WRITE A BRIEF CRITIQUE OF THE RESPONSE OF UK GOVERNMENTS TO THE UN CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD.
"The UN Convention On The Rights Of The Child" was ratified by the UK on 16 December 1991. In doing this, the Government agreed to make all laws, policy and practice compatible with the convention. The convention gives all children and young people under the age of 18 set rights, including the "right to express and have their views taken into account on all matters that affect them; the right to play, rest and leisure and the right to be free from all forms of violence" (www.crights.org.uk, accessed 10/11/03). By adopting the Convention the UK government agreed to abide by its aims in protecting children and promoting their rights to participate in decisions that affect them. Despite this being over 10 years ago, repeated research has shown that children and young people are generally unaware that the Convention exists and they have these basic human rights.
The main argument when discussing the UK Government's response to the convention is implementation, which is a problem affecting almost every policy introduced in the UK, but is particularly prominent in this case. For example, under the new Immigration and Asylum Act (passed in 1999) it looks likely that asylum-seeking children and their families will receive less financial support than UK national children. This is a direct contradiction of the UN convention, which suggests that no child should receive different treatment from any other child, therefore should never have been passed. Yet, at the same time, Health Minister, John Hutton, launched the Government's second report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child. This referred to "the encouraging progress we as a nation are making in implementing the convention's wide-ranging provisions" (www.unicef.org.uk, accessed 10/11/03).
"By contrast, the UK Agenda for children is extremely thorough in providing info on the extent to which the UK Gov.