JCHR Inquiry - The UK's compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

Transcription

1 JCHR Inquiry - The UK's compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Introduction Further submission written evidence from The Children s Society March 2015 We greatly welcome this inquiry by the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) into the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). We strongly endorse the previous calls of the Committee to incorporate the Convention into domestic law. This would mean provisions of the UNCRC could be directly invoked before the courts and applied by authorities and the Convention would prevail where there was a conflict with domestic legislation or common practice. The Children s Society believes that rights should be the basis for achieving better outcomes in the lives of children. We were grateful that our Policy Adviser Natalie Williams was invited to give oral evidence to the Committee on 11 th February This further submission sets out our key priorities for the Committee in writing. The Children's Society is a leading national charity, driven by the belief that every child deserves a good childhood. We provide vital help to the most vulnerable children, young people and families in our society through a range of services. We support at least 23,000 children and young people every year nationally. Through our policy and research, we seek to influence public policy and practice as well as changing attitudes and perceptions of young people at all levels to enable all children to have a better chance in life. We believe in achieving a better childhood for every child but have a particular focus on children who have nowhere else to turn, such as children living in poverty, young refugees, children at risk on the streets, disabled children and children in trouble with the law. We seek to give a voice to children and young people. Areas of improved compliance with the UNCRC Improvements for trafficked children within the Modern Slavery Bill The UK has made some notable progress in protecting and supporting child victims of trafficking through the Modern Slavery Bill 2015 which strengthens their compliance with articles 32, 34, 35, and 36 of the UNCRC which relate to exploitation and trafficking. We greatly welcome the enabling provision in the Bill for the introduction of child trafficking advocates dependent on the outcome of the trials which finish in September 2015 and the recent extension to give these advocates legal powers. However, we have long campaigned and believe that child trafficking advocates should be extended to all separated children. We urge future governments to ensure this clause is implemented which go some way towards ensuring the UK is compliant with the UN Committee s recommendation in its 2008 report for all separated children to be allocated a guardian. childrenssociety.org.uk 13 March

2 A reduction in child detention The Children s Society led the Outcry campaign to end child detention in 2010 so we therefore welcome the reduction in child detention but are hugely disappointed that children are still being detained for immigration reasons and are not satisfied this is being used a last resort. The latest figures show that 228 children were detained in Children are also being separated from their families in order to ensure the family s arrest and return which is breach of article 9 of the UNCRC. 2 In response to Freedom of Information requests, the Homes Office could not tell us how many are treated in this way or provide statistics on why children are being detained. The Home Office also do not publish full statistics on where children are being held under immigration powers. The government should only detain children for the shortest appropriate period of time and only as a last resort as set out in article 37b of the UNCRC. The government should also publish statistics on where children are being detained under Immigration Act 2014 powers and being separated from their families. Free school meals We are delighted by the government s decision to provide Free School Meals to all infant school children after campaigning by The Children s Society this will mean that around 200,000 more children in poverty receive a free school meal. This is important for the government s compliance with both article 28 on education and article 24 on health of the UNCRC. However, more than half a million children in poverty will still not be eligible to receive a free school meal. We would like the government to go further and provide a free school meal to all children living in poverty this would be to all families with children above year 2 and include those in low income working families. Areas of breach with the UNCRC Refugee and migrant children ROC (14-15) 024 We were delighted by the government s decision to finally remove the UNCRC reservation for children subject to immigration control in 2009 and the introduction of the statutory duty under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 for the Home Office to safeguard and promote children s welfare. However, we know from our work with refugee and migrant children that this is not always being adhered to and clear inequalities still persist for refugee children s rights. In fact, we believe that the rights of refugee and migrant children has regressed and there have been number of clear breaches of the Convention over last 5 years. Asylum-seeking children and child refugees are entitled to special protection as well as all the other rights in the UNCRC under article 22 of the convention but we find too often that immigration concerns are given priority over the best interests of the child in immigration decision-making and their care and support. We believe that all children and young people, regardless of their immigration status or nationality, should be kept safe and that their best interests should be put first. This includes making sure they can access health care, housing, education, legal advice, enjoy their right to family and private life, and have a standard of living that meets all their developmental needs. Although the government s obligations towards children under domestic and international law extend to every child without discrimination, we continue to see unfair treatment of unaccompanied children on the basis of their immigration status or where they come from. The lack of oversight from the Department for Education (DfE) as the department with responsibility for the welfare and safeguarding children is also a fundamental barrier to ensuring refugee and migrant children s rights are adhered to and do not deteriorate. The responsibility and development of policy for this group of children should be led by the DFE, not the Home Office who are the department responsible for immigration control. Recommendation: In addition, we agree with JCHR s recommendation in their inquiry into unaccompanied children that there is a need for a clear cross-government strategy to be developed to safeguard and support unaccompanied migrant children and ensure the UK is 1 Immigration statistics Detention Q tables /immigration-statistics-july-to-september-2014#detention-1 2 Home Office Visa and immigration operational guidance: chapter 45 Families and Children. Section (b) Family returns process operational guidance p.32 childrenssociety.org.uk 13 March

3 compliant with the rights set out in the UNCRC for these children. The DfE should be given responsibility for the welfare of unaccompanied migrant children. We believe the UK has deteriorated in its treatment of refugee and migrant children in the following four areas: 1. Removal of immigration legal aid The Legal Aid, Punishment of Offenders and Sentencing Act 2012 removed immigration from legal aid in April 2013 for children. This is in direct breach of article 3, which states that children have the right to have their best interests treated as a primary consideration in all actions that affect them; and, in particular, article 12, which states that children shall be provided with the opportunity to be heard in any administrative and judicial proceedings. The government s Fifth Periodic Report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child 3 does not mention taking legal aid of scope of immigration in its section on legal aid and states that legal aid is available to support those people, including children, who really need it. We would argue that leaving vulnerable separated children with no option but to pay to regularise their immigration status is not compatible with the UNCRC and is very regressive in relation to children s rights. Legal aid is already only available to those who cannot afford to pay for legal advice and representation. It provides vital help to some of the most vulnerable children and young people to navigate our complex legal system when they need it most and where other methods of resolution have not worked. These changes are preventing some of the most vulnerable children, here on their own in the UK, from seeking and obtaining justice. We believe the impact assessment that was conducted on the Bill was wholly inadequate and did not give adequate consideration to the impact on children and young people or their rights under domestic and international legislation. We also believe that the changes are in conflict with the government s obligations to children and young people in relation to the child-friendly justice guidelines adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in These guidelines apply to all domestic courts and tribunals, and aim to ensure that in legal proceedings, the rights of children, including the rights to information, representation, participation and protection, are fully respected. 4 We are hugely disappointed to note that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has recently admitted it has abandoned a review of access to justice for children promised by the Minister of State for Justice and Civil Liberties, Simon Hughes previously announced in September We believe that the review should be reinstated with immediate effect. This is also echoed by the Justice Committee s recent report into the impact of changes to civil legal aid which recommended that the Ministry of Justice review the impact on children's rights of the legal aid changes and consider how to ensure separated and trafficked children in particular are able to access legal assistance. 5 Furthermore, the exceptional funding scheme that the government argued was meant to protect these children has been shown to be not fit for purpose. During the passage of the Bill through Parliament, the MoJ estimated around 3,700 cases would be granted but the latest figures from the Legal Aid Agency show that only 3 were granted for children. 6 We are aware from our practice that these cuts are leaving children without access to quality legal advice, going unrepresented in court and having no option but to put themselves at risk of exploitation to afford the legal fees. We are currently conducting research into this with the University of Bedfordshire and findings will be released in summer The Fifth Periodic Report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child HM Government, London 4 Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on child friendly justice, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 17 November 2010, at the 1098th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies, available at: House of Commons Justice Committee Eighth Report of Session Impact of changes to civil legal aid under Part 1 of Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act HM Government, London 6 Written parliamentary answers by Shailesh Vara MP on 10/02/15 in response to PQs , , and childrenssociety.org.uk 13 March

4 We have found that this is impacting in particular on children in several situations. Children with mixed immigration and asylum cases; many children who claimed asylum and whose leave ran out at 17.5 will also have an immigration claim. Others will have a clear claim under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) because they have established a private and family life here and the UK is the only home they know. These children may have been separated from their original care givers as illustrated by this case study due to child protection issues, domestic violence, death or family breakdown. Case study G came from Pakistan to the UK, with his mother, when he was 12 in His mother abandoned him, and for a year he was homeless and was forced into child labour. He eventually came into contact with social services and later The Children s Society referred him to a solicitor who found he had no grounds for asylum and lodged a human rights application for leave to remain. Within a year, he was granted indefinite leave to remain. G s circumstances meant that it was in his best interest to apply for naturalisation and remain in the UK. Now G would not have access to legal aid because it has because cut for non- asylum grounds. Other vulnerable children suffering from a lack of legal aid are trafficked children who do not have an asylum claim who are not referred to the NRM (National Referral Mechanism) or may have not been identified and/or referred to the NRM by a first responder as well as trafficked children who are involved in the NRM prior to any positive reasonable grounds decision. This is particularly concerning as according to the government s own data, 65% of victims of trafficking are not referred to the NRM. 7 This issue has been raised through amendments in the Modern Slavery Bill 2015 and we note the government has stated that in a pilot of the new model NRM, legal aid will be available from the moment of referral, as this is the point at which the reasonable grounds decision will be made in the new model. 8 Children who potentially have been trafficked but who have received a negative reasonable grounds decision will also not be able to appeal their decision. This severely limits children s right of redress and is of particular concern given the government s acknowledgement of the need for improvement of indicators of trafficking by NRM decision makers. A final category of children that we are concerned about affected by these changes are age-disputed children and young people in immigration detention who will be unable to challenge the underlying immigration grounds of their detention. In 2013, the Refugee Council found more than 40 children and young people in the adult detention estate in 2013 were wrongly assessed as adults. Of the young people released, 12 were under the age of 16, with two under the age of 15. We agree with the Refugee Council that this figure is the tip of the iceberg, with more cases of children being wrongly detained going unreported and unchallenged. 9 Recommendation: Immigration legal aid should be restored for immigration for all children and the government s abandoned review of legal aid should be reinstated in line with the Justice Committee s recommendation to consider how to ensure separated and trafficked children in particular are able to access legal assistance. 2. The Residence Test We believe that the Residence Test the government are trying to introduce is in clear breach of the UNCRC. It is not compliant with articles 3 and 12 and in particular article 2 on non- discrimination. The government s report to the Committee states that they took account of the views raised by consultees, including children's rights NGOs, and are satisfied that they are compatible with the UNCRC. We strongly disagree. 7 UKHTC A Strategic Assessment on the Nature and Scale of Human Trafficking in SOCA, London /file 8 HL Deb, Modern Slavery Bill Report, 25 February 2015, CW Children are still held in adult detention centres despite Coalition pledges to end the practice, The Independent, accessed 12/03/15 childrenssociety.org.uk 13 March

5 The case was found unlawful in the court of appeal 10 but the government are planning an appeal for July We echo the concerns of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that applying the residence test to children would be unlawful and are concerned about the lack of clarity of exemptions from the test for victims of trafficking, undocumented and unaccompanied children. 12 The government response to the test claims that the best interests of the child have been a primary consideration in the development of the residence test. We disagree on a number of counts. We also disagree with the government s statement that where any individual was unable to access civil legal aid as a result of the residence test, they would be entitled to apply for exceptional funding. As mentioned above, evidence shows the exceptional funding scheme is clearly not working as envisaged. 13 From our experience, the introduction of a Residence Test would risk vulnerable children and young people being denied support if they were unable to produce the required documentation as many undocumented children or even British children will be unable to do.we believe the government s exemptions to the test are arbitrary and are hugely concerned that the test would result thousands of vulnerable children being unable to seek and obtain justice, leaving them at risk of destitution, homelessness, exploitation and abuse. We also strongly disagree with the government that children will be capable of representing themselves in legal proceedings in which their best interests are at stake, as they may be able to access a litigation friend. From our experience, this is clearly not the case. Furthermore, litigation friends are not available in the immigration court. The Justice Committee has also stated that the residence test is likely to save very little from the civil legal aid budget and would potentially bar some highly vulnerable people from legal assistance in accessing the courts. The test would withdraw protection from many very vulnerable undocumented migrant children and young people that we work with because despite some concessions, many cases relating to the care, supervision and protection of children will still be exempt from the test. Primarily judicial reviews for child in need cases (Section 17 of the Children Act 1989) relating to the additional care needs of a disabled child or support needs for homeless families, will not be covered. Equally cases where an unaccompanied child is homeless and needs to challenge the local authority to provide them with appropriate accommodation, support, care and supervision (Section 20 of the Children Act 1989) will not be protected. Such cases are very common in our experience. The test would also withdraw legal protection from many trafficked children we work with who would fail the test because the exemptions for trafficking victims who have been identified are very narrow. Where a trafficked child, totally alone in the UK, is unable to get the support they need from the local authority in whose care they are, or is wrongly accused of lying about their age, they would be cut off from access to the courts. Crucially this also means that a child victim would also get no legal aid to challenge a wrong decision about their status as a victim. We are also concerned that unaccompanied children who have not been granted asylum but have been granted limited leave to remain (which is the majority of these children) are not exempt from the residence test. In particular we are concerned about what would happen in relation to judicial reviews needed in such situations, for example if social services unlawfully dispute a child s age during this time which is very common in our experience. Case study ROC (14-15) 024 P is a young Kurd who came to the UK alone from Iran to seek protection. His asylum claim was rejected just before his 18th birthday and six months later social services stopped his support. P was told to go 10 R (Public Law Project) v Secretary of State for Justice [2014] EWHV 2356 (Admin) 11 House of Commons Justice Committee Eighth Report of Session Impact of changes to civil legal aid under Part 1 of Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legal aid, children and the residence test (1st Report, Session , HL Paper 14/HC 234) 13 Ministry of Justice Government response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights Legal aid: children and the residence test. September HM Government, London childrenssociety.org.uk 13 March

6 back to Iran and effectively evicted from his house by the police who broke into his house while he was out, required him to come to the police station and then prevented him from returning home. P was made homeless for 9 months, during which time he slept on buses, in mosques and with friends, sometimes eating once a day or not at all, regularly experiencing violence and abuse on the streets and ultimately trying to commit suicide more than once. Eventually, he was supported in getting legal assistance to challenge the local authority s refusal to rehouse him and was successful in getting rehoused. Under the residence test, however, P would not have been able to obtain the legal aid necessary to challenge the local authority s decision as he was unable to get any documentation as an Iranian national in the UK due to the lack of an embassy in the UK and P s inability to return to Iran. We also remain unconvinced that the government s second justification, that individuals should have a strong connection to the United Kingdom to benefit from the civil legal aid scheme, can be applied fairly to children. As stated by the JCHR, children cannot be argued to have chosen to make the United Kingdom their home, nor can they be expected to make a contribution to the UK, whether by paying tax or otherwise. We agree that this policy justification cannot be applied to children and believe that all children fall into the category of potentially vulnerable. Recommendation: The government should abandon the Residence Test as this is clearly in contravention with the UNCRC. 3. Implications of the Immigration Act 2014 We believe the Immigration Act 2014 is another regressive step in terms of breaching migrant children s rights. The Act has had significant detrimental consequences for children, including many who are British citizens and in particular the 120, 000 undocumented children in the UK. The Act contravenes a number of articles in the UNCRC particularly Article 2 which states that children should not be discriminated against. The government did not conduct a child rights impact assessment despite its commitment to doing so in In particular we are concerned about undocumented children s access to vital services such as healthcare. Access to health care The restrictions set out in this Act to charge for primary healthcare for undocumented migrant children breach article 24 of the UNCRC which states all children have the right to be as healthy as they can be and to access health services. The last report from the Committee on the Rights of the child recommended that government should reduce inequality in access to health services but in fact this Act has done the opposite. It should be noted that the Department of Health have recently announced that the extension of charging to primary and A&E care (phase 4) has been de-prioritised in order to focus on phases 1-3. Any extension of charging to these areas will be subject to a further consultation, which is not likely to take place before the autumn of Nevertheless we believe it is important to ensure these changes are not implemented whoever forms the next Government. Undocumented migrant children are one of the most vulnerable groups in the UK. Despite this however, many are already required to pay for some of the secondary healthcare they receive from the NHS in England. This has a number of knock on effects, and in addition to threatening the health and wellbeing of the child also poses risks to public health, NHS finances, and child protection and safeguarding. We strongly believe that children and young people should be exempt from all charging for healthcare. As well as creating barriers to healthcare, there are significant ethical and moral concerns about migrant children and young people being charged for healthcare. The large majority of these children were either born in the UK or moved here at an early age. Although current legislation allows migrant children to access primary care and emergency services without hindrance, our experience shows that many are facing barriers which can leave them in an extremely vulnerable position not only considering their short term health needs but also their long term wellbeing. Reducing access to healthcare for children has a number of implications: ROC (14-15) 024 childrenssociety.org.uk 13 March

7 Public health - Ultimately, the effect of these barriers is the very real risk that people with infectious diseases do not access healthcare. Even with a very clear exemption for infectious diseases, a lack of understanding about this exemption can prevent people from attending, and even for those who do understand, for many they will simply not know what is wrong with them. Duty to safeguard - The Home Secretary has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. Where children are not attending healthcare services, this creates a significant challenge for professionals who are trained to be aware of possible safeguarding concerns and means that child protection concerns may be missed. Missing child abuse via A& E - The planned charges for A and E create further concern in this area. It is estimated that up to 1% of A&E attendances for injury are related to abuse or neglect. Child abuse is also more likely to be identified via presenting to a healthcare professional (not necessarily related to maltreatment) making all healthcare access points incredibly important for child protection. Trafficked children - Concerns around safeguarding are particularly relevant with regard to trafficking and sexual exploitation of children. Although trafficking is a risk for all children in the context of migration, children from minority groups or who are undocumented are particularly vulnerable to being trafficked. Our research found that GPs were vital for identifying the signs of trafficking in children that might otherwise remain hidden. 14 Recommendation: Children should be exempt from any charging for healthcare. We urge the government not to implement these forthcoming proposals. 4. Durable solution The Children s Society is very concerned that is no durable solution in a child s best interests for separated migrant children in the UK. General Comment number 6 states that The ultimate aim in addressing the fate of unaccompanied or separated children is to identify a durable solution that addresses all their protection needs, takes into account the child s view and, wherever possible, leads to overcoming the situation of a child being unaccompanied or separated. 15 The temporary form of UASC (Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children) Leave (previously Discretionary Leave) which is given to the majority of separated children until they are 17.5 or for 30 months, whichever is shorter means they are not being given a durable solution. According to Home Office statistics from 2006 to 2014, only 25% of children received refugee status and 57% of children received UASC or discretionary leave. However this number has risen slightly in 2014, 41% received refugee status with a similar number (42%) receiving UASC leave. 16 This form of leave also means they are not always able to access health care, housing, education, legal advice, enjoy their right to family and private life, and have a standard of living that meets all their developmental needs as they grow into adults. The JCHR 17 has also highlighted the shortcomings in grants of temporary leave stating that: Discretionary leave to remain is used too readily at the expense of properly considering other options, such as asylum, which hinders access to further education and to the labour market in adulthood. The government should ensure that all unaccompanied migrant children have asylum claims evaluated fully, have decisions made about their future on robust evidence as early as possible, and are able to appeal decisions that are made regardless of their leave period. The exploration of a durable solution that is in a child s best interests would facilitate a better transition into adulthood and would enable them to return home to their country of origin voluntarily when they were ready to do so and when it was safe. This would create much-needed stability for young people at a crucial time in their life, and would likely have a positive impact on their mental health and well-being. 14 Wirtz, L, Hidden children- Separated children at risk The Children s Society, London 15 UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), CRC General Comment No. 6 (2005): Treatment of Unaccompanied and Separated Children Outside their Country of Origin, 1 September 2005, CRC/GC/2005/6, available at: 16 Home Office Immigration statistics, Initial decisions on asylum applications from Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children, excluding dependants, by sex and age at initial decision ( ) 17 House of Lords House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights Human Rights of unaccompanied migrant children and young people in the UK First Report of Session June HM Government, London childrenssociety.org.uk 13 March

8 The lack of a durable solution is also hampered by a lack of formal Best Interests Determination and Assessment for children subject to immigration control. Safe & Sound, a recent toolkit by UNHCR and UNICEF highlights that assessing a child s best interests and therefore how this informs a durable solution needs to be more broadly and holistically considered than just within the context of considering a child s immigration status. 18 We endorse the JCHR s call for an evaluation of the case for the establishment of a formal Best Interests Determination. In response to the Committee s comments, in February 2014, the government agreed to consider the case for establishing a Best Interests Determination process in the context of the existing immigration and asylum process but as yet they have not done this. 19 Recommendations: Children s long-term legal status and stability should be resolved as soon as it is possible to do so, and every immigration case should include a case-specific consideration of the welfare of the child concerned when making the decision on whether to grant limited or indefinite leave to remain, not a prescriptive reliance on UASC leave or other form of leave to remain. Introduce a formal holistic and multi-agency Best Interests Determination and Assessment process leading to a durable solution. There must be a cross-governmental commitment to finding a durable solution for each separated children ensuring they are able to access and enjoy their rights. This should be achieved in part through the provision and implementation of guidance on their protection, care and proper treatment based on the entire legal framework provided by the UNCRC. The principles of non-discrimination, the best interests of the child and the right of the child to express his or her views freely should be central to this process. Missing child poverty targets The government has a legally binding commitment to end child poverty by 2020, as set out in the Child Poverty Act The report by the Committee on the rights of the child in 2008 recommended that the UK adhere to this target. However, child poverty rates are set to rise the most recent projections from the IFS have predicted that child poverty will rise by 700,000 by The government is therefore likely to miss this target. Increasingly children s living standards fall below the level required by their rights, and not enough is being done to meet their basic needs. Relative child poverty - that is the number living on an income which is low compared to average incomes has gone down since , but only because average incomes have fallen. 21 This is set to rise substantially in the coming years. The proportion in absolute poverty (taking account of housing costs) has increased - from 28% in to 31% in We are particularly concerned about children in low income working families and that for too many families a move into work is not a move out of poverty. Six in every ten children in poverty are in low income working families. This is not surprising while the cost of living has increased by 27-28% since 2008, average annual earnings have risen by only 9% and millions of workers are earning less than a living wage. 23 The growth of in work poverty is due to a number of factors including pressure on public spending and therefore willingness to invest in support to working households and to labour market changes including wages increasing by less than inflation and significant levels of part time work. Government policy has focussed on increasing personal allowances for taxation as the way of addressing low incomes for working households. This is a relatively costly and poorly targeted policy for the purposes 18 Safe and Sound: What States can do to ensure respect for the best interests of unaccompanied and separated children in Europe UNCHR and Unicef 19 The Government Response to the First Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights Session HL Paper 9/HC 196 on Human Rights of Unaccompanied Migrant Children and Young People in the UK London: HM government 20 Brewer, M., Browne, J., Joyce, R., Institute for Fiscal Studies Child and Working-Age Poverty from 2010 to Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York 21 MacInnes, Tom and others Monitoring poverty and social exclusion York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. 22 Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) 2014.Households below average income (HBAI): 1994 to 201/3 23 Hirsch, D The cost of a child CPAG, London childrenssociety.org.uk 13 March

9 of alleviating child poverty, particularly since many low income families lose much of any gain from tax allowances through consequential deductions from benefits. It is vital that government more widely review support for low income working families with children. Support with housing costs for families in both the private and social rented sectors has also been considerably cut and support has no longer increased in line with increases in local housing costs. This has meant that in areas with rapid rental price rises, families are finding it increasingly hard to find a place to rent. Since 2010, the government has introduced a series of cuts to the benefits and tax credits system. This includes a benefit cap of 500 a week for families with children, no matter how big the family. Children are disproportionately hard hit by this and children in large families are particularly likely to be affected. Around two and a half times more children are affected by the benefit cap than adults. For families with four or more children with an average private rental sector rent, benefit levels fall increasingly far below the poverty line as a result of the cap. For families with five or more children, their income after housing costs could be less than 50% of the poverty line. 24 Support for parents with new children has also been particularly cut as a result of changes to the Sure Start Maternity Grant, the Health in Pregnancy Grant, and the Baby element of Tax Credits. A low income family with a new child could lose as much as around 1500 as a result of these measures. Recommendations: The government should draw up a strategy to address support for those on low pay so that working parents can earn enough to raise their children out of poverty. In-work benefits and tax credits, hours, progression, skills, childcare costs and job security must all be addressed. The government should increase work allowances for in-work benefits in line with increases in personal allowances for income tax. This would ensure that families do not lose any gains from rises in tax allowances as a result of consequential benefit deductions. The government should extend free school meals to all children in poverty. This would lift another 100k children out of poverty. Neglect of 16 and 17 year olds ROC (14-15) 024 Article 1 of the UNCRC recognises someone as being a child until the age of 18 but too many government policies currently assume a child s rights stop on their 16 th birthday year olds are more likely to be recorded as children in need because of abuse and neglect than any other age group but don t get the same legal protection. The benefits system and the lower minimum wage also means that it is very difficult for most year olds to live independently. Over 90% of 16 and 17 year olds live with their families, so can still be victims of neglect. 25 This was supported by the JCHR who wrote to the government asking them to recognise the rights of 16 and 17 year old children to be protected from abuse. When the government responded that 16 and 17 year olds can get married and live independently and therefore generally need less protection, the JCHR said We are not persuaded by the government's justification for continuing to exclude 16 and 17 year olds from the protection of the child cruelty offence. We agree with the JCHR on this. Recommendation: The age in which someone can be a victim of child abuse and neglect should be raised to protect 16 and 17 year olds. For further information please contact Natalie Williams, Policy Adviser: Natalie.Williams@childrenssociety.org.uk, The Children s Society Written Submission to Work and Pensions Select Committee Inquiry into the support for housing costs in the reformed welfare system Office for National Statistics (ONS) childrenssociety.org.uk 13 March