves not only listening to children and
young people, but also giving account and due weight to what they
have to say in the formulation of the final document. We would be
grateful if OFMDFM would respond with details of how they have consulted
directly with children and young people, including marginalised
children and young people, and how extensively this process was
carried out.
We would also be grateful if OFMDFM would respond with details of
the system which they intend to use to analyse responses to this
consultation process including the degree of weight which will be
attributed to both individual and organisational responses. This
is a vital element to drawing conclusions from responses and progressing
with identified areas for immediate action or otherwise. For this
reason, we would appreciate information both on the system itself
and on its operation for the purposes of analysis.
Chapter 1 – The Purpose of this Consultation
Rights and Responsibilities
We firmly support the reasons why children and young people in Northern
Ireland need a Children’s Strategy and have been advocating,
since the establishment of the Children’s Law Centre, that
children need to be a higher priority for Government and should
be provided with ample opportunities to participate in decision
making. We are pleased to see this issue being recognised in the
draft Children’s Strategy and also agree that there is a need
to address the lack of comprehensive qualitative and quantitative
data on the lives of children and young people. We note at para
1.2.4. that reference is made to the Strategy helping to realise
the rights contained in the UNCRC. The language in this section
is extremely weak and implementation of the UNCRC is not addressed.
We are informed however that, “With rights come responsibilities,”
which reiterates the statement made by the Rt. Hon John Spellar
in the Foreword to the document. He states that,
“...with rights come responsibilities and with that in mind
I was heartened to hear recently the comments of a young person
who, when talking about citizenship, made the point, “citizenship
is: not doing everything for yourself, but taking responsibility
for people around you, and thinking about the consequences of your
actions.” ”
This qualification of rights with responsibilities features throughout
the document and the implications of this are disappointing and
undesirable. We strongly oppose the notion that children’s
rights are contingent on exercising ‘responsibilities’.
Firstly, there is no such link in the UNCRC and it is contrary to
international standards on human rights and children’s rights.
We consider it a nonsense to imply that in order for children and
young people to assert their rights, they must also undertake a
set of responsibilities. We wish to clarify this misconception and
state that if a link does exist between children’s rights
and responsibilities, it is between children and young people as
a rights holders and the corresponding responsibility which adults
and the Government, as duty bearers in relation to children’s
rights, are under to ensure that children and young people have
knowledge of, access to and the means to assert their rights. Furthermore,
explicit reference to ‘responsibilities’ when discussing
children’s rights is, in our view, discriminatory use of language
due to the fact that no other vulnerable group has their rights
qualified in such a manner. We firmly recommend that the word ‘responsibilities’
be removed from the draft Children’s Strategy and any further
discussion of children’s rights to give clarity and prominence
to the spirit and letter of the UNCRC and to ensure compliance with
international standards.
Chapters 2 and 3 – Setting the Scene
In, ‘Setting the Scene,’ the document again focuses
on the concept of responsibilities and in fact places a greater
emphasis on children's ‘responsibilities’ (2.1.2) than
their rights (2.1.1). We wish to reiterate our recommendation that
all references to responsibilities be removed from the draft Children’s
Strategy and that the focus is very firmly on children’s rights
in line with the UNCRC. We believe there is a need to address the
overarching legislative and policy framework and context in which
services for children and young people are provided in Northern
Ireland together with an outline of Health Board, Health Trusts,
Education Board and court structures. Paragraph 3.1 outlines the
impact of Government departments on children and young people, but
there does not appear to be a section outlining the legislative
framework in Northern Ireland. We would suggest that a paragraph
should be inserted listing the key legislative and policy framework
in which the Strategy will operate and which impact on the lives
of children and young people, specifying the Children (NI) Order
1995 and other key legislation and policy in relation to children
in education, youth justice, employment, social security, health/safety
and human rights. Alongside this, it will be necessary to list the
Departments/ bodies with responsibility for the delivery of policy
or with statutory responsibility for the matters concerned.
Data Collection
The serious lack of data that exists in relation to children and
young people’s lives in Northern Ireland is acknowledged in
this section,
“...it is (also) clear that existing information is uneven
and incomplete and tends to focus on problems or how well services
are delivered rather than on the rights and needs of children and
young people and how they see their own lives”. (Para 2.1.4)
While the draft Strategy refers to the differing experiences and
multiple identities of children and young people it doesn’t
explicitly address the need for disaggregated data. Another related
issue which needs to be addressed in the draft Strategy in relation
to data collection is that many of the data sets used in Northern
Ireland are not comparable across agencies, much less jurisdictions.
It is widely accepted that the statistics produced in relation to
the state of children’s rights in NI are limited and that
those produced cross different parameters, timescales and ages.
The UNCRC Committee’s General Comment No 5 stresses that,
“...sufficient and reliable data collection on children, disaggregated
to enable identification of discrimination and/or disparities in
the realisation of rights” is an essential part of implementation
(CRC/GC/2003/5 para. 48)
Reporting guidelines for periodic reports point out that quantitative
information should indicate variations between geographical areas
and between groups of children.
In its 2002 concluding observations the UNCRC Committee recommended
that the UK establish a nationwide system whereby disaggregated
data are collected on all persons under 18 years of age for all
areas covered by the UNCRC and that these data be used to assess
policies and progress to implement the UNCRC. (CRC/C/Add.188. para
49) The Committee also recommended that the Government monitor the
situation of a number of groups of children who are exposed to discrimination
and the comparative enjoyment by children of their rights across
Northern Ireland, England, Wales and Scotland with data collection
as central to this monitoring. (para 22a and b) The draft Strategy
does not contain any actions which address these recommendations.
The completion of the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children
and Young People (NICCY’s) comprehensive audit of children’s
rights against the standards of the UNCRC provides an extremely
rich and valuable source of information for the Children’s
Strategy to draw on. However there remains a need to prioritise
the setting up of systems for disaggregated data collection. The
potential for collaboration with research bodies/universities in
this work, as recommended by the UNCRC Committee, should be explored,
while acknowledging that most of the required baseline data is,
or should be in the possession of Government departments and statutory
responsibility for data collection rests with Government.
The Issues for Children and Young People
It is striking to note that NICCY has just recently consulted on
his draft priorities for action, which involved commissioning the
comprehensive audit of children’s rights mentioned above.
While recognising the independence of NICCY from Government, it
is puzzling to note that neither the NICCY nor draft Children’s
Strategy consultations have impacted upon each other, despite the
very obvious parallels which exists in terms of what both are aiming
to achieve. While we welcome the widespread consultation carried
out by OFMDFM in determining the issues for children and young people,
we feel that there would have been a great deal of merit in collaborative
working with NICCY, drawing on the NICCY research and both the UNCRC
and UNCRC Committee’s concluding observations to supplement
the conclusions reached about the issues that the Children’s
Strategy should address.
There is also a broader concern in heavily relying on issues raised
through consultation to establish the issues which affect the lives
of children and young people. There are a number of very important
issues for children and young people which may never become a high
priority solely through consultation for reasons such as lack of
knowledge, fear, contrasting cultural attitudes, etc. Examples of
these include implementation and knowledge of the UNCRC, physical
punishment, Traveller and other minority ethnic group concerns,
concerns of children in abusive situations who are afraid to bring
these concerns to light etc. While it is important to analyse and
include the issues raised through consultation, questions should
also be asked about why certain issues are not coming to light in
order to determine additional areas which may be important and warrant
inclusion. There may be lessons to be learned not only around the
issues themselves, but also around the reasons why these issues
are failing to come light and how to consult more effectively with
children and young people.
The draft Strategy aims to address a number of, ‘common key
issues’ and these are listed at para 2.2.3. Similarly, the
NICCY consultation listed its draft priorities for action in an
attempt to illustrate all the areas which must be addressed to ensure
that all children and young people’s rights are realised and
that they all have access to these rights. What is remarkable, however,
is that the content of these two lists of issues differ considerably,
despite both consultations being carried out simultaneously and
the closing dates being within one calendar month of each other.
The common issues identified to be addressed by the draft Strategy
are,
• intolerance and sectarianism / paramilitaries;
• conflict;
• leisure and play facilities;
• environment;
• safety/protection;
• education/schools;
• risk-taking behaviours;
• bullying;
• transport and transportation; and
• promotion of rights / participation.
NICCY’s draft priorities are,
• having your say;
• bullying;
• play and leisure;
• road safety and school transport
• special educational needs and autism;
• children with disabilities and allied health professionals;
• children with mental health issues;
• children and poverty;
• children and crime;
• children and the troubles;
• child protection;
• physical punishment;
• knowing your rights; and
• implementation of the UNCRC.
While there is some overlap in the two lists of children’s
issues and the draft Children’s Strategy addresses additional
issues not listed above, there are a number of issues in each consultation
document which does not appear in the other. In making our response
to the NICCY consultation we highlighted a number of issues which
we felt should be included and hadn’t been. We drew on our
experience, our CHALKY helpline statistics, the NICCY research,
consultation with youth@clc, the UNCRC, the UNCRC Committee concluding
observations and the UNCRC General Comments. These included children
and discrimination, looked after children and restraint and seclusion,
none of which have been identified as issues for the draft Children’s
Strategy, with a number of issues identified in the NICCY consultation
also lacking. We strongly suggest that OFMDFM revisits the issues
to be addressed in the Children’s Strategy to take account
of the full range of issues which affect children and young people
in Northern Ireland. We believe that there is a much broader range
of issues which have been excluded as a result of the method used
to determine the issues. We feel that there is substantial merit
in collaborative working and the use of evidence which currently
exists to corroborate and supplement consultation in order to get
a fuller understanding of all of the issues and to ensure inclusivity
in taking forward the draft Children’s Strategy.
The UNCRC Committee
We are pleased to note that the draft Strategy addresses issues
raised by the UNCRC Committee at para 2.3.2. However, the draft
Strategy focuses solely on the UNCRC Committee’s concluding
observations where the Committee has identified progress and makes
passing reference only to the huge range of children’s rights
issues highlighted by the Committee where there is much more to
be done,
“It recognised however that there was still much work to be
done and highlighted a number of areas where it would wish to see
further action, for example in relation to integrated education.”
This is of concern in that many of the Committee’s recommendations
do not appear to be addressed by the Strategy, for example, those
on juvenile justice, plastic bullets and restraint and solitary
confinement (see page 6). Much greater weight must be attributed
to the concluding observations of the UNCRC Committee in the formulation
of a Children’s Strategy for Northern Ireland.
Co-ordination of Government Strategies
We recognise that there are a number of different strategies and
plans which deal with different parts of Government’s business,
as stated at para 3.1.1. The Good Relations Policy, Racial Equality
Strategy, Gender Strategy, Carers Strategy and Anti-Poverty Strategy
are specifically mentioned. While we commend Government for its
good work on the production of these various strategies and are
fully aware of the need to avoid duplication, there are serious
concerns about not addressing issues which fall between the web
of strategies and plans. We advocate that the final version of the
Children’s Strategy should refer directly to the ‘key
parts’ of other strategies and plans to ensure that no areas
are ignored or presumed in one Strategy to be addressed by another
and vice versa. There is a need for effective ‘joined-up Government’
and meaningful connection of the various parts of the numerous strategies
which will impact on children and young people, with the Children’s
Strategy having an overarching and co-ordinating role. There is
a clear need for a common and consistent framework for applying
child impact assessment and child right’s proofing of policies,
strategies and legislation across Government. (see page 41)
Chapters 4, 5 and 6 – Setting the Agenda
Vision
We strongly support the statement, in referring to the Strategy’s
vision, that,
“…the child or young person should be viewed as an active
participant as opposed to a passive object of concern. It was important
that the vision should not just be aspirational but also relevant
and achievable.” (Para 4.2.2)
The vision itself is a statement which captures what OFMDFM wants
to achieve for our children and young people,
“A Northern Ireland in which children and young people thrive
and look forward with confidence to the future.
We will have achieved this when every child and young person:
• lives in a secure and peaceful community;
• is free from poverty;
• has the opportunity to realise his or her maximum potential;
• is enabled to exercise his or her rights and fully participate
as an active citizen;
• experiences being valued, respected and understood;
• is free from commercial exploitation;
• has a voice in how he or she lives and is cared for; and
• feels happy, safe, cared for and supported by family, community,
Government and wider society.” (Para 4.2.2)
We support this vision, but believe that it should be more specific
and some of the language should be amended to attribute the correct
degree of weight to the UNCRC and ensure that it is central to the
Children’s Strategy and recognisable at every level, including
in the vision. Youth@clc also stressed that the UNCRC should attribute
more weight to the UNCRC. The principles of the UNCRC are of central
importance to the Convention itself and to children’s rights
more generally. The fundamental importance of the principles is
not fully reflected in the Strategy’s vision. The principles
are Articles 2 – non-discrimination, 3 – the best interests
of the child, 6 – the right to survival and maximum development
and 12 – respect for the views of the child. While we presume
that OFMDFM’s intention is to include all of the UNCRC’s
principles in its vision, we firmly believe that the language of
the UNCRC should be used to reflect the central importance of the
Convention, and in particular, its principles, in creating a vision
for a Children’s Strategy for all children and young people
in Northern Ireland.
One of the clear omissions from the vision in the draft Strategy
is the principle of non-discrimination. We believe non-discrimination
should be explicitly referred to in order to illustrate both the
importance of the principles of the UNCRC and a commitment to non-discrimination
in delivering the Children’s Strategy. While the best interests
principle is implicit in a number of aspects of the vision, we feel
that the use of the term, ‘best interests’ will give
greater clarity and credence to OFMDFM’s commitment to the
UNCRC. For the same reasons, while development is mentioned within
the vision, we are of the view that this should be expanded upon
to include the additional element of Article 6, ‘the right
to survival’. Participation is dealt with in the vision and
while we presume that this refers to, ‘respect for the views
of the child,’ it should also be expanded upon to include
the language of the UNCRC and to ensure that all participation is
meaningful and takes account of the views expressed by children
and young people through participation. We believe that the values
which underpin the vision should also be amended in line with the
vision to further illustrate a commitment to the UNCRC and its fundamental
principles.
Operational Principles
We welcome the fact that the draft Strategy states that its operational
principles comply and adhere to the principles enshrined in international
human rights standards, and in particular, the UNCRC. Again we would
argue that the language of the UNCRC should be used and proper weight
should be attributed to the UNCRC and in particular its principles,
for example, the term, ’inclusive and fair,’ clearly
refers to the principle of non-discrimination, but as ‘inclusive
and fair’ has no legal definition in international law, we
feel that it would be preferable to refer explicitly to the principle
of non-discrimination. The, ‘rights promoting,’ operational
principle is very disappointing as it refers to the development
of policies and services to,
“...carry Northern Ireland closer to the principles enshrined
in the UNCRC”. (para 4.4.3)
We wish to reiterate our recommendation that OFMDFM returns to the
original stated intention in the formulation of this Strategy –
that it be the implementation mechanism for the UNCRC. There is
also a concern in relation to the inconsistencies in the language
used in the document and the suggested implications. One of the
operational principles refers to ‘rights promoting’
which, while it is one element of a rights based approach, is inconsistent
with the term ‘rights based’. We believe that the term
‘rights promoting’ undermines the rights-based whole
child approach as a rights based approach encompasses the need not
only to promote, but also to protect and fulfil children’s
rights in order to ensure the delivery of real rights to all children
and young people.
A Rights-Based Whole Child Approach
We are pleased to note the clear child focus at this section in
the document and the use of the ‘whole child’ model
which places the child or young person at the centre of all decisions
made affecting their lives. This child-centred, ‘whole child’
approach should be reflected throughout the entire Children’s
Strategy as it is vital that the Strategy be child-centred and holistic
at every stage. We note that this approach is lacking, particularly
at chapter 6 where a number of the associated indicators are far
from child-centred or holistic.
Developing a Ten Year Agenda for Children and Young People
We note that OFMDFM has identified a number of, what they term as,
“...cross-cutting themes which run across all five areas for
action” (para 6.1.3). Among these cross-cutting themes is
that of,
“...the additional needs of children and young people who
are especially vulnerable, and/or disaffected.”
We do not agree that this is a cross-cutting theme, but rather a
central aspect to the Children’s Strategy in general. We believe
that the removal of vulnerable and/or disaffected children from
the central body of the Strategy and relegating them to the section
on additional cross-cutting themes fails to recognise the multi-faceted
nature of children and young people and serves only to further marginalise
those children and young people who are excluded and marginalised
already. Most of the strategic outcomes begin by stating that they
apply to “All children and young people in Northern Ireland...”
this clearly cannot be the case as a number of groups of children
and young people are either addressed in the additional cross-cutting
themes or not at all. The needs of all children and young people
should be clearly addressed throughout the five key areas for action.
This is particularly true of minority ethnic children and children
and young people with disabilities. These already disadvantaged
groups of children are not recognised as having multiple identities
in the key areas for action in the draft Strategy and clearly should
be. In addition, the Children’s Strategy should recognise
that all children and young people do not have a shared life experience
and that further actions are required to enable these groups of
children and young people to experience equality of opportunity.
There is a need for disaggregated data collection, for example,
in terms of disability and race, in order to facilitate the measurement
of progress towards strategic outcomes. Youth@clc also stated that
much greater attention should be afforded to the needs and rights
of minority ethnic children and children with disabilities.
Further inconsistencies exist in the application of the draft Strategy
to all children and young people. This is particularly obvious in
the Strategy’s failure to address the needs of refugee and
asylum seeking children and young people. Para 7.3.4 states that,
“Excepted matters, such as immigration, will fall outside
the scope of the strategy.”
While immigration is the responsibility of the Home Office and determination
of immigration status will continue to be, refugee and asylum seeking
children access services provided by the Northern Ireland departments
and Government agencies. Refugee and asylum seeking children are
a particularly vulnerable group and have specific needs which the
draft Strategy fails to address. We strongly recommend that the
CYPU revisits the Strategy and includes this very vulnerable group
as a central element to be addressed within the five key areas for
action. Youth@clc also questioned the omission of refugee and asylum
seeking children and young people and felt that they should definitely
be addressed within the Strategy.
We also note that there are no specific actions relating to lesbian,
gay, bisexual and transgendered young people, and extremely limited
reference is made to children and young people in the youth justice
system. This raises a number of questions about the compliance of
the draft Strategy with both section 75 of the Northern Ireland
Act and the principle of non-discrimination in the UNCRC (Article
2). While the Strategy does briefly address each of the section
75 categories in terms of possible differential impact, Question
35 refers to the main equality impacts of the strategy and excludes
marital status, religion and sexual orientation. There are clearly
equality impact issues in relation to these section 75 categories
and in excluding further examination of the experiences of children
and young people in these three categories serves only to further
marginalise already marginalised groups of children and young people.
OFMDFM must amend the draft Strategy to ensure that it applies to
all children and young people and that all children are included
within the key areas for action, rather than merely in the section
on cross-cutting themes. Equal weight should also be attributed
to all the nine groups detailed in section 75 in equality impact
assessment.
Draft Actions - General Comments, Monitoring and Implementation
We are concerned that the Children’s Strategy is committing
to vague associated indicators which cannot be measured and are
without actual timescales. We believe that it is vital that the
Strategy is SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable Realistic Time
Bound), i.e. that it is structured in such a way as to enable its
staged delivery over a given time period against measurable outcomes
which allow for monitoring, accountability and regular evaluation.
We are disappointed to note that none of the draft actions and associated
indicators have a ‘long’ timescale, i.e. 7-10 years,
meaning that all of the draft actions in the draft Strategy will
be achieved within 7 years. Many of the indicators will not deliver
on the corresponding draft action, nor will the draft actions on
the strategic objectives etc. Youth@clc expressed similar concerns,
stating that there are no real indications about how actions are
going to be measured. Youth@clc felt it would be useful for a time
frame to be allocated to each action, with measurable targets. They
also felt the Draft Strategy should be much more specific, detailing
ways to achieve the draft actions at each stage of each actions.
There is a very clear emphasis on quantitative indicators and targets
which cannot be measured due to the lack of existing baseline data
and will not measure impact, quality or representativeness. Also,
there is generally no attempt to capture the experiences of children
and young people and their families or any indication of how children’s
voices will be heard in determining if the outcomes have been achieved.
Youth@clc picked up on this also, stating that there appears to
be a lack of commitment to listening to children and young people,
thus undermining article 12 of the UNCRC. The Children’s Strategy
must commit to actual timescales, and specific, measurable targets.
There must be an acknowledgement of the current position of children
and young people and baseline data collected so that meaningful
targets can be established for the ten year lifetime of the Strategy.
In addition, the indicators must be child centred and based on the
principles of the UNCRC; stating the effect the indicators will
have on the lives of the children and young people whom it refers
to with a focus on the measurement of progress. There must be an
emphasis on the difference that will be made to the lives of children
and young people throughout the Strategy and in particular, through
the draft actions and associated indicators. In addition, the experiences
of children and young people and their families must form part of
the associated indicators in order to balance quantitative and qualitative
data to ensure that the reality of experience is captured and the
voices of children and young people are heard.
Within the Strategy there should be clear identification of responsibility
for delivery of the commitments contained therein. This should apply
from Ministerial level down and give clear accountability structures
both under direct rule and devolved Government. A chart detailing
responsibility for delivery of the Strategy at Executive, Ministerial
and Departmental levels should be included. There may also be a
need to include accountability structures at Departmental level
such as through an inter-Departmental working group. A political
structure of accountability should be included in the Strategy,
which may entail placing responsibility with the Northern Ireland
Executive as a whole, but naming a lead Minister and the implementation
being monitored by an appropriate Committee of the Assembly. By
doing so, we feel that cross-cutting responsibility for the Strategy
would be strengthened. We also feel that it would be important and
in the interests of transparency and partnership working that an
independent ongoing structure of monitoring is maintained, possibly
along the lines of the NGO Forum. The role of children and young
people will obviously be crucial in monitoring the Strategy and
mechanisms to include children and young people and their parents
in monitoring the implementation of the Strategy must be detailed.
Resources
The draft actions and associated indicators highlight a great deal
of currently ongoing work and there is very little in the draft
Strategy which is new and innovative. One of the reasons for this
may be due to the lack of clarity around whether or not the Children’s
Strategy will have priority status, ensuring an adequate allocation
of resources, regardless of other departmental priorities. The UNCRC
Committee has paid considerable attention to the identification
and analysis of resources for children in budgets. It observes that
without clarity regarding the amount of money being spent on children
both directly and indirectly,
“...no state can tell whether it is fulfilling children’s
economic, social and cultural rights” (General Comment 5 para
51)
The Committee has repeatedly raised the issue of insufficient allocation
of resources towards the implementation of children’s rights
with a number of member states. In 2002 the Committee recommended
that the UK Government,
“...undertake an analysis of all sectoral and total budgets
across the State party and in the devolved administrations in order
to show the proportion spent on children, identify priorities and
allocate resources to the “maximum extent of…available
resources”. (CRC/C/15/Add.188 para 11)
To comply with the UNCRC Committee’s Guidelines on Periodic
Reports the UK Government, in its report due to be submitted in
2007 will be obliged to provide information regarding:
• The proportion of the budget devoted to social expenditures
for children, including health, welfare and education, at the central,
regional and local levels;
• Arrangements for budgetary analysis enabling the amount
and proportion spent on children to be clearly identified. The steps
taken to ensure that all competent national, regional and local
authorities are guided by the best interests of the child in their
budgetary decisions and evaluate the priority given to children
in their policy making; and,
• The measures taken to ensure that children, particularly
those belonging to the most disadvantaged groups, are protected
against the adverse effects of economic policies, including the
reduction of budgetary allocation in the social sector. (CRC/C/58
para 20)
It is abundantly clear that the draft proposals regarding resourcing
the Strategy are totally inadequate when compared with the UNCRC
Committee’s requirements. The draft Strategy contains no commitment
regarding funding for its implementation and states that each department
will have to compete for funding for the Strategy’s actions
against other rival bids. Given the recent cutting of the Children’s
Fund, unless proper resources are allocated and ringfenced there
is serious concern as to the ability to deliver the Children’s
Strategy. It is difficult to see how, in such a scenario, the best
interests of the child can be a guiding consideration in any decisions
regarding financial allocation.
The failure to ring-fence funding for the Children’s Strategy
in the draft budget and priorities, run completely counter to Government’s
obligations, which is a particularly onerous one given the UK’s
status as a G8 nation, to allocate resources to children to the
maximum extent of available resources. Neither can the particular
administrative arrangements with regard to devolution, whereby the
NI Executive receives a block grant from the UK Exchequer, be accepted
as some form of externally imposed limitation on the amount of money
available for implementing the Strategy, as made clear by the UNCRC
Committee,
“In any process of devolution, State Parties have to make
sure that the devolved authorities do have the necessary financial,
human and other resources effectively to discharge responsibilities
for the implementation of the Convention”. (General Comment
5 para.41).
We strongly recommend that the draft Strategy clearly indicates
that adequate funding will be committed towards its implementation
and will be ringfenced and that Government departments will not
have to compete ‘on the open market’ to secure funding
for the Strategy’s implementation. All departments, including
the Department of Finance and Personnel, must be obliged to undertake
a child impact assessment of any proposed financial allocation thus
ensuring that the best interests of the child becomes a guiding
factor in budgetary decision making. The Children’s Strategy
should include a commitment to move towards the production of a
‘children’s annex’ to the devolved administration’s
annual budget and priorities, similar to supplemental children’s
budgets published by the Norwegian and Swedish Governments amongst
others.
Rights and Equality
We note that the strategic outcome in the section on rights and
equality states that,
“All children and young people in Northern Ireland, according
to their age and maturity, will know their rights and the rights
of others; are equally enabled to exercise their rights and that
these rights and responsibilities are respected, promoted and protected.”
Again, we must raise concerns with the qualification of rights with
responsibilities. We wish to reiterate our recommendation that all
references to responsibilities be removed from the Children’s
Strategy and that the focus be placed very firmly on children’s
rights. While the UNCRC uses the term “according to their
age and maturity,” we wish to stress the need for Government
to engage in meaningful awareness raising, communication, participation
and direct consultation with children and young people of all ages.
This language refers to the additional onus which Government is
under to ensure that new and innovative methods of informing and
consulting with children and young people are developed and implemented.
These methods of awareness raising, communication and consultation
must be developed in such a way as to take account of the age and
maturity of the child or young person to ensure optimum and meaningful
participation, through methods which address how to properly inform
and directly consult with children of all ages and levels of maturity.
Youth@clc reiterated the need for awareness raising and communication
with all children and young people. They suggested the introduction
of a section in each of the actions relating to awareness building
around each of the topics, believing that if people were more aware
about the extent and type of problems in Northern Ireland, the Government,
community and local/young people may be more willing to act.
At no stage should age or maturity become barriers to children knowing
and exercising their rights. The UNCRC Committee requests that Government,
in its Periodic Reports, indicates,
“...the specific steps taken to make the Convention widely
known to children and the extent to which it has been reflected
in the school curricula” (CRC/C/58 para 22)
The Committee, in its 2002 concluding observations, expressed particular
concern that according to recent studies, most children were not
aware of the rights contained in the Convention. It recommended
that Government substantially expand dissemination of information
on the Convention and its implementation among children and parents
and amongst other sectors with associated training. (CRC/C/15/Add.188
paras 20 and 21)
The draft Strategy aims to address this issue by including a draft
action on the development and implementation of an awareness-raising
campaign to alert children and young people to their rights and
how to deal with any breaches of them. Such an awareness-raising
campaign must recognise and address the varying information needs
across different age bands, from pre-school children to 16-18 year
olds and between. We are also keen to see how OFMDFM aims to ensure
children will be enabled to exercise their rights and how they will
deal with any breaches of children’s rights, something which
the Children’s Law Centre deals with on a daily basis.
The section on rights and equality also contains the following action,
“Formal and informal education curricula will fully reflect
and promote statutory obligations and rights and responsibilities
in relation to equality and diversity.”
It is unclear what specific action is intended here as children’s
rights are not explicitly referred to, nor is the new statutory
curriculum which introduces human rights as a specific theme within
Local and Global Citizenship, although given that the associated
indicator will be the number of young people undertaking citizenship
studies at school, it is to be assumed that the new curriculum is
envisaged as the vehicle for delivering on this commitment. However,
given that there is as yet no equivalent citizenship programme for
primary schools, as required by the UNCRC Committee’s recommendation
at para 48f, the Strategy will need to develop actions to ensure
that primary school children are educated about their rights also.
The UN Committee’s recommendations also refer to awareness
raising and dissemination of information on the Convention and its
implementation, “…including initiatives to reach vulnerable
groups.” (CRC/C/15/Add.188 para 21) OFMDFM needs to look more
closely at its proposed awareness raising campaign to ensure that
vulnerable groups are targeted through awareness raising and are
equally enabled to exercise their rights.
Two of the draft actions in this section are to ensure that the
rights and needs of children and young people are reflected in the
implementation of a gender and Racial Equality Strategy. While the
aims of both of these strategies will presumably be to eliminate
specific forms of discrimination and to encourage greater equality
and integration, the draft Children’s Strategy lacks a commitment
to develop a comprehensive strategy containing specific and well-targeted
actions aimed at eliminating all forms of discrimination as recommended
by the UNCRC Committee in its concluding observations (para 22c).
Clearly, the proposed Single Equality Bill has significant potential
to provide effective legal protection for children against all forms
of discrimination. This is particularly important in light of the
historical difficulties children and young people have experienced
in availing of protection under existing anti-discrimination legislation.
We believe that the Single Equality Bill should be included in this
section to illustrate its potential in protection against discrimination,
but also to ensure that the legislation applies to children and
young people as to adults and in respect of goods, facilities and
services. In line with this, Youth@clc felt that discrimination
should be a specific area for action, stating that discrimination
is not given enough weight throughout any of the document, this
is reinforced by the “Shout Out Soon Report” (SOS) (2004)
which found that twenty two percent (22%) of the children and young
people who took part in the survey highlighted discrimination as
a concern for them.
The Racial Equality Strategy is very overdue and we cannot comment
on whether this strategy will adequately address the needs of children
and young people without seeing the document. We wish to emphasise
the need for the Racial Equality Strategy to contain a comprehensive
participatory plan of action to target the obstacles to the enjoyment
of rights by Traveller children as recommended by the UNCRC Committee
in its concluding observations (para 52). The UNCRC Committee also
recommended that specific information be included in the Government’s
next periodic report on measures and programmes relevant to the
UNCRC undertaken by Government to follow up on the Durban Declaration
and Programme of Action adopted at the World Conference against
Racism (para 24). While we cannot comment on the extent to which
the needs and rights of children and young people will be addressed
within the Racial Equality Strategy at this point, we wish to emphasise
just how important this is, not least in light of the fact that
the UK Government has decided not to proceed with a National Plan
against Racism.
The Gender Equality Framework Strategy and its subsequent action
plan aims, “…to tackle the gender inequalities faced
by both men and boys, and women and girls.” (Gender Matters
consultation document, page 3) However, the Gender Strategy fails
to adequately address the rights and needs of children and young
people on any level. Children feature in the document to illustrate
gender inequalities between men and women in relation to childcare.
The only area which deals specifically with children and young people
in their own right in the Gender Strategy is with regard to the
differences in educational attainment of girls and boys. The Gender
Strategy does not attempt to examine the different experiences of
girls and boys outside the field of education. This is clearly inadequate
in ensuring that the rights and needs of children and young people
are reflected in the Gender Strategy and is very worrying given
the reliance on other strategies and plans throughout the draft
Children’s Strategy. In implementing strategies and plans
which impact upon each other, there is an obvious need for co-ordination.
The rights and needs of children and young people will not be adequately
addressed until rigorous child proofing of policies takes place,
which will not happen without the correct degree of political will.
We would appreciate it if OFMDFM would explicitly state which areas
of the Gender and Racial Equality Strategy, and indeed all other
strategies referenced in the consultation document, adequately address
the needs and rights of children and young people, as stated in
the draft outcomes of the draft Children’s Strategy.
There needs to be much greater clarity in relation to the inter-relationship
between the Children’s Strategy and other departmental strategies.
The Children and Young People’s Action Plan should articulate
in detail the specific child-centred actions that will be undertaken
in the context of the various strategies. There is also a need for
much more information on how the implementation of these strategies
will be monitored form a child’s rights perspective.
Another draft action in the rights and equality section refers to
the,
“…proofing of new policies and legislation to ascertain
the impact on the rights and best interests of children and young
people and to take appropriate action.”
We note that in draft 2 of the Children’s Strategy, this action
referred to the, “conduct of an audit of existing policies.”
Again, we must express our disappointment at the dilution of rights
and commitment as the Strategy has progressed, with this section
applying only to new policies and legislation. The UNCRC Committee’s
General Comment No 5 states that in order to ensure that the provisions
of the UNCRC are being fully implemented in law, policy and practice
there is a need for a process of continuous child impact assessment
and child impact evaluation (para.45). We wish to see this draft
action expanded to include existing as well as new policies and
legislation. Child impact assessment should also apply to the policies
and practices of all Government departments, including the Department
of Finance and Personnel (DFP), the Budget, macro policies and other
strategies. The expansion of this draft action would be very much
in line with the UNCRC Committee’s recommendation on the best
interest principle being adopted as a paramount consideration in
all legislation and policies affecting children and young people,
notably within the juvenile justice system and in immigration practices.
In compliance with this recommendation, this draft action should
clearly be extended to include the proofing of all policies and
legislation for compliance with the best interests principle.
The draft Strategy does not give any indication of what mechanism
will be used to child impact assess legislation and policy. The
Children’s Strategy in the Republic of Ireland attracted much
criticism in its initial years for its failure to develop or utilise
child impact statements (Children’s Rights Alliance June 2003)
and has only recently begun work on developing a model for conducting
child impact assessments in monitoring implementation. The Children’s
Strategy needs to include commitments to develop a similar model
of children’s rights proofing and child impact assessment
which can be employed in assessing both existing and new legislation
and policies.
We welcome the inclusion in this section of the draft action in
relation to the provision of core training on the UNCRC and drawing
on our extensive experience in this sphere, would suggest that this
draft action be extended to include all legislation and policy affecting
children and young people in Northern Ireland and also implications
of the ECHR as incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998. This should
emphasise the importance of multi disciplinary training.
The UNCRC Committee’s General Comment No 5 provides a detailed
account of children’s rights training requirements of Governments.
It notes that the Government’s target audiences for training
must include,
“...all those involved in the implementation process- Government
officials, parliamentarians, judiciary, and for all those working
with and for children.” (para 53)
Training provided must be,
“...systematic and ongoing - initial and re-training. The
Convention should be reflected in professional training curricula,
codes of conduct and educational curricula” (para 53)
In addition, “understanding of human rights must be promoted
among school children themselves, through the school curricula and
in other ways”. (para 53)
The UNCRC Committee’s Guidelines for Periodic Reports contains
an even more detailed listing of sectors and professional groups
training who are required to be trained on children’s rights,
“...public officials as well as …professional groups
working with and for children, such as teachers, law enforcement
officials, including police, immigration officers, judges, prosecutors,
lawyers, defence forces, medical doctors, health workers and social
workers” (CRC/C/58 para 22)
In its concluding observations the UNCRC Committee expressed concern
that the UK Government was not undertaking adequate dissemination,
awareness raising and training activities concerning the Convention
in a systematic and targeted manner and recommended that the Government,
“...develop systematic and ongoing training programmes in
human rights, including children’s rights, for all professional
groups working for and with children”. (CRC/C/15/Add. 188
para 21)
The draft Strategy includes a draft action to provide core training
on the UNCRC,
“...for relevant employees in Government departments and public
bodies”.
It would be useful to be more specific as to which institutions
and agencies come under the ambit of ‘public bodies’;
for instance, are the judiciary and the police included here? The
draft Strategy should also commit to the provision of both initial
and on-going, in-service training as required by the UNCRC Committee.
We also note and welcome the wide strategic objective in relation
to ensuring that the rights and best interests of children and young
people are explicitly recognised in law, policy, planning and service
delivery. However under draft actions, there is no reference to
the development of structures in relation to decision-making processes
in family proceedings or in any court proceedings. We would suggest
that a draft action be included in relation to the meaningful participation
and representation of children and young people in administrative
decision-making processes and in court proceedings which affect
them.
The final draft action in the rights and equality section refers
to monitoring the implementation of the UNCRC and other international
human rights instruments to which the UK is a signatory which relate
to children and young people. This draft action includes a commitment
from the Children and Young People’s Unit to produce a biennial
report. However, the UNCRC Committee suggests that such reports,
offering a comprehensive overview of the state of children's rights,
be produced annually.(CRC/GC/2003/5). In order to carry out monitoring
of the implementation of the UNCRC, there is also a need for comprehensive
disaggregated data collection, child impact assessment and child
rights indicators as well as regular reporting by Government departments
to a Ministerial Committee.
We are concerned to note the omission of any reference to the Bill
of Rights for Northern Ireland from the draft Children’s Strategy.
The Bill of Rights should represent an overarching legislative mechanism
for the promotion and protection of children’s rights and
as a result should not only be included in, but also be central
to a Children’s Strategy for Northern Ireland. The Bill of
Rights should reflect internationally recognised children’s
rights standards and provide the greatest possible protection for
children and young people. The Children’s Strategy should
include an action to ensure that the Bill of Rights reflect the
highest international standards on children’s rights protections.
Participation
The Strategic Outcome under the heading of Participation again refers
to the, ‘age and maturity’ of children and young people
in having the opportunity to participate effectively and meaningfully
as full, active and valued citizens in decisions affecting their
lives. We wish to reiterate our concern that this should not become
a barrier to meaningful participation, but rather a reference to
the onus which Government is under to ensure that new and innovative
methods of participation, communication and awareness raising with
children and young people are developed and implemented in such
a way as to ensure participation with all children and young people
of all ages and levels of maturity.
We stress the need for effective and meaningful participation and
highlight the obvious need for development of new and innovative
models of participation to ensure that representative groups of
children and young people not only have their voices heard, but
have these views taken into account in decisions which affect their
lives. The NICCY research highlights the importance of this area
for children and young people and states that participation as,
“…enshrined in Article 12 of the CRC, is fundamental
to the realisation of all children’ s rights and it is appropriate,
therefore, that not being heard, not being allowed to participate
in decisions made about them and not being consulted about changes
to their lives, big and small, is the single most important issue
to children in Northern Ireland.” (NICCY research 2004 page
xxi) (Our emphasis)
One very obvious omission is the fact that no reference has been
made to the Government’s statutory duty to, “directly
consult,” with children and young people as per section 75
of the Northern Ireland Act. This is a fundamental issue of concern
and the Strategy should very clearly state the statutory duty to
directly consult with children and young people as one of the groups
identified in the legislation under the category of age. The Equality
Commission’s, “Guide to the Statutory Duties,”
2005 states that,
“Consultation should also include those directly affected
by the policy to be assessed, whether or not they have a personal
interest “(Para 5.1)
There is a serious gap in this section of the document in that no
reference has been made to the participation of marginalized and
‘disaffected’ groups of children and young people. There
is a need to ensure that all children and young people can have
their say, as per Article 12 of the UNCRC and section 75 of the
Northern Ireland Act and removal of the obstacles to meaningful
participation is vital for marginalized children, such as those
in the youth justice system, minority ethnic children, looked after
children, children with disabilities, including those with mental
health needs, child carers and those from rural communities. These
issues have not been addressed and we firmly believe that without
developing mechanisms to ensure real participation by all groups
of children and young people, meaningful participation will not
be achieved. Youth@clc expressed similar concerns in relation to
children in the youth justice system, minority ethnic children and
children with disabilities.
One of the draft actions in this section refers to the,
“…dissemination of information through channels most
frequently used by children and young people, such as the internet
and mobile phones.”
While this is to be welcomed in terms of utilisation of innovative
methods of engagement with children and young people, there must
also be a corresponding action to allow Government to meaningfully
engage with those children and young people who do not have access
to these technologies, such as the 32,000 children in Northern Ireland
living in severe poverty. (Save The Children 2005).
In the UNCRC Committee’s concluding observations, the Committee
recommended that the Government take further steps to promote, facilitate
and monitor systematic meaningful and effective participation of
all groups of children in society, including in schools, for example,
through schools councils. The Committee also recommended that the
Government take further steps to consistently reflect the obligations
of Article 12 in legislation, and that legislation governing court
procedures and administrative proceedings ensure that a child capable
of forming his/her own views has the right to express those views
and that they are given due weight (para 28). One of the strategic
objectives in this section is to develop and support appropriate
structures to ensure the participation of children and young people.
However, there is no reference to the development of such structures
in relation to decision-making processes in family proceedings or
in any court proceedings under the draft actions. A draft action
should be included relating to the meaningful participation and
representation of children and young people in administrative decision
- making processes and in court proceedings which affect them.
We are disappointed to note that only one of the associated indicators
in this section refers to obtaining feedback from children and young
people. Meaningful participation with children and young people
should permeate across all Government departments and agencies.
In order to meaningfully participate, one must engage and take account
of the views of children and young people. Indicators to demonstrate
meaningful participation should be centred on engagement and measurement
of impact, rather than a counting exercise which will be inadequate
in measuring progress. This is due to the fact that quantitative
data will not measure commitment, effectiveness and involvement
and the corresponding quantitative baseline data does not exist
with which to compare.
Provision
Built and Natural Environment
The Strategic Outcome states that,
“All children and young people in Northern Ireland will live,
work, travel and play in a safe, clean, bright and sustainable environment.”
We welcome the comprehensive baseline study which the DSD is committing
to undertake in relation to Neighbourhood Renewal Areas. We do note
however that this action referred, in draft 2 of the Strategy document,
to,
“Development of a systematic social needs audit within communities.”
It is clear that the intention has now changed and that rather than
this audit taking place in all communities, both urban and rural,
it will only include the most deprived urban areas. We are of the
view that over the life time of a ten year Strategy for children
and young people, there is much more action which could and indeed
should flow from this study. The associated indicators are the number
of relevant issues identified and feedback from children and young
people about their communities. These indicators do not provide
for a great deal of action on the findings of the baseline study,
which is disappointing given the life span of the draft Strategy.
Family and Community Support
We welcome the inclusion of the draft action in relation to the
development of a parenting family support strategy under the section
on Provision – Family and Community Support, pursuant to the
strategic objective of ensuring that all families can access timely,
effective and appropriate support and that the role of communities
in supporting families is recognised, promoted and developed. While
it is not explicit in this draft action, we presume that it is in
response to the UNCRC Committee’s recommendation that the
Government promote positive participatory forms of discipline and
carry out public education programmes on negative effects of physical
punishment. (Para 38b) Physical punishment is the most blatant cross-cutting
form of discrimination that all children and young people face and
is in fact legalised child abuse. We strongly advocate that the
Government explicitly refer to physical punishment in this draft
action and also state that the defence of reasonable chastisement
will be removed and physical punishment outlawed as recommended
by the UNCRC Committee at paragraph 38a of the UNCRC Committee’s
concluding observations. We also wish to see an explicit commitment
by Government to carrying out a public education campaign around
the negative impact of physical punishment as recommended by the
Committee (above).
We again wish to emphasise the need for co-ordination, participation,
child impact assessment and child rights proofing of legislation,
policies, strategies, plans and practices to ensure that the rights,
needs and best interests of all children and young people are adequately
addressed.
Achievement, Learning and Enjoyment
The Strategic Outcome in this section states that,
“All children and young people in Northern Ireland will have
the opportunity to enjoy growing towards and maximizing their individual
potential.”
We feel that this strategic outcome does not recognise the disadvantage
faced by the most vulnerable children and young people in our society,
i.e. that all children and young people are not starting from the
same point, and that there should be much more emphasis on the delivery
of rights. We are of the view that this strategic outcome should
state that all children and young people in Northern Ireland will
have the, “..right to education and to enjoy growing toward
and maximizing their potential.” While the Strategic Objectives
refer to equal access to education, play, cultural, artistic, recreational
and leisure activities, there is a strong sense of involvement from
the Department of Education in this section and few of the other
partner departments and bodies which should be involved in order
to deliver on the strategic objectives. This indicates a need for
joined-up thinking and collaborative working. There is no recognition
of actual, ‘equal access,’ as very often, this will
require additional action for all children and young people to gain
equal access and experience equal enjoyment. This is contrary to
the UNCRC Committee recommendation which states that the Government
must take all necessary measures to eliminate the inequalities in
educational achievement and in exclusion rates between children
from different groups and to guarantee all children an appropriate
quality education (para 48c) There is likewise no recognition of
the need for equality of access to education regardless of background
for looked after children and children in the youth justice system.
The UNCRC Committee recommended that the Government must ensure
that children in detention have an equal statutory right to education
and improve education for looked after children. (para 48d) Similarly,
the Criminal Justice Implementation Plan does not address the issue
of equal education for detained children. This section should be
revisited to ensure that the UNCRC Committee recommendations are
addressed through the elimination of inequality in education for
all children and young people, regardless of background or situation.
There is also a lack of action in this section in terms of what
will be achieved which will impact on the lives of children and
young people in Northern Ireland. Some of the associated indicators
which detail how progress will be demonstrated from the draft actions
are extremely disappointing given that the Strategy has a ten year
life span. The draft action, “Consideration of a review of
compulsory school age in Northern Ireland,” has an associated
indicator, “Production of a report,” likewise, the draft
action “Policy review of pre-school education in Northern
Ireland,” has the associated indicator of, “Consideration
of responses to public consultation regarding potential changes
to the current pre-school education system in Northern Ireland.”
The UNCRC Committee also recommended that the Government ensure
that legislation reflects article 12 of the UNCRC and respects children’s
rights to express their views and have them given due weight in
all matters concerning their education, including school discipline
(para 48a) and that the Government introduce measures to reduce
expulsions and exclusions (para 48b). Neither of these recommendations
are adequately addressed in the draft Strategy. No reference is
made to the implementation of the recommendations of the current
review of suspension and expulsion procedures, advocacy and representation
for children and young people in education tribunals or the fact
that there are no independent appeal mechanisms against a suspension
or expulsion. The only option for children wishing to make an appeal
is through judicial review proceedings in the High Court which raises
further questions about the balance of power and respect for the
views of the child. The issues of children’s rights to express
their views and to have due weight attributed to these views, as
well as the right to appeal suspensions and exclusions in education
and to have independent representation in education tribunals must
be addressed within the Children’s Strategy.
.
Other areas which are noticeably lacking in the draft actions on
education include the implementation and monitoring of the Special
Educational Needs and Disability (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 (SENDO),
looked after children, school age mothers and children in the youth
justice system. There would be a great deal of merit in the inclusion
of these areas in keeping with the strategic objectives, the UNCRC
and Committee recommendations.
We note with concern the fact that there have been a number of draft
actions in this section which have been weakened from earlier drafts.
Draft 2 refers to the, “conduct of a review of compulsory
school age in Northern Ireland,” rather than merely, “consideration
of a review.” Draft 2 also refers to the, “development
and resourcing of schools to become multi-agency centres”,
rather than the, “exploration of the extent to which schools
could be resourced to become multi-agency centres” and the
“commitment to seek increased resources for youth provision,”
is clearly a backward step from the earlier action of, “provision
of increasing resources for youth service provision.”
We welcome the inclusion in the draft actions of the development
of a play and recreation strategy for Northern Ireland. We refer
to the NICCY research, which highlights a number of key priority
issues in the area of play, such as the need for appropriate, accessible
play and leisure facilities, the quality and safety of leisure/play
space and access to such facilities for children with disabilities
and those in rural communities. The Youth@clc SOS Report also highlights
this area as one for immediate action with the most common area
of concern highlighted by children and young people in the survey
being available amenities. Fifty seven percent (595) of participants
highlighted this.
Research and Information
While we note the commitment to develop a research and information
strategy, this section, which lists as a draft action ‘the
establishment of key research priorities’ is unclear if and
how the necessary research will be carried out. Within the research
and information strategy, there is a commitment to develop a system
of child centred indicators, including child rights indicators.
The UNCRC Committee states that,
“Evaluation requires the development of indicators related
to all rights guaranteed by the CRC” (CRC/GC/2003/5 para.
48).
The development of a system of coherent, rights based indicators
must be a priority for the implementation of the Strategy, indeed
it should have been a prerequisite to the Strategy, otherwise it
will be impossible to properly or accurately monitor progress and
evaluate its impact in terms of advancing children’s rights.
The UK Government in its report to the UNCRC Committee in 2007 will
be obliged to provide a comprehensive picture of,
“...steps taken to develop mechanisms for the identification
and gathering of appropriate indicators, statistics, relevant research
and other relevant information as a basis for policy-making in the
field of children’s rights” (Guidelines for Periodic
Reports para 18).
The inclusion in the draft Strategy of this action around the development
of a system of child centred indicators, including child rights
indicators is to be welcomed. However work must begin immediately
on developing an integrated system of child rights indicators while
the Strategy is still being drafted. These child rights indicators,
which should include as a minimum information on compliance with
the general principles of the UNCRC, should be adopted consistently
across all departments, applied to both the strategic draft actions
in the Strategy as well as to the over-arching Children and Young
People’s Action Plan.
The UNCRC Committee recommended that the Government monitor the
situation of the following groups of children who are exposed to
discrimination; children with disabilities, children in poverty,
Travellers, asylum-seeker and refugee children, children belonging
to minority groups, looked after children, detained children and
children aged between 16 and 18 years old. There is no reference
in the draft strategy to the collection of data in relation to these
specific groups of children and young people. This data collection
should be occurring as an action under research and information
as without the disaggregated data it will not be possible to monitor
the situation of these groups of children and young people. While
the draft Strategy recognises that there is a lack of such data,
(para 2.1.4.), the draft actions do not attempt to address this
deficit. While the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency
does publish Key Indicators of Personal Social Services in Northern
Ireland, there are wide variations across Trusts. The Government
needs to mainstream the practice of producing and maintaining up-to-date
and disaggregated data across all departments.
Physical, mental and emotional wellbeing
The Strategic Outcome states,
“All children and young people in Northern Ireland will enjoy
the highest level of physical, mental and emotional well-being.”
There should be a clear recognition in the Children’s Strategy
of a number of crisis areas which require urgent action which fall
under this strategic outcome. The most obvious example is the need
for increased provision of mental health services for children and
adolescents in Northern Ireland. The UNCRC Committee has recommended
that the Government strengthen and make accessible mental health
counselling services for adolescents and undertake studies on the
cause and backgrounds of suicides. (Article 44c) Youth@clc also
highlighted this as an area of urgency, requiring much more attention
throughout the Children’s Startegy.
The NICCY research highlighted some very serious concerns in relation
to children with mental health issues and stated that in Northern
Ireland over 20% of children suffer significant mental health problems,
comprising the commonest cause of severe disability in childhood.
The research states that child and adolescent mental health has
been neglected and under-resourced by policy makers and legislators.
While we welcome the draft action to include within the Mental Health
Strategy, measures to tackle suicide amongst young people and to
increase mental health services for children and young people, there
is a very obvious lack of the sense of urgency with which these
areas need to be addressed. There is an urgent need for increased
investment in mental health services for children and the Children’s
Law Centre has recently acted in two judicial reviews in respect
of the lack of Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS)
for children and young people. The NICCY research has highlighted
a number of areas where investment is fundamental, for example,
the development of multi-agency approaches to guarantee appropriate
services to meet the physical and mental health needs of children
and young people; the development of child and adolescent centred
health care services in which children and young people have the
opportunity to fully participate in decisions about their health
care and the urgent provision of fully resourced and appropriately
staffed mental health services for looked after children, secure
accommodation and custody throughout Northern Ireland. It is vital
that this investment takes place and that these areas are urgently
addressed in a coordinated manner.
This section includes a draft action to review the anti-bullying
strategy, with the associated indicators being the levels of reported
bullying, including racist bullying and suicide rates amongst young
people. There is an obvious problem with using levels of reported
bullying to demonstrate trends in the level of bullying taking place.
Bullying is, by its very nature an extremely abusive situation.
The true level of bullying behaviour will never be reported accurately
and cannot be relied on to illustrate progress. We also note that
while the NICCY research notes that bullying is a particular area
of concern for a number of different groups of children and young
people, including children with disabilities, children with special
educational needs; minority ethnic groups including Traveller children;
children living in poverty; young people in care; and gay, lesbian
and transgendered young people, the associated indicator refers
specifically only to racist bullying. .
The UNCRC Committee recommendations state that the Government should
take measures and set up mechanisms and structures to prevent bullying
and violence in schools and include children in the development
and implementation of these strategies. (Para 48e) We strongly feel
that reviewing the Anti-bullying strategy alone will not deliver
the strategic outcome or objectives, nor will it fully meet the
UNCRC Committee recommendation above. There must be some detailed
planned action points which go beyond reviewing the anti-bullying
strategy to deliver on the commitments made at a strategic level.
We note that there is a commitment in this section to implement
a Teenage Pregnancy Strategy. This is to be welcomed, particularly
in light of the UNCRC’s recommendations on teenage pregnancy
and teenage mothers. The UNCRC’S concluding observations state
that the Government should, take measures to reduce the rate of
teenage pregnancies through making health education, including sex
education, part of the school curricula, making contraception available
to all children, and improving access to advice and information
and support (para 44a). The Committee also urged the Government
to review its policies on entitlements for mothers under 16 years
with regard to allowances and parenting courses (para 44b) and to
develop educational programmes for teenage mothers to facilitate
and encourage their further education (para 48h).
We urge Government to address these recommendations in the Teenage
Pregnancy Strategy as currently the target date of April 2003 for
the Health and Social Services Boards to carry out a review of health
services to ensure they are available, accessible and tailored to
meet the needs of young people has not been met. At present the
Brook Advisory Service in Belfast is the only specialist clinic
for young people in Northern Ireland, making access extremely difficult
for young people living outside of Belfast. Currently, there are
no benefit entitlements for mothers under the age of 16, with the
exception of child benefit. Also, the School Age Mothers (SAMS)
projects are not provided in all geographical areas across Northern
Ireland. We note that that sex education has been proposed as part
of new statutory curriculum and that CCEA is currently producing
guidance on content and materials. It is vital that the Government
feed into this process to ensure that the needs and rights of children
and young people as detailed in the UNCRC Committee recommendations
are fully addressed.
It was in respect of the continued use of the defence of ‘reasonable
chastisement’ in relation to physical punishment that the
UNCRC Committee was most critical of the UK Government. The UNCRC
Committee emphasised its “deep regret” that the Government,
“...persists in retaining the defence of reasonable chastisement
and has taken no significant action towards prohibiting all corporal
punishment of children in the family.” (para 36)
This is the area where children and young people suffer the most
blatant discrimination. There are very obvious child abuse issues
in relation to the use of physical punishment under the defence
of ‘reasonable chastisement.’ The draft action dealing
with physical punishment states that the Office of Law Reform will
publish the analysis of responses to the consultation exercise on
physical punishment and issues explored with other interested parties.
The timeframe for carrying this out is ‘short’ i.e.
1-2 years. It is extremely worrying and disappointing that this
action, which has already been carried out and the analysis widely
circulated, and the development of a parenting support strategy,
which we assume refers to physical punishment, are the only actions
that the Government intends to take in relation to the physical
punishment of children over the next ten years.
In its recommendations, the UNCRC Committee has called for the Government
to outlaw physical punishment and remove the defence of ‘reasonable
chastisement’ as a matter of urgency. (para 38a). The NICCY
research concurs with the Committee’s recommendation and states
that,
“The unequivocal view expressed by the vast majority of children,
young people and adults spoken to for the research was that all
forms of physical punishment should cease.” (NICCY research
2004 page 52)
This draft action falls far short of the Committee recommendation
and the fact that the Government does not intend to address it within
the next ten years clearly illustrates that they do not share the
Committee’s sense of urgency. We strongly advocate that the
Government commits in the Children’s Strategy to amending
the law in relation to physical punishment to ensure that children
receive the same legal protection from assault as adults.
Protection
It is striking in the section on protection that there is a lack
of focus on prevention. There is no recognition on how important
prevention is in order to avoid the need for crisis intervention.
We believe that there should be a much greater emphasis placed on
early intervention and preventative work, both in this section and
in the Strategy as a whole, to ensure that Government looks at addressing
the causes rather than purely the effects. It is also alarming to
note that many issues which the UNCRC Committee has raised in its
recommendations and those which the Children’s Law Centre
see as being major priorities for Government to address in order
to deliver on children’s rights have not been addressed in
this section. Such issues, which come under the remit of protection
and have resulted in some of the most egregious breaches of children’s
rights include, sexual exploitation, non-state violence, plastic
bullets, anti-social behaviour orders and further reference to physical
punishment as a form of abuse as stated in the strategic outcome.
We wish to see these areas addressed within the Children’s
Strategy in response to the UNCRC Committee recommendations and
in keeping with the Strategy’s, ‘right’s based
whole child approach.” Youth@clc felt that issues such as
racist and sectarian attacks, the protection of looked after young
people, protection in the criminal justice system, drug abuse and
drug related crime, exploitation of young people and protection
should all be included in this section.
This section refers to the commitment by the NIO and DHSSPS to evaluate
the extent and impact of domestic violence on children and young
people. The associated indicator for this draft action is, “Numbers
of children and young people affected by domestic violence.”
We assume from this draft action that the Government intends to
do nothing other than evaluate the impact of domestic violence with
a view to establishing the number of children and young people affected
by it. There are a number of organisations who have been working
in this area for a many years and have produced very detailed research
and statistics on domestic violence and children and young people.
Women’s Aid has been collating statistics on the numbers of
advice calls, numbers of women and children accommodated in its
refuge since 1989. These statistics can be accessed on the Northern
Ireland Women’s Aid Federation website at http://www.niwaf.org/stats/Statistics.htm.
Also, as referred to in the NICCY research, at least 11,000 children
in Northern Ireland live in environments where domestic violence
occurs (Social Security Inspectorate 2003). While we appreciate
the value of statistics, we acknowledge that they will not indicate
levels of the impact of domestic violence on children and young
people, however, there are projects in existence which aim to do
that. Examples of these projects include Women’ s Aid’s
‘helping hands for children’ Strategy which allows children
to talk about feeling safe and unsafe and Relate’s mediation
and counseling service. While these services should be made much
more widely available in order to determine impact on a regional
scale, they are currently in existence for Government to draw and
build upon.
The fact that the Government has set itself a ‘medium’,
i.e. 3-6 year, target to carry out its evaluation of the impact
and effect of domestic violence on children, while available information
to build upon exists is remarkable. The UNCRC Committee, in its
recommendations urged the Government to develop a co-ordinated strategy
for the reduction of violent child deaths and all forms of violence
against children (para 40b) and also to provide for the care, recovery
and integration of victims of violence (para 40c). The draft Strategy’s
actions in relation to domestic violence very clearly do not address
the issues raised by the UNCRC Committee. We recommend that the
Government revisits the section relating to domestic violence with
a view to taking real action to improve the lives of children and
young people suffering as a result of domestic violence in a way
that complies with the UNCRC and makes progress on the Committee
recommendations.
Another draft action in this section is the conduct of an audit
into law and policy on work for school age children and young people
and the development of standards of training and support provided
and levels of remuneration. One of the associated indicators is
that children and young people receive fair remuneration for their
labours. We wish to seek clarification as to what is meant by, ‘fair’?
Does this mean that children and young people will cease to be directly
discriminated against on grounds of age in relation to the national
minimum wage? If so, we welcome this commitment and feel that this
should be explicitly stated in the Children’s Strategy. We
believe that until the minimum wage is the same for everyone, regardless
of age, the Government is in clear breach of Article 2 of the UNCRC
– the non-discrimination principle. The UNCRC Committee, in
its report, recommends that the Government reconsider its policies
regarding the national minimum wage for young workers in light of
the principle of non-discrimination (para 55).
Youth@clc’s SOS report found that almost 12% (124) of young
people surveyed had issues regarding discrimination in employment.
The majority of these issues related to the age of legal employment
and unequal payment due to age. One 16 year old complained that,
“I am not treated fairly in employment as there are people
older than me earning more for doing the same job”
The same issue arose in the NICCY schools research where young people
rejected lower wages as discriminatory on the basis of their age.
The discriminatory nature of the minimum wage whereby children under
the age of sixteen are not entitled to a minimum wage and those
under 18 and 21 are entitled to lower rates is economic exploitation
and directly contributes to child poverty. We wish to see clarity
in relation to this draft action and associated indicator and rather
than use of the word ‘fair’ we would support use of
the word, ‘equal’.
This section also refers to the implementation of the Criminal Justice
review recommendations relating to young people in line with the
current published Implementation Plan as a draft action. There are
a number of UNCRC Committee concluding observations which to some
degree are relevant to this draft action. The Committee recommended
that the Government review the use of restraint and solitary confinement
in custody, education, health and welfare institutions (para 34).
While the DHSSPS has issued general guidance on the use of restraint
for adults and children, it does not cover the custody setting.
Will there be a review specifically relating to children and young
people addressing the issue of custody? The Committee also stated
that emergency legislation and youth justice legislation should
be reviewed to ensure it is UNCRC compliant (para 54c) and that
the Government should raise the age of criminal responsibility considerably
(para 62a). Again, these issues are not addressed in the implementation
of the Criminal Justice review recommendations relating to young
people in line with the current published Implementation Plan. There
is no reference to raising the age of criminal responsibility and
while recommendation 169 of the Implementation plan does state that
due regard should be given to international human rights standards
by those who exercise powers conferred by the legislation, the UNCRC
is not mentioned. We advocate that the UNCRC Committee’s recommendations
be adequately addressed in relation to restraint and seclusion in
custody, emergency legislation be reviewed to ensure UNCRC compliance
and that the age of criminal responsibility be raised considerably.
The UNCRC Committee also recommended that no child should be tried
as an adult (para 62c) and that the privacy of all children in conflict
with the law should be ensured and protected (para 62d). Recommendation171
of the Implementation Plan is to bring 17 year olds within the ambit
of the youth courts. While youth courts will bring 17 year olds
back into the youth justice system there will still be situations
where a child could be tried in an adult court, thus not complying
with the UNCRC Committee recommendation. There is no specific reference
to the privacy of children in conflict with the law, either in the
Implementation Plan or at any stage in the draft Children’s
Strategy. This is particularly relevant and increasingly an area
for urgent action in light of the recent introduction of anti-social
behaviour orders (ASBO’s). The operation of ASBO’s,
including the likelihood of both ‘naming and shaming’
and media coverage pose serious threats both to the privacy of a
child in conflict with the law and also to the child’s safety.
The Children’s Strategy should clearly address the UNCRC Committee’s
concluding observations in relation to the trial of children as
adults and the protection of the privacy of children in conflict
with the law.
The UNCRC Committee also recommends that that children should be
held separately from adults when detained (para 62e). Recommendation
172 of the Implementation Plan states that 17 year olds are to be
held in Young Offenders Centres or Juvenile Justice Centres where
conditions are met. However, this refers only to vulnerable young
people and all other 17 year olds will still be held in Young Offenders
Centres with over 18s. Young women in need of secure accommodation
will also continue to be held in Hybebank Young Offenders Centre.
Similarly, the Committee stated that the Government should review
the status of 17 year olds on remand to give them special protection
as a child under the age of 18 (para 62h). Recommendation 171 of
the Implementation Plan is to bring 17 year old within the ambit
of the youth courts. This, however, only extends to the court system
and 17 year olds, unless they are vulnerable, will still be remanded
to Hydebank Young Offenders Centre with adults.
Another relevant Committee recommendation is that children in detention
should have equal statutory rights to education, health and child
protection (para 62g). The Youth Justice Agency is currently consulting
on its Child Protection Policy which may or may not address the
child protection element of this recommendation. The Implementation
Plan does not address the equal statutory right to health and the
fact that young people in the youth justice system have no established
legal entitlement to be taught within the Northern Ireland Curriculum
clearly indicates that this recommendation has not been addressed
through the implementation of the Criminal Justice review recommendations
relating to young people in line with the Implementation Plan or
the draft Children’s Strategy and clearly should be. We recommend
that the Children’s Strategy addresses the issues of holding
children and adults separately in detention, giving 17 year olds
who are on remand special protection as well as guaranteeing children
in custody equal rights to health and education.
The Government needs to start adequately addressing the issues in
relation to children in custody. This is clearly highlighted by
Jaep Doek, Chair of the UNCRC Committee, who stated that,
“The UK will next be examined by my committee in 2009. That
is too long to wait for children whose human rights are being violated
today. Urgent action is required to remedy the plight of children
in custody...many children are officially classed as too vulnerable
for prison service custody, and there are grave and continuing concerns
about children’s access to education, health care and protection.
My committee recommended in 2002 that detention should only be used
as a last resort, yet the UK still locks up more children than most
other industrialised countries. Why is this tolerated?”
(Quoted in ‘The Guardian’ 29 Nov 2004 in response to
the publication of the CRAE Annual State of Children’s Rights
in England Report 2004)
The UNCRC Committee recommendations state that the Government should
undertake a study on prostitution (para 58a). A consultation document
on prostitution entitled, “Paying the Price” was produced
by the Home Office to prompt a public debate on issues of prostitution
and sexual exploitation in England and Wales. A similar document
has been produced by the Scottish Executive called, “Being
Outside”. Both documents also address issues in relation to
children and prostitution. Nothing similar has been produced in
Northern Ireland. While Barnardo’s has undertaken action research
in this area, this is only within the Eastern Health and Social
Services Board area. The hidden nature of child prostitution means
that its extent will only be acknowledged through Government carrying
out a large scale, detailed study on the topic. Profiling of those
who abuse and coerce children, links made via the internet, trafficking
and children going missing should be included in this study. The
Committee also stated that the Government should implement international
commitments in relation to the sexual exploitation of children (para
58d). The Department of Health produced a, “National Plan
for Safeguarding Children from Commercial Sexual Exploitation”
in 2001, which focuses on children who are induced or coerced into
unlawful sexual activities for the commercial advantage of others
and explains what the Government and its partner agencies are doing
to protect these very vulnerable children. The Northern Ireland
administration was a signatory to this and undertook to produce
an individual plan setting out how it was dealing with this issue.
This has not happened to date and there is no reference to the sexual
exploitation of children in the Children’s Strategy. We recommend
that further actions which commit to undertaking a study on child
prostitution and taking real action on the sexual exploitation of
children be included in the Children’s Strategy as recommended
by the UNCRC Committee.
Poverty
The UNCRC Committee urged the Government to take all necessary measures
to the maximum extent of available resources to accelerate the elimination
of child poverty.(para 46a) The NICCY research argued that poverty
is a major obstacle in preventing children and young people from
asserting their rights. We are aware that OFMDFM’s Public
Service Agreement 2005-08 includes a target of halving the number
of children in low income households between 1998-99 and 2010-11
and are somewhat surprised to find that this has been omitted from
the draft Strategy, given that a many of the actions which Government
are already committed to have been included. This target is much
more measurable and meaningful to the lives of those children living
in poverty in comparison to the draft actions and associated indicators
in this section of the draft Children’s Strategy, which concentrates
solely on the effects, rather than the cause of child poverty. Currently
in Northern Ireland 32,000 (8%) children are living in severe poverty,
with 38% of our children identified as deprived of one or more child
necessities. (Save the Children) It is essential that tackling child
poverty is a central issue within the Government’s anti-poverty
strategy and the Children and Young People’s Strategy and
also that these strategies focus on the needs and rights of those
children and families who are most at risk of severe and persistent
poverty.
One of the draft actions in this section refers to the simplification
and awareness raising of the routes to financial support for families
with low incomes. While there is merit in this action, we would
advocate that Government goes further and addresses inadequate levels
of benefit provision for low income families. Government policies
must provide a sufficient standard of living to ensure that families
with children can provide them with the basic necessities and also
that children do not suffer social exclusion as a result of lack
of income or hidden poverty.
Related to this is another area which has been omitted from the
draft Strategy, social security provision for young people in their
own right. The Children’s Strategy should address the fact
that young people aged 16 and 17 have no automatic right to social
security benefits and also receive a lower level of income support
and jobseekers allowance than adults over 25, regardless of the
fact that they may be living independently. This is clearly a contributing
factor to child poverty and we recommend that the Government take
account of the UNCRC Committee recommendation in aiming to address
the issue of child poverty which states that the Government should
review its legislation and policies concerning benefits and social
security allowances for 16 to 18 year olds. (para 46c)
While we recognise the need for education and training in the multi-dimensional
aspects and consequences of poverty, we would urge the Government
to take stronger affirmative action in addressing child poverty
in Northern Ireland. The consideration of issues impacting on and
associated with child poverty as proposed by the consultation document,
“New TSN – the way forward – towards and anti-poverty
strategy” is a worthwhile action. However, we have a number
of concerns with regard to the lack of child focus in this consultation
document and stress the very real need to take a child centred approach
in formulating an Anti-Poverty Strategy, within the Children’s
Strategy which will make a real and lasting difference to the lives
of children living below the poverty line.
Page 70 sees the first mention of Travellers and homeless young
people in the draft Strategy. We strongly believe that children
in these marginalised groups should have a much higher profile mainstreamed
into the main body of the Children’s Strategy. The draft action
refers to, “assessing the quality of accommodation,”
rather than improving, increasing access to or provision. This is
very disappointing in light of the fact that the Northern Ireland
Housing Executive has been conducting a Housing Conditions Survey
every five years in Northern Ireland since 1974, the results of
which are available on the Housing Executive's website.
A Government which tolerates homeless children is clearly in breach
of Articles 6 – the child’s right to maximum survival
and development and 27 – the child’s right to an adequate
standard of living, of the UNCRC. The NICCY research highlights
the impact of homelessness on the whole child or young person and
quotes Shelter stating,
“The impact of homelessness on children and young people goes
way beyond the simple absence of appropriate housing: it affects
their education, job prospects, social life, relationships and self
esteem. Being homeless or living in poor housing can adversely affect
children and young people’ s mental health. The negative effects
of homelessness on children can have long term consequences for
their lives as adults, placing an individual at risk for life”
(NICCY research 2004 page 107)
The research details the knock on effects to health, education and
welfare and illustrates the dangers of homelessness for children
and young people. In relation to homeless children, the UNCRC Committee
urged the Government to better coordinate and reinforce its efforts
to address the causes of youth homelessness and its consequences.
(para 46b). We have to question the difference that this draft action
will make to the lives of homeless children. There is clearly a
need for urgent action by Government to address all the issues,
including the underlying causes of and means of eradication of youth
homelessness.
In respect of Travellers, there is a wealth of research which details
the extreme level of social exclusion and marginalisation faced
by the Travelling community. The draft Strategy aims to assess the
quality of Traveller sites and sets a time frame of between six
and seven years to do this. This comes at a time when the Government
has recently consulted on the Draft Unauthorised Encampments (Northern
Ireland) Order 2004, which aims to afford statutory powers to the
PSNI to remove and criminalise trespassers who have the intent of
residing on land, together with their vehicles and other property,
which will clearly have a disproportionate impact on Travellers.
In addition to this, there are serious concerns in relation to the
development of authorised transit sites based on statements made
by the DSD which seemed to highlight reservations in terms of the
availability of finance to enable a comprehensive programme of accommodation
within a defined timetable.
The UNCRC Committee stated that they were particularly concerned
about the continued denial of rights to Irish Traveller children
and highlighted the widespread discrimination against Irish Travellers
in all aspects of their lives. The Government was exhorted to draw
up and implement a comprehensive plan of action, in consultation
with Travellers and their children, to ensure that their rights
are secured (para 52). The Committee expressed particular concern
that not all children were being protected from discrimination and
highlighted the unequal enjoyment of economic, social and cultural,
civil and political rights for Irish Travellers (para 22).
In terms of socio-economic rights, the inter-dependence and indivisibility
of all rights is hugely apparent. Without basic rights, such as
the right to accommodation and flowing from this, the rights to
healthcare, social services and a healthy, sustainable environment,
children’s rights to participate and have their best interests
protected become meaningless. How does a Government, which continues
to fail in its responsibilities to Traveller children as detailed
in the UN Committee’s comments, expect a child without access
to the most basic amenities, living in fear of eviction and the
criminalisation of his or her family to participate in his or her
education?
The Government needs to make tangible commitments and take real
action to address the needs of Traveller and homeless young people.
Rather than carrying out an assessment of the situation over a seven
year period, the Government needs to eradicate youth homelessness
and immediately provide adequate, culturally appropriate accommodation
for Traveller children and their families.
We also note the commitment on behalf of the DHSSPS and DE to address
the barriers to services particularly in relation to health, social
services and education. There is no indication as to how these barriers
are to be addressed and in particular, there is no reference to
any specific actions which will be undertaken for particular groups
of people who experience greater difficulties with access to, for
example, health services and experience poorer health status, such
as Travellers and children with disabilities. The UNCRC Committee’s
concluding observations included a recommendation that the Government
should take all appropriate measures to reduce inequalities in health
and access to health services (para 42). This draft action does
not go far enough to ensure the required reduction in inequalities
in health provision. This draft action should be examined in further
detail to establish how the Government aims to fulfil the Committee’s
recommendation.
There is an assumption in the associated indicators of this section
that the sole measure of child poverty is household income. This
is not useful and does not address the issue of hidden poverty.
In measuring child poverty, account should also be taken of measures
of deprivation in accordance with level of household income. The
critical issue of debt must also be addressed in any meaningful
assessment of poverty. The associated indicators, as throughout
the document, are not child centred and do not indicate the impact
on the child’s life as a result of the draft actions that
Government is committing to undertake. This section, as with the
remainder of the document needs to shift its focus back onto the
child and what this draft Strategy will achieve in real terms for
our most vulnerable group in society, children and young people.
Additional Draft Actions relating to Cross-Cutting Themes
As previously stated, we do not agree that the needs of vulnerable
and ‘disaffected’ children are a cross-cutting theme,
but rather a central aspect to the main body of the Children’s
Strategy. We believe that the removal of vulnerable and/or disaffected
children from the five key areas for action and relegating them
to the section on additional cross-cutting themes fails to recognise
the multi-dimensional nature of children and young people and serves
only to further marginalise those children and young people who
are excluded and marginalised already.
One of the draft actions under the sub-heading of “Impact
of the Conflict” is building capacity within communities to
enable them to engage with and support families to address barriers
in the lives of children and young people such as the influence
of paramilitaries. The influence of non-state forces is an issue
of child protection and should be addressed in the protection section
of the Strategy. We are concerned at the assumption that the mechanism
to address the issue of non-state forces and their influence on
children and young people is one of community capacity building,
assuming by implication that it is the responsibilities of communities
to address the influence of non-state forces. The associated indicator
is the level of active citizenship within communities, which clearly
is difficult to measure and monitor.
Non-state violence and vigilante attacks concern a great number
of children and young people. Sixteen percent (205) of the children
and young people who took part in Youth@clc’s SOS research
felt that non-state and sectarian activity affected their lives.
The NICCY research identified the need for more research to inform
an understanding of the long term effects of political violence
on young people to aid a fuller understanding of the needs of young
people, with particular reference to the high rates of suicides
among young men in North Belfast. The Children’s Strategy
needs to further address the issue of non-state violence as a child
protection issue and offer real solutions to those children who
are affected by non-state forces in their lives.
One of the draft actions under the sub-heading of Additional Needs
refers to the removal of barriers to disabled children and young
people entering and remaining in mainstream schools and colleges.
We wish to seek clarification on what is intended by “barriers”
in the context of this draft action. We hope that this action refers
to all of the barriers, other than purely physical barriers, faced
by disabled children and young people in relation to mainstream
education and we would wish to see further information on how the
Department of Education and the Department of Employment and Learning
intend to remove these barriers.
We welcome the inclusion of the draft actions relating to the educational
needs of children and young people in this section of the document
and in the section on Provision – Achievement, learning and
enjoyment, but would suggest that this is an area which would merit
further associated draft actions relating to special educational
needs, such as the implementation of the Special Educational Needs
and Disability (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 (SENDO), implementation
of recommendations from the current review of suspension and expulsion
procedures, looked after children, school age mothers and children
in the youth justice system. Youth@clc also highlighted the need
for the examination and inclusion of alternative education provision
and pilot work-based education projects.
We note that one of the draft actions relates to the consideration
of how counselling services for pupils/ support for learning needs
/appropriate teacher training might be developed. The reality of
the need for counselling in schools is apparent by referring to
Youth@clc’s SOS report which found that a number of children
and young people taking part in the survey highlighted the need
for support mechanisms to be put in place to help them cope with
everyday life. Children and young people identified the need for
independent support to be placed in schools, and expressed a wish
for outside agencies being brought in for counselling, sex education
and complaint’s procedures. Some of the children and young
people stated that they could not or would not approach teachers
regarding sensitive issues, and that this lack of support left them
vulnerable to bullying, teenage pregnancy and other stresses in
their lives. Again we respectfully must query the impact that this
draft action will have on the lives of children and young people,
bearing in mind that the associated indicator is the production
of a report over a 3-6 year timeframe.
We welcome the commitment by the DHSSPS to develop an overarching
strategy for Children in Need. We are unsure about the areas that
this strategy will deal with as there is no definition of what constitutes
a ‘child in need’ The UNCRC Committee made a number
of recommendations in its concluding observations which may be of
relevance to a strategy for children in need, around the areas of
violence, refugee and asylum seeking children and looked after children.
The Committee recommended that a coordinated strategy for the reduction
of child deaths as a result of violence be developed and all forms
of violence against children be reduced (para 40b). While it is
unlikely that a strategy for children in need will contain a further
strategy to reduce child deaths and this aspect of the recommendation
should be dealt with additionally, there should surely be actions
contained in it to reduce all forms of violence against children.
The strategy for children in need may also be relevant to the Committee’s
concluding observation on ensuring consistent legislative safeguards
for looked after children, including those in foster care accommodation
(para 40c). As this is not addressed in the draft Children’s
Strategy we can only assume that it will be included in the strategy
for children in need. Likewise, the recommendations on undertaking
a large scale pubic education campaign to reduce child deaths and
child abuse (para 40d), the introduction of a system of child death
inquiries (para 40a), effective procedures to address instances
of child abuse and ill treatment (para 40e) and the provision of
care, recovery and integration of victims (para 40g) are not addressed
in the draft children’s strategy and must be addressed in
the strategy for children in need. We recommend that OFMDFM ensures
that the proposed strategy for children in need addresses the issues
of reduction of all forms of violence against children, ensures
consistent legislative safeguards for looked after children, commits
to undertake a large scale public education campaign to reduce child
deaths and child abuse, proposes the introduction of a system of
child death inquiries and effective procedures to deal with child
abuse and ill treatment and outlines methods of provision of care,
recovery and integration of victims; all areas which the Children’s
Strategy has not addressed. As mentioned previously, the removal
of refugee and asylum seeking children from the draft Children’s
Strategy is directly discriminatory and should be urgently rectified
through inclusion in both the Children’s strategy and the
strategy for children in need.
One of the draft actions in this section is the development of an
adoption strategy. The UNCRC Committee in its concluding observations
has recommended that all children, including adopted children should
have the right to obtain information on the identity of their parents.
We strongly encourage the DHSSPS, through involvement in the Children’s
Strategy, to address this concluding observation in the development
of this adoption strategy, which should also be included in the
Children’s Strategy.
Another draft action is the development of an action plan to identify
and remove barriers to children and young people from Traveller
communities who want to enter and remain in mainstream schools.
This is welcome and we stress the need, in identifying the barriers
to children and young people from Traveller communities in education,
that the barriers be as broadly examined as possible. The UNCRC
Committee expressed particular concern in relation to the continued
denial of rights to Irish Traveller children and highlighted the
widespread discrimination against Irish Travellers in all aspects
of their lives and highlighted the unequal enjoyment of economic,
social and cultural, civil and political rights for Irish Travellers
(para 22). As previously stated, in terms of socio-economic rights,
the inter-dependence and indivisibility of all rights is hugely
apparent. Meaningful participation in education cannot happen without
access to basic rights, such as the right to culturally adequate
accommodation and flowing from this, the rights to healthcare, social
services and a healthy, sustainable environment. The Government
must address all of these issues in order to ensure participation
by Traveller children. We also wish to point out that use of a satisfaction
survey of Traveller children and young people within the education
system as an associated indicator may not yield an accurate picture
of the needs of Traveller children and education. We believe that
this associated indicator should include Traveller children not
in the education system and address full-life experiences in order
to make a real and meaningful difference.
We also wish to seek further information on the draft action which
refers to the development of an attendance and inclusion strategy
for schools which deals with disaffected young people. It is unclear
which groups of children and young people that this draft action
seeks to address as there is no definition or information on who
might be considered to be disaffected. What is clear however is
that this draft action does not address young people in the youth
justice system. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission’s
report, “In Our Care” 2002 found that,
“Children have a right to an effective education. Education
for children in custody should be suited to their needs and abilities
and designed to prepare them for their return to society. Education
in the centres is inadequately resourced especially in relation
to children with learning disabilities.
NIO responsibility for education in the centres marginalises children
from mainstream education and can deprive teachers of vital training
and support. This responsibility should be passed to the Department
of Education. In the interim, contact between NIO and the Department
in respect of educating children in custody should be maximised.”
(Recommendations 37 and 38 Page 5)
International standards insist that education programmes are part
of the mainstream education system of the state. UN Rule 38, states
that children should be taught,
“...through programmes integrated with the education system
of the country so that, after release, juveniles may continue their
education without difficulty.” (UN Rules for the protection
of Juveniles deprived of their Liberty, 1990)
The draft Strategy fails to adequately address the needs of children
in the youth justice system in relation to education, health, including
mental health and more generally. We strongly recommend that OFMDFM
fully and adequately address the needs of children and young people
in the youth justice system in the final Children’s Strategy.
Under the draft action, completion of an inspection of services
to children with a disability, the associated indicator is the effectiveness
of arrangements. We wish to query how this will be measured as further
information has not been given. We also wish to emphasise the importance
of ensuring under the draft action relating to the provision of
support services for children and young people who have responsibilities,
that the associated indicator also measures the quality and availability
of support services, rather than simply the existence and take-up
of these services. We would also welcome further information on
what these ‘support services’ will entail.
Another of the draft actions in this section refers to the PSI reports
on Travellers and Homelessness and ensuring that the needs of children
and young people are reflected in their implementation. We have
some concerns in relation to this draft action given that the consultation
period for the PSI report on Homelessness ended on the 4th of February
2005 and consultation on the PSI report on Travellers was completed
in April 2001. While we welcome the intention to ensure that the
needs of children and young people are reflected in the implementation
of these reports, we feel that given the fact that these reports
have been already consulted on that further information on how this
will be carried out is necessary. Please note again our concerns
in relation to key actions in respect of children sitting with other
strategies and failure to indicate how their implementation will
be monitored within the Children’s Strategy.
Chapter 7 – Delivery and Monitoring: A Child Centred Whole
System Approach
Co-ordination across Government
There is a wider relevant concern in the Children’s Strategy
itself given that the actions of all Government departments’
impact on children's lives and all departments are involved in the
development and implementation of the Strategy. Co-ordination across
departments to ensure its effective implementation will be crucial.
This is an area which the UNCRC Committee, in its own words has,
“Almost invariably found it necessary to encourage further
co-ordination among central Government departments, among different
regions and provinces, between central and other levels of Government
and between Government and civil society”. (CRC/GC/2003/5
para. 37)
The UNCRC Committee recognises the complexity and multiplicity of
arrangements that exist across countries and for that reason refrains
from prescribing detailed arrangements for co-ordination. However
it does note that a specific department or unit, if given high level
sanction, can play a pivotal role in co-ordinating work across Government
departments on the implementation of children's rights. The Committee
in particular notes that such a unit,
“...can be given responsibility for developing the comprehensive
children’s strategy and monitoring its implementation, as
well as for coordinating reporting under the Convention”.
(CRC/GC/2003/5 para. 39)
In the context of the Children’s Strategy the CYPU would appear
to represent such a central co-ordinating unit. The draft Strategy
states at para 7.3.4 that,
“...overall responsibility for driving the Strategy forward,
and monitoring the departments’ delivery of it will rest with
the Children and Young People’s Unit”.
It also assigns responsibility for monitoring compliance of the
Northern Ireland administration with the UNCRC to the CYPU, recognising
that the Strategy will be the main mechanism for monitoring compliance
with the UNCRC. We believe that there is a need for greater clarity
regarding what this entails. Importantly, will other departments
have a reporting and accountability responsibility vis-a-vis the
CYPU? If not, how does the CYPU intend to monitor individual departments’
compliance with the UNCRC, and by extension, the Strategy? How will
the work of CYPU in Northern Ireland fit within the overall coordinating
role of Westminster’s Children Young People and Families Directorate
under the Department for Education and Skills? The UNCRC Committee
has highlighted the need for precision and transparency regarding
the function of a central coordinating unit;
“...(the Committee) recommends that one body with overall
responsibility for co-ordination be established with an adequate
and well defined mandate to perform its task effectively”.
(CRC/C/Add 240 paras 8-9)
Concern regarding the precise role of the CYPU was also raised in
the NICCY research,
“While the work of the CYPU is to be commended, there is a
concern that it is neither a statutory body and that its mandate
does not include the coordination between Government departments
of either the Convention’s implementation or service delivery”
(NICCY research 2004 page 9)
As such, the research notes
“it does not meet international standards as it does not have
the high level authority, influence or resources of an inter-departmental
statutory committee or a Minister for Children”.(NICCY research
2004 page 9)
We believe that the CYPU’s mandate should be clearly defined
to empower it to co-ordinate and monitor implementation across all
other Government departments and that the relationship between the
CYPU in Northern Ireland and the CYPFD in the DfES should be clearly
and publicly defined.
We also have a number of concerns relating to the Strategy Review
Panel, referenced at para 7.4. The role and purpose of the Strategy
Review Panel is not clearly defined and the potential for the implementation
of the Strategy to be independently monitored has not been recognised
in the draft Strategy. The Strategy Review Panel must have clear
terms of reference which specify its role in assessing and reviewing
progress on implementation and where necessary recommending remedial
action if the Strategy is failing to deliver on its commitments.
Mechanisms to include children and young people and their parents
in monitoring the implementation of the Strategy must be representative
and inclusive of all groups of children and young people and parents.
We welcome the involvement of the voluntary and community sector
in the Strategy Review Panel as they are well placed to carry out
independent monitoring of the Strategy, but are of the opinion that
greater clarity in relation to the powers and role of the panel
should be provided.
We wish to reiterate the need to develop a system of child rights
and child impact indicators. The development of a system of coherent,
rights based indicators must be a priority for the implementation
of the Strategy to ensure that accurate monitoring of progress and
an evaluation of impact in terms of advancing children’s rights
can take place.
The UK Government in its report to the UNCRC Committee in 2007 will
be obliged to provide a comprehensive picture of,
“...steps taken to develop mechanisms for the identification
and gathering of appropriate indicators, statistics, relevant research
and other relevant information as a basis for policy-making in the
field of children’s rights” (Guidelines for Periodic
Reports para 18).
Work must begin immediately on developing an integrated system of
child rights indicators while the Strategy is still being drafted.
These child rights indicators, which should include as a minimum
information on compliance with the general principles of the UNCRC,
should be adopted consistently across all departments and applied
to both the strategic draft actions in the Strategy as well as to
the over-arching Children and Young People’s Action Plan.
While we are aware of the constraints on Government’s resources,
the reference at para 7.9 to competing priorities for funding and
Government’s commitment to promoting equality of opportunity
across the nine section 75 categories fails to take into account
the multi–dimensional nature of the identities of children
and young people. This statement appears to attempt to justify greater
limits on available resources for children and young people. This
statement ignores the fact that resources are often targeted at
adult only populations and fails to take into consideration the
needs of all children and young people, particularly those with
specific multiple identities. We also must express our considerable
concern at the reference to further support which will be available
for the implementation of the Strategy through National Lottery
Funding which we note is contracting. This will in effect mean that
the Government will be competing with NGO’s for funding to
implement the Children’s Strategy. In light of this and Government’s
failure to ring-fence funding for the Children’s Strategy
in the draft budget and priorities, alongside indications that the
Children’s Fund is to be phased out means that we unfortunately
have to question the genuine commitment and political will to making
a real difference to the lives of children and young people in Northern
Ireland. We further note that Government have statutory responsibilities
in respect of delivering children’s rights at both the domestic
and international level which cannot be contingent on a successful
application for funding from the Big Lottery.
Political Responsibility and Oversight
The draft Strategy addresses ministerial responsibility within a
direct rule scenario only, indicating that during the period of
suspension, the NIO Minister of State will have responsibility for
developing and driving forward the Strategy. It does not deal with
this issue under a return to devolution. There would appear to be
considerable merit in the establishment of a Minister for Children,
not least in the ability of such a Minister to really put children’s
concerns at the heart of Government by greatly increasing their
ranking as a political priority. Support for such a post within
a Northern Ireland Executive was found to be strong by the NICCY
research team, with many interviewees supporting the recommendation
of a Minister for Children and Young People to ensure a cohesive
and strategic approach to children across all aspects of Government.
(NICCY research 2004 page 10) The researchers point to the existence
of similar ministerial posts in other jurisdictions including England,
Scotland, Republic of Ireland and many European countries.
Allied to the requirement for a Minister for Children there is need
for a mechanism to ensure wider political stewardship of the Strategy.
Within the Strategy there should be clear identification of responsibility
for delivery of the commitments contained therein, from Ministerial
level down giving clear accountability structures both under direct
rule and devolved Government. Detailed responsibility for delivery
of the Strategy at Executive, Ministerial and Departmental levels
should be included. There may also be a need to include accountability
structures at Departmental level such as through an inter-Departmental
working group. A political structure of accountability should be
included in the Strategy, which may entail placing responsibility
with the Northern Ireland Executive as a whole, but the implementation
being monitored by an appropriate Committee of the Assembly to monitor
progress and to review how effectively Government departments are
working together to deliver on the Strategy’s priorities.
By doing so, we feel that cross-cutting responsibility for the Strategy
would be strengthened. We also feel that it would be important in
the interests of transparency and partnership working that an independent
ongoing structure of monitoring is maintained, possibly along the
lines of the NGO Forum. The role of children and young people will
obviously be crucial in monitoring the Strategy and mechanisms to
include children and young people and their parents in monitoring
the implementation of the Strategy must be detailed.
Without such structures and mechanisms it is unlikely that the Children’s
Strategy will meet international standards in relation to implementation
of the Convention standards via the Children’s Strategy; such
was the early assessment of the QUB research team
“ It is clear that in its current form the strategy does not
envisage the establishment of a central co-ordinating authority,
a Minister for Children or a statutory Assembly Committee with the
powers and resources to co-ordinate and monitor implementation of
the Convention, raising serious concerns that the lack of structures
in this area does not meet international standards”
We strongly believe that the Children’s Strategy should contain
a firm commitment to establish both a Minister for Children and
a statutory Assembly Committee on Children.
In terms of reporting in relation to the monitoring process (para
7.9), we are concerned that a biennial report runs contrary to the
UNCRC Committee recommendations and the spirit of section 75 of
the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The UNCRC Committee suggests that
reports which offer a comprehensive overview of the state of children's
rights, which we assume the CYPU’s reports will, be produced
annually.(CRC/GC/2003/5). Section 75 places an obligation on Government
to put in place annual monitoring systems to determine if policies
are having an adverse impact on any of the nine equality categories,
one of which is children and young people, and the need to promote
greater equality of opportunity. In addition, we believe that frequent
monitoring is essential in order to establish areas which need to
be reviewed or further progress made and to ensure that where remedial
action is necessary it is taken quickly and effectively.
Chapter 8 – Assessments in Relation to Equality and Good Relations,
New TSN, Human Rights and Rural Proofing
We appreciate that the full impact of the Children’s Strategy
in terms of section 75 will only be able to be assessed once departmental
action plans to deliver on the objectives and actions are established
and we welcome the commitment to carry out screening exercises and
full equality impact assessments. In terms of consideration of available
data and research (para 8.25), the lack of a complete picture in
relation to children and young people is rightly acknowledged. We
note that it is stated that the, “...strategy itself will
seek to identify and address the gaps in information available.”
We believe that the issue in relation to the availability of data
and research is not one which will be adequately addressed by simply
plugging the gaps and that the inadequacies of existing data must
also be addressed. There is a need to prioritise the setting up
of systems for disaggregated data collection. The UNCRC Committee
recommended that the UK establish a nationwide system whereby disaggregated
data are collected on all persons under 18 years of age for all
areas covered by the UNCRC and that these data be used to assess
policies and progress to implement the UNCRC. (CRC/C/Add.188. para
49)
While the draft Strategy claims to be inclusive and fair in the
assessment of impacts, recognising the diverse range of ‘races,
cultures and lifestyles and experiences of children and young people’,
we have a number of concerns in relation to this claim. As already
stated, inconsistencies exist in the application of the draft Strategy
to all children and young people. This is particularly obvious in
the Strategy’s failure to address the needs of refugee and
asylum seeking children and young people, the lack of any specific
actions relating to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered young
people and the extremely limited reference made to children who
are carers and to children and young people in the youth justice
system.
The removal of vulnerable and/or disaffected children from the central
body of the Strategy to the section on additional cross-cutting
themes fails to recognise the multi-faceted nature of children and
young people and serves only to further marginalise those children
and young people who are excluded and marginalised already. The
additional needs of vulnerable and marginalised groups of children
should be mainstreamed into the body of the document in order to
be as inclusive as possible.
It is stated that a number of the indicative actions in the draft
Strategy would have a positive impact in relation to equality and
a number of examples are given. The first example is ensuring that
education curricula reflect statutory obligations and rights in
relation to equality and diversity. Young people in the youth justice
system have no established legal entitlement to be taught within
the Northern Ireland Curriculum, which may give rise to claims of
discrimination. As a result, this example will not have a positive
impact in relation to equality on children in the youth justice
system. Another example of the positive equality impact is the inclusion
of children and young people in the preparation of user-friendly
targeted information. This is welcome, but gives no detail about
how the voices of marginalised children and young people will be
heard. Representative inclusion is absolutely necessary and while
we recognise the difficulties in relation to ensuring that marginalised
children can meaningfully participate, it is fundamental in the
promotion of equality of opportunity and participation and compliance
with the UNCRC.
Under the heading of disability, reference is made to the Strategy
focusing on the promotion of the implementation of the UNCRC, resulting
in it having a differential positive impact on children and young
people with disabilities as a result of Article 23 of the UNCRC.
The draft Strategy is disappointing in that it does not aim to be
the implementation plan for the UNCRC as previously expected. OFMDFM
cannot claim that the Strategy will have a positive impact on children
with disabilities as a result of Article 23 of the Convention without
providing the mechanism for its implementation.
In the section under people with/ without dependants, the claim
is made that the Strategy will have a positive impact on children
and young people who are carers or who have dependants. There is
no reason given in explanation as to how the Strategy will have
a positive impact on carers or those with dependants. We wish to
have more information on why OFMDFM believes that this will be the
case. The Strategy also claims that it, “may have a positive
impact”, in relation to lone parent households through raising
awareness of existing family support and development of a family
support strategy. No explicit reference is made to young people
who are parents and the provisions contained within it which will
have a positive impact on their lives.
In looking at religious belief, the assumption is made that the
religious belief of a child can make them vulnerable to bullying.
The section in the draft actions which deals with bullying does
state that there will be a review of the anti-bullying strategy,
but does not make reference to religious belief. In relation to
the Strategy’s aim to tackle barriers, as a result of religious
belief, to accessing services, we would be grateful for information
on where this is addressed in the Strategy as it is not immediately
obvious which section this refers to. In relation to political opinion,
we recognise that there is very little available data, but would
stress that the impact of the conflict and tackling sectarianism
are not the same as information on the political opinions of children
and young people.
In relation to racial group, we feel that the omission of refugee
and asylum seeking children, no explicit reference to children of
migrant workers and their specific needs and the failure to address
a large number of issues in relation to Traveller children will
have a negative differential impact. While reference is made in
the draft Children’s Strategy to the long awaited Racial Equality
Strategy, we cannot make informed comment on the level of the focus
on the needs of children and young people contained within it without
having access to the document itself.
It is accepted that there may be a differential impact on grounds
of gender due to the different experiences of boys and girls in
relation to educational attainment and involvement in the youth
justice system. We agree with this and express concern that issues
in relation to gender have been dealt with under the draft actions
which ensure that the needs and rights of children and young people
are reflected in the implementation of the Gender Strategy. As previously
stated, the Gender Strategy does not have an adequate focus on the
rights and needs of children and young people.
Again, under the category of sexual orientation, the assumption
is made that the Strategy will have a positive impact as a result
of the review of the anti-bullying strategy. Homophobic bullying
is not addressed by the draft Children’s Strategy and at no
stage is it explicitly mentioned. There are a much broader range
of issues in relation to sexual orientation which have not been
addressed and the fact that there are no specific actions relating
to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered young people is extremely
disappointing and may result in the Strategy having a negative differential
impact on grounds of sexual orientation.
We also wish to draw attention to question 35 asked in the draft
Strategy consultation. While the Strategy has addressed each of
the section 75 categories in terms of possible differential impact,
the question excludes marital status, religion and sexual orientation.
This question is clearly leading in nature and makes undue assumptions
which we strongly disagree with. There are clearly equality impact
issues in relation to these areas also and feel that excluding further
examination of the experiences of children and young people in these
three categories serves only to further marginalise already marginalised
groups of children and young people. In addition, in complying with
section 75, OFMDFM must assess the impact on equality of opportunity
of children and young people on these three grounds also and we
wish to see greater regard attributed to these categories.
Similarly, we wish to draw attention to the information contained
in Annex 6 of the consultation document, under the heading sexual
orientation. This information comes from a survey into sexual attitudes
and lifestyles of young people aged between 14 and 25, carried out
by the University of Ulster and the Family Planning Association.
In relation to the information used at this section of the draft
Strategy, we do not feel that the best way to illustrate information
on sexual orientation is to quote how many children and young people
felt that sex between two people of the same sex is wrong. This
is a selective quote to use in the Children’s Strategy and
it serves no informative purpose in relation to sexual orientation.
We feel that this should be removed immediately and are very concerned
at its inclusion which serves only to perpetuate the extremely damaging
notion that homosexuality is ‘wrong’. While the Strategy
does briefly address each of the section 75 categories in terms
of possible differential impact, Question 35 refers to the main
equality impacts of the strategy and excludes marital status, religion
and sexual orientation. There are clearly equality impact issues
in relation to these section 75 categories and in excluding further
examination of the experiences of children and young people in these
three categories serves only to further marginalise already marginalised
groups of children and young people. Equal weight must be attributed
to all the nine groups detailed in section 75 in carrying out an
equality impact assessment.
Conclusion
The Children’s Law Centre is grateful to have the opportunity
to comment on OFMDFM’s Draft Children’s Strategy. We
hope that our comments have been constructive and useful to OFMDFM
and are more than happy to meet with OFMDFM staff to discuss anything
in this response. We wish to be kept fully informed of progress
in the development of the OFMDFM Draft Children’s Strategy
and look forward to the issues raised and recommendations made in
this response being addressed, taken forward by OFMDFM and hearing
from OFMDFM in the near future. We also look forward to receiving
your response to the questions we have asked in the response and
receiving the additional information requested.
Appendix 1 The UNCRC Committee’s Recommendations and Concluding
Observations 2002
|
|
home
» members » equality
