Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-59)
PROFESSOR SIR
AL AYNSLEY-GREEN
25 JUNE 2007
Q40 Mr Wilson: In terms of wrap-around
care, obviously schools are running breakfast right the way through
to the evening. Do you think that that is a good idea?
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
Again there is a range of circumstances and responses to that.
I have been to schools that provide breakfast clubs and they are
fantastic. These children are getting a breakfast, and if the
clubs were not there they would not get it. We know how important
it is for a child to be well fed and watered for its brain to
work during the day, so in that context it is a good thing. However,
the big question is, why are these kids not getting breakfast
at home? Breakfast clubs could well be very important. After-school
activities are important not least because of the dearth of opportunities,
outside of ordinary school hours, for kids to be looked after
and have things to do. I am very interested in the school being
the focal point for the community. I have been to one or two places
where this is starting to happen. I think in your own constituency,
Chairman, this has been introduced. The school is the focal point
and it is a resource for the whole community to relate to, not
just for the children. That is a very interesting concept, and
I want to see how this pans out.
Q41 Fiona Mactaggart: I want to continue
this theme of the very youngest children. How old does the child
have to be before they have an understanding of the concept of
11 MILLION?
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
That is a very interesting question! All we can say is that our
road testing so far, working with three, four, five or six-year-olds,
is that they like the logo. They have no idea what 11 MILLION
means in terms of its figurative or mathematical context. What
they do know is that it means there are an awful lot of children
around.
Q42 Fiona Mactaggart: I asked you
that because I have been interested in your listening, and it
is clear to me that you are making an appropriate effort to listen
to children and focus on the points of transition, but I have
not heard—I do not think—enough about the very earliest
years in this. You have talked about starting school, the transition
to secondary, and leaving school, and absolutely they are key
points; but I have seen research that suggests a child's prospects
are pretty well determined by the time they are three. What about
those youngest children? How are you hearing from them, and how
are they factored into your plan?
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
It is a very important point, and my responsibility is there.
Here is a picture of a human newly-born citizen. We put this in
our five-year plan deliberately to address the point you are raising.
It is tempting to skew all our activities to the old age range,
because the issues of communication are so much better. We have
employed an expert in communicating with young children as a staff
member. We are working with nurseries, in Newcastle for example.
We are working with carers and with parents, and of course we
have to use them as proxies very often for the children themselves;
but you can get answers from very young children with appropriate
teaching and training. Coram Family, for example, has a fantastic
training programme for relating to young children, so we are already
working with very young children in Newcastle and nurseries. I
return to my point about my resources and where we have to focus.
We have chosen for this year in our business plan and our general
strategic direction what we have put down. That does not mean
that we are not committed to trying to find out about the experience,
the lives, the needs of the youngest of children, as I showed
by listening to the parents of premature babies recently. What
we do to take it forward is a much more difficult question in
the light of our resources.
Q43 Fiona Mactaggart: This takes
me back to the UNICEF report. What struck me, looking at that
report, was that in the countries that have most equal societies—Netherlands,
Scandinavia and so on—the children are happier; in the countries
with the most unequal societies—the UK, US—children
are unhappier. To go back to the early childhood research, one
of the things that I have also been struck by is that the inequalities
in children's achievements do not happen right at the beginning.
Actually, right at the beginning, class and parental income is
not a direct predictor of children's achievement; they suddenly
start crossing over a bit later on—I cannot remember the
precise age.
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
Quite early years, in the first two or three years.
Q44 Fiona Mactaggart: How are you,
as Children's Commissioner, trying to tackle that at that point,
because it seems to me that somewhere between three and six, if
we could get that nailed and stop that mirroring of parental under-achievement,
then we could really change the prospects of children?
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
Yes, I agree absolutely with that. It is important to remember
too that Sweden, a country in the top half dozen in the UNICEF
report, has a large number of children who are looked after by
professional nursery staff, and there is also a large number of
single parents in Sweden, so that is not a determinant of outcome
necessarily.
Q45 Fiona Mactaggart: I have never
thought it was.
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
Exactly, but some argue that it is. I think the point of getting
the trajectory re-set is a very important one, which is why we
have had face-to-face discussions with Hilary Armstrong of the
Social Exclusion Unit. We support the principles of the Social
Exclusion Action Plan because it is targeting at the very earliest
of ages those who are most disadvantaged and likely to end up
as you say. We have some issues over the rhetoric of the Social
Exclusion Action Plan. It is portrayed in the media as stopping
these babies becoming thugs in the future. I would much rather
look at it to get their best potential and opportunity in the
future. I go back to the plans that are being proposed, for example
the health-visiting sites, the 10 pilot sites. There is very,
very interesting research from David Olds in the US, which has
shown that the investment in a good relationship, even before
birth, between a trained professional and a mother who may be
at risk—disadvantaged or whatever—pays handsome dividends.
I applaud government for the Social Exclusion Action Plan and
the 10 pilot sites. There are big problems for the future in terms
of rolling it out if it is going to be successful in terms of
capacity to deliver that; but I think that the thinking in the
Cabinet Office and elsewhere is on the right track for the early
identification of likely difficulties, early intervention by trained
staff, and support for those parents—not to castigate them
as being incompetent but to give them support for the future.
I welcome that. Our action in the Children's Commission is not
to be out on the street doing hard research in this, but being
aware of it and certainly reflecting our views and the evidence
we have to important people.
Q46 Mr Wilson: I want to raise one
further question that is not about the earliest years but which
is also highlighted by the UNICEF report, and that is the increase
in the number of children who report that they do not have a best
friend, which seems to me to be a very serious issue and quite
difficult for politicians to deal with. I wondered if you had
a plan to try to reverse the fact that now 18% of children say
they do not have a best friend that they could confide in, when
formerly that figure was 13%. What are you going to do about it?
What can anyone do about it?
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
The first is to listen to what children are telling us, and it
is exactly what you are saying. We know from our work on bullying,
for example, that this is a very serious issue. We have also been
on the street to see what is happening about this, and there are
three areas of work I would like to draw to your attention. The
first is the UNICEF Rights Respecting Schools Programme.
It is incredible. Greatly to the DfES's credit, it has rolled
it out in 150 schools. I have been to one of these schools to
see how the UN Convention is made real; and it is not taught on
Friday afternoon as an add-on subject but it is embodied in the
whole philosophy of the school. To see five and six-year-olds
who are involved in the choice of the next head teacher, who are
involved in making decisions about the school lunches and school
policies, who understand the right to be educated without being
bullied, is making the UN Convention real in schools, and this
is a very, very good example. I commend them to you. If you have
a UNICEF rights-respecting school in your constituency, then please
go and see it. The second area that the Government has again recognised
is SEAL (Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning). Again, I have
been to schools to see this, and it is quite amazing to see five
or six-year-olds in circle time being encouraged to explore their
feelings for each other. That is the basis of what we are talking
about, and the lack of friendship is a lack of understanding each
other and finding friends. I have been to schools where they are
trying hard to overcome this, where they have "buddy"
concepts. In this particular rights-respecting school in Bournemouth
that I went to, the older children buddy with the new ones coming
through, and they stick with them. They help them to make friends.
It is a very threatening experience for a young child. Getting
into school is a crucial transition that needs to be handled with
a great deal of care. The third and I think most interesting aspect
of this business is that in Canada I have been to see the Roots
of Empathy Programme. This is a parenting programme for three
to eleven-year-olds. The teacher is a baby who comes to the class
once a month for the whole of the first year of its life, and
with a trained facilitator these young children see early human
development and they are taught how to interpret what the baby
is trying to say—but it cannot talk, and that is the entre«e
into their own feelings, developing respect and empathy for each
other. Of course, many of these children have never had it in
their homes where very often the way of controlling is a cuff
round the head and there is not very much empathy in the home.
Early investment in developing relationships, I argue, is an investment
well made, but we need more research to prove the validity of
that point.
Q47 Fiona Mactaggart: I share your
enthusiasm for both the UN and the SEAL Programme. I had a big
struggle—and in a way it echoes my earlier question—to
persuade the DfES to allow nurseries to deploy the SEAL resources
which were originally excluded from the programme. I think it
is an example of what I was pressing beforehand, which is that
we do not bring these things early enough into children's lives.
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
If I may add, there is the other end of the spectrum. We are not
investing enough in relationships between adolescents, because
that is the time when people are starting to think of mates for
the future, and surely it is best to try and prepare them for
adult relationships. This business of empathy/understanding/friendship
is very important. Certainly children tell us that the most important
people in their lives are, first of all, parents, then their friends.
If they do not have friends, that is the start of emotional difficulties.
What we can do, as the Commission, is make sure we reflect what
children are telling us to policy-makers and to help shape policy
and its development.
Q48 Chairman: What do you do, as
a Commission, for the child that has a parent or parents—you
could go through the whole syndrome—that drank and smoked
during the pregnancy period; and so the child grows up never having
much nurturing or stroking or that sort of attention; it is never
read to, never talked to, and there is no engagement? The child
certainly goes to school stunted in terms of development. What
do you do about that sort of child?
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
The first step is to highlight the existence of the problem. We
have a concept in the office called "hidden harm". We
are concerned about, we estimate, over a million children who
are in households where there are parents who are drug addicts
or alcohol abusers. That is not often recognised, especially when
the adult services supporting those parents are not asking the
question: "What does this problem in the parents mean for
the children?" We have had much more joined-up thinking between
the adult and children's services in these sorts of families.
I am sorry to keep coming back to Canada, but I am really seriously
impressed with Canada. I was there last month. They tell me that
foetal alcohol spectrum is their most important cause of poor
behaviour, poor development and serious violent crime in young
people. They say it is not just for first-nation Canadians; the
rise of binge drinking, the targeting of young women by the advertising
industry for alcohol, is having a serious impact on the developing
brain. The important point is that there are specific parts of
the brain that are affected, and they can be recognised, and with
appropriate intervention we will be able to ameliorate the effects.
We also know practically, for example, that there are great difficulties
in social services when these children are taken into care because
of their difficult circumstances. It is often very difficult to
find foster parents to look after these babies because they are
so difficult to manage, and nobody wants to spend very much time
with them. There is a big issue about hidden harm that you allude
to, Chairman—alcohol, drug addiction and parents.
Q49 Chairman: Is not one of the problems
though, Commissioner, that you do come before us as a bit of a
Jeremiah in the sense that everything is wrong—we are down
the scale; we are the worst performing? A lot of my constituents
listening to you or watching you on television would say, "Do
we do anything right? Is there any light at the end of the tunnel?"
Because of this generality that everything is bad, people lose
the will to intervene where it is really seriously bad with the
significant percentage of children you have just alluded to, those
suffering from all those tremendous handicaps in life that I would
have thought were top priority.
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
Let me set the record straight. We are not always saying we are
terrible because I meet countless young people who are just fantastic.
I am exhilarated by them and inspired by them and what they have
to say. You know as well, in your own constituencies, that there
are lots of children who are doing very well, but when are they
celebrated in your constituencies for doing just that?
Q50 Chairman: In my constituency
they do a lot. Every day there is—
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
I have been to your constituency, Chair, and I know only too well
what is going on.
Q51 Chairman: We have rather good
parents too in our constituency.
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
Yes, you do, but you also have some who are not so good.
Q52 Chairman: The point I am making,
Commissioner, is that if we get the story too loaded it is crying
"wolf", is it not? In the end, people say, "Why
should we listen to these messages? Why should we do anything
about it?"
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
Exactly, but, I think the debate has served a good purpose in
making people start thinking about things. We have got to make
sure the balance is correct, which is why one of our long-term
objectives in our strategic plan is to improve the relationships
between children and adults and to celebrate their existence and
their contribution to society. I ask you and your constituencies
and the agencies to celebrate your children as well as recognise
the difficulties.
Chairman: We will redouble our efforts
to celebrate.
Q53 Jeff Ennis: Commissioner, I would
like to ask you a supplementary question along the line of questioning
that Fiona and the Chairman pursued on social mobility and social
injustice, which is very much flavour of the day with the publication
of the Sutton Trust report—concentrating on young children
again and the disparities and inequalities that manifest themselves
in three-year-olds. The Government's antidote to this is to establish
the Sure Start Programme and children's centres and what-have-you,
looking at a more positive point of view in relation to this.
Is this the right model that we ought to be pursuing in the early
years? The Sure Start Programme is very much a long-term investment.
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
Bearing in mind what I said just now in response to questions
about the early years and bonding, and John Bolby, there is incontrovertible
evidence of the importance of the early years. Again, one needs
to look at various models. The difficulty is in getting the hard
research that proves that Sure Start is delivering the goods.
This is because it is such an incredibly complicated arena with
different circumstances and different locations. The pressures
in Bradford are different to those in Bridgwater. It is very difficult
to get randomised control trials, which is the gold standard.
There will be difficulties in assessing this, but other countries
have looked at these programmes. I come back to British Columbia
in Canada, where they have had a long programme for the early
years that shows that targeting support delivers benefit. Anecdotally,
I never ceased to be inspired by going to Sure Start: they have
motivated staff whom the parents relate to, and, from listening
to parents, they think the Sure Start areas are wonderful. That
is not good enough to justify £300 million or more of investment,
but we have to be realistic and recognise that it will take 10
years for this benefit to come through. I urge politicians to
resist the temptation to get a quick fix and a quick answer.
Q54 Jeff Ennis: Moving on to the
Every Child Matters reform agenda and the fact that all
localities now have to establish these children's trusts, is that
the right model for making progress?
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
The jury is still out because these are a new species. What I
can say is that I know the majority of the 150 directors of children's
services, who are motivated, inspirational people. I have been
to many of their localities. Being given the authority to pull
services together is a step forward, and already I see very good
things happening in the trusts that I have been to. The jury really
is out and will be for another three or five years before we know
what is happening; so my plea to government and politicians is
this: please have some stability in the system; let us see the
impact of what is being done before the whole system is turned
upside down again by further organisational or structural changes.
Q55 Jeff Ennis: Earlier in questioning
you drew comparisons between your lack of funding and the funding
of your contemporaries in the other home countries in the UK.
You were one of the last Commissioners to be established, so they
have had the lead on you. Do you use that opportunity of being
the new kid on the block—I suppose that is an appropriate
pun—for liaising with the other commissioners?
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
It is a very good question and I am pleased to answer it very
positively. As soon as I was appointed I made it my business to
go and see Peter Clarke in Wales, who sadly has died since then.
I also went to see Nigel Williams in Northern Ireland, who again,
sadly, has died since then. Within a few weeks of being appointed
we had created a new organisation called BINOCC (British and Irish
Network of Ombudsmen and Children's Commissioners). The Irish
Ombudsman has a lot to say about the circumstances in the Republic
of Ireland. We have three-monthly summits. In December last year
we had our first major event where 50 staff from the five offices
came together in Belfast for a two-day session, to share perspectives,
best practice, understanding and approaches. That has proved to
be extraordinarily helpful. As you know, all the UK commissioners
are working together at this moment of time for our submission
to the UN Committee for the UNCRC microscope in the near future.
We have also come together on issues such as the physical punishment
of children, on asylum and so on. The answer to your question
is that I have been welcomed by my colleagues. The organisation
BINOCC is extraordinarily helpful to me because I can pick up
a phone and just bounce ideas. I was in Edinburgh last week with
my staff, meeting the Scottish Children's Commissioner and her
officers, and again it was very helpful in understanding best
practice. I am also invited to be an observer in ENOCC (European
Network of Ombudsmen and Children's Commissioners). It is unlikely
I will be a full member because I do not have the statutory power
to promote the rights of children and to be a human rights institution,
but I can be an observer there, and I shall be going to Barcelona
in September to meet with my colleagues across Europe.
Q56 Stephen Williams: Commissioner,
you have mentioned bullying several times, but I do not want to
ask specific questions on that because the Committee has done
an in-depth report, which I am sure you have studied.
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
Yes, indeed.
Q57 Stephen Williams: In the Government's
response, one of the things they have parked for the time being
is whether there should be an independent complaints procedure
into aspects of bullying. They say they have parked it because
you are looking at it. Can you tell us where you are in your deliberations
and when you will have a conclusion?
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
Yes, I can tell you where we are, and I am pleased to do so. This
is the only matter that the Secretary of State has asked me to
take forward since I have been in post. Ruth Kelly asked me to
look at the complaints process for parents who feel aggrieved
that their issues are not being taken seriously. We have taken
evidence. We have had a consultation programme and have produced
some recommendations, which we have shared with the trades unions
and others. We have had some feedback, and we will be in a position
to submit those recommendations fairly soon to government. We
have had discussions with Jim Knight already about the essence
of the discussions. What is at the heart of this is how to make
sure—and we are talking about parents here of course—there
is an issue about children and their access to complaints processes,
but in terms of parents you want to make sure there is a process
that is fair, transparent, which allows them to feel they have
had a chance to say what they think, and there has been some kind
of independent review of what can be done to resolve their dispute.
Our proposals are going to Ministers fairly soon.
Q58 Stephen Williams: Have you met
with any resistance from any bodies to the concept of an independent
procedure?
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
Yes, concerns have been expressed by some of the teaching unions
because they are concerned about the additional bureaucracy that
this process might create for them, and I can understand that
when they have so many other issues on their desks. My riposte
to them is that surely it is in the best interests for schools
to have an independent process or some kind of resolution process
because there may be issues where schools are being alleged to
be, inaccurately or unfairly, handling bullying complaints. We
think that this process is important for everybody. We are publishing
this very shortly. Can I just raise the issue about complaints
from children generally? I told you I am not an ombud. I cannot
take forward an individual issue. We are receiving increasing
numbers of letters, e-mails and telephone calls from children
who say they have an injustice and they want to address it. In
our strategic plan you will have noticed that we are intent to
look seriously at the existing routes by which children can raise
issues that concern them. For example, there is Roger Morgan,
the Human Rights Director for Children in Social Care. My chief
executive recently met the local ombudsman group and I was told
that there were 18,000 complaints handled in one year and only
50 related to children. What does that mean? Does it mean that
there are really so few issues that concern children, or is it
because there is not a process that allows children's issues and
complaints, short of the justice system, to take them forward?
We are embarking on a programme to chart what the complaints processes
are for children and to see whether a structure change in function
for me to be an ombud might add value. I can say finally that
in regard to those two administrations where they do have an ombud
function, that is Wales and Northern Ireland, we should not be
under any illusion over the enormity of the workload that comes
from taking forward individual children's injustices. If that
were rolled out for 11.8 million children in England, that would
seriously be beyond the bounds of my current resources to handle
properly.
Q59 Stephen Williams: Commissioner,
you said earlier that you were looking at happiness and health
this year. One of the things that you have said makes children
unhappy, as probably all of us know from children, is exams and
the stress of testing. Do you feel that English children in particular
are tested too much and too early?
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
The evidence suggests that they may be, just looking at the number
of testing opportunities that the child experiences from 5 through
to 18. That is what children tell us; that they feel they are
subjected to unnecessary testing. Of course, there is a contrary
view expressed by some parents, that this is how they can understand
the progress that children are making. They say, "Testing
has been part of my life, so why should testing not be part of
your life?" It is a question of balance.
|
