Examination of Witnesses (Questions 198
- 199)
MONDAY 10 JANUARY 2005
MR PETER
NEWELL AND
MS MARY
MARSH
Q198 Chairman: Can I welcome Peter
Newell and Mary Marsh to our deliberations and say what a pleasure
it is to have people with their expertise giving us their time
to appear before the Committee. Everyone knows I say that with
my tongue in my cheek because otherwise we would have sent the
Serjeant-at-Arms to get you. You will know about our deliberations
on Every Child Matters and what difference that is going to make
in the way we handle these very important issues and the way in
which the new system is going to work compared to what we have
all been used to with individual, separate responsibilities across
a number of departments. This is a very big responsibility focused
on and centred in our Department of Education and Skills and we
take it very seriously. We have had a considerable amount of evidence
already but if today you can assist us we would be very grateful.
You are the experts. Can I ask you, Mr Newell and Ms Marsh, if
there is anything you would like to say to open up this session
in terms of how you view the current changes?
Ms Marsh: Speaking for the NSPCC,
where I have been for the last four and a half years, although
what is relevant for this Committee to know is that I used to
be in education; I was a headteacher for 10 years in two comprehensive
schools before I went to the NSPCC, the starting point is that
clearly the whole agenda of Every Child Matters is one that we
welcome very much. There are many issues that have come through
in the legislation, and indeed in the Change for Children programme
that will follow, which fit very closely to issues that we have
been concerned about for some time, including, obviously, the
issue of the Children's Commissioner which you have a particular
focus on today. There are obviously some things which are there
potentially. It is what is going to happen in the operational
reality which we still have some concerns about because there
are areas where some things have not been sufficiently specified
yet and of course there is quite a lot of the legislation which
is open to us to understand fully by the regulation and guidance.
We have been concerned throughout about the lack of robustness
of the duty to co-operate, which I believe is an issue that you
have been concerned with yourselves, and we are concerned about
the proposed inspectorate framework of the Education Bill, about
which we know a little bit more now than we did when you received
the written submission from the NSPCC. We do not see that as being
anything like sufficient to bring schools into this co-operative
framework for delivery that is going to be so important. However,
we certainly welcome the role of the Children's Commissioner.
I am sure there will be further comments to make in a minute about
where our concerns lie there, but we are very pleased that there
is the opportunity to develop a much more robust strategy around
safeguarding children with the setting up of the local Safeguarding
Children Boards.
Mr Newell: Briefly on the Commissioner,
what I want to highlight is the bewilderment felt by a huge range
of organisations (which all, of course, hugely welcome the establishment
of the commissioner) in the way the promise to children of a powerful
independent commissioner was spoilt during the passage of the
Bill. What we have ended up with in comparative terms is an extremely
weak commissioner compared with those not just across the UK but
also across Europe. I act as adviser to the European Network of
Ombudspeople for Children which brings together institutions about
21 countries now. It is bewilderment because obviously commissioners
have no power to overturn the decisions of government. Their role
is primarily to advise and if necessary to embarrass and push.
Given that, they need to have as much authority as possible and
to be seen to have that authority, and so we are thoroughly disappointed
with the legislation. The other issue which I hope your Committee
will look at is that of "reasonable punishment", section
58 of the Act, and the disappointment again of a huge range of
organisations who believe that children should have exactly the
same protection as adults from being hit. We are again disappointed
that the Act only limits and does not completely remove this very
old defence of "reasonable punishment".
Q199 Chairman: Thank you for that.
I have a particular interest in that as a very young MP I knew
Brian Jackson who came from Huddersfield and wrote extensively
on the need for a Minister for Children and a Commission for Children.
Can I therefore frame my first question in the sense that if Brian
was still alive, and sadly he is not, what would he think of the
proposals for an English commissioner? Would he be disappointed?
Would he be very pleased that at last, after all these years of
campaigning, we were going to have a new structure of legislation
and a new commissioner? How do you think he would rate what we
have got?
Ms Marsh: Clearly all of us are
pleased that there will be a Commissioner for Children in England.
It is very odd that the role that we have is one that is not clearly
based on a framework of safeguarding and promoting the rights
and interests of children because that is the nature of such a
role already elsewhere in the UK, and indeed elsewhere in Europe
and in the world. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
would expect us to be more explicit about that, so that is clearly
a matter of regret and I think is a matter of some puzzlement
for those, as you suggest, who have watched this emerge over some
time. The lack of clear independence seems decidedly odd because
the nature of a Children's Commissioner is somebody who is going
to have explicitly both the authority and the power to speak on
behalf of children and challenge and intervene on their behalf.
Also, one of the concerns would be about their credibility with
children and young people themselves because they have to be able
to deliver, have they not, if their role is going to be meaningful?
I think the confusion (and I am sure you will go into further
detail later) on the aspects of a UK-wide role that the English
Commissioner has as opposed to the fellow commissioners in the
other countries would be a considerable cause for concern and
further puzzlement. It is good that the commissioner is there,
and obviously these things can evolve and develop, but we have
significant concern that the commissioner will not be able to
follow through as we would want in the framework that is currently
available.
|
