Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
PROFESSOR SIR
AL AYNSLEY-GREEN
25 JUNE 2007
Q1 Chairman: Can I welcome the Children's
Commissioner, Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green. It is a pleasure
to have you here again. The Committee has something of a guilty
conscience because we have not seen you since the autumn of 2005
when you were pretty new in the job.
Professor Sir Aynsley-Green: December
2005, yes. We have met informally since then of course.
Q2 Chairman: Of course. That has been
most useful, certainly to me and other Members that have met you.
You are embedded a bit now. You have a new name, have you not?
Professor Sir Aynsley-Green: The
organisation has. I am still the Children's Commissioner for England.
Q3 Chairman: Your organisation has?
Professor Sir Aynsley-Green: Yes,
11 MILLION.
Q4 Chairman: Why is that?
Professor Sir Aynsley-Green: Clearly
we have to have an identity with which to relate to children and
young people across the country. When I first started in my post
two years ago the title was the Office of the Children's Commissioner.
As soon as we started talking to children and young people about
what that meant and what image they portrayed to them they said,
"Suits, boots and boring." They wanted something they
could really feel was theirs so we had a long process of many
weeks where we consulted and engaged with children across the
country on what they wanted. A wide range of suggestions came
forward, ranging from the cuddly toy image—the last thing
we wanted to have was a logo or an identity—and the idea
of 11 MILLION cropped up. That has been welcomed by children and
young people because it emphasises to adults that there are slightly
over 11 million children.
Q5 Chairman: Did you do that all
yourself, in-house? You did not get the people who did the Olympics
logo to help?
Professor Sir Aynsley-Green: No,
we did not. You may not have seen the logo. I can briefly show
you a small version of it. It is in colour. Within each of these
figures, there is a whole series of icons, and each of these icons
has an issue that a child or a group of children raised with us.
When we meet children for the first time, rather than me launching
into a cascade of being a Children's Commissioner, we show them
11 MILLION. They look at the icons. I say, "What does this
mean for you?" They can pick it up immediately, even very
young and disabled children. This is what we are concerned about.
It is an icebreaker and we think it conveys a real child friendly
image. We launched this last month. So far the response has been
very pleasing, not least from children and young people, and we
intend to promote it but I am still the Children's Commissioner
for England with 11 million children and young people and 11 million
children and young people in England have a voice.
Q6 Chairman: You have a choice now.
You can say something to encapsulate where you are at the moment
or you can answer the question: we saw you in December 2005; what
have you been up to?
Professor Sir Aynsley-Green: I
am delighted to appear before you. It is 18 months since we were
last here. I want to share with you a real sense of optimism and
purpose, not just in our organisation but across political parties
and in government with respect to children and young people. I
have been a children's doctor for 30 years and working in government
for the last four or five, in the Department of Health, and elsewhere
and I have seen an incredible sea change in the way in which children
are now being seen in society and how political parties are reacting
to it. It has been driven by focus on inequality. The Aitcheson
Report was very important in 1998, showing the inequalities in
society and focusing on the economic capital of children. Unless
we get it right for children as a society in the future, we will
not be having the best outcomes. It has then been driven by two
scandals, Kennedy in Bristol and then the murder of Victoria Climbié.
This has come together almost like a tipping point concept where
we have serious interest and debate amongst all political parties,
which I welcome. I read the manifestos, watch the party conferences
and so on and all the political parties do have a focus on families
and children in a way we have not seen for many years. As far
as the Government is concerned, we have had 10 years of unprecedented
policy focus with Every Child Matters which is widely recognised.
The challenge now is to make this happen, to deliver the philosophies.
Immediately, in two days' time, we have a new Prime Minister.
We have a new government and society needs serious people making
tough choices to improve the lives of children in our country.
We may well pick up the UNICEF report. This is a poverty issue
but there are serious issues confronting our children and our
society and I am looking to politicians to make tough choices
to give them the priority they deserve. I have listened to Gordon
Brown's speech yesterday. He makes some important points about
poverty, the NHS, education, a fair society, fair changes, values
based on respect for others and the importance of the family,
all of which are interesting points. I am looking to government
and politicians to lead society. Please lead society, guys, over
the importance of children and how we have been failing them for
so long. I would like to see a fundamental shake-up in government
immediately. I would like to see a Department of State for children
and young people. I would like to have a Cabinet post that brings
together the extraordinary range of issues in the various existing
Departments of State to get cohesion with Every Child Matters
and so on. I would like to see a Minister with specific responsibility
to make this happen at the heart of government in the Cabinet.
I believe we are genuinely at a momentous point in the history
of children and childhood in this country. I hope that the new
Government, the new Prime Minister and the new leaders of the
parties will be architects of a society which values children
and young people more highly. One of the kites I fly repeatedly
is the argument that we are a remarkably child unfriendly society
in this country. I believe politicians of all parties have a responsibility
to lead that. Enough of my stratospheric comments in preface.
I am more than happy to take your questions. I think you started
by asking what we have done since I took up post. 18 months ago
I was five months in post full time. I had a fledgling office.
What I now offer you is a thoroughly professional organisation.
We have premises designed by children. We have 30 expert staff,
all of whom were selected by children to join the organisation.
We have had a serious engagement with children and young people
all across England. We have a large database now of what the issues
are that they are concerned about and what they want us to do.
From that we have a strategy and an identity which is 11 MILLION.
I would like to hope that we have increasing evidence of impact.
I believe we are positioned to make a real difference. There is
a limit to what we can do, so in our strategy we are looking at
what we can do ourselves with focus, flexibility and impact but
how we work with others is a real challenge: statutory, voluntary,
government and political parties, how we can work with them in
partnership and how we can provoke others to do things too. That
is where we have come from in the course of the last two years
and I can give you much more information, if you are interested
in the course of questioning, on the detail of what we have done.
I just reiterate the point: I really think we are poised as a
society, as a political momentum, as a Commission, to start to
make a difference to the lives of children.
Q7 Chairman: Some of us are quite
shocked that external reports suggest that we do so badly in terms
of the quality of the environment we give children. I think a
lot of us thought that children in our constituencies did not
have a bad life, perhaps not idyllic but, compared across the
countries one might have visited, a reasonable expectation of
a good life. Why is it that we are now soul searching and children
in our country have a worse deal than anywhere else in the developed
world? Is that true, because it does not seem to square with life's
real experience.
Professor Sir Aynsley-Green: I
am sure you are referring in essence to the UNICEF report. The
UNICEF report is just the latest in a series of reports of international
comparators—and also UK reports—about the plight of
children in our society. I would refer you to the IPPR report
a few months ago.
Q8 Chairman: I was taking the generality
of a number of reports.
Professor Sir Aynsley-Green: There
are a number of reasons for this. If I highlight some key reports,
there is the IPPR one and there is also CULF, the Commission for
Urban Life and Faith. This is a really important report that shows
that 46% of young people in our society have no sense of purpose,
have no expectation in their lives. That is quite a challenging
fact. I also referred to the Independent Advisory Group recently
on sexual health and HIV, again making comments about the plight
of children and young people in society. The exposure of these
reports is very important. You are quite right that with 11 million
children and young people in the country there will be a huge
spectrum of opinion from those children and young people themselves
about how they see their lives. There are many happy, successful
children who see no relevance or resonance with what has been
said about them. The essence of the UNICEF report in particular
chimes very much with what I have seen on the street around the
country: unhappy children, poor relationships with their peers,
poor relationships with their families, engaging in very risky
behaviour, sexual experiences, alcohol, drugs, and they have a
very low sense of expectation and purpose in their lives. There
are some very important questions. Others of course have commented
on the validity of the methodology. It is true that the data may
be out of date. It is true they will not have reflected recent
government policy. It is true they do not reflect too much the
views and interests of very young children. There is so much consistency
coming through from these reports that I believe there is a common
thread that should be a wake up call for us. We can talk in a
moment about the reasons for this and what should be done about
it but I do hope that the plethora of reports coming out and the
coverage we have had are a wake up call to us in this country
that we have been failing too many of our children for too long.
What we do is a challenge for all political parties and for society
as a whole. Let us just look at children in society. I make a
provocative comment in my speeches and articles about us being
a child unfriendly country. Is that true? Let us look at some
of the aspects which reflect that child unfriendliness. We are
one of the few European countries that still fails to protect
children from physical assault from their parents. We have creeping
demonisation of children. Over 70% of media articles are negative
towards young people in particular. We have the acclaim for the
mosquito device. I am not sure if you know anything about the
mosquito device. It was discovered that once you pass the age
of 25 you lose the ability to hear very high pitched sounds. This
device has been marketed which can be installed in railway stations,
public buildings, shopping malls and which emits a very irritating,
high pitched, pulsing noise which can only be heard by the young.
This is designed specifically to break up groups of young people
and stop them gathering. I have spoken to colleagues in Canada
and Sweden about this. They are appalled that our society could
accept this indiscriminate device to disperse groups of children,
no matter what they are doing. Of course it also affects babies
and children who may be with their parents. That is an example
of the intolerance we have to young people.
Q9 Chairman: Has this been used anywhere?
Professor Sir Aynsley-Green: Yes,
it has. Just an hour ago I met with young people in this room
from UNICEF, who had been working with UNICEF, and a young man
from Romford told me that he knew of the existence of these devices
in his locality and it was an extremely unpleasant experience.
Why do we accept this? Why are we so intolerant of children and
young people, especially for the things we might have done when
we were young ourselves? How many of us in this room can put our
hands on our hearts and say that we never did anything that we
would rather our friends, now that we are pillars of society,
did not know about? We are intolerant. We have creeping criminalisation
of children, the propensity of ASBOs, dispersal orders and the
fact that we lock away more young people and children in this
country than most other societies. Finally, we have the fact that
so many services are still failing our most vulnerable children.
I argue that there is a crucial issue at the heart of society
here which was picked up by The Guardian and others. There
is a crisis at the heart of society. Why it has happened is interesting
and what we do about it is even more challenging, but I think
there is an issue which deserves full debate. I am delighted with
the exposure on this.
Q10 Chairman: It is rather depressing
reading and listening, is it not? Here we are thinking that over
a period of time we in public life have been trying to make a
better society but most of what you are saying this afternoon
suggests that we have been abject failures as far as children
are concerned.
Professor Sir Aynsley-Green: I
think for some children. I must emphasise that of 11 million of
them there will be a huge range, a huge spectrum, of other experiences.
I am the first to acknowledge that there are huge numbers of children
I am inspired and exhilarated by, children who are articulate,
who are passionate, who have answers to society's problems if
only they were asked and respected. We know from our research
that less than 25% of young people feel they are respected by
adults in society. Less than a quarter feel they are asked for
their opinions. Less than a quarter feel they are asked for the
answers to problems. Of course, we find fewer and fewer adults
working with children. I have been to places where, 20 years ago,
there were 30 organisations that would look after children out
of school: Boy Scouts, Guides, et cetera. I know there
are 60,000 girls who would like to be Girl Guides who cannot.
Why? Because adults are no longer volunteering to work with them
for all kinds of reasons, criminal protection, police protection,
et cetera, but there is a fact I argue. We are getting
a schism between the young and the old in society. Unless we tackle
this and get a rapprochement, we are creating difficulties for
ourselves for the future.
Q11 Chairman: The last time you came
before us I asked you, "When is a child a child?". Have
you decided when a child ceases to be a child yet?
Professor Sir Aynsley-Green: There
is a legal and a functional definition of being a child. From
my statute, I am responsible for children from birth to the age
of 18 and for those in the care system to 21. As a children's
doctor, having worked with them for 30-odd years, there is a huge
range of maturity differences. There are 14-year-olds who are
just as authoritative and mature as many adults and conversely
18-year-olds who may still be very child like in their approach.
I feel that the starting point for my Commission is to listen
to all children and young people and to embed everything we say
and do in what they tell us. It is a maxim I commend to adult
organisations: start listening to them. They have important things
to say.
Q12 Chairman: There is a view that
the interest in children as children is rather dissipated at 16.
I have a Private Members' Bill at the moment trying to address
the 16-18 gap where Every Child Matters and final outcomes
should be very much part of the lives of 16 to 18-year-old children.
It does seem that people cease to regard children as children
at that age.
Professor Sir Aynsley-Green: This
is why I am so supportive of Youth Matters, the policy
statement. I am especially concerned of course about this transition
age range for 16-18 and then to the young adult age range. I am
especially concerned about that age group for the most vulnerable,
those who require services to support their needs. If we just
look at disability as one category of young people, they are facing
a cliff. That is how they describe it to me: "We are facing
a cliff, Al. When we become 16, 17 and 18 we will fall off that
cliff into a black hole of adult services who do not actually
understand our needs and our difficulties." The functional
answer is the important one here. We need to look at children
as they are individually and not necessarily as groups by age.
They will have different needs according to individual requirements
and circumstances but transition is important for health, for
mental health, for social care and, of course, for ongoing education.
Why is it that we have so many 16-year-olds who drop out of school?
Q13 Mr Chaytor: You have made some
fairly radical statements about the inadequacies of current policies
towards children. Do you still feel that the independence of your
office is restricted by the fact that you have to report to a
Department of State and that the Secretary of State has the power
to direct you to conduct certain inquiries?
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
Yes, I think that is an important question. Thank you for raising
it. My power, my remit and my independence are very important
issues. Of course, the Children Bill was debated in Parliament
and became the Children Act in 2004, and Parliament, in its wisdom
at that time gave me the powers and resources I have. It is worth
reflecting that at that time there was a lot of discussion, particularly
in the sector, over what seemed to be emerging; and the Government
received advice, not least from the other UK Commissioners who
had been in post a while before my post was created. The challenges
that came from that debate were that I would have the weakest
powers, despite the greatest numbers of children to be responsible
for in the UK, and actually many more than in other European countries;
and I have the smallest budget of all of the four UK commissions.
It is as well to just remind ourselves that my budget works out
at 25 pence per child in England. The figures I have are that
the budget is £1 per child in Scotland, and £1.80 per
child in Wales—despite the fact that I have 11 million children,
Wales has 586,000 children, Scotland has 970,000 children and
Northern Ireland only has 397,000 children. I am also set up so
as not to be a national human rights institution, not to promote
the UN Convention but to be aware of it; and finally I do not
have the power to be an ombud, in other words to take forward
individual injustices and issues for children. All of that was
in the public domain when the post was created. I accepted the
post with the powers I was given, not least because they needed
to be tested. My job now is to prove that what I have been given
is being used effectively and to maximum benefit. Having said
that, I have to document what I am not able to do with my current
resources and budget. No-one will ever say that they need fewer
resources, and you would expect me to say that I need more resources,
but of course I have to justify that. We are working hard to show
that our strategy is delivering benefit for children. We need
to recognise that we cannot do what everybody expects us to do;
and that has been a very difficult tightrope for me to walk. People
argued for this post for 20 years; there was a huge expectation
of what I could do, and there may be some sense of disappointment
over what I might or might not have done to date. We have to organise
our priorities, which is why our five-year strategy and business
plan, which is here and now on the website, is so very important.
I am accepting my powers and I am testing them, but in our strategy
one of our seven outcomes for the next five years is to show what
more I could do if I had different powers and different resources—but
I have to give the evidence for that, which is why we are resolved
to deliver. To make one final point, if I may, in terms of budget,
the £3 million is at first glance a large amount of money,
but for 11 million children and their needs, it actually is not
a large amount of money. Therefore, we are resolved to create
a parallel charitable organisation. We have explored with the
DfES and the Government about my ability to do so. It will not
compete with the voluntary organisations and their fund-raising,
but it will raise money for the specific purpose of improving
the understanding of children and childhood in society. One manifestation
will be 23 November this year—if I can just plug this! We
are calling, for the first time, 11 MILLION Takeover Day. We are
inviting organisations that relate to children to showcase what
they are doing with these children. We have 90 organisations already
set up, including the BBC. For the first time ever, BBC Newsround
is going to have child reporters, child editors and child presenters
for its programme. It may be mischievous, Chairman, but can I
ask the Education and Skills Select Committee whether it will
join us for 11 MILLION Takeover Day on 23 November and show how
you relate to children and young people?
Chairman: Free us from the Dimbleby family—that
would be wonderful!
Q14 Mr Chaytor: Can you give a specific
example of where your investigations have been restricted by the
constraints of the panels that you have at the moment?
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
The first word to use is "independence". This is a word
that I guard jealously and promote actively. We are constantly
asserting our independence. It is fair to say in the first two
years of our fledgling organisation we were challenged in all
sorts of testing ways about our independence, not just with the
Government but for the voluntary organisations, the statutory
organisations. We have guarded this very carefully. In terms of
independence of government, I will acknowledge the enormous steps
that the DfES has taken to protect our independence; and I have
no criticism whatsoever of the way in which the sponsor team at
the DfES has related to us. They have been meticulous in guarding
our independence and helping us through the quagmire of set-up.
There are elements of the legislation that require us to consult
with the Government. For example, I am obliged to consult with
the Secretary of State if I wish to launch an inquiry. The Secretary
of State can direct me to do an inquiry. We have only had one
example so far, which was Ruth Kelly, when she was Secretary of
State for Education and Skills: she asked us to mount an inquiry
into the complaints process by which parents could get redress
for allegations of bullying and how they are not being dealt with.
We have done that and we have a report going through DfES very
shortly. However, let us remember that the Climbié Inquiry
and the Laming Inquiry, two of the most cataclysmic and influential
inquiries of recent years, were triggered by the Government. This
is a relationship that we have to develop. We have no problem
with our relationship with the DfES. We want to be a critical
friend of the Government. We need to develop trusting relationships
behind the scenes with my officials—and some of them are
behind me here—to help mould our policy but not be afraid
to speak out about it. In my last presentation here, Chairman,
I describe myself as a high-wire artist. I think you commented
on it at the time; but that is still the case. We are walking
the tightrope of our independence, but we are trying very hard
to protect it. I cannot give you a single instance to date where
I have not been able to do what I wanted to do.
Q15 Mr Chaytor: Do you feel now,
as I think you might have felt earlier, that there is a need for
a review of these powers? Do you still feel that the reporting
framework and the degree of independence—
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
Yes.
Q16 Mr Chaytor: Even though it has
not actually constrained you in terms of specific limitations
on your actions, you still think that the powers ought to be reviewed
in the way that is documented in your five-year plan?
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
Yes, I think it is the case. We will test that more and more as
we start implementing our serious strategic plan, with the comments
I can describe to you in just a moment. I would welcome some focus
once we have had time to prove whether we are delivering your
expectations and whether you are getting value for money, coupled
with our documentation of what we have not been able to do. I
will give you one example of what we have not been able to do.
There is a big issue about whether I am a national figure, or
one with local relevance to local children and young people. When
I was in the interview process for the post and was asked what
I would like to do, I had several ideas of how I could relate
to local children, because that is where it actually matters,
what local children feel about their circumstances. We talked
about having a series of regional offices around the country,
worked at by staff, relating specifically to constituencies and
others. We discovered we did not have the money to do that, let
alone the resource to keep the cohesion across that kind of structure.
We then thought of emulating the DfES with the Aim Higher Roadshow,
which I was greatly impressed with. You may know that this is
a series of travelling buses that descend on a patch. They open
up the sides of the bus, and kids come to them and they meet the
staff and have a chance to interact. That seemed very attractive,
for us to have Al's Travelling Circus, which would descend on
a locality and set out our stall and then relate to local children.
When we looked at the economics of this, how many children could
we contact per pound spent? It was impossible. It was impractical
and not economically viable. We are forced by reality. We have
a presence in London, which is where the main office accommodation
is. We are trying to work with other existing organisations across
the country. We are piloting a particularly fascinating concept,
that of our Assistant Commissioners from England. We have chosen
to work in the north-east of England with a school in Newton Aycliffe.
We appointed twelve 14 year-olds to be our young Assistant Commissioners
for England (ACE). We have a full-time member of staff who works
with these young people who have been incredible young people
in the course of the last year. We have given them skills. We
have given them media training so that they are now authorities
on appearing on Look North and other radio and TV outlets. We
have encouraged them to do their own research, and, above all,
to speak to children, because they are much more effective relating
to children than I am. They feed back in. We are just subjecting
this pilot to academic evaluation this summer. The impact has
been important. I will give you one instance, if I may, of how
these children have been able to affect their local circumstances.
They told us that children told them they were being banned from
a local supermarket when unaccompanied after seven o'clock at
night. They did proper research amongst the children and got the
facts, and they got the instances where they felt they had been
excluded, and it seemed to be real. They worked with the police
to see whether there were police indications, but there were not.
They then, again with support, approached the customer services
manager of the store, who denied that there was a formal policy
for excluding unaccompanied young people. They said there had
been an over-zealous security officer and that they would try
and improve it and work with schools and so on. We now hear that
this is still happening; so I plan to go up to those localities
soon with these Assistant Commissioners to talk to the supermarket.
Q17 Mr Chaytor: How will you deal
with those who say "Why on earth is the Children's Commissioner
getting involved in this tiny detail at local level and why is
the local council not sorting it out?"
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
Yes, but that is what matters to children and young people. It
is the manifestation of how they see their lives—how they
are excluded from sporting facilities if they are under age. These
are the things that matter to kids—how they are not respected
in society. There is a huge spectrum of work I can do by supporting
children like this, working with others to develop their information
and their ability to change things, but not losing sight of the
big strategic issues and approach. That is a difficult balancing
act.
Q18 Mr Chaytor: In terms of the flurry
of activities that you have described since your office was established,
can you list a specific change in national policy that has come
about as a result of taking office, and generally how do you gather
the evidence of positive change?
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
I am very pleased to do that. I am looking to show you this: our
report Into the Shadows. I would like to use this as a
template, an exemplar, of how we are going about things. We listened
to children about what was concerning them. The young people told
us their profound concern, about their experiences in mental health
services, their own experiences in having problems and the experience
of their friends having problems. They told us that these young
people were being admitted to adult wards. I have some insight
by having been a children's doctor for thirty years, and I knew
that was actually happening. What did we do, having been alerted
by children that there was an issue here? We then commissioned
credible research through Young Minds. It was research looking
at the journeys of young people through their experiences. This
report documents what young people saw when they were nursed in
age-inappropriate facilities. The stories were shocking: of these
young people being nursed by staff who did not understand the
needs of adolescents; being denied education whilst in-patients;
being exposed to sexual and physical assault; being exposed to
drug-peddling in the units; being denied access to their parents
and to their friends. That is what we documented. Okay: we have
got the issue and got the research, and we pulled this together.
We then worked very carefully and astutely with the media. We
worked with the BBC on this. You may recall that for four nights
running on the Six O'Clock News there was a 10 minute slot on
the plight of adolescent mental health services and the needs
of children; so we got huge media coverage from that. This was
published, you may recall, when the Mental Health Bill was debated
in the Lords. This was waved around the Chamber. We have met with
Rosie Winterton and with her officials to express our concerns
about the issues of age-inappropriate facilities, and Rosie Winterton,
in a statement to the House last week, commented on the value
that we have brought to the table by this kind of research. We
hope that this will be taken forward in the Bill. This will have
an impact if, as the Minister was forced to admit on television,
this will stop within two years. That is an example of how we
have changed things by raising an issue, research, putting it
together, media coverage, targeting politicians and getting some
actions. We would like to use this as a template for many other
issues on our desk.
Q19 Mr Chaytor: Finally, can I ask
you about your relationship with other organisations, for example
the British Youth Council and the National Children's Bureau:
how are your roles distinguished, and is there still a need for
those organisations now that your office has been established?
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
The answer to the second part of your question is that there most
certainly is a need, because there is no way that we can do what
these organisations do, not least in terms of their relationships
with the client groups that they are responsible for. It comes
back to the high-wire metaphor. We need to work with the voluntary
organisations. I have immense respect, having been on the street
and seen the activities of youth workers, for example. We will
come together to identify the issues. There may be examples of
partnerships. A good one is the Anti-Bullying Alliance where,
with Anti-Bullying Week for the last two years, we have had a
very high profile, highlighting with them the issues of children
being bullied. All the time we are walking this tightrope: on
the one hand, working with them, not least to plan and plot tactics
and strategy, commenting where appropriate but aware of our independence.
We have a large database of all the stakeholders. Lisa White is
our Director of Communications and is behind me. We are trying
our very best to make sure they are involved. For example, when
starting off the organisation I had 10 advisors who came in from
the voluntary sector from big organisations to help us set up
the organisation, and that was very good in establishing a relationship—so
we have to work with them.
|
