Dechreuodd y cyfarfod am 09:30.
The meeting began at 09:30.
|
Cyflwyniad,
Ymddiheuriadau, Dirprwyon a Datgan Buddiannau
Introductions, Apologies, Substitutions and Declarations of
Interest
|
[1]
Lynne Neagle: Good morning, everyone. Can I welcome you all to the
Children, Young People and Education Committee? We’ve
received apologies for absence from Darren Millar and Hefin David.
Can I ask whether there are any declarations of interest, please?
No. Okay.
|
[2]
Before we move on to our scrutiny
session, I just wanted to say that Anne Thomas, who, as you know,
heads up the research service, is retiring at the start of next
month. So, this is Anne’s last committee, and she will be
joining us later on. As you know, we’ve worked very closely
with Anne, and Anne has also led our fantastic research team, so
I’m sure we would all want to take this opportunity to place
on record our grateful thanks to Anne for all her hard work and to
wish her all the very best for her retirement. Thank
you.
|
09:31
|
Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet dros Gymunedau a
Phlant:
Sesiwn Graffu Gyffredinol
Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children:
General Scrutiny Session
|
[3]
Lynne Neagle: Okay, item 2, then, is a general scrutiny session
with the Cabinet Secretary for communities and culture. Can I
welcome Carl Sargeant to our meeting today, and also Albert Heaney
and Jo-Anne Daniels? Thank you for coming.
|
[4]
The Cabinet Secretary
for Communities and Children (Carl Sargeant): Good morning.
|
[5]
Lynne Neagle: And thank you for the paper that you’ve
provided in advance. We’ve got lots to cover, so, if
you’re happy, we’ll go straight into
questions.
|
[6]
Carl Sargeant: Yes, Chair. Just, I think you mentioned
‘communities and culture’ then—
|
[7]
Lynne Neagle: Oh, that’s what it says on the
brief.
|
[8]
Carl Sargeant: It’s ‘communities and children’.
You frightened me to death when you said that. Because I’m
not doing scrutiny on that bit as well. [Laughter.]
|
[9]
Lynne Neagle: Sorry, that wasn’t an attempt to wrong-foot
you. It was on the brief, and I’m just reading—. Okay,
if I can start, then, and ask you about the concluding observations
and incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child, can you update the
committee as to how the Welsh Government has addressed the
concluding observations made by the UN Committee on the Rights of
the Child?
|
[10]
Carl Sargeant: Thank you, Chair, and good morning to committee. In
terms of our response, we’ve not made a formal response to
committee. We understand this is a role for the UK Government as a
nation, as a state party. However, I have written a written
statement on 12 July, highlighting Wales’s progress in the
first year since the publication of the UN committee’s
recommendations. This included many aspects in relation to
children’s mental health. We’re working to ensure that
good health support can be provided to all children and young
people in schools. We’re also investing in quality childcare,
both in support of families and employment choices, and ensuring
children receive the care and help they need to develop their
skills in life, too. I think the UN committee report was very
positive for Wales, as part of the UK, but it is ultimately up to
the UK to make a formal response.
|
[11]
Lynne Neagle: Okay, thank you. I wanted to ask what consideration
you’ve given to incorporating the UNCRC into domestic
legislation in Wales. As you know, it has been included in the
Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, and one of this
committee’s recommendations on the additional learning needs
Bill was that it should be placed on the face of the Bill. Can I
ask what your view is on that, and incorporation more
generally?
|
[12]
Carl Sargeant: Across Cabinet, we’ve had a discussion about
this, and the First Minister has been very clear in his leadership
that he doesn’t believe that there is a necessary need for
the UNCRC to be embedded in all legislation. It’s actually,
we believe, covered much more strongly through the Well-being of
Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, in terms of the principles
aligning children and their representation across all Government
aspects, including legislation. Therefore, I wouldn’t
be—I’m not supportive of it being embedded in
individual pieces of legislation. Actually, it’s probably
worst-case scenario, because it’s not covered in everything,
whereas the WFG Act does cover everything—it goes beyond
Government, it goes to the 44 public bodies that are covered by the
Act. Therefore, embedding children’s rights in the work that
we do and they do is an important factor in this. So, I don’t
think just the one aspect of a Bill is necessary, Chair.
|
[13]
Lynne Neagle: Okay, thank you. Llyr.
|
[14]
Llyr Gruffydd: So, why is it included in the social services Act,
then, because—?
|
[15]
Carl Sargeant: I didn’t take the social services Act
through.
|
[16]
Llyr Gruffydd: No, but it is in the social services Act. So, is the
social services Act an anomaly that the Government intends to
correct?
|
[17]
Carl Sargeant: I don’t think it’s an anomaly. I
don’t think it’s damaging. But, as I said to you
earlier, I think, actually, what we’ve done is embed this in
the principle of all of the things we do. I think it’s right, actually—the rights
of children shouldn’t be an add-on; they should be a
principle that we all follow. That’s why, in the WFG Act,
children are front-facing in all the aspects. I think, if you ask
me for a view, although this isn’t the Government’s
view, on the social services Act, I think that the element of that
slipped through on the social services Bill. I’m not entirely
convinced it was fully thought through in terms of where it was
embedded. Actually, we’ve got a much more holistic approach
now.
|
[18]
Lynne Neagle: Okay, thank you. One of the recommendations made by
the UN committee was for there to be an inter-ministerial body
established, such as a Cabinet sub-committee for children, which we
did have previously. What progress have you made on implementing
that?
|
[19]
Carl Sargeant: Well, we don’t have a Cabinet sub-committee,
but we’ve got a Minister for children now in Government, and
I work across Government with all of my colleagues and I meet them
on a regular basis. As I said, actually, the title of
children’s Minister is a really important one, but I just
hold the ring of that responsibility, and I expect my Cabinet
colleagues to act appropriately in ensuring that the rights of the
child are front-facing in the legislation and the work that they
do. I meet them on a weekly basis.
|
[20]
Lynne Neagle: Julie.
|
[21]
Julie Morgan: I think we all welcome the fact that we’ve got
a designation for a children’s Minister, because, obviously,
during the last session, we didn’t have that. So, I think
that’s great progress, but, when you say you meet them
weekly, do you meet them all together weekly so that you’re
able to get a holistic approach to the approach to
childcare—children’s rights?
|
[22]
Carl Sargeant: Well, I meet them at Cabinet every week and I make a
representation on children at every appropriate time. I’ve
written to Cabinet colleagues and I also speak to them on a weekly
basis—sometimes a daily basis to some of my
colleagues—on the impacts of inter-departmental working,
which includes children’s rights.
|
[23]
Julie Morgan: So, there’s not a group where they all sit
together—. I mean, obviously, the Cabinet is wide-ranging,
isn’t it, in what it considers.
|
[24]
Carl Sargeant: Of course.
|
[25]
Julie Morgan: But there’s not an individual group of
Ministers or officers, like, as Lynne was asking, a
cross—
|
[26]
Carl Sargeant: No, there isn’t. There isn’t a focus
group—
|
[27]
Julie Morgan: Would you see there’s a case for that?
Obviously, I accept that you’ve got lots of day-to-day
contact and lots of meeting in the Cabinet and all that.
|
[28]
Carl Sargeant: I’m not convinced that there is a need for
that. I think, actually—. I’ve been in Government for a
number of years now and I see this Government operating very
differently to how it used to. The embedding of the WFG Act has
changed the way that the operation of the organisation works. Not
only are Ministers closer in their operation, but, actually, the
civil service work much more closely as well. It’s a very
different shape to the organisation. I don’t think that
having a very specific sub-committee on children would add any
value.
|
[29]
Julie Morgan: Thank you.
|
[30]
Lynne Neagle: In terms of specific examples, obviously, someone
like Kirsty Williams is taking forward a very big reform agenda,
which will have a big impact on children, such as curriculum
reform. How are you ensuring, as children’s Minister, that
children’s rights are fully taken into account within
that?
|
[31]
Carl Sargeant: As I alluded to earlier, I hold the ring around this,
but it’s up to every Minister to have a responsibility for
delivery. There are many examples. Maybe I could allude to some of
them. The childcare pledge is one of them, where I have the
responsibility of delivering the childcare pledge, but I’m
actually working with Ken Skates and Kirsty Williams, and Alun
Davies, around language, quality and capability of the system.
It’s something that we’re heavily engaged in, because
it’s not just my remit; it’s one of collective
responsibility. Kirsty Williams—again, with the curriculum
reform and my responsibility around children and families about how
do we enhance the opportunity for an education-based approach to
tackling domestic violence and sexual abuse; these are the things
that we talk about. So, it’s absolutely not silo working.
There is very much an all-Government approach of embedding in the
way that we operate in children’s rights.
|
[32]
Lynne Neagle: Okay, thank you. Llyr.
|
[33]
Llyr Gruffydd: Yes, I’d like to just ask a few questions on
the children’s rights impact assessments. I’m just
wondering what you’re doing to make sure that the CRIA
process is robust and transparent in order to give further effect
to children’s rights.
|
[34]
Carl Sargeant: The CRIA tools and processes within our
children’s rights scheme, including impact assessment
documents, were developed in collaboration with key stakeholders
who have expertise in this field. I always say about my
team—while I’ve got a fantastic team who support me,
there are experts outside that we need to use as well. The
knowledge base from external agencies is a really important one.
So, we’ve used expertise in the field of children’s
rights on the impact assessment. The CRIA process is designed to
allow clarity and transparency around whether and how
children’s rights have been taken into account. Chair, I
know, actually—from my very first appearance in this
committee—of your interest in this particular area as well.
It may be helpful if I give you a more detailed note in terms of
how that actually works, and I’m more than happy to support
committee in the scrutiny of that particular area.
|
[35]
Llyr Gruffydd: That would
be useful, because I need to understand the monitoring processes
that sit behind these, really, in terms of how or what systems you
have in place to ensure that they’re regularly published, and
that there’s a supporting rationale behind it, and that all
of that is in the public domain.
|
[36]
Carl Sargeant: I’m more than happy to give you written
detail on it. In 2015, there was an independent assessment
undertaken of this by the Wales Observatory on Human Rights of
Children and Young People. This resulted in a template being
established and revised—a refreshed design on what the rights
are and how we deliver on that. Again, I’ll give you full
detail of that, if that’s helpful, Chair.
|
[37]
Llyr Gruffydd: Yes. Thank you for that. So, what examples can
you provide of changes in policy intent that have occurred as a
result of a CRIA? Or, in other words, how do we know that
they’re actually making a difference on the ground to policy
in Government?
|
[38]
Carl Sargeant: Again, you see, I—. CRIA is a really
important part of assessment and delivery, but, actually, we should
start at the front end of this. CRIA is a measurement tool of
success, of delivery. What we need to do is design services, very
much up front, about what the impact is on young people. So, the
equality impact assessments that are alongside of this—how
and what will happen if we introduce a policy here? That’s,
as I alluded to right at the very beginning of this scrutiny
session, about the UNCRC being part of an integrated approach to
the delivery of service rather than an add-on, because it’s
too late then. We’ve found, particularly with the WFG Act, it
shouldn’t be an additional duty here; this is how we should
operate. So, the thought processes of making sure our policies are
considerate of young people as we start that journey are a really
important part, and the CRIA element of this is just a measurement
tool to ensure that we’ve done that.
|
[39]
Llyr Gruffydd: So, can you
point to something that has changed as a result, during the
process?
|
[40]
Carl Sargeant: Off the top of my head, I can’t. Any
ideas, Albert, in terms of—?
|
[41]
Mr Heaney: Just a couple of aspects. One is in relation to
the statutory guidance around the public services boards. So,
clearly, the regard that they have to pay, and that’s really
important, because, again, working across public services—.
And, in relation to the wider agenda with inspectorates, Care and
Social Services Inspectorate Wales, our inspectorate, have
incorporated and embedded it within their inspection framework, so,
again, taking that into the whole heart of the way they inspect and
regulate.
|
[42]
Llyr Gruffydd: Good.
|
[43]
Lynne Neagle: You’ve placed a heavy emphasis on the
future generations Act, but there’s no explicit duty of due
regard in that. So, how do you marry that up?
|
[44]
Carl Sargeant: Well, I don’t accept that, the element
that children aren’t part of the future generations Act.
Indeed, when I took that piece of legislation through, I had many
discussions with the children’s commissioner at the time
about how we can be assured that the rights of all individuals are
considered within the scope of that legislation. It’s not
specific to children, but it doesn’t exclude children either.
I expect, as we all do, all aspects of culture and age profile to
be considered under the Act. So, I wouldn’t accept that,
because it’s not specific in saying ‘children’,
they’re not included in the Act.
|
[45]
Lynne Neagle: Okay. We’re going to move on to talk
about the children’s commissioner, but I’m sure that
the committee would be grateful for the note, maybe, with some more
examples of where things have changed as a result—
|
[46]
Carl Sargeant: Of course. I’m very happy to do
that.
|
[47]
Lynne Neagle: —of the
CRIA process. Julie.
|
[48]
Julie Morgan: Yes. Obviously, the role of the
children’s commissioner is very important here in Wales, and
it’s fantastic that we have one. So, what is your view on the
independence of the children’s commissioner? Because,
obviously, I think the government and legislative committee’s
going to look at this role, and there have been calls, in the past,
that the children’s commissioner should be responsible to the
Assembly rather than to the Government, so what’s your view
on that?
|
09:45
|
[49]
Carl Sargeant: The view of the Government is that the
current position is completely acceptable in the way that the
appointment process has taken place, the involvement of the
Assembly in that process. I can assure you the independence of all
the commissioners isn’t compromised, because they are very
robust in their views and the actions that they operate in. In
particular, the children’s commissioner—she is
certainly not slow in coming forward if we’re stepping into
the wrong place, and I don’t think the commissioner’s
role is compromised in any way because of the way that the system
is run. I’m not sure there is any need for reform of that
process.
|
[50]
Julie Morgan: Right. Obviously, we have had quite
strong-minded children’s commissioners, and what you said
really is emphasising their strength rather than the structures.
So—. I mean, I wonder how independent they can be if they are
not reporting to the Assembly.
|
[51]
Carl Sargeant: Well, I think the Government was very
ambitious in the way that we brought forward legislation to
introduce commissioners on an independent footing. That has worked
incredibly well. I think you’re right to say that the
commissioners we’ve had have been personally robust, but I
don’t think the system compromises them either. The
legislation around them protects them, if that would be a fair
assessment to suggest. In their own entities, they are very strong
as a unit. I can’t see any particular reason, apart from
conspiracy, why we would want to move them into a different space,
owned and run by the Commission or by the Assembly. I’m not
convinced that would strengthen their views.
|
[52]
Julie Morgan: What happens now when there is a difference of
view between the commissioner and the Government?
|
[53]
Carl Sargeant: Generally, I get a phone call or a letter
from the commissioner informing me of disappointment, and I can
assure you I have had a few. [Laughter.]
|
[54]
Julie Morgan: Because, obviously, we have one at the moment
in relation to this committee and—
|
[55]
Carl Sargeant: Of course—
|
[56]
Julie Morgan:—where we have had evidence from the
commissioner that has made us adopt a certain recommendation, but
the Government is resisting that. What happens in these
situations?
|
[57]
Carl Sargeant: Well, I think, again, all of the
commissioners have robust legislation around them to act in terms
of what their actions can be. I would like to think that we are
able to resolve most of those issues, and that isn’t by
virtue of the Big Brother tactic. Actually, as I said earlier on, I
think the discussion about the UNCRC and the ALN Bill is actually
one that is, I know, controversial, with the commissioner’s
stance and the Government’s stance as ones that
aren’t—they’re not in agreement. That’s
pretty public, but it doesn’t affect the relationship between
the commissioner and Government. The commissioner continues to be
very robust, so she has a toolkit of actions that she can trigger
on the basis of her statutory body, and I don’t see how
moving that position to working for the Commission or for the
Assembly strengthens that in any way.
|
[58]
Julie Morgan: I can’t—I mean I’m not
absolutely sure, looking back at the timescale now, but maybe, as
the children’s commissioner was the first commissioner
appointed, I think that was still when we didn’t have the
division between the Executive and the legislature—and I just
wonder if it’s a hangover from that, and that, if it had been
started now, it would have been done in a different way.
|
[59]
Carl Sargeant: Well, who knows what the future’s going
to hold for appointments? Commissioner roles and responsibilities
are in the gift of the Assembly, ultimately, to look at that as we
move forward. You will obviously make recommendations to Government
in that space. As I said earlier, I’m not sure I can add any
more other than—the commissioners’ independence is
clear to Government. They are, in my view, considered in the same
space as the auditor general. These are people that you want to
engage with, but not very often. [Laughter.] They are very
robust, believe me, in terms of their views. I do meet Sally on a
very frequent basis and I hope that we have a good relationship,
working together, but we don’t always agree. And that’s
reality.
|
[60]
Julie Morgan: My final question, if that’s all right, is: I
don’t know what evidence there is from other countries with
commissioners, where they sit in the set-up—I don’t
know whether anybody has got that information.
|
[61]
Carl Sargeant: I don’t know. I will try and help committee
establish what that position is in other countries if that’s
helpful, but our current position is one that we would seek to
maintain. We don’t think we’re compromised or the
commissioners are compromised in the actions that they are set to
complete.
|
[62]
Julie Morgan: Thank you.
|
[63]
Lynne Neagle: Thank you. Michelle, on the children’s rights
scheme.
|
[64]
Michelle Brown:
Thank you, Chair. You spoke a little
earlier about the concluding observations from the UN committee.
Are you intending to amend the children’s rights scheme at
all in light of those observations?
|
[65]
Carl Sargeant: We don’t believe that it’s necessary to
make amendments on that. Section 3 of the Rights of Children and
Young Persons (Wales) Measure 2011 requires Ministers to consider
whether to revise the children’s rights scheme within six
months of the UN publication and their recommendations. We felt it
not necessary to amend the 2014 children’s rights scheme, but
we will consider how we need to revise the scheme in light of the
compliance report that is published in January, if that’s
required.
|
[66]
Michelle Brown:
Okay. Are there any other pieces of
legislation that you think might need amending in light of those
observations?
|
[67]
Carl Sargeant: As I said earlier, I think we came out quite well in
terms of the whole report, in terms of our operation in Wales. But
I’m very keen to make sure we stay ahead of the game. I
don’t think we are in a place where we need to amend
legislation currently, but I have an open mind on that. If we need
to in the future, then that’s what we should do.
|
[68]
Michelle Brown:
Thank you.
|
[69]
Lynne Neagle: Thank you. Julie.
|
[70]
Julie Morgan: I wanted to move on to the reasonable punishment
issue. It’s very pleasing that the Government is committed to
removing the defence of reasonable punishment. I know you’re
going to start a consultation process, so I wondered if you could
tell us when this will start and what process this will
be.
|
[71]
Carl Sargeant: ‘Shortly’, would be my broadest answer.
We’ll be going out to consultation later this year, and it
will be focusing around ‘talk parenting’, where
we’ll have a broad conversation about—. The
legislation, for me, and the Government, is just part of a toolkit
to make sure we protect our young people. There is a whole host of
other actions that need to come alongside of the legislation as
well, including support for parents and guardians in terms of the
way that we raise young people. There’s a cultural issue,
which we have to consider, about how we engage people in that
process. So, we’re starting the consultation off alongside
this supportive pathway of parenting and parenting support skills,
but we intend to kick off that consultation towards the end of the
year.
|
[72]
Julie Morgan: So, obviously, I think the Welsh Government has
always worked hard at trying to support parents, with the
opportunity for parenting classes and support, and obviously the
health visitors are crucial. What more are you going to do in terms
of putting support in?
|
[73]
Carl Sargeant: Well, we’ve had some really positive engagement
programmes where social media has been a great tool for us in terms
of engaging with people. So, we’ll be starting off the
consultation as a formal document, but also a media campaign around
how parenting support can happen. I’m working to see if I can
use third sector organisations, again who have direct contact with
parents and young people, about what they consider the strengths in
terms of positive parenting and making further investments in that
scope. This has to be a
partnership approach to this piece
of legislation, and, working with the children’s
commissioner, with third sector organisations, and, in particular,
children and young people, taking this piece of difficult
legislation through, it’s critical that we have support from
as many sectors as we possibly can.
|
[74]
Julie Morgan: I think obviously the third sector are thoroughly
behind you. So I think that would be a—
|
[75]
Carl Sargeant: Indeed they are.
|
[76]
Julie Morgan: I agree with you that it’s good to work with
them because their access is better than statutory agencies.
Obviously, this is going to be a year later than planned. So, you
aim to get the legislation through in the third session.
|
[77]
Carl Sargeant: I’m not sure we’re later than planned. I
think the First Minister’s tried to fit this into the
legislative timetable alongside some other complex pieces of
legislation. I’m confident that we certainly will be starting
the consultation within the next few months, and I will try to push
that as quickly as I possibly can in terms of legislative space,
capacity within the system, and ensuring actually that we
do—it’s for the right reasons, that we get this right.
What we don’t want to do—and I don’t think
that’s supported by the third sector either—is to be
criminalising parents. What we’ve got to do is make sure we
have an approach of legislation that does what it says on the tin
about protecting young people and giving equal rights to children.
It is very complex, and there is a legal framework we have to
operate in. My team are working incredibly hard to make sure we get
this right, and if it takes a little bit longer to do that then I
think it would be right and appropriate to do so.
|
[78]
Julie Morgan: I absolutely accept that. We want to get it right,
and I’m sure the Minister would agree that, of the 50-odd
countries that have already done this, and the 50 that are
planning, there hasn’t been any evidence of criminalisation
of parents. So, I think it’s really important that you do
look at this very carefully to make sure our legislation is
right.
|
[79]
Carl Sargeant: I’ve had endless legal advice on this. I think
the Member is absolutely right, looking at other countries, but
what we have to be cautious about is that the legal framework in
other counties, in all of them, is different. Therefore, how do we
embed this in our legal framework, and in the competence of this
Assembly, is an important one, and I wouldn’t want to fall
foul of that, because giving people the wrong advice, or receiving
the wrong advice—. That time factor is an important one to
allow us to make sure you as a committee, the Assembly, people,
children—we are happy with that approach to making sure we
get this right. But I know the Member’s very positive about
this, and pushes me on a regular basis to ensure that we get on
with it. I am getting on with it.
|
[80]
Julie Morgan: Thank you.
|
[81]
Lynne Neagle: Thank you. I’ve got Michelle then Mark on this.
Or are you okay?
|
[82]
Michelle Brown:
I think
we’ve—[Inaudible.]
|
[83]
Lynne Neagle: Mark.
|
[84]
Mark Reckless: Minister, can you just explain? You’re saying
you don’t want to criminalise parents. If you remove the
defence of reasonable chastisement to the criminal offence of
assault, how do you not criminalise parents who smack their
children?
|
[85]
Carl Sargeant: Well, this is the whole point of the consultation.
I’m currently working with the Police Federation in terms of
operational issues that may occur from this. But we have to make
sure that the legislation that applies here in Wales, and in the
UK, what we’re introducing here, doesn’t criminalise
parents, and that will be within the scope of what the Bill looks
like. I can’t give you any more detail about what that will
look like now, because the consultation would be pre-empted. But
what I can say is that it is our intention to pursue, as was in the
manifesto, the removal of the defence of reasonable chastisement.
Now, what that looks like at the end is one for legal advice, for
my team, to consider.
|
[86]
Mark Reckless: In circumstances where parents separate and perhaps
there are court proceedings, if one of them insists on smacking
children and the other doesn’t and objects to that, will that
be something that would be considered in terms of custody
proceedings?
|
[87]
Carl Sargeant: Well, I think what we have to consider is that the
safety of the young person is paramount. Obviously, we
haven’t introduced the legislation yet and therefore what I
wouldn’t want to do is get into a debate of what that may
look like or may not look like. The consultation process
will guide us on that, and I’m sure the Member will have
views on that when that consultation process comes forward. What I
can say is that I don’t think—Government doesn’t
think—that it’s reasonable to be chastising children in
that way when you wouldn’t find it acceptable to do that to
an adult. It’s about equal rights here. So, you
wouldn’t find it acceptable to be smacked and, therefore, is
it reasonable for a child to be? I don’t think so.
|
10:00
|
[88]
Mark Reckless: And finally, Minister, in terms of timing, I
think this is the third year of Assembly that you’re looking
to introduce the legislation—given how legislation works in
this place, but also considering the Government’s perspective
and the likely commencement of that legislation, when might be a
realistic time for parents to expect to be covered by such
legislation?
|
[89]
Carl Sargeant: I would suggest that that will be enacted
within this term of Government. I can’t give you a fixed date
on that, but I would expect commencement to happen within this term
of Government.
|
[90]
Mark Reckless: Thank you.
|
[91]
Lynne Neagle: Okay, thank you. We’re going to move on now to
talk about Brexit. Llyr.
|
[92]
Llyr Gruffydd: Yes, at fear of being lynched by my colleagues on
each side of my here. [Laughter.] I’m just wondering whether
the Government has undertaken any kind of children’s rights
impact assessment on the potential impact of leaving the EU on
children’s rights and on their well-being.
|
[93]
Carl Sargeant: Two separate points: first of all, this is the great
unknown, really. We don’t know where this is heading in terms
of what rights or changes in rights, certainly from Europe, will
have an impact on our young people and families and communities.
What I have asked the team to do is start preparing for testing
what legislation is in place currently, and how, therefore, we can
either replicate that if we need to, or protect in the spaces of
that. It’s a really difficult question. I think there are too
many unknowns currently, but what we are is alert to understand
that if there are impacts, how we mitigate them.
|
[94]
Llyr Gruffydd: Well, that was going to be my next question, so,
clearly, one will come after the other, then. You’re not
thinking that far ahead at the moment, are you?
|
[95]
Carl Sargeant: I don’t think it’s helpful, because it
might not happen. But what I’m hoping is that my team can be
prepared to consider any impacts as it rolls on. I don’t even
know whether Brexit will happen; we don’t know. I think there
has been a clear view of the people in the country, but I’m
not convinced that Theresa May can deliver a Brexit that would be
acceptable to the country or, indeed, the other states that are in
the EU. It’s probably not for political debate here today,
Chair, but the question that the Member raises is an important one
of measuring the impact of that. But, at the moment, we just
don’t know what that is.
|
[96]
Llyr Gruffydd: Is there not a danger that by the time we realise
what they are that, actually, we’re late to the game, really,
and that we’ll be letting some young people down?
|
[97]
Carl Sargeant: I don’t think that. I think we’ve got
enough things in place here around what we view around
children’s rights that are embedded into our principles here.
I think one of the biggest things that I think I can’t
mitigate against is European opportunity, and our young people will
have long term—. This will have a huge impact in terms of
their ability to operate in the European state as we did. And
therefore, how do we resolve that issue is a very difficult
one.
|
[98]
Llyr Gruffydd: Okay, so what assurances have you sought from the UK
Government, then, in terms of ensuring that no existing rights and
protections for children and young people will be lost or eroded in
any way?
|
[99]
Carl Sargeant: The First Minister is leading on negotiations with
Mark Drakeford in terms of what Brexit looks like. It’s early
days yet. I think their experience of negotiating with the UK
Government is challenging, and there is, again—. As I said
earlier, I question the ability of the UK Government to have a
successful Brexit exit, and therefore I’m not yet convinced
that their actions currently will deliver the aspirations of
people even who voted to exit.
|
[100]
Llyr Gruffydd: So, do you know whether there have been any explicit
discussions or requests around children’s rights within the
discussions on that?
|
[101]
Carl Sargeant: Not explicitly on children’s rights. What I
know the First Minister has been very clear on is the expectation
that powers currently resting in Europe that are a devolved
function should be preserved within Wales and not in the UK. So, I
haven’t got an example of children’s rights, but the
general principle of all of that is encompassed in
there.
|
[102]
Llyr Gruffydd: What formal mechanisms, then, does the Welsh
Government have in place to listen to the views and voices of
children and young people as part of the Brexit process?
|
[103]
Carl Sargeant: Okay. Two points: firstly, back to the future
generations Act. All of my policies and interventions are about
engagement with clients, and if it’s around children, then we
engage with children and young people. I work with the
children’s commissioner in terms of her views and her close
working relationship with young people. Only last week, I made an
investment to support a third sector organisation to engage young
people and young people’s thoughts around informing us about
policy reform. So, I’m very keen to ensure that—.
‘Client group’ is a bit raw, but whether that’s
children or individuals suffering from domestic violence and
survivors, I’m absolutely keen to get real-life experience
about this. We far too often have created policy from a distance
and do things to people as opposed to with people, so it’s
really important we bring those voices in and we are doing that
with young people as well, as I said—making that
investment.
|
[104]
Llyr Gruffydd: And the First Minister, of course, set up an advisory
group, drawing in representatives from a broad range of sectors and
organisations. Should there not be a young person sitting on that
group?
|
[105]
Carl Sargeant: I’ll give that some further thought. I
don’t think there would be any push-back on that. I’ll
give that some further thought.
|
[106]
Llyr Gruffydd: Okay, thank you.
|
[107]
Lynne Neagle: Mark.
|
[108]
Mark Reckless: In saying you don’t think Brexit can be
acceptably delivered, are you speaking for the First Minister and
the Welsh Government?
|
[109]
Carl Sargeant: Sorry, Mark. The last question—
|
[110]
Mark Reckless: In saying you don’t think Brexit can be
acceptably delivered, are you saying that on behalf of the Welsh
Government and the First Minister?
|
[111]
Carl Sargeant: That question was directed to me, and my view is that
I don’t think Theresa May is currently in a space where she
can deliver a successful Brexit, acceptable to the broader people
of the nation. That’s my personal view.
|
[112]
Mark Reckless: Including the majority who voted for it.
|
[113]
Carl Sargeant: Indeed.
|
[114]
Lynne Neagle: But we’re not here to debate Brexit.
We’re here to talk about children.
|
[115]
Carl Sargeant: I’m more than happy to have a discussion
elsewhere with you.
|
[116]
Lynne Neagle: Okay. Before we move on, Cabinet Secretary, would you
be able to provide us with a note, then, with some more detail of
the work that your team is doing on Brexit and children?
|
[117]
Carl Sargeant: I can do, Chair, but as I said to
you—
|
[118]
Lynne Neagle: I know it’s a moveable feast,
but—.
|
[119]
Carl Sargeant: I can give you an outline about where we are on that,
and where we’re moving, yes.
|
[120]
Lynne Neagle: Okay, thank you. Okay, we’re going to talk
about child poverty now. John.
|
[121]
John Griffiths:
Yes. I have some questions on child
poverty, Cabinet Secretary, and I think we would all understand how
crucial it is to the life chances of young people in more deprived
circumstances in Wales that we—as effectively as we
can—deal with child poverty, notwithstanding the UK-Welsh
Government overlap, as it were, in terms of what affects it. The
target that was there to eradicate child poverty by 2020 has gone,
and I think we’re interested, in the committee, in terms of
how robust we now are in terms of the structures in place, the
monitoring in place, the ability for scrutiny to take place of
Welsh Government progress in tackling child poverty. So, in the
absence of a specific delivery plan, for example, to accompany the
revised 2015 strategy, how will you ensure there’s a focus on
children when tackling the impact of poverty?
|
[122] Carl Sargeant: Well, that’s a very complex question, but a
very important one in terms of aligning our child poverty strategy,
and I think we were absolutely right to come and say that tackling
the issues on a time frame of eradicating child poverty was the
right thing to do, telling people upfront that this was going to be
nigh on impossible, but it doesn’t take away our ambition to
pursue that. I’ve evidenced to the committee in the past our
view as a Government that tackling poverty has been
extremely difficult and is a very stubborn area to move forward. I
think we see the success over many years around personal income
levels increasing, on average, 2 per cent per year, the prosperity
and wealth of individuals and families going up, but poverty still
remaining very stubborn and bouncing along the bottom. Therefore,
our interventions, it would seem, have been more challenging to
start moving that poverty lift. That’s why we’ve had a
fundamental change in direction of our policy objectives.
You’ll have seen the controversial decision around
Communities First and the issues around tackling poverty as a
collective.
|
[123] We will be
launching the four strategies later this year, where the First
Minister will give a very clear steer about how, collectively now,
we operate to deliver on tackling poverty. I have responsibility
for children and tackling poverty on children, but it’s not
my sole responsibility: this is an objective of all of Government.
So, all our policies—. We talked earlier on about UNCRC. We
have to have a very different approach to the way we develop
policy. These shouldn’t be—and never should have
been—add-on parts of, ‘We’re building housing, so
what about children?’ Actually, it should be at the
forefront. All of these things around poverty and around children
should be the starting point of our delivery of services.
That’s why I think the WFG Act is a very clever piece of
legislation. When I introduced it—. It’s grown on me,
actually, because pre-WFG—and Llyr was on that committee when
we took that through—it was hard work. It was really hard
work. But, actually, the common sense element of this Bill: if we
get this right, the planning upfront and the consideration of
long-term investment is something that governments and public
bodies have to do, and if we do it right, we’ll have a very
different Wales. So, that’s why our policy, in terms of the
four strategies are embedding children’s rights at the
forefront of delivery of services, and that will come, hopefully,
very clear to you when the First Minister launches those strategies
later in the year.
|
[124] John
Griffiths: Yes. Well, I, too, have great hope for the
Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, Cabinet
Secretary. I can remember, others might, when it was being taken
forward, that a lot of issues were answered in terms of,
‘They’ll be addressed by the well-being of future
generations Act’, and now that we have it, I think
we’re seeing that replayed in terms of lots of issues that we
now have that are being and will be addressed by the well-being of
future generations Act. But, you know, it can’t do
everything, and there’s a need for more bespoke, targeted
interventions.
|
[125] I was just going
to ask you about the child poverty strategy, then. We’ve just
heard about Brexit and some of the challenges. We’ve recently
had work from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Public Policy
Institute for Wales in terms of how poverty can best be tackled.
So, in the light of emerging studies, research, reports and
political developments like Brexit, is there a need, perhaps, to
update the child poverty strategy at this stage?
|
[126] Carl
Sargeant: I’m not sure we need to revise that. I think
the Member’s right that there is a change in the state of the
nation about ‘This is always happening’. But the
relevance of the child poverty strategy then is as of relevance as
it is today; there are broad principles in that, and I think it
aligns to the other activities of legislation we’ve
introduced. You know, I often refer to the WFG Act, but it is
delivering some real, practical changes. So, the public services
boards that are developing work—. I did a visit, Chair, if I
may, to Pill in Newport the other week, and the community is an
amazing community, but it has some challenges. And what we’re
doing there, very specifically, is a piece of work with the public
services board now, where you may have had activity from the police
in one area or the housing association doing little bits and
pieces—. Actually, the public services board is bringing all
of that work together because it’s embedding the WFG Act, and
we’re looking about how now—what the complementary
actions of each organisation are going to do to change the
opportunities for Pill. That’s just one example—a
real-life example—about operating differently. So, we
shouldn’t underestimate the power of this if we get this
right, and, you know, as I said earlier, when it was being designed
and scrutinised, it was a very challenging Bill, but actually the
proof is in the pudding now. We’re starting to see activity
from public sector bodies, and others that aren’t covered by
the Act, because they know it’s the right thing to do. So, I
think we should celebrate here in Wales that we’ve got the
Act and that, actually, it’s starting to work and change our
communities. But it’s a long-term objective.
|
10:15
|
|
[127]
John Griffiths:
Could I ask about budget, and a specific
budget dedicated to tackling child poverty, Cabinet
Secretary—might that be reinstated?
|
|
[128]
Carl Sargeant: No. When we had the discussion around poverty
programmes—I’m not convinced, and the figures would
suggest, that single poverty programmes, specifically for that,
don’t work very well. It has to be an embedded process within
everything we do.
|
|
[129]
John Griffiths:
Okay. I wonder if you could offer us
something now about scrutiny and monitoring, evaluation—the
national indicators, then, under the well-being of future
generations Act. There is a view that they don’t capture
children’s well-being, as they rely on information from the
national survey, and that doesn’t include information on
under-16-year-olds. So, we need to have the ability to scrutinise
to know whether progress is being made. So, in light of those
deficiencies, how can that be achieved?
|
|
[130]
Carl Sargeant: Well, I’m not sure I subscribe to that, that
the indicators don’t represent the well-being of young
people. Some of the indicators do. There’s the education,
employment and training indicator, development of young people,
pupil attainment at level 2, the percentage of people living in
household income poverty—they’ll be measured for
children, those working age and pension age. So, there are
indicators within the WFG Act that are absolutely relevant to young
people. You may suggest that there should be more, but that’s
a different conversation.
|
|
[131]
John Griffiths:
Okay. Chair, might I move on,
possibly—
|
|
[132]
Lynne Neagle: Yes.
|
|
[133]
John Griffiths:
—if no other Members have questions
on these issues? If we could move on then, Cabinet Secretary, to
resilient communities, I think the committee would be very
interested to know what Welsh Government is doing to ensure that
other programmes—such as Communities for Work, Flying Start,
Families First, Lift, PaCE—are not adversely affected by the
closure of Communities First. Because we’ve heard in the past
that, in the operation of Communities First, lots of these
programmes have become enmeshed—it’s quite an
interwoven picture. So, I’d be interested to know how that
might be avoided.
|
|
[134]
Carl Sargeant: So, all of those programmes that you talk about are
now part of a programme moving forward. I think I should be very
clear to committee, because there seems to be some confusion
externally, that people are still asking me, ‘So, what comes
next after Communities First?’ There isn’t a programme
after Communities First. The programmes that we are taking forward
now are Lift, Flying Start, Families First, Communities for Work,
and Children First areas. These are all part of a different
approach to delivery of services.
|
|
[135] I think that some of the Communities First work that
has gone on in our communities has been incredible. The staff have
been fantastic. But, as I said earlier, tackling the issues around
poverty has not been as successful as we need it to be for the
future. So, these programmes we are enhancing—there’s
an increased budget line for Communities for Work. We will be
reaching out further to all the clusters right across Wales, where
some of these areas weren’t covered before.
|
|
[136]
My team is working hard with the lead
delivery bodies to ensure that there is continuity and growth in
some areas of these services, and they meet on a regular basis, and
I meet my team of engagement. I’ve even met some concerned
Members regarding some of their Communities First
activity.
|
|
[137] What we have to do now is focus on the exit strategy
for Communities First and growth of these areas where we want to
make investment. In some areas, it’s going better than
others, but I’m trying to keep ahead of the curve here:
so, where there are problems in some areas, how do we give
them more support to get into that space.
|
|
[138] John
Griffiths: Okay. I wonder if I could ask you about Flying Start
and support for two- to four-year-old children living outside of
Flying Start areas, the postcode areas, because, speaking of
experiences and visits to Newport, in my constituency there’s
Moorland Park and Broadmead, two almost identical areas of social
housing—one of them is within the Flying Start postcode, one
of them is without. When I went to the Moorland Park community
centre, I was told by the Flying Start manager there that they had
spare capacity, they could take several more children, but the
demand wasn’t there for the half of the social housing that
was within the postcode area; it would easily be filled by the
other half, but the postcode lottery, as it were, prevented it. So,
I think you said, in budget scrutiny previously, Cabinet Secretary,
that you were looking at how support for two- to four-year-olds
could be extended beyond those postcode areas. Could you update the
committee at this stage?
|
|
[139] Carl
Sargeant: Yes. We have to be cautious, don’t we, in terms
of the availability of funding available to deliver services, and
we have to have target areas. I think Communities First was a good
example of that. We will all recognise, within our constituencies,
there were areas of considered deprivation or challenge that were
outside Communities First areas as well, and that postcode element
is a bit of a blocker in terms of the ability to support
individuals outside of that postcode. What I’m doing
currently is, again, that new approach to delivery of service.
We’ve got some pilots under way where I’m giving
flexibility of budget, and flexibility of opportunity as well. So,
not so much—. I’m asking, where Flying Start and
Families First have a dedicated team, an expectation of
delivery—I’m saying, ‘I’ll give you
flexibility of budget, providing you deliver what you said you were
going to do. If you can do more with that flexibility of funding,
then do it’. So, the ability to pick up some individuals
outside of those areas will be an option for local authorities to
consider. So, we’ve got one about to start in Cwm Taf Local
Health Board public services board, and I’m offering them as
much flexibility across those budgets as possible. I expect them to
deliver what our objectives are, but if they can do more with the
flexibility of funding then let them do that.
|
|
[140] John
Griffiths: And what’s the timescale for that?
|
|
[141] Carl
Sargeant: Well, I’m hoping that we’ll be starting
that off very shortly in terms of delivery. So, we’ve
announced—. There’s a suite of tools that are
intervention tools. So, the pilots around the Children First zones
will be getting under way very shortly. They’ve announced
where they are. That will be, again, working alongside the Families
First, Flying Start, Lift programmes, PaCE. I’m looking at an
opportunity in the future to have possibly a single grant
mechanism, where we look to have—. Organisations are telling
us that sometimes the postcode or the tightness of budget is a
prohibitor for success, moving on. Budgets are getting tighter all
the time, so I’m thinking about giving more flexibility
between those budgets and enabling local decision makers to look at
impact and where that should be invested, providing they do what we
originally set out for them to do. We’ve got 37,000 children
that we’ve managed to support through these programmes. I
still expect that to happen, but if you can do more with that money
then do it.
|
|
[142] John
Griffiths: Okay. Final question from me, then, Chair, if I
may.
|
|
[143] Lynne
Neagle: Quickly.
|
|
[144] John
Griffiths: Very quickly. In terms of phasing out Communities
First and maintaining what is of value in helping children and
young people, I think it’s been said that the exit strategies
should include those issues from children’s rights impact
assessments. So, can you reassure the committee that what is of
value to children and young people from Communities First will be
retained?
|
|
[145] Carl
Sargeant: I can’t give that assurance, Chair. The
decision is a local decision-making process, and what we’ve
done, with the support of Mark Drakeford, is to enhance some
revenue and capital spend for the next few years to give a softer
exit. I expect authorities to look at what works well, working with
other organisations to mitigate some of those issues. But the
reality of this is that if there isn’t the funding for some
of these organisations then some of those functions will stop
unless somebody else steps in. I’m
hopeful that the longer lead-out time, and that’s what
we’ve given here, gives the opportunity for negotiations
between the lead delivery bodies and other sectors to fill those
spaces in where there are worthy projects to continue. Hopefully,
the support that they can give will give a secure future for some
of those projects that you rightly say are working well.
|
|
[146]
Lynne Neagle: But the CRIA for Communities First said that your
officials would work with local delivery boards to ensure that
valued services for children and young people would be protected.
Are you telling us that that isn’t happening, or isn’t
happening uniformly?
|
[147]
Carl Sargeant: It’s very early days yet, Chair, and, as I
said, some boards are already well advanced in their plans for the
future, some are not. What we’re doing with my team is going
out to see them to talk to them about giving them the support they
need to try to make the right decisions. Now, I will not be, and my
team will not be, selecting programmes to keep or to get rid of.
That will be locally determined, and it will be based on their
budgets and ability to deliver on that. But the criteria of
protecting young people as best we can is part of that
process.
|
[148]
I said earlier, if there isn’t the
funding there to deliver on all of these programmes, we cannot
deliver them. But my expectation is that young people should be
given full consideration within that decision-making
process.
|
[149]
Lynne Neagle: Llyr.
|
[150]
Llyr Gruffydd: Yes. Just coming back to the point you made about
increased flexibility in terms of expenditure and also the fact
that you’re now considering maybe the creation of one fund,
is that potentially a precursor, then, to creating one broader
programme as opposed to a number of these discrete projects that we
currently have?
|
[151]
Carl Sargeant: There are two ways of looking at that. I would still
expect that, if we move to a single fund—and I haven’t
made a decision on that; I’m trying to work out, in a world
of reducing budgets, how do I maximise the opportunity with the
limited amount of funding we have. If we create a single pot, I
would still expect programmes to sit within that, but the ability
to flex those budgets within those programmes to maximise
opportunity, I’m still giving that some thought. It’s
very complicated, and there are lots of agencies involved in that.
So, it’s not for now, but what we are doing now is, with some
of these pilot areas, we are giving flexibility between Families
First and Flying Start. I think there’s a 5 per cent
flexibility already within that programme. I am considering
increasing that significantly so that will give local
determination—the opportunity to flex some of those issues
around postcodes or need. But it’s complex. I’m going
to have to, if I do that, relax some of the expectations of
outcomes. So, the measurements that you questioned me on, I’m
going to have to be a bit more flexible with organisations to
deliver more. But it’s one to watch, I think.
|
[152]
Llyr Gruffydd: Okay. Thank you.
|
[153]
Lynne Neagle: Thank you. Michelle on ACEs.
|
[154]
Michelle Brown:
Thank you, Chair. When it comes to
adverse childhood experiences, I think that’s probably more
of a vexed issue than Brexit. I appreciate you can’t wave a
magic wand, you can’t stop parents becoming addicted to
substances, you can’t stop family breakdown. But do you have
a strategy in place to mitigate that, and to at least try and stop
these adverse childhood experiences happening in the first
place?
|
[155]
Carl Sargeant: We’ve invested heavily in this area.
I’ve, alongside Kirsty Williams and Rebecca Evans, made a
significant investment in an ACEs hub, which is about the ability
to use experts to support and train public sector workers in
identifying ACEs and then resolving those issues as well.
That’s only just started, that piece of work, but Public
Health Wales—I met the chair, actually, a couple of weeks
back to talk about some of these issues. If we take it on the broad
spectrum of all of those things that you talked about, actually, by
just tackling one of those issues, often that can have a
significant impact on the betterment of that person’s life
going forward. Therefore, all our programmes that we’re
focusing on, so, Families First, Flying Start, will be looking at
that through an ACEs lens, how do we deliver our services looking
at the potential impacts on families and young people.
|
[156]
We know—the evidence is very
clear—that the impact of this could be dramatic if we start
to reduce these. So, it’s morally right, but actually
fiscally very clever, because there’s less burden on the
health service moving forward. So, yes, we do have a
strategy. We’ve got the ACEs hub and our projects are
now focusing on that principle of reducing the amount of ACEs.
|
10:30
|
[157] Michelle
Brown: What’s your approach to the element of neglect?
There was some concern voiced by a witness before the committee
that, perhaps, neglect wasn’t being covered by the ACEs.
What’s your focus?
|
[158] Carl
Sargeant: Indeed, that was one of the reasons I had a meeting
with the Chair about her concerns by third parties about that
aspect in respect of that. Two points: first of all, because
neglect wasn’t listed doesn’t mean that it isn’t
an effect of impact on young people and families, and that was
recognised by service users and providers. However, based on the
evidence you have taken and work that’s been undertaken by
Public Health Wales—they are about to issue a report that
will also have a measurement of neglect in the ACEs. So, that will
be categorised as an ACE. So, neglect will be part of that.
|
[159] Of all the
actions that happen under ACEs, I think they stem from under a
banner—neglect features within there, but they are now going
to be using a measurement tool for that. I think there’s a
report coming out—Chair, you may have to remind me—but
it’s very shortly, isn’t it?
|
[160] Lynne
Neagle: September.
|
[161] Carl
Sargeant: September—a new piece of work that’s been
done, which includes a measurement of neglect.
|
[162] Michelle
Brown: Okay, thank you for that. Neglect can be caused by a
number of things, either the parent might be ill or addicted to
substances, or it could just purely be down to ignorance. Are there
any measures put in place to educate young people, really, from a
fairly early age, as to how you actually look after a child?
|
[163] Carl
Sargeant: Yes. And this goes back to the question I think Julie
Morgan raised, actually, about removing the defence of reasonable
chastisement. We are investing in positive parenting. We have other
actions that take place with our team. So, teenage
pregnancies—we’re working with agencies to support
young mums and dads in terms of understanding becoming a parent,
and the challenges that people face. So, there are a broad, whole
host of programmes that we operate. Families First and Flying Start
are supporting families in the space of parenting techniques and
general resilience of being part of a community. Life is
complicated and we’re all very different, and therefore
tailor-made programmes have to be flexible enough to give support
that’s needed for individuals. That’s why we’re
moving into the space of flexibility, because people who are
engaged with Families First don’t always need all of those
services, but they may need some of them and something from another
programme. We think we’re confident that by giving
flexibility to service providers, we might get the right services
for individuals that need them.
|
[164] Michelle
Brown: Okay, and just one more question: have you had any
conversations with the Cabinet Secretary for Education about what
input schools and, particularly, teachers can have, because if a
young person or a child has a good relationship with their teacher,
perhaps they’re the person they’re going to talk to and
then can access the help that’s there?
|
[165] Carl
Sargeant: Yes, and we’ve had several discussions with
Kirsty Williams in terms of curriculum
reform and what that looks like, and trusted
adults—
|
[166] Michelle
Brown: I’m sorry; I wasn’t talking about
curriculum, I was actually talking about the actual working,
day-to-day relationship between the teacher and the student. The
curriculum doesn’t really come into it.
|
[167] Carl
Sargeant: There are two parts to that. One is the curriculum
reform, because I think there are some important aspects of this in
terms of giving young people the skills and confidence to move
forward in terms of everyday life, and part of that is about
education in terms of healthy relationships. The other one is an
important point you make also about what we would call a trusted
adult—having a trusted adult growing up, whether that be your
teacher or whether that be a parent or friend, is an important part
of growing up. There’s a great school in Llanelli where the
headteacher is very impressive in terms of his ability to have
great discipline within the school, but his engagement with the
young people is very impressive, and he knows the background of
every individual of that school, their ACE profile, how he needs to
support them personally and through his staff as well. So, we
shouldn’t underestimate the impacts that education and school
and teachers have on young people as well. It’s something I
do have a conversation with Kirsty Williams about.
|
[168] Michelle
Brown: Okay, thank you.
|
[169] Lynne
Neagle: Okay. We’ve still got a lot of areas to get
through, so can I appeal for brief questions and brief answers,
please? Mark.
|
[170] Mark
Reckless: The US longitudinal study that emphasises these
adverse childhood experiences didn’t mention
the—[Inaudible.]—separation, whereas I see in
your note to us that you do. I just wonder what mechanisms you have
through schools or elsewhere particularly to focus on, when there
is a parental separation, what additional support can be given for
the child through that.
|
[171] Carl
Sargeant: Well, what doesn’t happen well currently is
identification of this early on in schools—of young
people’s activities outside of school. In some schools it
works very well, but it’s not consistent. Often, I’ve
heard of many cases of young people turning up to school and
falling asleep in lessons or taking no notice in lessons, and
automatically they’re considered to be unruly, disrespectful
or whatever. Sometimes, if we just asked the question about what
happened to that young person last night, and the reasoning why
that young person is asleep on the desk today, because
they’ve just come back from a household that was fraught with
domestic violence last night or alcohol misuse—. Sometimes
you just need to get underneath that, and that’s why I talked
about the headteacher in Llanelli who’s got an ACE-informed
school. He understands all of his pupils very, very well. I would
suggest that it might be an opportunity for you, as a
committee—and an education committee—to focus and have
a little look at that school, because I think he’s doing some
remarkable work there. We’re trying to think about how we
roll out this dynamism to other areas as well. It is about
leadership as well, but we should really think about the impacts on
young people and doing more about that. It’s not consistent
across the UK, I would suggest, at the moment.
|
[172] Lynne
Neagle: Thank you. Llyr.
|
[173]
Llyr Gruffydd: Yes. Back to Children First, actually. I’m just
wondering if you could explain your rationale behind pursuing
Children First as a place-based concept of reducing inequalities.
Because, clearly, you moved away from that with Communities
First.
|
[174] Carl
Sargeant: We know that there are still high levels of young
people who need support. Communities First was a very broad
programme of tackling poverty, which was finance-based on an area.
The success of that is evidenced in the stats that we have. I think
that Communities First stopped communities getting poorer. It
wasn’t strong enough to lift communities out of poverty. The
Children First approach is very different. It’s not
financially supported. There’s no new money, it’s not
additional money, but it’s a concept of bringing agencies
together, as we would have hoped in the first place, to introduce a
very specific intervention, looking at young people, about what
that looks like for the success of them in the future.
|
[175] So, I would
like, at some point, to have a Children First Wales approach where
we apply these principles of working with young people, wherever
they are. We’ve got to test this system first, and
we’re looking at some very intense areas where we know that
there is a high density of young people who are challenged—or
some are challenged—and how, therefore, we can get a
collaboration of agencies working together with a focus on tackling
the issues around ACEs and young people in those areas. So,
it’s quite an interesting piece of work that’s going
on. I think one of the areas that we’re working in is in
Merthyr. The Gurnos estate, I think, is one of them, where
we’re going to have a very tight focus on a multi-agency
approach on young people, because we know, if we get that right
when they’re young, there’s a much better opportunity
as they grow up.
|
[176] Llyr
Gruffydd: So, how are you going to be evaluating and monitoring
all of that, and then learning the lessons so that you can roll the
positives out elsewhere?
|
[177] Carl
Sargeant: There will be an evaluation of the programme.
It’s not rolled out yet, but what we expect is to see what
the effects are on those young people so we are able to have an
ACE-informed lens. We look at what we start with and what we end
with. I think success will look like reducing ACEs. Even one
reduction is a success, and I believe that the multi-agency
approach will give those young people a better start in life if we
get this right. The engagement is really important. But, as I said,
it’s not financially based, so I hope that my interventions
will be very positive because I’m not paying for
additionality here so you can’t question me saying it’s
a waste of money—I haven’t spent any—but getting
people to work together is a slightly new concept.
|
[178]
Llyr Gruffydd: So, you’re not spending money, but what level
of guidance and support are you giving these areas, then—the
pilot areas?
|
[179]
Carl Sargeant: We’ve started; we’ve had two workshops
already, working with the different agencies. There’s lots of
enthusiasm about embedding the principles of the WFG Act across
sectors and owning responsibility rather than saying, ‘Well,
that’s nothing to do with us.’ Actually, we’ve
got agencies that have come to the table who want to lead on that.
Cwm Taf PSB is very impressive in the work that they’re doing
currently. They’ve got a very different approach—a
broad single-grant-style approach—to flexibility of budgets.
Within that, they’ve got a children-first concentration
looking at delivery very specifically in those areas on
children’s services and bringing all of these agencies
together.
|
[180]
So, there’s lots of guidance and
support but there’s no money. I said that from the beginning.
Actually, we got a few interested parties coming to the table
saying, ‘We’ll do it; how much is it, again?’
‘Nothing.’ ‘Oh, okay, perhaps it’s not for
us then.’ So, this isn’t about chasing cash; it’s
about doing things differently.
|
[181]
Llyr Gruffydd: But you will have earmarked resources within your
department to provide support and guidance.
|
[182]
Carl Sargeant: Yes. My team work with all of the—. There are
only—. How many pilots have we got?
|
[183]
Ms Daniels: Five.
|
[184]
Carl Sargeant: Five. There are only five currently. It’s not
financially onerous to us internally.
|
[185]
Llyr Gruffydd: But there will be a substantial piece of work when
you get to a point, if you get to the point where this is going to
be rolled out more broadly. So, there will be a financial
implication for your department.
|
[186]
Carl Sargeant: Not necessarily. We don’t own this. This is a
concept of Government, but it’s owned locally; it’s
owned by the pilot organisations who want to take this
forward.
|
[187]
Llyr Gruffydd: So, what’s the timescale, then? These areas are
piloting this at the moment—
|
[188]
Carl Sargeant: We’ve only just announced—
|
[189]
Llyr Gruffydd: Yes, I appreciate that.
|
[190]
Carl Sargeant: I expect them to start rolling it out as soon as they
possibly can. I can provide you with a note, but I haven’t
got a timescale in terms of where each individual one is currently
that I can share with you today, but I can—
|
[191]
Llyr Gruffydd: But do you expect them to be fulfilling their
commitments or whatever and learning the lessons by a certain point
where you then decide what happens?
|
[192]
Carl Sargeant: Well, I’d like to see, certainly, a report back
to me within a 12-month period from the start of operation, just to
see how that’s embedding—if it’s working or if
it’s too difficult. In terms of results, I would ask my team
to look at an evaluation programme, usually two to three years
in.
|
[193]
Llyr Gruffydd: But you’ve no particular time in mind in terms
of looking to roll this out further?
|
[194]
Carl Sargeant: I think I’m being brave—people might give
other descriptions—[Laughter.] It’s ambitious, because we
don’t know if this is going to work. But I don’t think
that’s bad. I think we should give this a go because our
young people are really important to me and to all members of this
committee. Therefore, let’s give it a go to see if we can
home a whole host of public services in on young people to make
this right. So, I can’t really answer your question. Is it
going to work? I hope so. [Laughter.]
|
[195]
Llyr Gruffydd: Thanks.
|
[196]
Lynne Neagle: We need to move on. Again, brief questions and
answers. Julie.
|
[197]
Julie Morgan: Moving on to childcare, obviously, it’s so
welcome—the manifesto commitment and the fact that it’s
now being implemented. But, obviously, it is a challenging pledge
to implement, so I’ve just got some questions around that,
really. First of all, what about the level of funding agreed? Do
you think that’s enough for childcare providers—the
£4.50 an hour?
|
[198]
Carl Sargeant: Yes. That was quite short and succinct.
[Laughter.] I do. We’ve announced a £4.50 rate; we
haven’t had pushback from providers.
|
10:45
|
[199]
Lynne Neagle: How did you find that rate?
|
[200]
Carl Sargeant: We’ve done lots of work with looking at
modelling from the UK. We looked at providers right across Wales,
and they varied from prices a lot less than that, and a lot more,
and we picked some middle ground there. We’ve worked with the
professional bodies in childcare and we’ve tried to engage as
many people as possible in this process, because we know it is a
difficult one, a challenging one for Government to deliver, and we
need the sector on board to help us do that. As I said, the
£4.50 announcement has not been grimaced at.
|
[201]
Julie Morgan: Right. So, you’re confident that
you’ve—
|
[202]
Carl Sargeant: Yes.
|
[203]
Julie Morgan: Yes. Fine. Then, just talking about—.
Obviously, you need the workforce alongside with you. What progress
has been made on developing the workforce?
|
[204]
Carl Sargeant: Julie James is leading on skills. We are looking at
how we develop programmes to enhance the care
sector—that’s both in young people’s care and
also adult care. What we do know about that sector is there is
quite a turnaround in that, a churn in members of staff. It is a
profession we want to professionalise more and give opportunities
for a whole host of people.
|
[205]
You tend to see, in care settings
generally, young people in those care settings,
supporting—workers, I should say, in those settings. We think
there’s potential opportunity as well for retired or older
people to be involved, because I think there’s a really great
opportunity here for intergenerational working—young people
and older people.
|
[206]
I’ve seen a great example of a
crèche facility—care facility—in an older
persons’ supported accommodation, and it works fantastically.
That integration of young people, young workers, and older people
is a model that I’d like to replicate over here.
|
[207]
Julie Morgan: What about the aim of having a graduate-led
workforce?
|
[208]
Carl Sargeant: That’s still up for debate with my department
and Julie James’s department. I think this is a huge pledge
to deliver on. We’ve started to roll out, registrations are
coming in as we speak, and the programme starts in September.
Workforce is part of the jigsaw of securing a long-term economic
opportunity for individuals as well, both of quality settings for
the children and for the workforce. Affordability is one that is
always going to be challenging, and, when we get to graduate
levels, there is a cost involved in that.
|
[209]
Julie Morgan: The First Minister announced in the legislative
programme that there would be a process, a law, that would enable
applications to be made and checks to be made about people who
wanted to have advantage of this offer. How are you taking that
forward?
|
[210]
Carl Sargeant: I had a meeting yesterday about the drafting of that
piece of legislation. It’s a technical piece of work. It
basically gives instruction for data to be used from HMRC so you
can access this online. When we ramp this scheme up, we’re
going to need a body that can help us support the process of how it
operates. It’s purely technical. HMRC are happy to do this.
They do it in the UK, but they can’t do it until we legislate
for it. So, it’s a bit of a hindrance more than a technical
Bill; it’s just that we have to do it in order to enact
HMRC.
|
[211]
Lynne Neagle: Llyr, on this.
|
[212]
Llyr Gruffydd: Yes. The early years workforce strategy—when
are we going to see it? Because when I pressed you on this in the
autumn you told me spring, and it’s now summer.
|
[213] Carl Sargeant: I’m aligning this up with Julie James’s
employability programme. I think it’s important that we have
a long-term vision for the workforce for all of Wales, as I think
I’ve said to you in the past. I know you’re pushing me
on this, but I’m relatively relaxed about it. I think
we’ve got to just get this right and look at it as a whole
approach about training, from whether that be Flying
Start—sorry, whether that be the Communities for Work
programme, where people access very challenging experiences
of work, right the way through to graduate level and beyond. Julie
James will launch a pathway of employability and workforce planning
very shortly.
|
[214] Llyr
Gruffydd: But the reformed employability programme that I think
you’re referring to isn’t going live until 2019, so are
you saying that we’re going to wait that long, because this
strategy, I’m told, has been in draft form for about two
years?
|
[215] Carl
Sargeant: I’m not saying that you’ll be waiting
that long. There will be the principles, and that employability
plan will be very clear in terms of the workforce profiling as
well. We’ve done some work, actually, with the—. We
started engaging the children’s commissioner and the future
generations commissioner on this very issue about how do we plan
for the future and what does childcare looks like post 2021, for
the next Government, whoever that may be. What we want to do is
make sure that we’ve got our workforce plan, alongside our
vision for education, right for the future. As I said to Julie
earlier on, the real challenge here is the amount of staff and
capacity in the system that we’re going to have to ramp up to
to deliver this pledge by the end of Government.
|
[216] Llyr
Gruffydd: But—. I’m a little bit speechless
because, when I pushed you on this about seven or eight months ago,
you said it was Brexit and we need to see what the implications of
that are, and funding. Now you’re saying it’s being
aligned to something else. What is there to say that something else
again won’t come up in the meantime, which will mean that
you’ll kick it further down the road?
|
[217] Carl
Sargeant: Well, I will deliver the plan when it’s in a
fit and proper state where I can give you relevant information that
will be useful to you. Publishing the plan today would not be
credible and would not be helpful to your scrutiny in terms of
that.
|
[218] Llyr
Gruffydd: So, how much time do you need to prepare a plan,
then, because this is a discussion around the strategy, I know,
that predates your time as Cabinet Secretary, but people in the
sector are saying, ‘This has been in draft form for years now
and we’re still waiting’?
|
[219] Carl
Sargeant: Well, I think it’s important that I get the
document right, and I will have an update off my team exactly where
the detail is, and I will write to you, as Chair, to give you
further information of what that looks like.
|
[220] Llyr
Gruffydd: Thank you.
|
[221]
Lynne Neagle: Mark.
|
[222]
Mark Reckless: How are you measuring outcomes for children and the
different impact that different pilot schemes may have?
|
[223]
Carl Sargeant: Well, we have assessments of all our programmes,
about what the impacts are. All our investments have follow-up in
terms of Flying Start or Families First, et cetera. As I said to
Llyr about the Children First programme, I will expect there to be
evidence based on what the success of that programme and
intervention comes up like. So, there are lots of data about about
what success looks like, or doesn’t, and people have a view
on that, but we measure all of our programmes and our
interventions.
|
[224]
Mark Reckless: What about robust, academic assessments? John
mentioned earlier that in Moorland Park we had Flying Start
available but not in Broadmead, a very similar estate next door.
How about assessing some of the children who benefit in Moorland
Park versus similar children who don’t in Broadmead, and
measuring what is the impact of that programme in an academically
robust way?
|
[225]
Carl Sargeant: Yes. I’ll have to provide you with details
around that intervention and how we measure that, if that’s
okay. We do make robust assessments of this, but I think I’ve
been very upfront with you in terms of our vision now is moving to
a different space, because the postcode-based programmes—I
recognise, as Minister responsible for all children in Wales, that
we have possibly missed children in need out of an area because of
the postcode. I want to be as flexible as I can to give local
knowledge, local intervention, the opportunity to have flexibility
between schemes. I will give you more details in terms of our
measurement of success, though.
|
[226]
Mark Reckless: That would be appreciated. Thank you. You mentioned
earlier, in response to a question about graduate provision of
childcare and early years in this context—. It’s one
area where I think there is very good academic evidence that
graduate-led provision gets better outcomes. As you rightly say,
there are cost implications of that. Would you consider that one
option of dealing with that might be to allow somewhat higher
ratios, conditional on it being graduate-led provision?
Could that be something where you might
allow a local authority to pilot and see if the evidence showed
that that was a good use of money?
|
[227]
Carl Sargeant: Well, my door’s always open for suggestions,
and that may be one of the solutions. I’ve asked my team to
provide me with detail around what is childcare, because, between
the foundation phase and childcare, in some areas, there is very
little difference, yet it’s regulated differently, the skill
set that the provider delivers is different, and yet the services,
as an outsider, you would not know—there’d be very
little difference there. The inspection regimes are different. So,
have we got the right definition for ‘childcare’? What
does it look like? And why, therefore—? Can we standardise
that process? And maybe that’s a way of reducing costs,
increasing quality. But these are questions that, at the moment,
are—they’re siloed. And we need to think about that as
a broader principle, about what that vision is for the
future—it’s sort of answering Llyr’s question
about the complexity of what does childcare look like for the
future. I think that’s a question we have to
answer.
|
[228]
Mark Reckless: My own experience is that the two and a half
hours—
|
[229]
Lynne Neagle: Mark, briefly, please.
|
[230]
Mark Reckless: I’ll take this up with you perhaps
separately.
|
[231]
Carl Sargeant: Yes, of course.
|
[232]
Mark Reckless: That might be a better use of time, Chair.
|
[233]
Lynne Neagle: Just before we move on, the Joseph Rowntree
Foundation recommended, in order to tackle child poverty, that it
would be a good idea to extend the offer to low-income families
with two-year-olds. What consideration have you given to doing
that?
|
[234]
Carl Sargeant: Lots, but I can’t afford it.
|
[235]
Lynne Neagle: Okay. Well, that’s very clear. Thank you.
Michelle, on looked-after children.
|
[236]
Michelle Brown:
Thank you. I will try and be as quick as
I can, Chair. The Fostering Network said to us that kinship
fosterers often receive less support than foster carers who are not
related to the child. Can you comment on that? Are you putting
anything in place to—? What is there in place to support
kinship carers?
|
[237] Carl Sargeant: I agree with them, and
I’ve established a ministerial advisory group, chaired by
David Melding, looking at how we support looked-after children,
foster children. They are giving me advice on the issues that have
been raised by the Fostering Network as well. So, I’m looking
to make stronger interventions with these supported groups, because
all children should have the same opportunity, regardless of who
they are looked after by.
|
[238] Michelle Brown: Thank you for that. The
children’s commissioner made some recommendations in her
‘Hidden Ambitions’ report. How have you responded to
those?
|
[239]
Carl Sargeant: Positively. I meet Sally Holland on a regular basis,
and we are seeking to achieve as many recommendations as possible.
One of the most recent ones was the announcement of a St
David’s Day fund for looked-after children. We announced
£1 million to be distributed to local authorities to have
a—my description would be ‘the bank of mum and
dad-style approach’ for looked-after children. My children
come to me, ‘Can I have a fiver to go to the shops?’
Well, these young people don’t have that opportunity, and I
don’t think it’s right. Therefore, I’ve created a
fund, which was one of the recommendations of Sally Holland’s
report to help—it’s one example of helping young people
try to have a normal life.
|
[240]
Michelle Brown:
Thank you.
|
[241]
Lynne Neagle: Okay. Can we just move on to advocacy, then? Can I
have an update for the committee on the implementation of the
national approach?
|
[242]
Carl Sargeant: That is complete. We’ve had confirmation from
the Welsh Local Government Association that all the regions now
have that in place. It was promised to us for June of last year. I
understand that that is now completed.
|
[243]
Lynne Neagle: So, you are confident now then that all eligible
children in Wales will have access to the advocacy they’re
entitled to.
|
[244]
Carl Sargeant: Yes.
|
[245] Lynne Neagle: Okay, thank you. When you
responded to the Plenary debate on our committee report on
advocacy, you were asked whether you would consider re-establishing
the external advisory group on advocacy, and you indicated that
that was something you would give further consideration to. Can you
tell the committee what your position is on that now?
|
[246]
Carl
Sargeant: I’m still
considering that, Chair. But I will give that some further thought
over the summer recess and I will give you a definitive response in
the early part of the next session.
|
[247]
Lynne Neagle: Okay. Are there any other questions from Members? No.
Well, can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his attendance this
morning, and also Albert Heaney and Jo-Anne Daniels as well? We
very much appreciate your time. As usual, you will be sent a
transcript to check for accuracy. Thank you very much.
|
[248]
Carl Sargeant: Thank you, Chair.
|
11:00
|
Papurau i’w Nodi
Papers to Note
|
|
[249] Lynne
Neagle: Okay. We’ll move on now, then, to item 3, which
is papers to note. Paper to note 2 is a letter from myself to the
Minister for Lifelong Learning and Welsh Language on youth work.
Paper to note 3: a letter from the Minister for lifelong learning
on the additional learning needs transformation programme. Paper to
note 4: a letter from the committee to the Cabinet Secretary for
Health, Well-being and Sport on the school nursing framework, as
agreed last week. Paper to note 5: a letter from the Llywydd on the
implementation of the Wales Act 2017. Paper to note 6: a statement
by the children’s commissioner on the concluding observations
on the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. Paper
to note 7: a letter from the Llywydd and Chair of the Business
Committee on programming forthcoming legislation, and we’ve
got an item in the private session on that. Paper to note 8: a
statement from the Wales UNCRC monitoring group. Are Members happy
to note all of those? Okay.
|
|
11:01
|
|
|
|
|