Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-79)
PROFESSOR SIR
AL AYNSLEY-GREEN
25 JUNE 2007
Q60 Stephen Williams: Where do you
think the balance is?
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
My opinion from what children tell us is that it is skewed towards
too many tests. There is also of course the political use to which
these data are used.
Q61 Stephen Williams: As I understand
it, children are tested not so often in Wales and not at such
an early age. In your discussions with your Welsh counterpart
have you found that Welsh children are happier than English children?
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
Sadly, of course, Peter Clarke has just died and so I have not
had a chance to ask him about that specifically. I think many
of the issues in UNICEF relate to Welsh children just as much
as English. It would be a bit unfair to say that just because
they are not being tested so much they are happier or healthier.
It is a highly complex arena.
Q62 Stephen Williams: Chairman, the
Commissioner has asked us to listen to children. I am sure we
all do this. I have had three question-and-answer sessions with
schools in the last week, including one this morning at a primary
school in my constituency. I told them that I was seeing the Children's
Commissioner today, and said, "What would you like me to
ask him?" We have covered quite a few of them already, but
two that we have not are the impact of the legislation on July
1 about smoking. One of the fears is that it will mean parents
will smoke more at home. Have you taken a view on that? The second
thing was the discussion about speeding on the roads. Do you think
there is a role for you to speak out on behalf of children about
child safety when a lot of the media coverage is about people
protesting about speed cameras? These are issues that children
brought up this morning.
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
Can I answer the second first, because it strikes a very relevant
chord in my own personal research. When I was professor of child
health in Newcastle many years ago we looked at the issue of the
safety of children on the streets. We asked them to describe to
us their journeys to school and look at their risk assessment
on the way to school. We worked very closely with the police and
the local authority by documenting where injuries took place—and
I do not use the word "accident" because that implies
inevitability. We documented where injuries took place and looked
at traffic-calming devices and also the need for children's protected
crossings. We showed that a benefit would follow by having a concerted
action with geographers, with police, with schools, to improve
the road safety of children. Of course, there was formidable opposition
from motoring organisations for the traffic-calming devices. All
I can do is to speak out for the need for children to be safe
on the way to school, to provide more in the way of cycling lanes,
to have walking buses—which is an interesting idea for local
schools—and to promote the dangers of speeding. There are
some very powerful adverts on television at this moment in time;
that it is 30 miles an hour not 40 miles an hour that makes a
difference. There is a big cultural issue about our society and
how we and cars and speeding are viewed. All I can do is speak
out for what children are saying about how unsafe they feel on
the streets.
Q63 Stephen Williams: The second
question I asked you was about smoking and home. Do you think
that that is something that will become a problem? In your health
agenda are you planning to look at that?
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
Of course, it is fascinating, as a student of social policy, to
see how the smoking agenda has rapidly developed. Ten years ago,
no-one would have believed that we would have what we now have,
legislation and the whole culture of moving away from smoking.
When I was in France last week, just being in a French city and
to see the number of people smoking was absolutely staggering
compared to what we see in England. There is a societal momentum
towards recognising the difficulties of smoking, and there are
issues here for the education of children about smoking. In terms
of access to their own smoking habit, increasing the age of access
is a step in the right direction; but why are we not using existing
legislation more powerfully to prosecute retailers who are selling
cigarettes to under-age children?
Q64 Chairman: Smoking in homes was
the question.
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
It is all part of a big issue. The stance taken this last week
about foster carers and whether they should be allowed to be foster
carers and smoke was another step forward. There is nothing I
can do, as the Commissioner, to force parents at home to stop
smoking. All I can really do is expose the issues whenever I can.
Q65 Chairman: It is interesting the
amount of stress that children have, talking to educators, between
children being told at school that smoking is bad for you and
kills you, and then going home and seeing their parents smoke—the
psychological stress that is caused by the experience at home
and the messages that come from school.
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
I would be interested to know when we started smoking ourselves—I
will not ask you now—but to smoke is a rite of passage in
many ways; it is rebelling against authority. That is part of
growing up. What I do object to is the relentless targeting of
children by advertisers and others to increase their habit.
Chairman: If it is a rite of passage
it is one I missed, thank God. However, let us get on with our
last section, which is the recent Green and White Papers.
Q66 Mr Pelling: On the Care Matters
Green Paper you have some reservations, and now we have the White
Paper. Are you content that what is in the White Paper has met
your concerns; or is anything missing?
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
I think it is a step in the right direction. Certainly children
in care are the most disadvantaged and their outcomes have been
appalling. Many of the steps being proposed are worthy. Of crucial
importance is listening to these children for what matters to
them and how local services can be designed around their needs.
If we get that as a cultural change, that will be very important.
Q67 Mr Pelling: Do you think there
is anything missing in the White Paper?
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
No, I think it is the underpinning philosophy of engaging children
much more—and what they are thinking. There are some deficiencies.
This may seem to be a minor one, but it is very important: I told
you that I was a single-parent child because of bereavement. I
met some young carers recently and I just happened to say to them:
"How many of you have lost someone that you love?" I
was taken aback, and I should not have been taken aback, but almost
every young person in that room put their hand up and said, "We
have lost someone we loved." I then said: "What services
have you had, and what support have you had?" They said:
"Nothing." That is something I would like to highlight
as an area that could deserve some further focus.
Q68 Mr Pelling: The White Paper also
talks about how we relate to our European partners, particularly
in Germany. You must have quite a lot of liaison with your counterparts
in Europe.
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
Yes.
Q69 Mr Pelling: How do you think
our system compares with some of our peer group on the Continent?
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
I think we have a lot to learn, but we should not fall into the
temptation of saying they have got the answers to our problems
because most of these countries have very different cultures.
People always tend to talk about the Scandinavian countries, but
they have a totally different background of industrialisation
with a much greater focus on social equality for many more years
than we have, so it is very dangerous to say they have got the
answer. Having said that, I have listened. I have yet to go to
Germany, where they have small friendly homes for young people,
but intuitively that seems to be a good idea and I would like
to understand more about it myself. When you look at the journeys
of children through the care system, starting with babies who
have untold numbers of different placements in the first year
of their lives, that can only be disadvantageous to the child.
How can we get love brought into the system and stability into
their lives? These are very important issues for us to look at
seriously. I welcome the White Paper as a step in the right direction.
We will be offering our ongoing comments. We like to have ongoing
input from children and young people in the system for what they
think the impact is. Some issues of course are almost intractable,
and one of them is the issue of housing. I was in Kent recently
to hear the difficulties of getting affordable housing for young
care leavers. That is a very serious issue, which the White Paper
by itself cannot address.
Q70 Chairman: Is there any research
on NEETs? There is quite a significant percentage of NEETs that
are carers, and that is why they are NEETs. Have you picked up
on that?
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
We have indeed, and the issue of NEETs is a very important one.
Q71 Chairman: For the record, that
is "not in education, employment or training".
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
That is absolutely right. As UNICEF reports, we have one of the
highest rates in Europe, and there are all sorts of reasons for
it. I am concerned about NEETs who may be carers, and we have
touched on the needs of carers previously.
Q72 Mr Chaytor: You have commented
on pressures on children of testing and assessment regimes. In
the White Paper there is an interesting reference to the changes
to the admissions code, which now prioritises children in care.
Have you considered the impact of pressures on children in terms
of admissions procedures and school choice? Do you have any views
on the specific issue of the rights of parents to have their children
educated in their own faith without regard to the children's views
on that choice?
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
These are crucial issues for our society. They are crucial issues
for politicians. There is a huge range of opinions on choice,
admission and so on. You raise the issues about faith schools;
but you are also talking about the admission of children in care
and how they can be looked after. The key question is how the
state can act like a caring parent in conduiting, navigating that
child through the system. The statistic for children who have
left care and go to university is very depressing; less than 1%
get to university. I have listened to young people who have been
in care who got to university, and they said they got there for
two reasons. The first was that some adult who cared for them
told them they could get there; and, secondly, somebody helped
them to navigate through the system. I would argue that it must
be the responsibility of social care services, when children are
getting into secondary schools with all the issues. How can the
state be a more effective parent? In this context too I am disturbed
to hear from children in care who say they never have anybody
who goes to parent evenings at school for interaction with the
teachers; so there is a big cultural issue here of how the state
should take over the components of care that parents give to their
own children; and navigation through the system is a very important
point. In terms of faith schools there is a great deal of political
discussion about Academies and trust schools and so on, and issues
about social mobility. My father went down the pit when he was
14. I am now a Knight of the Realm and Children's Commissioner.
I was able to do that by the education system of the day. I was
given opportunities and support and an expectation to get there.
There are very real issues here. I have been to locations where
the head teachers are in near despair because the parents in the
community have no expectation of what their children can do. I
think we need to have some serious ongoing research over the impact
of the new structures for admission, the new models of education
and above all how we make sure we get social cohesion in our society.
I went to a Jewish orthodox school recently. There were amazing
young people, some of the most articulate, passionate young women
I have met in my travels. When I said to them, "Have you
ever been into an Anglican or a Catholic home or a Muslim home
or a Hindu home?" they had not. I said, "Would it not
be a good idea if you did?" They said: "Yes." The
adults in the room were not too happy with that at all. How do
we get community cohesion against these pressures that tend to
tear it apart by interests prosecuting a particular viewpoint?
These are really important issues for our society and I do not
have an easy answer to it.
Q73 Mr Chaytor: Given the emphasis
you rightly place on the voice of children and issues affecting
their future, do you think there is a debate to be had about children's
views about their choice of school? How could that take place?
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
Choice for many children is not real, and I am thinking in this
context of disabled children. Their choices may be limited. I
do not have enough experience to know the process by which children
could be engaged in those decisions. I would hope that families
realise the need to involve children in those decisions, and at
least have their views. Some schools go to great lengths to have
open days and information packs about how those children would
be looked after, and I would hope that ideally families would
involve their children in making those decisions. It is difficult
for the state to legislate for that.
Q74 Mr Chaytor: That is a fairly
laissez-faire approach compared to the strongly interventionist
approach you take to other issues of children having a voice in
decisions. You do not want to go into that area because it is
too sensitive?
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
I think it is a difficult area, and I am not out to subvert the
importance of families and making family decisions. What I would
argue for is children being involved seriously in those family
decisions and being asked.
Q75 Mr Chaytor: We touched on NEETs
a moment or two ago. How do you get the voice of that group, because
of all the age groups, presumably by definition they are almost
impossible to contact?
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
I do not think they are impossible to contact. When I go to localities
I know from the information I am given by youth workers and others
where the areas are. I think with commitment, training, resources
and opportunity it is possible to get in touch with these kids.
There is the Wheelright School in Milton Keynes: I met some young
men from this tiny independent school recently. They have only
28 students. These are young men rescued from criminality—by
listening to them and asking them what interests them in their
lives and how they could use this opportunity to give them skills.
These young men are interested in tuning bangers, tuning motor
bikes and racing cars. I am told that with the local motor trade
this school has given these young men training skills, competencies,
qualifications, to do just that. I am told the success rate is
very high. That is an example of listening to young people rather
than imposing upon them a rigid series of opportunities. What
do they want out of their lives? How can they be encouraged to
do things? How can we work with local resources like the motor
trade and others to give them the skills they need, and the interest
to do something with their lives?
Q76 Mr Chaytor: Of those young people
who drop out of education and training at the age of 16, do you
think there is any desire to see the age of compulsory education
and training raised to 18 or 19?
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
We have asked them, and the ones we have asked, generally—and
I cannot give a breakdown of the statistics—are against
the imposition of mandatory staying on until the age of 18 because
they do not understand what the opportunities are for them. We
need to get a dialogue with these young people to find what their
lives are like, what they are hoping for for the future and how
they can get those opportunities. I am also concerned about the
criminalisation of having sanctions against young people who may
not get into this arena. They are very important issues. I am
delighted that NEETs have now become exposed under microscope.
I would argue that we need to listen much more to those kids and
work with them, as the Wheelright School has been doing, to improve
their life chances.
Q77 Mr Chaytor: As Children's Commissioner,
you are in no doubt that the age of compulsory education and training
should be raised progressively?
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
The age of opportunity for qualifications and skills—18
makes sense.
Q78 Mr Chaytor: But there is a difference
between the age of opportunity and the age of compulsory involvement.
Are you saying that the government policy is right, or are you
saying the NEETs group, which is resisting compulsion, has got
it right?
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
I am interested, for example, in the opportunities for apprenticeships,
which would not necessarily be in school.
Mr Chaytor: No, but that would still
be a compulsory requirement on young people up to the age of 18.
Q79 Chairman: Commissioner, perhaps
the people you are talking to think, as many do, that it is just
raising the school-leaving age to 18, and so they will be in a
formal school setting to 18.
Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green:
I am not in favour of the school-leaving age being 18; I am in
favour of education and opportunity to the age of 18.
| 
