WRITTEN EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY ECPAT UK

(CSC0081)

1. ECPAT UK is a leading UK-based children’s rights organisation campaigning and advocating for the rights of children to be protected from threats of trafficking, exploitation, and transnational child sexual abuse. We have a long history of campaigning against child trafficking and exploitation in the UK, having produced the first research into trafficking of children in the UK in 2001. An integrated programme of practice, research, training, youth participation and advocacy informs our campaigning efforts. ECPAT UK has been instrumental in raising awareness of the plight of children trafficked into and within the UK for all forms of exploitation and advocating for changes in policy and legislation to improve the UK’s response to this abuse. Our direct work with young victims of trafficking provides insight into their experiences, processes, and systems that they encounter. ECPAT UK is part of the ECPAT International network of 142 ECPAT members in 115 countries working to end child sexual exploitation.

Summary

2. Children in care, especially looked after child victims of human trafficking and unaccompanied children seeking asylum, continue to face significant barriers in enjoying and accessing fully their rights. This submission pertains specifically to their rights regarding education, accommodation and criminal justice system:
1. Children in care, particularly child victims of human trafficking and unaccompanied children, face frequent, unplanned moves, unsafe placements, and loss of community ties, undermining stability, identity, and recovery.
2. Trafficked children in care experience systemic disadvantage in safeguarding, justice, and education due to nationality, immigration status, and age-based placement policies
3. Disruption from instability in care placements leads to interrupted schooling, delayed ESOL provision, and poorer attainment for care-experienced child victims of trafficking and unaccompanied children.
4. The incorporation of the UNCRC would strengthen enforceable rights for children in care, ensure decisions are guided by the best interests and principle, and improve accountability for safeguarding and education outcomes.
5. Recognition of care experience as a protected characteristic would help tackle discrimination, improve housing and education entitlements, and immigration security.
6. Use of semi-independent and independent accommodation which disproportionately accounts for the unaccompanied child population in care provides no care and exposes them to harm, trafficking, and missing incidents, with inadequate safeguarding.
7. Child victims continue to be prosecuted for offences committed as a result of the exploitation with Section 45 MSA defence applied late if at all, and access to specialist legal advice remains inconsistent.

Introduction

3. Children in England’s social care system, and particularly child victims of trafficking, unaccompanied children seeking asylum, and other care-experienced young people, continue to face systemic barriers that prevent them from fully enjoying their rights. While the statutory framework imposes clear duties to safeguard and promote children’s welfare, in practice the system often leaves the most vulnerable children at risk of instability, exploitation, and discrimination.
4. The use of supported and semi-independent accommodation for 16- and 17-year-olds in care is one of the most pressing concerns within the social care system. These settings provide “support” rather than “care” and are not designed to meet the complex needs of children, particularly those who have experienced trafficking or exploitation. Young people placed in such accommodation frequently face inadequate supervision, weak safeguarding arrangements, and exposure to significant risks, including going missing, re-trafficking, and abuse. Decisions to place children in these settings are often driven by age or availability of provision rather than individual vulnerability or best interests, leaving many without the protection and stability that the law requires.
5. A lack of stability in care placements with frequent and unplanned moves, often far from established communities and services, disrupt continuity of care, erode trust in professionals, and undermine children’s sense of identity and belonging.
6. Instability in care also compounds educational disadvantage. Many children experience delays in school enrolment, disrupted learning, and limited access to English language support, with unaccompanied and trafficked children disproportionately excluded from mainstream pathways. The result is consistently lower attainment, restricted opportunities, and increased vulnerability to further exploitation.
7. The criminal justice system adds another layer of risk. Child victims of trafficking, particularly those exploited in criminal activities, are still too often treated as offenders rather than recognised as victims. The statutory defence under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 is inconsistently applied and only available post-charge, meaning children are criminalised for offences directly connected to their exploitation. This runs contrary to international obligations and leaves lasting consequences on children’s lives.
8. Discrimination is a thread running through these experiences. Children’s treatment and outcomes in social care vary significantly according to nationality, immigration status, ethnicity, and age. Unaccompanied children and foreign national victims of trafficking encounter systemic disadvantage in safeguarding, accommodation, education, and access to justice. Care-experienced children more broadly face poorer outcomes and higher exposure to criminalisation than their peers, reflecting entrenched structural inequalities.
9. These shortcomings highlight significant gaps in compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Incorporating the UNCRC into domestic law would embed a universal rights-based framework, ensuring that decisions affecting children in care are guided by their best interests, non-discrimination, and accountability. In parallel, recognising care experience as a protected characteristic would strengthen protections against discrimination and help address the enduring inequalities faced by this group.
10. This submission therefore examines how current policies and practices in the social care system fall short of safeguarding children’s rights in key areas, including accommodation, education, criminal justice, and protection from discrimination.

Legal Framework

Article 8 ECHR: The right to respect for private and family life

11. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) sets out the right to respect for private and family life. This is not adequately protected within the children’s social care system in England. For many children in care, particularly unaccompanied children and foreign national child victims of trafficking, systemic failures mean their Article 8 rights are undermined by limited access to family reunion mechanism as well as frequent moves in their accommodation undermining continuity of care and stability.
12. ECPAT UK’s Creating Stable Futures report found that over half of young people supported by ECPAT UK had moved placement more than three times in a single year – sometimes within weeks of arrival.[1] In this report, young people reported that moves left them feeling isolated and “constantly uprooted”, distrustful of professionals, and disconnected from community or cultural networks vital to their recovery and sense of identity.[2] These frequent, unplanned moves directly undermine the stability and personal relationships central to Article 8 ECHR. Moreover, out-of-area placements often separate children from legal representatives, schools, religious institutions, and mental health services.[3]
13. The Children Act 1989 and statutory guidance require that placements support identity and personal history, but practice often focuses on “availability” rather than best interest or Article 8 ECHR compliance.[4] ECPAT UK research also found that care planning rarely reflects cultural, linguistic, or religious needs as children reported being unable to practice their faith or access culturally familiar food, clothing, and community.[5] The absence of a clear legal mechanism for children to challenge unsuitable placements means breaches of Article 8 are difficult to remedy in real time.

Article 5 ECHR: The right to liberty and security

14. The right to liberty and security under Article 5 ECHR guarantees protection against arbitrary detention and a duty on the state to safeguard individuals from harm. For children in care, particularly unaccompanied and trafficked children, the right to liberty and security is not consistently protected for children in care due to unsafe accommodation practices, inadequate safeguarding against exploitation, and failures to provide care in line with statutory duties. These conditions increase risk of harm, going missing, and re-trafficking. This means children are left without the protections of the care system, at high risk of trafficking and abuse which is a breach of the state’s obligation to protection.

Article 6 ECHR: The right to a fair trial

15. The right to a fair trial is not consistently upheld for care-experience children, particularly those who are victims of child trafficking criminalised for offences committed as a result of their exploitation. Limited access to specialist legal advice and late or inconsistent use of the statutory defence under Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act (MSA) 2015 mean that exploited children are still being charged and prosecuted for offences directly linked to their exploitation.[6]
16. Unaccompanied children also continue to face limited access to legal advice within the asylum procedure and when their age is disputed undermining their ability to access their right to a fair process.

Article 14 ECHR: The protection against discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights

17. The protection against discrimination in the children’s social care system is not fully realised. While the legal framework prohibits discrimination, in practice, children’s enjoyment of their ECHR rights is uneven for child victims of human trafficking and unaccompanied children seeking asylum with treatment varying significantly based on nationality, immigration status, and ethnicity. ECPAT UK’s research found that berries to positive outcomes were identified by young people as structural, systemic and discriminatory with regards to the support they receive in care.[7] Much of the data generated in the study found that attitudes of professionals, including social workers as discriminatory with one young person stating: “..the manager of the social workers … told me ‘why don’t you go back to your country?’”.[8]

Article 2, Protocol ECHR: The right to an effective education

18. While children in care have a statutory entitlement to education, systemic barriers mean that many unaccompanied children, child trafficking victims, and those with insecure immigration status are not able to fully realise their right to an effective education. The disruption in placements, long delays in enrolment, lack of tailored support, and discrimination in access mean that the promise of Article 2 Protocol 1 is not consistently upheld in practice.
19. ECPAT UK’s casework shows that children with limited English often do not receive sufficient English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) provision or access to mainstream education undermining their ability to participate fully in education. Research conducted by the University of Nottingham and ECPAT UK found that children with special educational needs and disabilities, as well as those outside of education including through school exclusion and drop out, are particularly vulnerable to exploitation. [9] Lack of access to legal aid in school exclusion appeals also hinders the ability to prevent exploitation.[10] Additionally the lack of trained interpreters in parent/teacher or review meetings can mean children’s educational needs are misunderstood or underreported.[11]
20. Department for Education data consistently shows that looked-after children perform below the national average at Key Stage 4, with unaccompanied children and other recent arrivals achieving the lowest results.[12] Education disruption is linked to higher risk of Not in Education, Employment, or Training (NEET) status after 18, increasing vulnerability to exploitation.[13]  ECPAT UK found that many trafficked children experience trauma symptoms such as poor concentration, hypervigilance, and anxiety that affect learning.[14] However, schools often lack the specialist training or resources to support recovery alongside education.
21. Moreover, ECPAT UK’s report also found that non-British children in care are more likely to be offered limited curriculum pathways. For example, short ESOL-only courses are often offered instead of access to GCSEs or vocational qualifications, restricting their long-term opportunities.[15] Age disputes can block older children from enrolling in school or college until assessments conclude which essentially denies months of learning time. Some post-16 care leavers with insecure immigration status cannot access student finance, effectively blocking them from higher education and certain vocational courses.

Incorporation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

22. Full incorporation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) into domestic law would be transformative for the protection of children’s rights in England’s social care system. At present, while the UK has ratified the Convention, it is not directly enforceable in English law, meaning children cannot rely on it in court unless its provisions are reflected in domestic legislation. Incorporation would change this by creating a direct, enforceable duty on public authorities including local authorities, central government departments, and other statutory agencies to uphold the full range of children’s rights, rather than relying solely on the narrower protections available under the Human Rights Act 1998. This would make the Convention’s rights legally binding and justiciable, embedding the principle that the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration in all decisions affecting children in or supported by the care system.
23. For children in the social care system, particularly child victims of trafficking and unaccompanied children, incorporation would provide a consistent and enforceable framework for safeguarding their rights. It would ensure that their voices are heard and given due weight (Article 12), that their right to education, healthcare, and protection from harm is guaranteed (Articles 28, 24, and 19), and that discriminatory practices are addressed. This rights-based framework would reduce the reliance on discretionary or piecemeal protections, giving vulnerable children greater certainty that their needs and entitlements will be upheld.
24. The current approach to implementing children’s rights in England has been criticised as fragmented and sectoral, with protections varying depending on setting, status, or local practice. Incorporation would address this by embedding a universal standard of rights across all services and sectors, ensuring equal treatment for all children regardless of immigration status, disability, or care experience. It would also strengthen accountability and transparency: public authorities would be required to assess the compatibility of their policies and decisions with the UNCRC, and children would gain the ability to challenge rights violations in court. In doing so, incorporation would help create a culture of rights-based decision-making at every level of the social care system.

Legal Protections for care experienced young people

25. ECPAT UK strongly supports strengthening legal protections for care-experienced people, including through the recognition of care experience as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, and through targeted statutory entitlements in housing, education, employment, and immigration policy. This would help address the well-evidenced poorer outcomes faced by care leavers, especially child victims. While there are considerations to manage in implementation, the benefits to equality, safeguarding, and social justice are substantial.
26. The recognition of care experience as a protected characteristic would require public bodies and service providers to consider the needs and eliminate discrimination against care-experienced people in line with the Public Sector Equality Duty. It could help tackle structural barriers to employment, housing, and education. It would also send a clear societal signal that care-experienced people deserve equitable outcomes and protection from stigma. However, formal recognition could unintentionally reinforce stereotypes if not implemented with a focus on empowerment and rights. Thus, we must ensure positive framing of care experience in law, embed co-produced guidance with care-experienced people, and strengthen public awareness campaigns.

Accommodation

1. Between July 2021 and January 2024, 6,257 unaccompanied were placed in Home Office run hotels rather than being looked after by local authorities.[16] These hotels were outside the statutory care framework without the safeguards or legal protections of looked-after children.[17] The High Court ruled in ECPAT UK v Home Secretary that the routine use of such hotels was unlawful confirming that local authorities retain the duty to provide care under the Children Act 1989.[18] Over 472 missing episodes were recorded relating to 464 children from such hotels in England during that period, with some who went missing subsequently being located in exploitative situations. [19] Of these, 78 young people remain missing.[20]
2. Under s.22C(6)(d) of the Children Act 1989, children in semi-independent or supported accommodation receive “support” rather than “care”. In 2021, the Government mandated that children aged 15 and under must reside in accommodation where they receive care but did not extend this to 16- and 17-year-olds.[21] Accommodation decisions remain based on age for 16- and 17-year-olds rather than individual vulnerability including re-trafficking risks are not properly considered. Children in unregulated or unsupported accommodation are more likely to go missing, with higher risk of re-trafficking. [22] ECPAT UK’s report documented cases of children missing multiple times, some for weeks, without robust multi-agency retrieval plans.[23] These missing episodes often occur shortly after placement in semi-independent accommodation where exploiters can easily re-establish contact, further eroding children’s sense of security.[24] For example, through threats to family members, debt bondage, or ongoing surveillance by trafficking networks. These placements are unsuitable for most children with trafficking experiences.[25]
3. In 2019, data shows that a third of unaccompanied children were in unregulated placements compared to only 4% of other looked-after children which was a pattern still found in 2023.[26]  These placements are now subject to the Supported Accommodation (England) Regulations 2023 introduced in October of 2023 which require accommodation providers to register with Ofsted, however, these remain placements without care, allowing children to live with adult strangers and in mobile settings, which can include caravans, boats and even tents. [27]  Inspection arrangements are weaker than in children’s homes and managers are not required to have experience of working with children. Nearly two years after the regulations took effect, many settings have yet to be inspected which leaves serious quality and safety issues unaddressed.[28] The quality of provisions also vary widely with children often being placed in unfamiliar areas without staff trained to manage exploitation risk.[29] The risk of trafficking or re-trafficking is often not given due weight in placement decisions, with age and “readiness for independence” prioritised over vulnerabilities.
4. Furthermore, research shows that some children incorrectly assessed as adults by the Home Office and placed in adult asylum accommodation leads to significant safeguarding risks including sexual assault and re-trafficking.[30]

Criminal Justice

5. The proportion of children in England that had been cautioned or sentenced for any offence that had ever been a child in need was 45% and for a serious violence offence was 54%.[31] Children who were a child who is looked after as part of their care experience are 4.5 times more likely than children who had no involvement with the care system to have a criminal caution or conviction.[32] This means care experienced children continue to be overrepresented in the criminal justice system.
6. Despite, growing recognition over the past decade of child exploitation as a form of modern slavery being central to reducing the number of children entering the youth justice system and youth custody, children in care face increased vulnerability to criminal and sexual exploitation resulting from their experiences of trauma, abuse and neglect, and a lack of supervision and support within their care setting.[33]
7. Children who are exploited may commit criminal offences as a result of their exploitation. Establishing a child’s victimhood formally through the NRM is essential to protecting children from prosecution, yet in practice, children exploited for criminal purposes are frequently treated as offenders rather than victims. The Committee on the Rights of the Child has made clear that children cannot consent to their own trafficking and should never be criminalised. In its most recent Concluding Observations to the UK, the Committee urged the state to “ensure that child victims of trafficking in persons are always treated as victims”.[34] Research show that trafficking indicators are often overlooked or minimised at the point of arrest.[35] First responders may continue to rely on self-identification for a referral into the NRM.[36] This practice undermines compliance with V.C.L. and A.N. v UK which established the crucial principle that victims of trafficking do not need to self-identify as victims to trigger the state's obligation to protect them and not prosecute them for crimes committed.[37] The case also confirmed that prosecuting children without proper trafficking inquiries violates Article 6 of the ECHR.[38]
8. In February 2024, an inspection by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) found the Metropolitan Police to be ineffective in its handling of sexual and criminal exploitation of children, with half of the investigations examined graded as inadequate – a concerning finding for a force handling the largest number of cases in the UK.[39] The report cites how officers often see children as offenders rather than victims.[40]
9. In 2024, 48% of all child National Referral Mechanism (NRM) referrals related to child criminal exploitation (CCE) with the majority being boys and a high proportion being British nationals.[41] Concerningly, there is no published data, UK-wide, on how many children in the UK are criminalised for offences committed as a result of their exploitation.[42]
10. Section 45 of the MSA 2015 offers a defence for victims compelled to commit offences due to exploitation, but it applies post-charge and excludes certain “serious” offences, meaning some trafficked children are left unprotected.[43] The Crown Prosecution Service does not publish any statistics relating to the use of the Section 45 defence.[44] Home Office figures from December 2023 state that since the launch of the County Lines Programme in 2019, which includes the Metropolitan, Merseyside, West Midlands, Greater Manchester and British Transport Police forces, 5,165 county lines had been closed, with 15,623 people arrested and 8,011 (adults and children) referred for safeguarding.[45]
11. Given the high proportion of CCE cases referred to the NRM, there are ongoing concerns that exploited children are still being criminalised and are not receiving adequate safeguarding interventions to protect them from further harm, even when identified.[46] Criminal justice professionals report inconsistent understanding of Section 45 which leads to missed opportunities for diversion.[47]
12. Exploiters and other organised criminal networks target children in care due to perceived vulnerabilities, such as lack of parental oversight, accommodation instability, and limited adult advocacy.[48] CCE victims are often found in possession of drugs, money, or mobile phones as a direct result of the exploitation but are still arrested and charged rather than referred promptly to safeguarding pathways.[49]
13. Additionally, the confusing definitional landscape for multiple types of child exploitation leaves children exposed to criminalisation.[50]  Current statutory definition of Child Sexual Exploitation (England, Child sexual exploitation: definition and guide for practitioners, 2017 cited in the Modern Slavery Statutory Guidance) and the non-statutory guidance definition of Child Criminal Exploitation (England, Serious Violence Strategy, 2018 cited in the Modern Slavery Statutory Guidance) introduce a higher threshold for recognising children as victims of human trafficking, as they require evidence of coercion, deception, or manipulation. This approach is incompatible with the UK’s obligations under international law, including the Palermo Protocol and the Council of Europe Convention, which explicitly state that the ‘means’ are irrelevant in cases involving children, as children cannot legally consent to their own exploitation.[51]
14. In 2024, 61% of child NRM referrals were refused on definitional grounds, reflecting inconsistency, and misunderstanding of trafficking and exploitation concepts across agencies.[52] When a child is not recognised as a victim, they lose access to specialist support, evidence-gathering, and protective measures that are crucial to a fair process (including in any related criminal proceedings). Professionals report a “fog” of overlapping terms (modern slavery, CCE/CSE, labour exploitation), producing uneven thresholds and undermining consistent application of safeguards that ensure fair-trial rights such as special measures, appropriate adults, and non-punishment.[53]

(Sep 2025)