The Guardian view on police and child spies: ends don’t always justify the means

Downing Street tells us that child spies are used very rarely by British police and intelligence agencies, and only when it is judged really vital. How reassuring. We would not know they were being used at all were it not for government plans to relax the controls on their use. The House of Lords committee on secondary legislation has revealed that children are being used in covert operations against terrorists, gangs and drug dealers, and child sexual exploitation (and in doing so, incidentally, demonstrated parliament at its best and most useful, in a week where it has often looked at its worst).

Home Office correspondence suggests children are not merely giving police information, but are actively assigned to collect it. In the case of 16- to 18-year-olds, approval from a parent or guardian is not required. Under-16s cannot be deployed to obtain evidence against a parent – but presumably can against other family members; and there appears to be no such control on those aged between 16 and 18. The authorisation process does not appear to include social workers or other relevant agencies, raising questions over how it fits with the government’s own guidance on safeguarding children. And as the committee notes, the offences under investigation are “serious, violent crimes and we have grave concerns about any child being exposed to such an environment”.

What we still do not know about these actions is as alarming as what we have found out, especially given the push to extend the authorisation period for using juvenile sources from one to four months. We do not know how many sources there are; we do not know much about how precisely their use is authorised; we do not know what, if any, inducements are offered; we do not know what support is provided during and after operations.

The Lords report notes that home office replies “[do] not fully satisfy our concerns about the extent to which juveniles are being used for covert surveillance or how their welfare is taken into account, and how extending their period of operation may affect them”. While the government noted monthly authorisation can increase the pressure on the child source and their handlers to get results quickly, the report concludes that the predominant tone of the proposal was more about administrative convenience. Though multiple groups associated with policing and law were consulted, there is no mention of discussions with groups that focus on the welfare of juveniles; and it is unclear whether there has been any attempt to study the long-term impact of such work.

“It’s basically a kid that has been caught first time, and instead of rescuing them they are sending them back in,” notes a former undercover police officer. He points out that the dangers go beyond the glaringly obvious risk of retaliation against an individual source who is discovered; they may endanger children in the drugs trade more broadly, by encouraging gangsters to terrify young associates into compliance. The MP who leads the all-party group for runaway and missing children and adults has already warned of a significant increase in the violence used by “county lines” groups coercing children into carrying drugs from cities into rural areas.

The very nature of these investigations indicates that many, if not all, of these children are already vulnerable. Years of austerity have stretched services to breaking point. Youth and social services and educational provision cannot meet the demands. This, as well as broader social and economic marginalisation, is the context of the frightening rises in knife crime and gang violence. As researchers warned in the Guardian this week, the most vulnerable gang members are often the most dangerous.

The danger is that exploited children, treated as expendable by adult criminals, are being exploited again. That it may be done for admirable ends – protecting a larger number of children from abuse and violence by building a case against the offenders – does not in itself justify these means. If there is a case for their use, it should be made openly, with provision of the appropriate evidence, and a full discussion of the necessary safeguards and oversights.