Case No. UKUT-00227-(IAC)

“ more precisely than before ” the relevant balance to be struck between the public interest and the interests of the individual in Article 8 cases, the Court formulated some general principles in [39]. These include the principle, expressed in [39](iii) that: “ A Court will be slow to find an implied positive obligation which would involve imposing on the State significant additional expenditure, which will necessarily involve a diversion of resources from other activities of the State in the public interest, a matter which usually calls for consideration under democratic procedures ”. This is followed immediately by the following passage: “(iv) On the other hand, the fact that the interests of a child are in issue will be a countervailing factor which tends to reduce to some degree the width of the margin of appreciation which the state authorities would otherwise enjoy. Article 8 has to be interpreted and applied in the light of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989): see In re E (Children) (Abduction: Custody Appeal) [2011] UKSC 27; [2012] AC 144, at [26]. However, the fact that the interests of a child are in issue does not simply provide a trump card so that a child applicant for positive action to be taken by the state in the field of Article 8(1) must always have their application acceded to; see In re E (Children) at [12] and ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 4; [2011] 2 AC 166, at [25] (under Article 3(1) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child the interests of the child are a primary consideration – i.e. an important matter – not the primary consideration). It is a factor relevant to the fair balance between the individual and the general community which goes some way towards tempering the otherwise wide margin of appreciation available to the state authorities in deciding what to do. The age of the child, the closeness of their relationship with the other family member in the United Kingdom and whether the family could live together elsewhere are likely to be important factors which should be borne in mind.” The Court further noted that Article 3(1) of UNCRC forms part of municipal law via section 55 of the 2009 Act, in observing that some of the principles and obligations contained in this international law measure have influenced domestic law. 24. There is a further, discrete dimension of the Article 8 jurisprudence which the Court of Appeal noted en passant in SS (Congo) , at [39](v), namely the principle, or test, of the “ direct and immediate link ” forging a nexus between the measures requested by an applicant and his family life. This principle approximates to the familiar common law concept of casual nexus. In Draon v France ( supra ), the Grand Chamber, having reiterated certain well established principles, stated at [106]: “ ’Respect’ for family life …. implies an obligation for the State to act in a manner calculated to allow ties between close relatives to develop normally. The Court has held that a State is under this type of obligation where it has found a direct and immediate link between the measures requested by an Applicant, on the one hand, and his private and/or family life on the other. ” This direct and immediate link is unlikely to be established in circumstances where family life can be carried on elsewhere: see Botta v Italy [1998] 26 EHRR 241 and Gül v Switzerland [1996] 22 EHRR 93, at [42]. 25. The scope for further development and refinement of the principles, tests and touchstones to be applied in Article 8 cases of this genre , in the context of what is of course a “ living instrument ”, is illustrated by a trilogy of decisions of the ECtHR. It is unnecessary to dwell on the first of these, Sen v Netherlands [2003] 36 EHRR 7. In the second, Tuquabo-Tekle and Others v Netherlands [2005] ECHR 803 [Application No 60665/00], which followed two years later, the Court emphasised, firstly, that every case is fact sensitive: see [43](a). In formulating an inexhaustive list of touchstones to be applied, it highlighted the age of the children concerned, their current situation in their country of origin and the extent of their dependency on their parents. In [47] it formulated the test of “ the most adequate means for the various members to develop family life together ”. The Court also acknowledged, in [49], the relevance of the age of the child or children concerned, the extent of the child/parent dependency, whether the child had been reared in the cultural and linguistic environment of his country of origin, whether there are relatives there and whether it could be expected of the parents to return there: see [49]. 26. This was followed by Mayeka and Mitunga v Belgium [2008] 46 EHRR 23 in which the main factors were pre-existing family life between the separated persons concerned, an unaccompanied minor and special vulnerability. Both decisions illustrate the Court’s willingness, in appropriate cases, to recognise Article 8 ECHR as the vehicle for achieving family reunification on the territory of the Council of Europe State where one of the family members is present or established. 27. As the sponsor was a child (aged 17) when the impugned decisions of the ECO were made, section 55 of the 2009 Act applied. Accordingly, his best interests had the status of a primary consideration. As in so many cases involving children, there is no evidence that the statutory duty imposed by section 55(2) to have regard to the Secretary of State’s statutory guidance was discharged. I readily infer that it was not. This, sadly, seems to be the rule rather than the exception in cases of this kind. This, notwithstanding that the decisions of this Tribunal in JO and Others (Section 55 Duty) Nigeria [2014] UKUT 517 (IAC) and MK (Section 55 – Tribunal Options) [2015] UKUT 223 (IAC) have drawn attention emphatically to this aspect, and others, of section 55. 28. Section 55 has been considered by the United Kingdom Supreme Court in ZH (Tanzania) v SSHD [2011] 2 AC 166 and Zoumbas v SSHD [2013] 1 WLR 3690. As these decisions make clear, no other material consideration can be treated as inherently more significant than the best interests of any affected child, albeit this can be outweighed by the cumulative effect of other considerations and it does not rank as the primary, or paramount, consideration. Per Lord Kerr in ZH (Tanzania) at [46]: “ It is not merely one consideration that weighs in the balance along side other competing factors. Where the best interests of the child clearly favour a certain course, that course should be followed unless countervailing reasons of considerable force displace them. ” Notably, while section 55 did not apply directly to the second Appellant when the decisions were made, as he was outside the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State’s Immigration Directorate Instruction (“IDI”) invites ECOs to consider the aforementioned statutory guidance, as noted by this Tribunal in Mundeba (Section 55 and paragraph 297(i)(f)) [2013] UKUT 88 (IAC), at [36] and [37] especially: see further [31] infra . 29. The issue of the status of unincorporated or partly incorporated international treaties in domestic law continues to intrigue. It has proved nothing if not organic during recent years. The determination of these appeals does not require a detailed treatise. Rather, it suffices to draw attention to three matters. The first is the opinion of Lord Wilson in Mathieson v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] UKSC 47, at [42] – [44], which merit reproduction in full: “[42] In ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 4, [2011] 2 AC 166, Lady Hale at para 21 quoted with approval the observation of the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR in Neulinger v Switzerland (2010) 28 BHRC 706, para 131, that "the Convention cannot be interpreted in a vacuum but must be interpreted in harmony with the general principles of international law". The Court of Appeal concluded, however, that the circumstances of the present case left no room for either of the international conventions to give a steer to the proper interpretation of Cameron's rights. Consistently with that conclusion, the Secretary of State proceeds to submit that it is in principle illegitimate to have regard to the conventions and in this regard he relies upon the recent decision of this court in the SG case cited at para 39 above. [43] It is clear that in the SG case the Secretary of State submitted that, while an international covenant might inform interpretation of a substantive right conferred by the Convention, it had no role in the interpretation of the parasitic right conferred by article 14 and thus, specifically, no role in any inquiry into justification for any difference of treatment in the enjoyment of the substantive rights. But his submission was not upheld. While Lord Reed did not expressly rule upon it, it was rejected by Lord Carnwath (paras 113-119), by Lord Hughes (paras 142-144), by Lady Hale (paras 211-218) and by Lord Kerr (paras 258-262). Lord Carnwath, for example, pointed out at paras 117-119 that the Secretary of State's submission ran counter to observations in the Court of Appeal in the Burnip case, cited at para 23 above, and indeed to the decision of the Grand Chamber in X v Austria (2013) 57 EHRR 405. The decision of the majority in the SG case was not that international conventions were irrelevant to the interpretation of article 14 but that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was irrelevant to the justification of a difference of treatment visited upon women rather than directly upon children: para 89 (Lord Reed), paras 129-131 (Lord Carnwath) and para 146 (Lord Hughes). [44] The noun adopted by the Grand Chamber in the Neulinger case, cited above, is "harmony". A conclusion, reached without reference to international conventions, that the Secretary of State has failed to establish justification for the difference in his treatment of those severely disabled children who are required to remain in hospital for a lengthy period would harmonise with a conclusion that his different treatment of them violates their rights under two international conventions.” In short, certain provisions of international treaties, in particular the UNCRC, have gently, seamlessly and progressively influenced and seasoned domestic law via the Human Rights Act 1998, as a result of the duty imposed on courts and tribunals by section 3(1) thereof and the long established practice of the ECtHR of taking into account relevant provisions of international law. 30. Second, bearing in mind section 55 of the 2009 Act, it is clear that Article 3(1) of UNCRC cannot be considered in a vacuum, isolated from the remaining provisions of the Convention. The meaning and reach of Article 3(1) must take their colour from, and be informed by, other provisions of this instrument. Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties requires no less. It provides, in material part: “General rule of interpretation 1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose. 2. The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text, including its preamble and annexes …. “ 31. Third, decisions which give proper effect to both of the duties enshrined in section 55 may legitimately be influenced by unincorporated provisions of international law, having regard to the expression of the Secretary of State’s policy in the statutory guidance made under section 55(2). This is found in “ Every Child Matters: Change For Children ”, which contains, at paragraph 2.6, the following passage: “ The UK Border Agency acknowledges the status and importance of the following: the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the EU Reception Conditions Directive, the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The UK Border Agency must fulfil the requirements of these instruments in relation to children whilst exercising its functions as expressed in UK domestic legislation and policies. ” [Emphasis added] Within this passage one finds the clearest of assurances that, as a matter of policy, these several instruments of international law will be given effect when the Secretary of State and her various alter egos , which include UKBA, UKVI and ECOs, are making immigration (and related) decisions which affect children. Moreover, the absence of any territorial limitation comparable to that contained in section 55(1) is notable. 32. Thus the principle enunciated in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Launder [1997] 1 WLR 839 applies fully. Applying orthodox principles of public law, it matters not that the materials, or considerations, identified in ”Every Child Matters (etc)” have the status of unincorporated international treaties. If this publication had the standing of a (mere) governmental policy, the Secretary of State would be expected to give effect to it: Lumba v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 12 at [26], per Lord Dyson JSC. I consider that this duty applies a fortiori given that the publication is an instrument made pursuant to a duty imposed by primary legislation. By formulating the statutory guidance in this way the executive has chosen to give indirect status in domestic law to certain measures of international law which have not been incorporated by legislation. 33. The international law/domestic law dichotomy in United Kingdom law traditionally conjured up notions of polarisation and insularity. Having regard to the developments mapped above, the gulf between the two notional extremes has narrowed significantly and this is illustrated by the decision making context under scrutiny in these proceedings. The so-called dualist doctrine has evolved and has undergone some dilution in consequence. All of this is, ultimately, a reflection of the intrinsically organic nature of the common law. Conclusions 34. At this juncture I remind myself of the fundamental question to be determined in these conjoined appeals: is the interference with the family life of the Appellants and M, brought about by the refusal decisions of the ECO, a proportionate means of securing the legitimate aims in play? Or, alternatively, one might ask which is to prevail: the interests of the three family members or the public interest? 35. On one side of the scales there is a strong family unit whose members are clearly united and fortified by strong bonds of love, affection and interdependency. They long to be reunited and have gone to substantial lengths and have made considerable sacrifices to achieve this goal. For as long as separation continues, this will be a disfunctioning, debilitated and under achieving family. The main feature of this under achievement will be the family’s inability to attain its potential as one of the key elements of modern societies throughout the world. The under performance of family members and family units, in this respect, does not further any identifiable public interest. On the contrary it is antithetical to strong and stable societies. These features of the family unit under scrutiny in these appeals are exposed in a context where M, being the older of the two male sons, is, culturally, considered to be the head of the family. This family, bereft of its natural head by circumstances and not by choice, is now deprived of his successor and has been thus bereft for almost four years. 36. The evidence establishes clearly that the sponsor is under achieving as a person. This means that his contribution, actual and potential, to United Kingdom society is diminished. This arises in circumstances where he has demonstrated his willingness to adapt to United Kingdom culture and to study earnestly in this alien country. The prediction that society will secure some benefit if the sponsor achieves family reunification in this country is readily made. Thus reunification will promote, rather than undermine, the public interest in this respect. It will be manifestly better for society than maintenance of the status quo. 37. Furthermore, if family reunification cannot be achieved in the United Kingdom, M will be driven to consider alternatives, some of them manifestly dangerous given his youth and unaccompanied and unsupported status. These include the precarious journey involved in attempting to reunite with the Appellants wherever they may be at present. The evidence points to the probability that they are either in Khartoum or the UNHCR refugee camp several hundred kilometres away. The situations in both locations are fraught with danger and imbued with deprivation. Reunification of this family in their country of origin, Eritrea, is not a feasible possibility, having regard to the factual framework rehearsed in [5] – [9] above. 38. I consider it distinctly possible that if family reunification cannot be secured in the United Kingdom, the sponsor will depart these shores in the dangerous pursuit of one of the alternatives mooted above. This would deprive him of the protections which he has obtained as a result of being recognised a refugee. This would be manifestly undesirable for him, contrary to the public interest and incompatible with the philosophy and rationale of the Refugee Convention. It would also expose him to a risk of violating his Convention rights, in particular those protected by Articles 3 and 4. In the real world, recognition of this possibility is far from fanciful. I consider this to be a potent factor in the balancing exercise. Resort to this Tribunal is very much a measure of last resort for him. 39. Next, it is necessary to give effect to the principles enunciated in Mathieson – ( supra ) together with those aspects of the Secretary of State’s statutory guidance noted in [31] above. I do not deduce from any of these principles or sources that the Secretary of State is under a duty to facilitate reunification for this family in the United Kingdom with the result that the impugned decisions of the ECO are vitiated. The existence of an absolute duty of this nature was not argued and I do not consider that such duty exists. However, in my view the orientation of these principles and policies is to favour, rather than undermine, what the Appellants seek to achieve by these appeals. They qualify for substantial weight in the proportionality balancing exercise. 40. On the other side of the scales lies the public interest. This engages the provisions in sections 117A and 117B of the 2002 Act, reproduced in [13] above. Thus, in summary: the public interest in the maintenance of effective immigration controls is engaged; I shall assume that neither of the Appellants speaks English; and I further assume that neither Appellant is, or will be, financially independent, at least for the foreseeable future. Section 117B(4) does not apply. Nor does section 117B(5), given the concession – properly made – of Mr Poole on behalf of the Secretary of State that the M’s immigration status in the United Kingdom has not been precarious, given the grant of five years leave to remain qua refugee. Nor does section 117B(6) apply. 41. Is any other public interest engaged? Mr Poole, in his skeleton argument, sought to identify two such interests: (a) the safeguarding of children, specifically those in the position of the sponsor, who would be at risk of trafficking and exploitation in their quest to reach the United Kingdom; and (b) additional pressure on publicly funded childrens’ services. There is no primary legislation underpinning either of these asserted public interests. Moreover, there is no evidence underlying them – in the form of, for example, reports or commentaries. I recognise that evidence of this kind is not a prerequisite to the recognition of a public interest in the Article 8(2) balancing exercise. However, I cannot overlook that these public interests are advanced through the medium of counsel’s written and oral submissions. 42. Furthermore, this unsatisfactory dimension of the Secretary of State’s case is highlighted by the belated production of certain data. While I have considered this material, I observe that it does not have the benefit of related reports or the illumination or elaboration of witness statements. Nor is there any financial data even at a general level. In addition, the figures require clarification, which is lacking. In my judgment, the only conclusion which can safely be made is that there has been some increase in the advent of unaccompanied children to the United Kingdom during the past two years. That said, the figures are substantially smaller than those applicable to the years 2008 and 2009. While I take all of this evidence, including counsel’s submissions, into account, I consider that its potency is questionable for the reasons given. Furthermore, I reiterate my analysis of the governing legal principles above. 43. This brings me to my overarching conclusion. Taking into account the considerations, assessments and reasons highlighted in [34] – [42] above, it is my conclusion that, balancing everything, the impugned decisions of the ECO, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, interfere disproportionately with the right to respect for family life enjoyed by the Appellants and M. As the ultimate arbiter of proportionality I decide accordingly. Thus I re-make the decision of the FtT by allowing the appeals. Decision The appeals are allowed under Article 8 ECHR. Signed: THE HON. MR JUSTICE MCCLOSKEY PRESIDENT OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Dated : 29 February 2016 APPENDIX EVERY CHILD MATTERS CHANGE FOR CHILDREN Statutory guidance to the UK Border Agency on making arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of children Issued under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 November 2009 Fo r ewo r d Int r oduction Pa r t One – General A r rangements to Safegua r d and P r omote W elfa r e Pa r t T w o – A r rangement s i n th e Unite d Kingdo m Bo r de r Agenc y t o Safegua r d an d P r omot e Child r en’ s W elfa r e 14 Annex A: Indicators of T raffickin gIt is the duty of Government and of society as a whole to keep children safe. Public agencies have a particular responsibility to do this, both within their own area of business and in the way in which they work together.Section 11 of the Children Act 2004 places a duty on specified public bodies and key individuals to carry out their functions having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. This applies across a wide range of public activity, from schools to prisons.Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 now places a similar duty on the UK Border Agency. This is a naturalprogression for the Agency which has been steadily improving how it works with children. Last year, the Government lifted its general reservation relating to immigration on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and in January of this year we introduceda statutory Code of Practice for the UK Border Agency on Keeping Children Safe from Harm. The Code is superseded by this new duty which now places the UK Border Agency on the same footing as other public bodies working with children.As Ministers for Immigration and Children, we welcome this coming together and are confident that it will help to support more effective joint working.The UK Border Agency undertakes difficult and sensitive work on behalf of society as a whole. Working with children presents particular challenges. To meet these challenges effectively, the UKBorder Agency needs the support of all those with an interest in children. The development of this guidance has been greatly assisted by the input ofa range of organisations outside Government. We are grateful for this and look forward to continued co-operation to achieve the better outcomes for children which we all want to see. Phil W oolas Minister of State for Bo r ders and Immigration Ba r ones s Delyt h M o r g a n Parliamenta r y U n d e r - S ec r e t a r y o f Stat e fo r Child r en , Y o u n g Peopl e an d Familie s INTRODUCTION 1. Improving the way key people and bodies safeguard and promote the welfare of children is crucial to improving outcomes for children.2. Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenshipand Immigration Act 2009 (the 2009 Act) therefore places a duty on the Secretary of State to make arrangements for ensuring that immigration, asylum, nationality and customs functions are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the UK. A similar duty is placed on the Director of Border Revenue in respect of the Director’s functions.3. The guidance sets out the key arrangements for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children as they apply both generally to public bodies who deal with children (Part 1) and specifically to the UK Border Agency (Part2). These arrangements will help agencies to create and maintain the right organisational ethos for working with children. They include: • Senior mana g ement commitment to the impo r tance of safeguarding and promoting c hildre n ’ s w elfare; • A clear statement of the a g ency ’ s responsibilities t ow ards c hildren a v ailable for all staff; • A clear line of accountability within the or g anisation for w ork on safeguarding and promoting the w elfare of c hildren; • Se r vice de v elopments that ta k e account of the need to safeguard and promote w elfare and is info r med, where appropriat e , b y the views of c hildren and families; • Staff training on safeguarding and promoting the w elfare of c hildren for all staff working with or in contact with children and families; • Safe rec r uitment procedures in place; • Effect i v e inte r -a g ency w orking to safeguard and promote the w elfare the c hildren, and • Effect i v e info r mation sharin g . 4. Section 55 is intended to achieve the same effect as section 11 of the Children Act 2004 (the 2004 Act) which places a similar dutyon other public organisations1. As well as providing a driver for improvement within the UK Border Agency, the duty will also help to improve inter-agency working in respect of children. Section 55 applies to the carrying out of the relevant functions anywhere in the UK. THE ROLE AND S TA TUS OF THIS G UIDANCE 5. This guidance is aimed at staff of the UK Border Agency and contractors when carrying out UK Border Agency functions. It setsout the key arrangements for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. The guidance is modelled on the guidance which supports section 11 of the 2004 Act2. It isin two parts. Part 1 describes the general arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of children which are likely to be common to all agencies covered by section11 and, in the case of the UK Border Agency, by section 55. Part 1 is intended to make clear how the work of the UK Border Agency fits 1 For the full list of bodies cove r ed by Section 11 see paragraph 1.1 of the guidance belo w . 2 Statutor y Guidance on making a r rangements to safegua r d and p r omote the welfa r e of child r en under section 11 of the Child r en Act 2004 updated Ma r ch 2007. Issued by DCSF and available at www.dcsf.gov.uk/ever ychildmatters/_download/?id=1372 into the wider arrangements, although not all of Part 1 is directly relevant to it. Part 2 sets out how those general arrangements apply specifically to the UK Border Agency.6. This guidance is issued under section 55 (3) and 55 (5) which requires any person exercising immigration, asylum, nationality and customs functions to have regard to theguidance given to them for the purpose by the Secretary of State. This means they must take this guidance into account and, if they decide to depa r t f r om it, h a v e clear r easons f or doing so. 7. Where private or voluntary organisations are commissioned to provide services on behalf of the UK Border Agency, the agreement under which the arrangements are made should require that the private or voluntary organisation concerned takes this guidanceinto account in the provision of those services and, if they decide to depart from it, haveclear reasons for doing so.8. The guidance does not replace any current operational instructions and should be read alongside them. T IME T ABLE 9. The commencement date for section 55 ofthe Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act2009 was 2 November 2009. P A R T 1 UNDERS T ANDING THE DUTY TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO SAFEGUARD AND PROMOTE THE WEL F ARE OF CHILDREN 1.1. Section 11 of the 2004 Act places a duty on key people and bodies in England to make arrangements to ensure that their functions are discharged with regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. Section 28 of the Act requires similar bodies in Wales to do the same. Theapplication of this duty will vary according to the nature of each agency and its functions. The key people and bodies that are covered by the duty are: • local authoritie s , including district councils; • the police; • the probation se r vice; • NHS bodies(Strategic Health A uthoritie s , Designated Special Health A uthoritie s , Prima r y Care T r ust s , NHS T r ust s , Local Health Boards and NHS F oundation T r usts); • Or g anisations (cu r rently the Connexions Service) providing services under section114 of the Learning and Skills Act 2007;Border Agency in an Act that deals directly with UK Border Agency work. It therefore appears in section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 20093.1.3. The duty does not give the UK Border Agency any new functions, nor does it over- ride its existing functions. It does require the Agency to carry out its existing functionsin a way that takes into account the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.1.4. Safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children is defined in the guidance to section11 of the 2004 Act (section 28 in Wales) and in Working Together to Safeguard Children4 as: • protecting c hildren from maltreatment; • pre v enting impai r ment of c hildre n ’ s health or de v elopment (where health means ‘p h ysical or mental health’ and de v elopment means ‘p h ysical, intellectual, emotional, social or beh a vioural de v elopment’); • Y outh offending teams; • G o v e r nors / Directors of Prisons and Young Offender Institutions; • Directors of Secure T raining Centres; • T he British T ranspo r t P olic e . 1.2. The UK Border Agency functions are not devolved, unlike those of the bodies listedin the 2004 Act, and so the Government has chosen to apply the duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children to the UK 3 In Scotland the legislative p r ovisions for p r otecting child r en and p r omoting their welfa r e a r e contained in the P r otection of Child r en ( Scotland ) Act 2007 and the Child r en ( Scotland ) Act 1995. The principles of co-operation and info r mation sharing between agencies in the safegua r ding of child r en a r e, howeve r , impor tant themes in the legislative framework and guidance gove r ning the deliver y of child r en’s ser vices in Nor the r n I r eland, whe r e the legislative p r ovisions a r e the Child r en (Nor the r n I r eland) O r der 1995, and the Safegua r ding V ulnerable G r oups (Nor the r n I r eland) O r der 2007. In both jurisdictions A r ea Child P r otection Committees a r e the means of p r oviding local p r ocedu r es and p r ocesses for agencies to comply with the legislation to safegua r d child r en and to co-operate togethe r , and for anyone working with child r en. 4 The W elsh Assembly Gove r nment has p r oduced its own version of “ W orking T ogether” with a definition that matches this albeit exp r essed in a dif fe r ent wa y . It is available at: http://cymru.gov.uk/pubs/circulars/2007/nafwc1207en. pdf?lang=en • ensuring that c hildren are g r o wing up in circumstances consistent with the pr o vision of safe and effect i v e care; and • unde r taking that role so as to enable those c hildren to h a v e opti m um life c hances and to enter adulthood successfull y . 1.5. The overall framework set out in the 2004Act is to provide a basis for achieving the vision of safeguarding set out in the report Safeguarding Children5 i.e: • all a g encies w orking with c hildren, y oung people and their families ta k e all reasonable measures to ensure that the risks of ha r m to c hildre n ’ s w elfare are minimised; and • where there are conce r ns about c hildren and y oung people ’ s w elfar e , all a g encies ta k e all appropriate actions to address those conce r n s , w orking to a g reed local policies and procedures in pa r tnership with other a g encie s . FRAMEWORK FOR MAKING E FFECTIVE ARRANGEMENTS TO SAFEGUARD AND PROMOTE CHILDREN’S W EL F ARE 1.6. Each agency will have different contributions to make towards safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children depending on the functions for which they have responsibility. For example, the main contribution of some services might be to identify and act on their concerns about the welfare of children with whom they come into contact, perhaps during or following completion of a common assessment while others might be more involved in supporting a child once concerns have been identified. The UK Border Agency is among the former. There are some key features of effective arrangements to safeguard and promote the 5 Chief Inspector of Social Ser vices, Commission for Health Imp r ovement, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabular y , Her Majesty’s Chief inspector of the C r own P r osecution Ser vice, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of the Magistrates’ Cour ts Ser vice, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of P r obation (2002). Safegua r ding Child r en – A Joint Chief Inspectors’ Repor t on A r rangements to Safegua r d Child r en. London , Depar tment of Health. welfare of children which all agencies will need to take account of in addition to those that are particular to its own work, when undertaking their particular functions. These arrangements will help agencies to create and maintain an organisational culture and ethos that reflectsthe importance of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. STR A TEGIC AND O RGANIS A TIONAL A RRANGEMENTS 1.7. Many organisations subject to the section 11 duty (or in Wales the section 28 duty) are also required to take part in Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCBs). LSCBs are thekey statutory mechanism for agreeing how the relevant organisations in each localarea cooperate to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in that locality, and for ensuring their effectiveness. The Local Authority convenes and is also a member of the LSCB. The Board partners are set out insection 13(3) of the 2004 Act for England and in section 31(3) for Wales6. They are: • district councils in local g o v e r nment areas that h a v e them; • the c hief police officer for a police area of whi c h any pa r t falls within the area of the Local A uthority; • the local probation board for an area of whi c h any pa r t falls within the area of the Local A uthority; • the Y outh Offending T eam for an area of whi c h any pa r t falls within the area of the Local A uthority; 6 In W ales they a r e: the members a child r en’s ser vices authority in W ales ; a Local Health Boa r d; an NHS t r ust all or most of whose hospitals, establishments and facilities a r e situated in W ales; the police authority and chief officer of police for a police a r ea in W ales; the British T ranspor t Police Authorit y , so far as exe r cising functions in r elation to W ales; a local p r obation boa r d for an a r ea in W ales; a youth of fending team for an a r ea in W ales; (h) the gove r nor of a prison or secu r e training cent r e in W ales (o r , in the case of a contracted out prison or secu r e training cent r e, its di r ector); ( i ) any person to the extent that he is p r oviding ser vices pursuant to a r rangements made by a child r en’s ser vices authority in W ales under section 123(1)(b) of the Lea r ning and Skills Act 2000 (c. 21) (youth suppor t ser vices). • Strategic Health A uthorities and Prima r y Care Trusts for an area of which any part falls within the area of the Local Authority; • NHS T r usts and NHS F oundation T r ust s , all or most of whose hospitals or establishments and facilities are situated in the Local A uthority area; • the Connexions se r vice operating in any pa r t of the area of the Local A uthority; • CAFCASS (Children and F amily Cou r ts Advisory and Support Service), • the G o v e r nor or Director of any Secure T raining Centre in the area of the Local A uthority; and • the G o v e r nor or Director of any prison in the Local Authority area that ordinarily detains children.1.8. Other organisations can be involved in LSCB by agreement. The UK Border Agency is one of these. For details of how the UK Border Agency fits in with these arrangements see Part 2 of this guidance.1.9. At an organisational or strategic level within individual agencies, key features for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children are: a. Senior management commitment to the impo r tance of safegua r ding and p r omoting child r en’s welfa r e Senior managers will need to demonstrate leadership, be informed about, and take responsibility for the actions of their staff who are providing services to children and their families. This could mean identifying a named person at senior management level tochampion the importance of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children throughout the organisation. Senior managers will alsobe responsible for monitoring the actionsof their staff to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. This includes ensuringthat children and young people are listened to appropriately and concerns expressed about their or any other child’s welfareare taken seriously and responded to in an appropriate manner. b. A clear statement of the agency’s r esponsibilities towa r ds child r en is available for all sta f f This should include any children in the care of the agencies, any with whom they work directly and those with whom they come into contact. It could form part of an agency’s existing policy and/or procedures. All staff should be made aware of their agency’s policies and procedures on safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children and the importance of listening to children and young people, particularly when they are expressing concerns about either their own or other children’s welfare. Effective systems should be in place for children, staff and other peopleto make a complaint where there are concerns that action to safeguard and promote a child’s welfare has not been taken in accordance with the agency’s procedures. c. A clear line of accountability within the o r ganisation for work on safegua r ding and p r omoting the welfa r e of child r en It should be clear who has overall responsibility for the agency’s contribution to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children and what the lines of accountability are from each staff member up through the organisation to the person with ultimate accountability for children’s welfare. Itshould also be clear with whom each staff member should discuss, and to whom they should report, any concerns about a child’s welfare. Responsibilities for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children can operate at three levels:i. Individual, which can be encompassed within job descriptions;ii. Professional, which is governed by codes of conduct for different disciplines or by distinct guidance on the functions being carried out; andiii. Organisational, with clear linesof accountability throughout the organisation to senior office level. d. Se r vice development takes account of the need to safegua r d and p r omote welfa r e and is info r med, whe r e app r opriate, by the views of child r en and families In developing services, those responsible should consider how the delivery of these services will take account of the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. e. Sta f f training on safegua r ding and p r omoting the welfa r e of child r en for all sta f f working with o r , depending on the agency’s prima r y functions, in contact with child r en and families Staff should have an understanding of both their roles and responsibilities and those of other professionals and organisations. This is essential for effective multi- and inter-agency collaboration. Agencies are encouraged to enable staff to participate in training provided on an inter-agency basis as well as in single agency training provided by the agency itself. Safeguarding and promoting the welfareof children is one of the six areas of the Common Core of Skills and Knowledge for the Children’s Workforce (2005) prospectus. This prospectus informs the training provided to all those working in children’s services. Training on safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children should be relevant to the roles and responsibilities of each staff member. f. Safer r ec r uitment Robust recruitment and vetting procedures must be in place to help prevent unsuitable people from working with children. This means thorough checks are carried out on all people as part of the recruitment process, and references are always taken up. People who recruit staff to work with children must have the appropriate training. The Safeguarding g. E f fective inter-agency working to safegua r d and p r omote the welfa r e of child r en This involves agencies and staff working together to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. Inter-agency working is crucial to ensuring the effectiveness of such working. The sharing of information and constructive relationships between individual membersof staff and teams should be supported by a strong lead from the Lead Member for Children’s Services, and Director of Children’s Services and commitment of all ChiefOfficers. This effective working should beat a strategic and an individual child level, in accordance with guidance from their LSCB, regarding safeguarding children, or for the Prison Service, in accordance with the policy agreed with the LSCB local to each prison. The LSCB guidance should be consistent with the current statutory guidance The Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families (2000) and Working Together to Safeguard Children (2006). TheGovernment’s practice guidance, What To Do If You’re Worried A Child Is Being Abused (HM Government 2006), is for use by practitioners and their managers in all agencies to inform them about what to do when they have concerns that a child may be a child in need, including concerns about a child whom itis believed is, or may be at risk of, suffering significant harm7. The UK Border Agency contribution to inter-agency work is described in Part 2. h. Info r mation sharing Effective information sharing by professionals is central to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. It is therefore essential that effective arrangements for sharing information about a child and their family within each agency and between agencies are in place. This will usually be set out in the form of a protocol or information sharing agreement setting outVulnerable Groups Act 2006 establishes a new vetting and barring scheme from October2009 for those who work with children and vulnerable adults. 7 These documents can be found at: www.dcsf.gov.uk/ever ychildmatters/1240; www.dcsf.gov.uk/ever ychildmatters/1236; www.dcsf.gov.uk/ever ychildmatters/_download/?id=760 the process to be followed and the legal and security issues that need to be considered. However, the lack of an information sharing agreement between agencies should neverbe a reason for not sharing information that could help a practitioner deliver services to a child. The Welsh version of “Working Together” contains non-statutory guidance on good practice in information sharing.The decision to share or not to share information about a child should always be taken on a case by case basis based on professional judgement, supported by the cross-Government Information Sharing:Practitioners’ Guide (published in April 2006)8 and in line with the provisions of the Data Protection Act and Human Rights Act 1998 with consideration of any duty of confidence which is owed and the data security issues raised by the Cabinet Office guidelines on handling personal data. Full guidance on these issues is provided in Information Sharing: Practitioners’ Guide (HM Government, 2006). The consent of children, young people and their caregivers should be obtained when sharing information unless to do so would place the child at risk of significant harm.1.10. In order to safeguard and promote children’s welfare, arrangements should ensure that: • all staff in contact with c hildren understand what to do and the most effect i v e wa ys of sharing info r mation if they belie v e that a c hild and family m a y require pa r ticular se r vices in order to a c hie v e their opti m um outcomes; • all staff in contact with c hildren understand what to do and when to share info r mation if they belie v e that a child may be a child in need, including those children suffering or at risk of suffering harm; • appropriate a g ency-specific guidance is produced to complement guidance issued b y central G o v e r nment, and su c h guidance and appropriate training is made a v ailable to existing and new staff as pa r t of their induction and on g oing training; • guidance and training specifically c o v ers the sharing of info r mation bet w een profession s , or g anisations and a g encie s , as w ell as within them, and a r ran g ements for training ta k e into account the v alue of multi-agency training as well as single agency training; • mana g ers in c hildre n ’ s se r vices are fully co n v ersant with the le g al frame w ork and g ood practice guidance issued for practitioners w orking with c hildren. CON T ACT P OINT 9 1.11. Contact Point is a key part of the Every ChildMatters programme to improve outcomes for children and will support practitioners, local authorities and other organisations infulfilling their duties to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. It is currently being delivered in phases that began in May 2009and that are gradually being rolled out to other local authorities and partners. Contact Point will be the quick way to find out who else is working with the same child or young person and allow services to contact one anothermore efficiently. This basic online directory will be available to authorised staff who need it do their jobs.1.12. Contact Point will not contain any detailed information (such as case notes, assessments, and clinical data or exam results). The legal framework for the operation of Contact Point is provided by regulations, made under section12 of the 2004 Act and further operational details are set out in Statutory Guidance that was published in late 2007. 8 This is c r oss-gove r nment guidance that complements and suppor ts policies to imp r ove info r mation sharing ac r oss all ser vices. It is at www.dcsf.gov.uk/ever ychildmatters/_download/?id=103 9 Contact Point exists in England onl y . WORK WITH INDIVIDUAL CHILDREN AND THEIR F AMILIES 1.13. The ways in which agencies work with or have contact with individual children and their families will differ depending on the functions of each agency. Some will focus on directwork with children and young people, whereas others will work with children and their families, and still others will work with adults with parenting responsibilities for children.1.14. In order to safeguard and promote the welfare of individual children, the following shouldbe taken into account, in addition to the relevant section of Part 2 of this guidance. The key features of an effective system are: • Children and y oung people are listened to and what they h a v e to s a y is ta k en seriously and acted on; • F oll o wing assessment, rele v ant se r vices are pr o vided to respond to the assessed needs of c hildren and to suppo r t parents or carers in effect i v ely unde r taking their parenting role s . W here v er su c h se r vices are being pr o vided the UK Border A g ency will ta k e account of them in planning their future interaction with the family and the c hildren. 1.15. The following principles underpin workwith children and their families to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. They are relevant to varying degrees dependingon the functions and level of involvement of the particular agency and the individual practitioner concerned. The UK Border Agency should seek to reflect them