Select Committee on Education and Skills Ninth Report

4  Placing children, young people and families at the centre of the reforms

An outcomes-based approach

27. Every Child Matters aims to put children and young people at the heart of the reforms and has consequently been designed around five 'outcomes' that all children and young people should be able to expect: being healthy; staying safe; enjoying and achieving; making a positive contribution; and achieving economic well-being. These outcomes have been arrived at in consultation with children and young people, and it is intended that they will drive all aspects of children's services reform. We have found almost universal enthusiasm for the outcomes-focused and child-centred approach, of which the following comment from the Children's Society is typical:

"We […] greatly welcome and support the key themes of the Green Paper […] [including] That all policy- and decision-making, funding, commissioning and professional practice should be coherently focussed on a common set of outcomes to be achieved for all children and young people."[11]

28. The pursuit of an outcomes-based approach is clearly only worthwhile if the definitions of each outcome are meaningful and comprehensive. Since the publication of the original Green Paper, the five main outcomes have each been refined to have five associated 'aims' (see Appendix A). We are pleased that the Government has recently consulted on the appropriateness of these 25 aims[12], and look forward to learning the outcome.

29. An outcomes-led approach is also only likely to be meaningful if attainment of the five outcomes—and services' contributions to those outcomes—can be accurately measured. Joint inspections of children's services and individual institutional inspections will be one of the main means for achieving this. How effectively joint inspection in particular will assess local progress toward meeting the five outcomes is yet to be determined. Ofsted and partners have recently produced proposals for children's services inspection, on which they are consulting. Our initial thoughts on the new children's services inspections, including their likely effectiveness as a tool for measuring progress towards the five outcomes, are laid out in more detail in section six of this report.

Involving children, young people and parents

30. One key aim of Every Child Matters is for children and young people to become more centrally involved in the design and delivery of services that they access, as well as the inspection and evaluation of services. In addition, part two of the Children Act 2004 contains a subsection relating specifically to parents, which stipulates that children's services authorities "must have regard to the importance of parents and other persons caring for children in improving the well-being of children."[13] The underlying presumption is that service user involvement will achieve better outcomes for children and their families. It is mostly left to local Children's Trusts to decide the exact means and methods by which these groups will be involved in the design and delivery of services, although we understand that guidance is forthcoming from the DfES on this issue.

31. There is evidence of strong agreement with the value of such an approach. With regard to the involvement of parents and carers, the Family Policy Alliance stressed that their own research had found that effective service delivery was underpinned by six crucial factors, most of which implied a close working relationship with parents and families. These were: reachable services, recognition of the family's need, responses to the need of the whole family, respect for family expertise, referral to services which meet their express need, and checking to see whether support provided was useful[14].

32. The Association of Directors of Social Services similarly emphasised the importance of user involvement—but also stressed that this would be challenging to achieve in practice:

"there is a set of issues about how we develop a real consistent community voice into children's services. This will fail unless we are engaging children, their families and their communities; and we need to find ways which consistently and imaginatively are going to make people feel they are party to this agenda, and that it is not just an agenda that is being developed by the macro organisations."[15]

33. Philip Collins, Director of the Social Market Foundation, told us that, in his view, it would be those who would most benefit from involvement that would be the most difficult to engage. While there were successful examples of initiatives involving diverse groups in the shaping of services, these were generally resource-intensive:

"Across all public services it has proved to be quite easy to get some social groups involved in public services and much more difficult for the lower socio­economic groups [but] … Sure Start did it and they did it by going out and knocking on doors essentially. Outreach work was the answer. They got people involved which all the evidence and all the doom sayers said you could not do. The positive answer is that it can be done, but it is expensive because you cannot sit and wait for the people to come. You have to go to them. It is very labour intensive. I do not think at the moment that hard pressed workers in the system have the capacity to do it."[16]

34. An interview with a Pathfinder Children's Trust revealed the following interesting observation on the impact of differential funding and ability to engage users:

"When we set up the Children's Trust, we were impressed by the Sure Start model of Governance with its emphasis on community ownership. We adapted elements of that model for the Children's Trust. However, Sure Start comes with resources with which to facilitate and promote involvement; the Children's Trust does not."[17]

35. There is a large body of research into effective practical strategies for the involvement of parents and carers in service delivery.[18] Additionally, Sure Start programmes have been at the forefront of promoting parental involvement, and analyses of these programmes that are currently being released provide a useful source of information[19]. Similarly, the independent evaluation of Pathfinder Children's Trusts, being carried out currently by the University of East Anglia,[20] has the potential to inform the development of the guidance mentioned above, and future best practice materials. There is a smaller body of research into successful strategies for involving children and young people in the design and delivery of services, and additional research could be commissioned to strengthen knowledge in this area, especially in the light of the interim review of Pathfinder Children's Trusts, which suggested that involving children and young people has sometimes been more difficult than involving their parents or carers.[21]

36. The issue of parental (and wider community) involvement has recently been thrown into particularly sharp focus by announcements that the funding and governance arrangements for Sure Start programmes are to change. Sure Start programmes currently receive direct funding from the Sure Start Unit, and parents along with community representatives have routinely held places on the board of directors and/or been closely involved in the programmes in other ways. The National Evaluation of Sure Start (NESS) shows this has been popular and empowering for parents, and that Sure Start staff have found parents and carers valuable allies in enhancing service delivery.[22]

37. In the future, funding for Sure Start Children's Centres will be channelled through children's services authorities—who may then involve parents in the operation of centres. Some have interpreted this as representing an implied diminution in the role of parents, and have questioned how this sits with the policy commitment to make sure parents and carers are centrally involved in service design and delivery.

38. The Minister told us that this was categorically not the case and that the intention was to:

"ensure, both through guidance that we give local authorities and the way in which we inspect and manage the performance of local authorities, that that essential ethos of Sure Start, which is the involvement of parents in all aspects of the delivery of services for children and families in the earliest years, is maintained."[23]

39. These were welcome words, but it remains to be seen whether the effects of a substantial reorganisation of Sure Start will be as intended—and whether parents will continue to have the kinds of roles that they have held until now. We are concerned that significant changes are being made to the Sure Start programme when evidence about the effectiveness of the current system is only just beginning to emerge. This relates back to our wider point[24] about the inherent difficulties of pursuing transformative and rapid change while at the same time maintaining a commitment to evidence-based policy.

Children's Commissioner for England

40. A key proposal in creating a keener focus on the needs of children and young people is the Children's Commissioner for England. Part one of the Children Act 2004 provides for the establishment of a Children's Commissioner for England - the first in the country's history—in direct response to Lord Laming's recommendation that a Children's Commissioner should be appointed. The appointment of Professor Al Ainsley-Green, formerly National Clinical Director for Children at the Department of Health, to the post was announced on 8 March 2005. We wish him well in his endeavours. It is intended that the Children's Commissioner will be a powerful 'listening post' for children and young people, and an important part of the commitment to place children at the centre of reforms. Specific powers to be exercised by the post-holder are broadly defined on the face of the Act and are subject to regulation through guidance to be issued at a later date by the Secretary of State.

41. The overwhelming majority of evidence we have received has welcomed in principle the establishment through statute of a Children's Commissioner for England. However, the scope and powers of the role have attracted very significant criticism. There is concern about: a perceived lack of independence of the Commissioner; lack of clarity about the relationship of the Commissioner for England with the three existing Children's and Young People's Commissioners in the rest of the UK; and the definition of the role as one concerned with promoting the needs and views of children and young people, rather than safeguarding and protecting their rights.

INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS

42. England is the last part of the UK to create the role of a Children's Commissioner—similar posts have already been established in the devolved administrations: in Wales Peter Clarke was appointed to the role in 2001; in Northern Ireland, Nigel Williams was appointed in 2003; and in Scotland Professor Kathleen Marshall took up office in 2004. The powers, roles and remits differ slightly between the three existing Children's and Young People's Commissioners. However, the three Commissioners told us that differences between their remits and the remit of the Commissioner for England were more significant—a memorandum from the Commissioners, printed with this report, compares and contrasts aspects of their roles against that of the Commissioner for England.[25]

43. We heard from all three existing UK Commissioners during the course of our inquiry. Broadly speaking, while committed to working with the appointee for England, they told us that they foresaw the definition of the Children's Commissioner for England role as comparatively weak, and that there was a risk in consequence that the Commissioner for England would be a less effective champion than had been widely hoped for.

44. In addition, we are also mindful of the experience of countries outside the UK which have already established Children's and Young People's Commissioners. Norway and British Columbia, Canada are two cases in point, and our visits there in October 2004 and January 2005 respectively, provided us with the opportunity to learn from their experience. British Columbia appointed a Children's Commissioner in September 1996, following the recommendations of an inquiry into the death of Matthew John Vaudreuil in 1992. The remit was somewhat different from that of the English Commissioner—having a prime focus on investigating individual cases of child abuse. In 2002, following a change of Government, the office was disbanded and effectively replaced with a new Officer for Children and Youth in the context of a reorganisation of Governmental departments. Two reasons were offered for the disbanding of the post: first, it was felt that the original Commissioner's role duplicated the responsibilities of some other organisations and overlapped with some government departmental roles. Second, the relationship between the Commissioner and Ministers had sometimes been unproductively tense.

THE PURPOSE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENGLAND ROLE

45. The role of the Children's Commissioner for England is defined in statute as 'promoting awareness of the views and interests of children in England'. This differs from the remit of many other Children's Commissioners in Europe (including those in the devolved administrations) whose remits are framed in terms of promoting and protecting children's rights in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).

46. During the passage of the Children Bill through Parliament, the purpose of the Commissioner for England's role was the subject of extensive debate—with many commentators arguing that, as well as being out of keeping with existing Commissioners, anything other than a rights-based role would lead to a weak Commissioner who differed little in effect from children's charities. In the event, an amendment made to the Children Bill stipulated that the Children's Commissioner 'must have regard' to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in discharging his or her duties. We have yet to be convinced that a Children's Commissioner, role primarily defined in terms of promoting children's views, will be as effective in practice as one focused on promoting and protecting children's rights in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

47. The lack of a rights-based remit for the Commissioner was a subject of concern to a very substantial number of those who submitted evidence to the inquiry, especially those from within the voluntary and charitable sectors.[26] The three existing UK Commissioners reaffirmed these views, and were also able to give us evidence of how the rights-based definition of their roles had influenced the operation of their office to date. They told us that the focus on rights had been crucial to the successful functioning of their role. The Commissioner for Scotland, Prof. Kathleen Marshall, explained that a rights-based focus had given her role moral authority and had been directly responsible for increasing her credibility with children:

"I started explaining it to children this way but I now explain it to adults this way because I think it gives it a moral authority, is I say that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, for example, is a set of promises that we have made to children, that we will do certain things to make life better for them. I think the fact we are saying we have made promises to them is something that children and young people understand, they understand about keeping promises and about failing to keep promises. Also, I think it is important to underline the fact that I do not make the rights up. The promises have already been made in our ratification of this international convention and my job, as I see it, is to keep the Government and the country to the promises that have already been made. I think that does give it very much a weight and an objective content. Interests can be subjective, people can have different views on the interests of children […] I feel it is critical to my role in that moral authority to keep harping on about that thing that is objective, it is already promised and I am there to try and make the promises real."[27]

48. We are concerned that the definition of the role of the Children's Commissioner for England as one primarily framed in terms of promoting children's views and concerns, rather than promoting and safeguarding rights, may directly and negatively affect the ability of the Commissioner to achieve improved outcomes for children and young people. This is something that we intend to keep under review as the office is established and the Commissioner begins his activities.

INDEPENDENCE

49. Other concerns have focused on the likely independence of the Commissioner for England. The Children Act 2004 gives the Secretary of State powers to direct the Commissioner to conduct an inquiry into a particular subject. The appointee for England will also be under an obligation to consult with the Secretary of State before undertaking any inquiry or investigation. The potential for political interference worries many, and has been perceived as something which fundamentally undermines the neutrality and likely effectiveness of the role.

50. The power of the Secretary of State to direct inquiries or investigations is also at variance with the position of the existing UK Commissioners, who are under no obligation to consult with Ministers or carry out investigations on their request. The three existing appointees told us that they thought this section of the Act was inappropriate and had the potential to hinder the work of the Children's Commissioner for England. The Children's Commissioner for Wales, Peter Clarke, told the Committee:

"One thing that concerns me about the Secretary of State being able to instruct the English Commissioner to hold such an inquiry is I have a clear understanding now of how much time and resource it takes to conduct such a thing […] I am very concerned that such an instruction would seriously silt up or make it unlikely that the Children's Commissioner for England would be able to do very much else, unless, of course, they go and ask what was the Lord Chancellor to lend them a judge to do the hearings, but then I do not understand why the Children's Commissioner need be involved at all as the Government could do that on its own volition in any case or it could—as it did with Climbié—appoint somebody to do it."[28]

51. In oral evidence, the Minister explained to us that the circumstances in which the Secretary of State would require the Children's Commissioner for England to conduct a particular inquiry would be limited to cases where there had been "a particularly tragic set of circumstances round an individual child or a group of children, which requires a national inquiry—a Climbié-type inquiry."[29] The Minister also said that under no circumstances could the Secretary of State act to prevent the Commissioner from conducting any particular inquiry.[30] Looking to the future, she told us that she foresaw the relationship between Ministers and the Commissioner as one that would make her life "uncomfortable from time to time."[31]

52. We welcome the Minister's assurance that the circumstances in which the Secretary of State will direct the Commissioner will be limited to very serious or tragic cases that require a national inquiry. We also welcome the assurance that the Secretary of State will under no circumstances prevent an inquiry being conducted. However, further clarification of the limits of directive powers should be made through regulation if necessary. Moreover, if there is no intention to ever prevent the Commissioner from conducting a particular inquiry, we fail to see the purpose of a duty to consult prior to launching an investigation. It is conceivable that future Secretaries of State may not take the same view, and we believe the Government should consider modifying this part of the Act.

53. It should be made clear at the earliest possible opportunity what level of funding will be available for the operation of the Commissioner's office and whether additional resources will be provided if the Secretary of State instructs the Commissioner to conduct a major inquiry which is likely to tie up large amounts of resources and personnel time—or whether it is expected that those costs will be met out of current allocations.

54. We are reassured to hear the Minister's assessment of her likely working relationship with the Children's Commissioner for England as one that was likely to be uncomfortable at times—in our view, anything less would be profoundly worrying, and as a Committee, we will look for evidence that the relationship between the Children's Commissioner and Ministers is developing in an appropriate way.

JURISDICTION

55. Under statute, the Children's Commissioner for England will have responsibility for some crucial areas of policy affecting the lives of children in the devolved administrations - for example, in the case of Wales, criminal justice and home affairs which are matters reserved to Westminster.[32] The existing UK Commissioners told us that they were concerned about the potential effect that overlapping remits would have on children - and in particular, on their understanding of the role of the Commissioner and their clarity about who to go to with their problems and anxieties. The Children's Commissioner for Scotland explained:

"I think there is potential for confusion in having two Commissioners operating in each country. To me it does seem strange that, in a sense, it contradicts one of the aims of Every Child Matters which was to have one person in charge. We have created a system where, as far as the Commissioners are concerned, we have two people and we are going to have to be very careful about how that is publicised and how the message gets over to children and young people in our respective countries."[33]

56. Speaking on this issue, the Minister for Children has said previously that jurisdictional issues were something the Commissioners would need to 'sit down and sort […] out among themselves.'[34] We put this to the three UK Commissioners, and they responded that they were indeed determined to work closely with the appointee for England to resolve these and any other difficulties. In written evidence, they stated that they "look forward to working with whoever is appointed to the post of English Commissioner for Children, and to drawing up with them a Memorandum (or possibly Memoranda) of Understanding to promote effective working between us all".[35]

57. We are pleased that the three existing Commissioners are committed to working with the Commissioner for England to resolve any problems concerning jurisdiction. Their suggestion that a memorandum of understanding should be drawn up at the earliest possible convenience seems a productive way forward, and is one possible way to broach issues of jurisdiction. This would also provide an opportunity to capitalise on the valuable experience of the three existing Commissioners—which they are extremely keen to share with the appointee for England.

58. In conclusion, we are concerned that the legal framework for the Children's Commissioner for England role may place undue constraints on his ability to be a force for change for children in practice. It is essential that the Commissioner for England is viewed—not least by children and young people—as a powerful champion who operates completely free from political interference. The Children's Commissioner for Wales told us he has recently set in train aa review of the effectiveness of his office and this seems to us a useful precedent.

59. We suggest that a fully independent review of the role and remit of the Children's Commissioner for England should be commissioned within three years of appointment. This should include analysis of the effectiveness of the Commissioner post, with particular reference to the impact of the statutory framework. Amendments to statute should be pursued if the review indicates that the Children's Commissioner is unduly constrained by the existing legal framework.

60. To preserve independence of the Children's Commissioner for England, there needs to be a strong link between the Commissioner and Parliament. By custom and practice Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools reports directly to Parliament through this Committee and we envisage a similar relationship with the Children's Commissioner for England.

---

11   EVCM 44, para 2.2 Back

12   As part of the consultation on the Integrated Inspection of Children's Services, led by Ofsted. Back

13   Children Act 2004, Part 2:10 (3). Back

14   EVCM 52, sect. 5. Back

15   Q 166 Back

16   Q 68 Back

17   University of East Anglia in association with the National Children's Bureau, National Evaluation of Children's Trusts. Phase 1 interim report, p 104, Oct 2004. Back

18   See for example, Moran, Ghate and Van de Merwe, What works in parenting support?: a review of the international evidence, 2004 This research review was commissioned by the Department for Education and Skills. Back

19   See for example National Evaluation of Sure Start, Implementing Sure Start Local Programmes: An in-Depth Study, 2005 Back

20   ibid Back

21   ibid Back

22   ibid Back

23   Q 582 Back

24   Discussed in section two of this report.  Back

25   EVCM 64. Back

26   Including EVCM 32, para. 6.2; EVCM 44 paras 4.1-4.3; EVCM 12, sect. 5. Back

27   Q 236 Back

28   Q 230 Back

29   Q 575 Back

30   Q 577-8 Back

31   Q 574 Back

32   The Children's Commissioner for England will also be entitled (or could be instructed by the Secretary of State) to conduct inquiries or investigations relating to reserved policy in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Back

33   Q 228 Back

34   epolitix.com, Hodge dismisses fears of Wales' Children's Commissioner, 27 December 2004. Back

35   EVCM 64, para 5. Back

---

Prepared 5 April 2005