Submitted by crinadmin on
[9 May 2008] - After many years of pressure from NGOs, international human rights monitors and Parliament itself, a public consultation over the removal of the UK's general reservation against the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is now underway. The Medical Foundation strongly advocates the removal of this unlawful "self-exemption" from the UK’s international obligations to immigrant children. The general reservation states that: "The United Kingdom reserves the right to apply such legislation, in so far as it relates to the entry into, stay in and departure from the UK of those who do not have the right under the law of the UK to enter and remain in the UK, and to the acquisition and possession of citizenship, as it may deem necessary from time to time." The consultation is timely, as the Committee on the Rights of the Child will this year scrutinise the UK’s record of compliance with the Convention's obligations. So how does the reservation affect child survivors of torture? According to the Border and Immigration Agency (BIA), it "allows the UK to apply its immigration laws without having them interpreted in light of the UN Convention". In other words, it allows blanket discrimination against foreign national children in the interests of so called "effective immigration control". A fundamental principle of the Convention is contained in Article 2 which prohibits discrimination against any child irrespective of nationality, race, or any other status. Article 3 further states that in all decisions relating to a child, their best interests shall be a primary consideration. This has been held by the courts to mean starting at least equal with all other considerations. Reservation 'violates international law' Parliament, senior lawyers and international observers have found the reservation to be a violation of international law. As a result, the protection of children is undermined in a situation where they are likely to be at their most vulnerable and require more care and protection, not less. Much of the most controversial policy and practice used by the Home Office has a direct effect on our child clients. They are subject to detention and forced removal; threats to withdraw already inadequate levels of welfare support; variable standards of care provided to separated children by many local authorities; and the persistent failure of the Home Office and the appeals tribunal to address their international protection needs in accordance with their best interests and procedural rights. New policies reducing discretionary leave from 18 to 17½, the development of a forced removals programme sending children back to institutionalised care abroad, and the removal of children over 16 from their foster carers, are built on false assumptions that a child is able to function independently as an adult at the age of 16, even if they have suffered horrendous experiences along the way. Even the draft Statutory Code of Practice to keep children safe from harm excludes any duties to consider their well-being and development. The UK and European courts have already held that the Convention has to be considered in immigration decisions, and a balancing exercise is required for any case where removal will interfere with private and family life under European Convention on Human Rights. That the Home Office has now asked the question is encouraging. The UK played a major part in bringing the Convention into being. The reservation states that it will be applied as is deemed necessary "from time to time". That time has now passed. New European asylum directives signed by the UK without reservation require that the best interests principle is a primary consideration. It is paramount to send a clear message that the UK finally recognises its full responsibilities by formally and publicly removing the reservation. An act which at least for children would be every bit as important as the coming in to force of the Human Rights Act 1998. For Medical Foundation clients and all other children who have suffered serious harm, Article 39 of the Convention can then be demonstrably implemented to the fullest effect: "States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of a child victim of: any form of neglect, exploitation, or abuse; torture or any other form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; or armed conflicts. Such recovery and reintegration shall take place in an environment which fosters the health, self-respect and dignity of the child."