Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
PROFESSOR AL
AYNSLEY-GREEN
5 DECEMBER 2005
Q1 Chairman: Can I welcome Professor
Al Aynsley-Green to our proceedings for the first time. Professor
Aynsley-Green has been Children's Commissioner since July.
Professor Aynsley-Green: Full-time
since July, yes.
Q2 Chairman: Welcome. When we were
looking at Every Child Matters you will know that we discussed
the power and responsibilities of the Commissioner in some detail.
Professor Aynsley-Green: Yes.
Q3 Chairman: We had fears that you
would be excluded from the European Trade Association of Children's
Commissioners because your powers were so weak. Professor, do
you want to say anything about your new role and how you approach
it to get us started or would you prefer if we get straight into
questions?
Professor Aynsley-Green: No, I
am very happy to offer a few introductory comments. The first
is that I am delighted to be here today. I see this to be the
start of an ongoing relationship with this Committee. I would
just like to put a marker down that I would very much welcome
your advice in due course as to how we do work together, not just
with this Committee but with other important select committees
who relate to children's matters. Of course, I am very pleased
to be the Children's Commissioner. I have a sense of real excitement
and exhilaration as I take on my new responsibilities but coupled
with some quite profound unhappiness over the plight of so many
children and young people as I have seen them across the country.
There are a large number of children whose lives are very unsatisfactory
and are blighted by the circumstances in which they find themselves.
One of my jobs is to expose those issues. Of course I have a serious
sense of fright because of the enormous expectation people have
of this Commission. A lot of you have been arguing for the last
20 years for the appointment of a children's commissioner in England
and there is a perhaps unreal expectation of what can be changed
overnight. Briefly, the three things we have been doing since
I took up my full-time job in July is, first of all, setting up
our office. You may be interested in some of the detail of what
we have been doing in terms of our premises, recruitment of our
staff and the evolution of our policy function. Secondly, and
of greater importance, we have started seriously engaging with
children and young people. I see that to be the whole legitimacy
of this Commission. Everything we say and do must be embedded
in what children and young people themselves are saying to us.
Thirdly is building relationships with key stakeholders, including
the other commissioners in the UK. I can report to you the creation
of an organisation called BINOCC which is a British and Irish
network of children's commissioners in which are the four UK commissioners.
You alluded to the European Trade Union, I have been welcomed
into the ENOCC fraternity. I attended for the first time the annual
meeting in Warsaw this year. There was a real sense of achievement
that England had produced a commissioner and I was warmly welcomed
into the fold. Lastly, of course, we have started serious engagement
with Government through ministers and officials, looking at the
key policies that we wish to explore with them. Those are the
broad areas of work. I am happy to take questions or whatever
you want in the way of detail of what we have been doing if it
is appropriate to you.
Q4 Chairman: Professor, there has
been a feeling that as directors of children's services have been
appointed up and down the country, one of the criticisms has been
that too many of them have come not from an education background
but from other backgrounds, particularly social services. In your
own case, although you have an outstanding reputation in the health
sector, you know that I know very well, due to mutual friends
and acquaintances, apart from your public achievements, you are
from health. Very often we regard health as the area of the sector
with more vested interests, more unwillingness to share information.
Do you think you are going to be able to straddle right across
the full range of responsibilities coming from a health background?
Professor Aynsley-Green: You and
others will hold me to account and you will judge as to how I
am doing. I think I have a certain credibility in the field, not
least because, as you know, I spent four years as a national director
in the Department of Health crafting the National Service Framework
for children and young people and maternity services. That was
very much an encompassing holistic programme looking not just
at health but also interfaced with education and social care.
You are quite right, one of the challenges about the whole Every
Child Matters agenda across government and at the local level
is finding people who have a broad knowledge and concept of childhood.
If we are going to be successful in Every Child Matters
we must start breaking down the barriers. It is my intention to
try to do that but you will hold me to account as to what I am
doing as the programme evolves.
Q5 Chairman: It is not just a question
of expertise, Professor, it is also a question of independence
from ministers. You have worked in the Department of Health?
Professor Aynsley-Green: Yes,
exactly.
Q6 Chairman: A large number of bodies
report to Parliament through this Committee and sometimes I say:
"When do you tell the minister how it is? When did you go
into their office and bang on the desk?" Can you imagine
yourself doing that?
Professor Aynsley-Green: I have
done it already. It would be unfair to disclose this in an open
meeting like this but during my time at the DH I was seriously
concerned about the ability to deliver a National Service Framework
against the rapidly changing policy background, including shifting
the balance of power agenda in the DH. I did have many one-to-one
meetings with ministers and secretaries of state about my concerns
over the profile of Children's health in the DH. Already I think
I have a track record, although it is covert and not been exposed,
of talking directly with ministers and secretaries of state. Already
in my new role I have had very enjoyable meetings with secretaries
of state, with the Home Secretary and with ministers. I think
we have established what I hope will be the basis of a relationship,
first of all, of some trust, but secondly, I made it explicit,
I will be the first to celebrate what Government does well. There
is much to be very pleased about at this moment in time. Conversely,
I will not be hesitant in challenging them on a number of issues.
Of course there is a series of layers for that challenge. Much
of the efficacy of this Commission must be quietly behind the
scenes, influencing politicians, officials, ministers, etc. about
the agendas. Some of our work will be made public in the form
of letters which we write to ministers and of course we will be
commissioning various pieces of research and enquiry into matters
which we think are important.
Q7 Chairman: What areas do you foresee
to be the most possible potential causes of friction between you
and Government?
Professor Aynsley-Green: Potentially
there is quite a long list. I do want to reinforce the point I
just made. I am here to celebrate and support Government where
it is appropriate. From my perspective of being a children's doctor
for 30-odd years, and having travelled widely around the world,
I can tell you that internationally the Every Child Matters
agenda, the National Service Framework, the Youth Matters Programme
are widely admired. No other country has got what we have at this
moment in time with the exception, perhaps, of Manitoba in Canada.
I have yet to visit a country which has such a comprehensive holistic
policy programme for children. That is something to be applauded
and celebrated. Having said that, of course, there are many issues
of children in their lives and health which deserve serious focus
and some challenge to government. This leads on to our policy
function. We do have a series of handouts which we can give you
as an aide memoire or, if you want them now, I am happy
to share them now.[1]
Q8 Chairman: We will have them later.
Professor Aynsley-Green: It outlines
where we got to in our policy function. We have had two sets of
inputs coming in. The first is children and young people themselves.
As I said, already we are seriously engaging with them in a series
of layers of opportunity which I can share with you if you wish
me to. Then, of course, we are having input, also, from the sector,
from the voluntary organisations, government and elsewhere. From
that synthesis we have come forward with eight themes. Each of
these themes is enormous and each is potentially 25-years' work.
Each of them already has a lot of people working in them. The
challenge for us is how do we add value from the Children's Commission
to these themes. Very briefly, the eight themes are as follows.
First of all, children and young people in society. I make no
apology whatsoever for making this the very first theme because
I argued from my study of the history of childhood, from my international
travel, from my understanding of how children are seen in other
countries, there is something perverse about how we in England
tend to regard children in our society. We care greatly about
our own children and our families but do we care enough about
those who are on the margins and those who are disadvantaged.
Already we have been, for example, to the Press Complaints Commission
with the Youth Parliament because of our profound concern over
the demonisation of children in the media which has reached a
frenzy in the last few months with 70% of press articles being
negative towards young people, children in society, big issues
here, linked in with the commercialisation and other influences
on childhood. The second theme is bullying. Why? Because this
is what children and young people are asking me to sort. Of all
the issues that they tell me about when I meet them, top of their
list is bullying. As you know, we have had a certain exposure
in the media in the last three to four weeks about this. Everything
we have said has been informed by what children have told us is
their experience of bullying. The third theme is potentially one
which has a great interface with the Home Office which is, of
course, asylum and immigration. I can share with you, if you are
interested, the three aspects I have been engaged in in listening
to children and young people. First of all, I have been listening
seriously to young asylum seekers who are unaccompanied. Secondly,
I have been listening to young people whose families are facing
the threat of deportation under section 9. Thirdly, I have been
to Yarlswood myself to see the journeys of children through the
deportation process. There are concerns which we have expressed
to the Home Secretary and officials in the Home Office. The fourth
theme is potentially very relevant to the Home Office which is
behaviour, anti-social behaviour in particular, and youth justice.
You may know we had a profile on Panorama recently where
we shared our perspective of where we stand on the issue of ASBOs.
The fifth issue is one of disability and this does move in very
much from my experiences as a children's physician. Quite frankly,
I am appalled and outraged by the circumstances of so many children
with disability and the quagmires that families have to walk through
to get appropriate services and entitlements. The sixth theme
is vulnerable children and this is, of course, including child
protection but also groups that at first glance you may not be
aware of, such as young carers. I had lunch with some young carers
two weeks ago and, again, was frankly horrified by the stories
they told me of how their needs are ignored and how they are not
supported in carrying out their functions with their families.
The seventh theme is minority groups. This is really important
and a massive challenge to us. How can I, as a white middle-class,
English adult, elderly male, relate to young Muslim children,
to Sikhs and Hindus and all the minority groups. Already we are
seriously thinking about how we can tackle this and we have some
plans for that. I am concerned, also, about other minorities such
as travellers. Two weeks ago I was in Durham listening to the
experiences of young travelling children and how they are being
looked after. Great things are being done in Durham with investing
in children and carers. I do applaud what is happening in Durham,
it is a benchmark for the rest of the country. Then I think our
final theme, last but by no means least, is health and wellbeing.
Here, of course, I have great insight to the National Service
Framework knowing the plight of children receiving health services.
This, of course, is one of the issues which does concern me which
is how, through this Committee and others, we make sure that the
health needs of children and policy are being properly respected
and looked after. Those are the eight themes. The challenge for
us is what added value do we bring? Our answer is the following.
The first thing is we will expose issues. We will expose issues,
especially those which are informed by children and young people,
which is why bullying is such a good example of what I am talking
about. Secondly, we want to influence the public through media
relationships and politicians. We seriously want to engage with
politicians of every party, nationally and locally, because politics
is how we get change in society and I think you guys in Parliament
and elsewhere are critically important for this agenda. We want
to work with you and with that and through the press. Then we
want to be engaged in scrutinising policy. What I would like to
see here is what Sweden has got. In the Rosenbatt in Sweden, where
I have been, there is an office whose only function is to vet
every aspect of emerging government legislation and finance from
the child's perspective, to make sure every aspect of legislation
is childproofed. I think that is a very important concept and
we are starting to road test methodology with the Children's Legal
Centre for a scrutiny function. Finally, we want to hold organisations
to account for what they are doing at the frontline. Those five
aspects of what added value we can bring we think are important
to declare and share with people.
Q9 Chairman: Where does childhood
end?
Professor Aynsley-Green: Very
good point. There is a legal definition, of course, and there
is a functional definition. I have been a paediatric endocrinologist
for 30 years, that is someone who specialises in hormones, and
I treated countless boys and girls for growth problems, for delayed
and precocious sexual development. I can tell you, as you will
know yourselves from your families, there is an extraordinary
range of the pace of development during adolescence. I prefer
to look at a functional definition rather than a legalistic one,
although that is very relevant, of course. The issue of transition
is very important. There is no single cut-off, very relevant to
social care for children, and even more relevant to disabled children.
When I listen to young people with disability they are very concerned
about the future, that they will drop off the cliff into a black
hole of what they see to be people who do not understand the issue.
This is a continuum of childhood. Finally in this context—this
is very relevant—age assessment for immigrant children.
I am quite concerned about the process by which ages are guestimated
to be relevant to children when they are applying for asylum and
immigration. Childhood is a very interesting concept and it is
changing dramatically. There are some young people in society
whose childhood ends very soon, especially disadvantaged, who
may be forced into employment or non-employment. Then, as we know,
perhaps in our own families more, the prolongation of childhood
into the 20s and 30s as we see our young people staying at home
and dependent upon the support given by families. It is a very
interesting issue, what is childhood in contemporary society,
what are its boundaries and what are the subgroups within it.
Q10 Chairman: Professor, you did
not mention in all your eight categories much about education.
Some of us on this Committee are deeply exercised by the fact
that children, who we still think are children at 16, leave school
in this country to go into unemployment. They are not into training,
they are not into education, some of them are even going into
work with no training and others are just left with nothing. Some
of us on this Committee believe that to be wrong, what is your
view on that?
Professor Aynsley-Green: I think
it is morally wrong. One of the issues we have to confront as
a society is the nurture of children. I am using this word nurture
increasingly. I think it is a useful one which breaks down some
of the barriers when we start talking about parenting. The nurture
of children includes giving them the opportunity to become confident
and competent adults in society. Part of my anger, outrage and
frustration I recounted earlier is going to some of the most depressed
and deprived parts of the country, inner city and remote and rural,
and seeing the plight of young people who tell me they have no
expectation in their lives of things getting better. You and I
have had a private conversation about the CULF report, the Commission
on Urban Life, which reported that 46% of young people have no
sense of purpose in life. That is a rather shocking statistic
in terms of the expectation because our future society will depend
critically on making sure young people do become confident and
competent adults and how, through policies and practice, we can
change that is a challenge for all of us.
Q11 Chairman: Which report is that?
Professor Aynsley-Green: The Commission
on Urban Life.
Chairman: Thank you for those introductory
answers.
Q12 Mr Farron: Professor Aynsley-Green,
I note that when she was the Minister for Children, Margaret Hodge,
to this Committee, said that she hopes that the relationship between
the postholder, which is now you, and the Government would be
"uncomfortable from time to time". Any uncomfortable
moments so far?
Professor Aynsley-Green: We have
had some frank discussions, it would be fair to say that, very
productive discussions. I am extremely anxious to make sure that
people do understand my independence. This has been a source of
great concern to stakeholders about exactly where I stand on a
number of issues. Yes, the challenge that we put down about anti-social
behaviour orders, for example, in the Panorama programme
is an example of confronting some of the policies which I think
may be well intended but have got serious implications for how
young people see them.
Q13 Mr Farron: I do not want to nitpick
but you said it was important that people did understand your
independence. Given the question was about your relationship with
ministers, are you suggesting that possibly some in Government
do not fully understand your independence?
Professor Aynsley-Green: It is
fair to say that we are a very new species. Setting up this NDPB
with me as a corporation sole creates all kinds of new issues
for the relationship. The money is voted from Parliament, conduited
to the DfES and my report to you is also conduited to the DfES.
I think it is fair to say that we have been on vertical learning
curves both in DFES and ourselves over what the relationship means
in terms of a Memorandum of Understanding, financial agreements,
governance, etc. Of course they have to relate to government,
I am accountable to you in Parliament. I think it is critically
important how I demonstrate over the next few weeks and months
exactly what our stance is. You may be interested to know that
we have engaged in consultations in four ways: the single inspectorate,
sharing information, youth green paper and working together. We
have offered formal commentary on those issues. In terms of other
issues, there are eight of them. Children, young people and asylum,
and I have just written to Mr McNulty expressing my profound concerns
over what I saw personally in Yarlswood Detention Centre only
three or four weeks ago. We are concerned, also, about information
sharing and the child index. We have written to the Department
of Health and had a conversation with public health people at
DH about the plan to weigh and measure every child which we have
reservations about too. We are concerned about the NHS reforms.
A number of important issues in the health service give us cause
for concern. We have been in touch with ministers about the means
testing for Disability Allowance. Already we have a track record
of eight things that we pushed forward and published. We are challenging
some aspects of Government policy.
Q14 Mr Farron: They are all welcome.
To move on to the area of your remit. Unlike in Scotland, Wales
and Northern Ireland, you cannot embark on inquiries without first
consulting the secretary of state.
Professor Aynsley-Green: Yes.
Q15 Mr Farron: Can you envisage scenarios
where this will hinder your work and do you regret this?
Professor Aynsley-Green: One can
hypothesise all kinds of scenarios. I would like the water under
the bridge of my powers to be put behind us and to see what happens
in practice. In one sense I am not too concerned about being instructed
by a secretary of state about an inquiry because two of the most
cataclysmic and important inquiries we have had in recent years
were triggered by secretaries of state, the Kennedy Inquiry and
the Lamming Inquiry. They were incredibly important. My only reservation
is if we do have an instruction to mount an inquiry we need to
be confident that it adds value to the Children's Commission and,
above all, we have the resources to do it. That is a point you
may be interested in in terms of the voting of the money to my
Commission.
Q16 Mr Farron: Looking at the helpful
stats we have here, I note that your budget is £3 million
in total, 25p per child in England.
Professor Aynsley-Green: Exactly
right.
Q17 Mr Farron: That is equivalent of
£1 per child in Scotland and £1.80 per child in Wales.
Might this be a source of discomfort between you and the Secretary
of State in the future? Does it limit your role?
Professor Aynsley-Green: That
is a very important point, I am glad you have raised it. There
has been quite a bit of discussion in the media about this. One
point being argued is what does this say about the value given
to children in English society, a point I alluded to earlier about
the value we do give to children in society. I have a budget of
£3 million. We have a business plan which we are sharing
with the sponsor unit and DfES, and you will see it yourselves,
which satisfies it for the short term. But—and here is the
big but—already I am thinking about where we want to be
in five and ten years' time. An example of this is that one of
the key points that young people are asking for is somebody in
every locality that they can turn to who is independent, trustworthy,
knowledgeable and will make things better for them. They are not
persuaded that statutory arrangements are helping them; in fact,
some feel very bitter about how they are being let down by statutory
arrangements. I am going to Sweden very soon to see how Lena Nyberg,
the ombudsman, works with her nationwide organisation, her network
of local ombudsmen and local commissioners. I would like to explore
seriously this issue the children are asking for, somebody independent
at the local level who will listen to them and report to them.
There are various ways of tackling this, there are various statutory
organisations and in some places like Sandwell in Birmingham they
have appointed a children's commissioner. I am slightly nervous
about that in case it dilutes the currency. We have been invited
to work with them and provide a template for this person at the
local level. What is the resource implication of this? How will
it function? I am seriously concerned about what I do not have
compared with Wales and Northern Ireland, which is responsibility
for individual cases. In one sense I am delighted not to have
that at this moment in time when we are setting up the Commission
because the workload, as I have seen it for myself in Wales and
Northern Ireland, is staggering with individual cases being taken
care of. If that is extrapolated to the English Commission with
11.8 million children and young people that would become very
serious. The challenge I receive from young people is they say,
"Al, what are you going to do for me? We have seen this before,
talking shop, wonderful things being spouted, what will this mean
for me here in my locality?" and that is a serious challenge
which I think we need to explore. I expect to get into a dialogue
with this Committee and others over how you would like and how
you would see the Commission evolve over the next five or 10 years'
time. Perhaps it is not too soon to say we should have some national
network of local commissioners who will relate to the national
commissioner.
Q18 Mr Farron: You have answered
my question about individual issues. You have got into the area
of a regional network and how you deal with that. I will say flippantly
that my constituents in England, an English constituency, live
closer to the office of the Scottish Commissioner and, indeed,
the Northern Ireland Commissioner than they do to the office that
you are establishing in London. What does your decision to establish
a London office say about your ambitions on the regional role?
Professor Aynsley-Green: It is
important we are careful with the use of words. We are not setting
up a London office, we are setting up a London presence. I have
a serious challenge which is 11.8 million children and £3
million to meet their needs. How on earth do I become relevant
to children in your constituency in Northumberland as well as
the depths of Cornwall? Our naive concern when we first started
a few weeks ago was to have a series of regional offices and to
have them coterminous with government offices or with some of
the voluntaries who have presence. We think that is impractical.
What we are working for at the moment is a London presence. We
are starting our effort on a London presence. I am pleased to
report that last week we had agreement from Treasury and from
OGC and the DfES that we have a lease on 1 London Bridge, which
is right at the end of London Bridge, which gives us a stunning
location, very accessible. We have the ground floor of this block.
We have appointed stunning, innovative architects. We have five
and six year olds working with us and with older children designing
this as a resource not an office, a resource for children in which
there will be a lot of participation space which will be child
friendly where they can come and do their thing with us. We need
to be in London. We argued this case very powerfully. The first
week I was appointed the issue of Gershon was raised about not
having any children's commissioner work in London. We argued against
that because of the fact that the headquarters of every leading
organisation for children is within three or four square miles
of here and we need to be able to be in contact with parliamentarians
and others. We are delighted that argument was sustained and we
have been given permission to have 1 London Bridge. We plan to
pilot very soon a travelling roadshow concept. Rather than having
individual offices which are expensive, difficult to sustain,
difficult to maintain operation and control of, we plan to pilot,
as the DfES has shown with its Aim Higher campaign, constant travelling
roadshows with lorries and trailers where we will go with our
staff to where children are.
Q19 Tim Farron: It might be cheaper
and more symbolic if you had a nice little office in Huddersfield.
Professor Aynsley-Green: We would
be delighted to work with you in Huddersfield and in Durham. We
are already setting up relationships with Durham, you will be
pleased to hear. Travelling roadshows are something we want to
explore. We have had great support from Durham and Liverpool for
working with them and we go out to where children are. That is
much more credible than expecting them to come to us.
1 Not printed. Back
|
