COMMITTEE ON RIGHTS OF CHILD EXAMINES REPORT OF FRANCE

Committee on the Rights of the Child

26 May 2009



The Committee on the Rights of the Child today reviewed the combined third and fourth periodic report of France on how that country is implementing the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Introducing the report, Nadine Morano, Minister for Family Affairs of France, said that France had children’s rights very close to its heart. In 2007, France had established a great framework law for the protection of children. The Government’s strong commitment for the protection of children was marked by its ambition in the successful implementation of that law. At the international level, it had signed the Convention and it had then provided for legislation at the national level. Now, the implementation of these provisions was particularly important. The 2007 law had two scopes, the prevention of mistreatment and the improvement of alerts to detect dangers to children.

Concerning child pornography, Ms. Morano said that France had undertaken constant action. There were comprehensive legal provisions: producing child pornography was prosecuted, as well as circulating child’s pornography. Holding such images and using the Internet for committing a misdemeanor, such as sexual proposals made to a child, were prohibited as well. The police had received new instruments to seek out such crimes, such as using pseudonyms. Ten years of imprisonment were possible and, in cases of child pornography, the fines could be even higher.

As to the question of making compatible working time and family time, the Government was working hard to make it possible to work and have a family. France had a very high birth rate, which it wanted to encourage further. Therefore, child care had to be put in place. Legislative provisions supported nursery assistants. There was a great variety on how children were looked after, depending on whether the families were living in the rural or urban areas. There were many crèches at the workplace and France wanted to further diversify the various childcare possibilities and had provided 1,3 billion euros to establish 100,000 more places in nurseries.

Hatem Kotrane, the Committee Expert acting as Co-Rapporteur on the report of France, said in preliminary concluding observations that the Committee would reflect the quality of the discussion that it had had with the French delegation in its concluding observations and recommendations. France should encourage disseminating further the Committee’s concluding remarks in order to spark a national debate on the issue. France should also fine-tune its coordination. With regards to adoption, France had to ensure that there was no back tracking.

Luigi Citarella, Committee Expert acting as Co-Rapporteur on the report of France, said in preliminary concluding observations and recommendations that the Committee had received much helpful additional information today. There might be problems regarding France adopting a global policy for children. There were many programmes, but no single vision. There had been some lacunae and the discussion had focused on mainland France and neglected the overseas departments. Unaccompanied minors, the lack of a global policy for minorities and France’s immigration policy were clearly issues.

Other Experts also raised a series of questions pertaining to, among other things, the registration of birth and the right of the child to know its origin; foreign country adoption and compliance with ethical standards; family welfare for illegal immigrants; child care institutions, parental leave and promotion of breastfeeding; monitoring mechanisms on sexual exploitation of children; integration of children with disabilities; circumstances of detention of children; educational measures for child offenders; immigration policy; age determination of unaccompanied children; violence in schools and violence prevention; drug abuse and suicide rates of adolescents; reasons for high school drop-out rates; school and pre-school system and human rights education; social budget; violence on TV and violent video games.

The delegation of France also included representatives of the following ministries: Ministry for Employment, Social and Family Affairs and Solidarity; Ministry for Foreign Affairs; Ministry for Education; Ministry for Immigration, Integration, National Identity and Development; Ministry of the Interior, Overseas Territories and Local Communities; Ministry of Justice and the Permanent Mission of France at the United Nations.

When the Committee meets on Wednesday, 27 May, at 10 a.m., it will consider the fourth periodic report of Sweden (CRC/C/SWE/4).

Report of France

According to the combined third and fourth periodic report of France (CRC/C/FRA/4), the cross-cutting nature of activities in support of the child calls for a large number of players to take part in their implementation. Within France’s national territory as a whole, around 6,000 activities can be identified affecting 200,000 children and young people. Since legislation in 1982 providing for decentralisation, the departments have become more and more involved in family issues; they have responsibility for childcare. Because of their proximity to the children they serve, their engagement has allowed the development of improved arrangements for child welfare which are the first call on their annual budget – something in excess of 5 billion euros. The State, as the guarantor both of consistency in provision and of the fulfilment of France’s international commitments, also makes a contribution to child welfare, notably through its activities in the fields of justice, health and national education. The French child welfare system is based on tried and tested principles, but must face up to new difficulties. These are partly linked to changing family behaviour and to developments in society, including social instability, but they are linked also to the increased responsibilities that the departments have taken on and to the large number of players involved.
For several years, the arrival of unaccompanied foreign minors or their presence in French territory has prompted many questions. In response to recommendations made by the Committee in 2004, France has pursued its efforts in particular to make better arrangements for the care of these children, to guarantee them better access to basic services and to allow them, where circumstances so require, to return to their country of origin under the best conditions. Various measures work in combination to improve care arrangements for unaccompanied foreign minors. In Paris, experimental arrangements for the emergency reception and care of unaccompanied minors were set up in 2002 as part of policies for combating instability and exclusion. Five participating associations have responsibility for three essential functions: finding the minors and establishing contact, providing them with shelter, and support towards the establishment of their position under the general law. In 2004, about 1,000 young people were contacted and 400 received care and guidance. When the return of a minor to his or her country of origin has to be envisaged, the French State makes it its business to ensure that the process contains every guarantee. It is still essential, however, to strengthen cooperation with states of origin and to establish robust relationships of confidence so that life plans can be put into effect for those concerned. As to minors in detention facilities, on 1 July 2007, 825 minors were under arrest in France, or 1.3 per cent of those arrested and detained. Of these, 34.3 per cent were convicted. In contrast to the substantial increase in the number of adults detained, the number of minors detained is stable with an average length of detention of two and a half months. Minors are detained in one of two types of institution: in a special area of a prison establishment (known as “minors’ wings”) or, since June 2007, in a prison establishment for minors.
Presentation of Report

NADINE MORANO, Minister for Family Affairs of France, introducing the report of France, said that France had children’s rights very close to it heart. France was a country of human rights; human rights were a heritage for France. They must continue to be vigilant about these rights, especially regarding violence against children. France had a responsibility to protect children, also taking into account new technologies as the Internet which she would elaborate on later. France had signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child twenty years ago. It was implemented by numerous public policies, particularly family policy. The interests of the child lay at the heart of that policy.

In 2007, France had established a great framework law for the protection of children. The Government’s strong commitment for the protection of children was marked by its ambition in the successful implementation of that law. At the international level, France had signed the Convention and it had then provided legislation at the national level. Now, the implementation of these provisions was particularly important. The 2007 law had two scopes, the prevention of mistreatment and the improvement of alerts to detect dangers to children. An alert unit had been established in each French department. Thanks to these units, there was information and statistical data on the mistreatment of children.

For a long time, they used to say that French legislation was complex, but much progress had been made. Decentralization laws had clarified the situation, the departments were now in charge and responsible for activities concerning early childhood, the elderly and integration. The departments had spent 5.8 billion euros in 2008 on child protection measures. The State was not absent, it provided strategic advice. Associations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) played a key role in the implementation of the provisions and had been invited to discuss the implementation of the law recently.

Ms. Morano underlined that the right of the child to be protected was also ensured by the parents. The French view was that children must be understood within their family context. Action for children had to be taken in the context with other measures. Reform of guardianship had to be considered as well; 700,000 children were affected by guardianship now. Adoption was also a child’s right, the right to be protected. The President had engaged in a reform to ensure that adoption could be better understood. State management of adoption should be improved in order to coordinate the various ministries, as well as to prepare parents for adoption.

On parenting, there were two issues: family conflicts were becoming ever more strenuous. There were more child abductions, including international abductions, 250 had been notified this year. The State had put in place a free phone number as well as other measures for children in danger. This phone number had been extended to families in distress and it should become as familiar to everyone as the number to call the firemen.

Concerning child pornography, Ms. Morano said that France had undertaken constant action here. There were comprehensive legal provisions: producing child pornography was prosecuted, as well as circulating child’s pornography. Holding such images and using the Internet for committing a misdemeanor, such as sexual proposals made to a child, were prohibited as well. The police had received new instruments to seek out such crimes, such as using pseudonyms. Ten years of imprisonment were possible and, in cases of child pornography, the fines could be even higher. There was free software for parental control and France had put in place awareness raising campaigns among the public on digital means, using mobile phone operators.

As to the question of making compatible working time and family time, the Government was working hard to make it possible to work and have a family. France had a very high birth rate, which it wanted to encourage further. Therefore, child care had to be put in place. Legislative provisions supported nursery assistants. There was a great variety on how children were looked after, depending on whether the families were living in the rural or urban areas. There were many nurseries at the workplace and France wanted to further diversify the various childcare possibilities and had provided 1,3 billion euros to establish 100,000 more places in nurseries.

Questions by Experts

LUIGI CITARELLA, Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of France, said that indeed France was at the forefront in protecting human rights. As mentioned, there were problems concerning the Internet and access to information which may be dangerous for children. These difficulties emerged from changes in society. Acts of violence were committed by children and were particularly severe in the French suburbs. In the report, there was no mention of the overseas territories. It was therefore not easy to compare the situation of children living in overseas territories and those living in mainland France. Further, the report was not developed together with civil society, which the Committee deplored. Even after the report was completed, it was not published to be consulted by civil society.

There seemed to be a problem regarding the orientation of the Council of State and the Cassation Court. Also in view of the independence of the magistrate, it would be an advantage to clarify their positions. Regarding the application of the Convention, more progress had to be made to make it possible for people to invoke to Convention. Perhaps a new law could be created to put provisions of the Convention in national law, so that they could be invoked on a national level.

HATREM KOTRANE, Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of France, said that of course the Committee was aware of the fact that it was dealing with a country that respected human rights. Children had a priority in the French system and considerable legislative work had been done. The distinction between a legitimate child and an illegitimate child had been abolished. Also, several international conventions had been ratified, such as the Convention on Enforced Disappearances. The report was an aggregate of information concerning the implementation of the Convention, but NGOs had informed the Committee that the report had not been published and was not accessible to NGOs. What measures did France envisage in order to open up a debate with civil society on the situation in France?

Regarding the national action plan, Mr. Kotrane said that there was no overall body that was responsible for the coordination and evaluation of the plan. Was France intending to set up a national coordination mechanism, as the Committee had recommended earlier? What had happened to the global action plan that was discussed earlier on? France did not have such a plan yet. Concerning the draft bill of the reform of criminal law and the age of criminal responsibility, an Expert said that there were apparently children who were 13 who were tried. Was that correct? In the current system, there was the principle of discernment. There appeared to be children of 7 or 8 that were expected to shoulder responsibility even though they would not be sentenced.

Another Expert said that there seemed to be an apparent lack in the implementation of the rights of children. France had a rich family policy, but the child perspective had to get more respect. Families were changing, in France and elsewhere. France seemed to lack a global strategy that ensured the implementation of the Convention in departments and ministries. It should not only include child protection, but child survival throughout their lives, as well as child participation. The dissemination of the Convention itself seemed to be very limited, although France did a very good job in awareness-raising campaigns, such as the one mentioned regarding violence and the Internet. The Expert asked how France would ensure that the Convention became a social value that could be passed on from generation to generation.

On international cooperation, an Expert noted that the report was rather silent on the issue. What had France achieved in this area? The Expert wished to know more about the holistic influence that France had on the European Union’s child rights policy, especially under the French presidency of the European Union. He also noted that nobody could become part of the armed forces, if he was not at least 17 years old. How was this in line with the Convention? Also, conscription was suspended in 2003 but could be reinstated at any time. Regarding child abduction, a Committee Expert doubted that France encouraged bilateral agreements. A law provided that parents should involve their children in decisions that affected them. Was there any information campaign that informed families of this law? Regarding the general implementation of the data, an Expert noted with great surprise that the report did not mentioned any data at all, expect for homeless children. More data, especially on children’s living conditions was necessary.

The delegation had explained that France wanted to ensure that children should not be separated from their parents, unless it was in the interest of the child. There also was an exchange of views between the Government and associations. But these associations stated that the implementation of the legislation violated children’s rights. There were children that were wrongly considered to be adults and were held in custody. There was also a disincentive for immigrant children to attend school. An important fact was that in 2007, 242 children, 80 percent of them under the age of ten, were held in detention centers. Which agencies had implemented these policies? And what measures ensured that children were not separated from their families when they entered France?

Concerning the right to identity, an Expert wanted to know how France guaranteed a child’s right to know its family and nationality. What measures were taken that family ties could be established? An Expert said that in the report, a degree of critical self-analysis was lacking in the report and much information on the overseas territories was buried in the annexes. Were all children born in the overseas territories registered?

Answers by the Delegation

NADINE MORANO, Minister for Family Affairs of France, said on the process of drafting the report that there was a pre-report drafted before the actual report in which all comments from NGOs and associations had been taken into account. If the provisions were clear and specific, it was up to the jurisdiction to determine which provisions were applicable. Eleven of the 54 provisions were directly applicable, which was huge progress. Regarding the overseas departments, she noted that it was the first time that they had been specifically mentioned. Of course, there were efforts to be made to improve the data. On the circulation of the Convention, this Convention could be consulted on the website on the Ministry of Family and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. Information for children was undertaken at different levels: in primary schools, in secondary schools and in families. A national event would be held in order to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the signature of the Convention.

In France children did not live alone and therefore, children had to be regarded in the family context. However, it was a cross-cutting issue which affected justice, education, health and other ministries. If children did not live within a family it was the inter-ministerial strategy that was active to protect those children. Regarding the quality of data, Ms. Morano said that France was working on improving the quality at the grass roots. France always asked itself when to consider third party rights and where the higher interest of the child was. In adoption, they gave a child a family and not the other way round.

Regarding the question on the army, French legislation was in line with the Convention. No child under the age of 18 took part in external military action. Although the French legion could recruit soldiers from the age of 17, there were currently no soldiers under the age of 18. As to bilateral agreements in child abduction cases, with the Hague Convention, there were several bilateral agreements. France wanted to beef up such agreements, since children that were abducted, often by a parent, were in huge distress as France had to witness lately with the abduction of a small French girl called Elisa, a case that was talked about in the media.

Questions by the Experts

An Expert asked what measures the Government was putting in place to ensure that the economic crisis was not negatively impacting on expenditure for children. Further, the Children’s Defender had pointed out that the European Union Commission report on the effectiveness of the justice system put France at the 23rd place in the European Union. Had the time not come to put in place a global strategy to implement the Convention? This needed to go hand in hand with budgetary provisions.

Concerning the registration of birth and the right of the child to know its origin, an Expert said that initiatives had been taken for children searching for their origin. The Committee remained concerned about this issue, since there was for example a veto against the child’s wish knowing its origin. France wished to support adoption abroad and the Committee was perplexed that France did not aim for a better balance between individual steps made for an adoption and the official way. An Expert asked whether France could guarantee the same treatment for children that had been adopted from countries that had signed The Hague Convention and those children from other countries?

Concerning the payment of family welfare, in recent recommendations the Committee had said that it should not be linked to parents having entered France illegally. Had France taken action in order to ensure this? In May 2005, the Ministry of the Interior had considered the issue of persons entering France under the age of 18. Some of the concerns included the provision of full assistance to asylum-seekers. Was this extended to children as well? And were children not expelled automatically to their country of origin? There were not sufficient ad hoc administrators to deal with such cases. The 2006 law was at issue in the case of minor Afghans who had arrived in France and had to wait for more than six months to have their cases treated.

There were provisions in French law, which were not in line with the Convention. For example, children between 16 and 17 were considered as adults. In cases brought before courts, they were not treated as children. As to the principle of discernment, this was sometimes respected in France, but it depended on the various courts. It was in part respected overseas, but treated very arbitrarily.

Turning to child care, were there any services that were accessible for all children in their mother tongues? Was there an action plan to stop violence in schools? Was there research and studies on the reasons for the dropping out of foreigners from schools? Did they have a second chance to finish school? The percentage of youth unemployment was very high in France. Who took care of this group? Corporal punishment was not completely eliminated. Did France plan to adopt a law in that regard? The Committee had discussed last time that if children wore conspicuous religious symbols, they would be excluded from school and an Expert wished for a follow-up on this issue. Concerning maternal and parental leave, there was a free choice, which was excellent for those that had a choice. Why was the French Government opposing the minimum stay of at least six months of a woman which would allow for breastfeeding for six months which was internationally recommended? What was the proportion of men staying at home for parental leave?

Turning to sexual exploitation, an Expert said that there was much information on preventive measures. Were there monitoring mechanisms? Were there law officials that had been appointed to deal with sexual exploitation? On arms and child soldiers, the Expert wanted to know whether there were sale of arms policies that ensured that arms would not get in the hands of children, for example in the Great Lakes region.

As to children with disabilities, France was very engaged in integrating children in school and in society. But what had been done to integrate children with several disabilities, including autism and mental disabilities? On child health services, what were the safeguards that France did not lose its position of one of the best health care provider? On drug and alcohol policies, efforts had been more directed to reduce the supply of alcohol, what about the prevention of emotional and health problems, as well as strengthening of the self-esteem which would help reduce drug and alcohol abuse.

Concerning deprivation of liberty, 37 specialized detention centers had been closed. What was the impact of these new provisions? Who dealt with detainee children? Was it educators or wardens? What measures were in place in order to guarantee the children’s link with their families? In problematic cases, what measures had been taken in order to protect child victims? In detention centers for foreigners, children were held together with adults. How was age determined for minors separated from their families? What was done in the overseas territories?

An Expert was concerned about school drop-out rates which were high. Since school drop-out was often the first step towards social exclusion, the Expert wanted to know what measures France was envisaging in order to counter this development. She was also concerned about violence on television and in video games, which were becoming more and more violent. Which measures were taken in order to prohibit violence on television and to prohibit the sale of violent video games to children?

As to adolescent health, an Expert commended France on its efforts in that regard. However, the problems were persisting and sometimes even increasing, both in mainland France and overseas territories, including alcohol and drug addiction, teenage pregnancies and suicides. France had a particularly high suicide and attempted suicide rate. What was France doing in order to analyze the root causes that explained why adolescents wanted to end their lives? How effective were the adolescent centers that had been established recently? The Committee had learned that there was a severe shortage of pediatric psychiatry. An Expert asked why there were so many children running away from home, when France had this great emphasis on the family. Also was the kidnapping help line working? Did the help line have adequate resources and did it reach all children?

Regarding the applicability of the Convention, an Expert said that ratification entailed certain obligations. There could not be national barriers for the application of international provisions. The application of only 11 of 54 provisions was too few, contrary to what the Minister had mentioned earlier.

Roughly 5,500 adoptions took place each year, 1,500 were national and the rest were international adoptions. Around two thirds were adoptions of children from countries that had not ratified The Hague Convention. Bearing in mind the high number of persons that wanted to adopt, roughly 30,000, it had to be noted that pressure was considerably high. The Committee was concerned about a close cooperation that was planned with volunteers working in French embassies that would find children to adopt with the help of NGOs. This would open a third way of adoption and undermine the centralized French system. Why was there such a large request for adoption and why wasn’t there more national adoption? The Expert wanted to know if a study existed on why there was such a high demand.

Since France’s birth rate had risen, an Expert wanted to know more about measures to counter the overcrowding in child care institutions. Also, there was little doubt about the benefits of breastfeeding to small children and an Expert asked what was being done to promote it. She also critized that France took a very medical approach to children with disabilities.

Answers by the Delegation

NADINE MORANO, Minister for Family Affairs of France, said concerning children in an irregular situation in France, since 2007, certain criteria had been established in order to establish an immigration and integration policy. Family reunification was a right, France’s policy was family based. On detention, Ms. Morano said this was an exception. Administrative retention was not detention. No isolated minor could be in an administrative retention center. Arriving at the airport, they would be in waiting areas to which the Red Cross had access and provided support. Those centers had kitchens and televisions and were not detention centers. Families and children were not separated, rather, they were family-oriented retention centers. An inter-ministerial working group had been set up to deal with the issues arising in this regard. Of course, France could not welcome all families that whished to come to France. France had to dismantle all human trafficking organizations. The best interest of the child was at stake here and parents should not place their children in such dangerous situations.

Questions by Experts

Experts said regarding the waiting area, children of 13 to 18 were treated as adults and did not get special treatment as minors. Before they were sent back to their country of origin, did France establish whether they did not come from a third country? The Committee was concerned about the appointment of ad hoc administrators and about children arriving without papers. What measures did France take to ensure that the children that were sent back were welcomed in their countries of origin? Experts also wanted to know more about the methods used to determine the age of minors.

Answers by the Delegation

Apart from the legal guarantees and medical assistance, special attention was given to these minors, the delegation said. An ad hoc administrator was appointed immediately. When talking about minors, although the law did not spell this out, every minor went to the zone d’attente in Roissy airport to which the Red Cross had access. It was true that there had been problems to provide effective representation by an ad hoc administrator. France wanted to reach 100 percent of representation and provided now 90 percent. Concerning the determination of age, she said that bone examination was only used when there was serious doubt regarding the age on the papers. It was taken on the wrist and was of course not always reliable. Most of the time, it ran to the favour of the child. Unfortunately, there were no other methods to determine age.

The delegation further explained that the penal age was left up to the judge, but it was not true that they were judged as adults as had been stated. There was no fixed age for criminal responsibility; it depended on their faculty of discernment. Magistrates did not decide alone but had recourse to psychiatric recommendations. A threshold for criminal age of 13 was envisaged, below that age minors were simply not criminally responsible. A system of warnings had been tested, but studies showed that children did not know what these warnings meant. The cardinal principle in the reform of the criminal code was an educational one. There were 38 closed educational centers with 414 places. Specialized educators were working with those children and family ties were maintained. Of 2000 young people that have left such centers, 32 percent had gone back to school and 25 per cent had gone into vocational training.

Questions by the Experts

Regarding minors appearing before adult courts, notably under the 2007 law, some provisions had been withdrawn, Experts noted. This appeared to be a violation of the Convention. Educational measures had had spectacular results in other countries and the Experts asked the delegation to comment on such measures. The Council of Europe had launched a campaign to ban all forms of corporal punishment at schools and in families. France did not have such legislation. The campaign went beyond spanking; it also included emotional and psychological abuse. French legislation asked for a medical certificate of the corporal punishment which in many cases of corporal punishment could not be provided. The aim of the campaign was to tell all society that corporal punishment was forbidden, even though it was not violence as defined in criminal law. All forms of physical humiliation and all forms of psychological violation were forbidden.

Answers by the Delegation

France was often faced with young delinquents who were repeat defenders. They had been told by older people that they would not go to court which set an incentive to commit an offense. The fact that crime figures had doubled over the last years did not mean that there was more repression but rather that there had been more crimes committed and at an earlier age. To be considered a repeat offender at the age of 16 and 18, they had to be sentenced at least once to prison time. For repeat offenders, the provisions were stricter, but, depending on the character of the minor, the court could do away with those stricter provisions and rule for educational measures. The vast majority of rulings handed down by French courts were educational measures. Less than 0.5 per cent of rulings overall were prison sentences.

On corporal punishment, the delegation clarified that there was no tradition of corporal punishment in France that warranted an explicit prohibition. Surely, a slap of a teacher was reprehensible and there were legislative measures to hold the persons responsible, even for rather minor forms. France stressed criminal respond but did not need to amend its legislation. The Council of Europe had put in place a campaign, especially on bottom smacking, but France had sufficient provisions. France’s legislation provided for banning of all forms of violence, also psychological violence. France did not need to amend its legislation. France was against all forms of corporal punishment. Better training and support for parents should be provided and France implemented these policies through the parenting networks.

Concerning violence on television and video games, since 1996 a code on each television programme showed the parents the age threshold allowing children to see it or not. Television advertising programmes told parents of this threshold which was not being improved. A working group was put in place in order to work on measure to train staff not to sell violent video games to children.

Regarding data on adoption, each family must to confirm its wish to adopt annually. Eighty per cent of adoptions occurred internationally and the Ministry for Family Affairs had worked together with the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, an ambassador had been appointed to deal with such adoption. This body was very new. Concerning individual adoption, Ms. Morano said that France preferred national and ethical adoptions that went through agencies. If there was a child adopted from a foreign country, the child might not have a health certificate and needed support. Also, some children were not fit immediately to be placed in the school system and needed support. Also, when children questioned their origin or were abandoned, they needed special assistance. Families needed to be made aware of these additional responsibilities. France wanted to have adopted children to have a better link to their birth families. Children needed stability and France had to make sure that children were not sent from one host family to another. Uprooting a child repeatedly might have repercussions on their adult life. They should not spend years with a host or foster family when they could be adopted. In France, there were children that had special needs, they were rather more difficult to adopt, because they were older, had a disability or lived with brothers and sisters. The information system was not yet good enough to link up parents with such children with special needs. In conclusion, the guiding principle was ethics.

Questions by the Experts

Experts underlined that the Hague Convention did not allow for private adoption. It recommended that those countries that were Parties to the Convention did follow ethical rules. What was surprising was that France had a large number of adoptions from countries that were not Party to the Convention. It did not seem that France was moving in the right direction in order to discourage adoption from such countries. Adoption seemed to be seen as a means of international cooperation. France should use appropriate measures and accredited bodies provided by the Hague Convention and should not invent a third way because there was no monitoring of the procedure possible.

Answers by the Delegation

Concerning the national representatives in foreign embassies, the delegation said that an official in a French embassy provided a guarantee that prospective parents received adequate information. It was not people who provided children for need, but it was a specific approach at the local level that had an added value that was in line with the Hague Convention. There was prior approval of the adoption that appeared before a French judge, this procedure was the same for adoption from countries that had had signed the Hague Treaty and those that had not.

With regard to education, the delegation explained that violence which occurred in the school environment. France needed tools to monitor violence in order to have the best data possible. A software system called civis was put into place that provided complete transparency for staff and parents. Acts of violence were serious acts but only occurred in certain schools. A survey on victimization had been established which was tested right now, the goal was to interview students and not heads of schools. Depending on the results of the test phase, this survey would be conducted at a much wider scale. The prevention of violence must take place in education. France had to fight against failing at schools, because this was an important factor for violence. Skills that children should acquire when they were leaving school, included social skills and living citizenship and the diversity of teaching, were emphasized. The diversity of curricula was important in the reform of secondary school. Further, the fight against illiteracy was part of the education policy, 15 per cent of students entered secondary school without being able to read properly, which could certainly lead to problems later.

Turning to drug use, there was a clear education policy to prevent the abuse of alcohol, marijuana and other drugs. There was a whole series of medical measures that had been taken. Truancy was a first warning bell. France closely monitored and worked together with schools to ensure that there was immediate response when there was a child that had an unexplained absence. Exclusion-inclusion methods had been established, because it had been noted that many exclusion measures had been taken in certain schools. These methods meant that students that had to leave their class did so, but stayed at their school and had to other activities. It was important to propose activities for children throughout school holidays, so that they would not feel abandoned and could fill their time with cultural and sport activities. France was concerned about racketing and had established measures, such as police officer going to schools for prevention activities. Schools were encouraged to put into place a violence prevention plan. As to drop-outs, the delegation explained that France had a specific target of reducing the rates by 10 percent during three years. As to what France called priority education, the delegation said that a specific type of school was specifically vulnerable and there were specific measures.

Questions by the Experts

Experts asked to what extent the programmes were successful and if they were studies in place in order to assess the outcome. Also, was human rights education included in the school curriculum? What was the role of the liaison police officer? Did he draw out files of the students? An Expert reiterated her earlier question on the budget for activities in the education sector. Unemployment was increasing and affecting the poorest in the society. A million children lived below the poverty line. The number would probably be greater if France used the measuring procedures of the European Union. The issue of poor children were not taken into account, as it seemed, there was no specific programme taking care of those children. What was being done in order to ensure that these numbers did not increase further? This was an issue that was crucial to the development of France.

Answers by the Delegation

On citizenship education, the delegation said that children’s rights education appeared in primary school curricula and secondary school curricula. There were cross-cutting issues, in which such questions could also be raised, such as everything related to health, for example sexual education. There could be an approach to law through the subject of sexual violation. There was, among others, a children’s rights day in November and a day celebrating the abolishing of slavery. The police officer should establish a liaison of trust between the police and the school. It was not about establishing files, quite the opposite.

As to the data base on students, the Ministry did take into account criticism and a large number of information was withdrawn such as truancy, and what remained was only the identity of the student.

Although there was no childhood budget as such, the delegation said that children were cared for through various programmes. On the impact of the current crisis on social budget, the delegation said that there had been no impact. Social issues had a priority in France, and to the contrary, additional funding had been provided to certain services. There was no cut in social budgets. 700’000 people should be able to cross the poverty threshold thanks to new provisions.

It was true that schooldays in France were very long. There were pre-schools from two years of age which had positive effects on children for their social relations and for learning the language. Children promoted jardins de veille in order to better reconcile family and work. A legislation had been set up under labour law that companies had to set up places were women could breastfeed.

On sexual exploitation, the delegation said that many plans had been set up for adolescents. Structures had been set up in which adolescents could meet with experts, most of these structures were in health facilities or closely linked to facilities. There were about 50,000 consultations annually.

Questions of Experts

An Expert asked whether France was undertaking studies regarding the problems that adolescents were facing. She underlined that this was not simply a health issue and the Committee had to get assurance that these issues were going to be studied. As to children placed out of their families, they were concerned that they did not get visits from parents and siblings.

Answers by the Delegation

Of course there were many studies on various subjects. And France also wanted to keep the family links if somehow possible. However, the child often had to be placed outside the family because of these missing links. They had to be rebuilt in many cases. The high number of children running away from home, in 2008, it were 47,00 children, half of them ran away from home and the other half from establishments they had been placed in. Those numbers came from the list of missing persons of the gendarmeries. When children ran away, the alert was raised immediately and their name put on the missing persons file with no waiting period. How was this large number possible? Many persons have been found a year later which explained partly the high number. Children with an immigrant background who ran away sometimes left the country or changed their names, but remained on the list. There was a great deal of media attention to the Elise case thanks to the immediate alert system and the girl could be found a month after she disappeared.

Preliminary Concluding Remarks

Mr. KOTRANE, the Committee Expert acting as Co-Rapporteur for the report of France, said in preliminary concluding observations said that the Committee would reflect the quality of the discussion that the Committee had had with the French delegation in its concluding observations and recommendations. The first comment was to encourage disseminating further the Committee’s concluding remarks in order to spark a national debate on the issue. France should also fine-tune its coordination. As regards adoption, France had to ensure that there was no back tracking.

Mr. CITARELLA, the Committee Expert acting as Co-Rapporteur for the report of France, said that the Committee had received much helpful additional information today. There might be problems regarding France adopting a global policy for children. There were many programmes, but no single vision. There had been some lacunae and the discussion had focused on mainland France and neglected the overseas departments. Unaccompanied minors, the lack of a global policy for minorities and France’s immigration policy were clearly issues.


Closing remarks by the Delegation

As to applicability, the delegation said that the Committee said that only 11 of 54 provisions were directly applicable. Before it was only five, so that was progress. It did also not mean that the rest was not applicable; they had simply not yet been discussed in the courts. The issue of minorities was being discussed in France, the Constitution could not be touched, but there was a lot of discussion. It had been said that there was not enough self-criticism, but it was difficult to criticize something that was still work in progress.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record