UK Covid-19 Inquiry – day 4 hearing
In today’s fourth hearing dedicated to children and young people, the Inquiry heard from Baroness Anne Longfield, former Children’s Commissioner for England, and Dr Tamsin Newlove-Delgado, expert in mental health.
Below we provide extracts from Baroness Anne Longfield’s evidence. The full official transcript for today’s hearing will be available shortly.
Baroness Anne Longfield, former Children’s Commissioner for England
“… what we saw was that the pandemic was one of the biggest tests, if you like, to how prepared as a country we were for an emergency of this kind for children, and I think in many, many ways we failed that. What [UNCRC] incorporation would do – and make it very clear – that the commitment to children, children’s rights, was a core consideration, was a core element of our legal system in this country.”
- Starting with the legal framework for the Office of Children’s Commissioner for England, Baroness Longfield confirmed the overarching duty to promote and protect children’s rights and that “it works under the framework of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the international treaty. I was the Children’s Commissioner for England, there are also Children’s Commissioners for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and [the Office in England] also has lead responsibility on non-devolved issues such as immigration and youth justice. She said: “essentially, you are the eyes and ears of children within the sphere of decision-making. Your role is to understand children’s lives and listen and consult with children but then reflect not only their views but their best interests to those that are making decisions. It’s independent of government. I was answerable not to a department; I was answerable to the Education Committee, ie, Parliament…”.
- Baroness Longfield was asked whether, before the pandemic, there were structures in place for government to consult the Children’s Commissioner for England: “…it was a relatively new role. I was the third Children’s Commissioner. I was the first one with those statutory powers to gather data [from public bodies]. So it was an emerging role. And I think it’s fair to say that it hadn’t established itself within the decision-making powers within Westminster at that stage or indeed the decision framework within Westminster hadn’t yet equally actually involved the Children’s Commissioner, in my mind”.
- Baroness Longfield was asked to reflect on the statutory framework foreseeing that the Children’s Commissioner would advise the Secretary of State, and whether this requires them to come to the Children’s Commissioner when new legislation is in the pipeline: “Well, you would hope that that would be the case and certainly where there’s been the context where you have a Secretary of State which is very interested in children’s issues and wants to make that happen I think that is much more the case and you can see it in other countries. It’s not a requirement … certainly I was never formally consulted as such, even though I might have been asked my opinion on something. Largely, that came very late in the day and it was informing rather than consulting”.
- There was more contact with government during the pandemic, but the influence of the Children’s Commissioner remained low: “I think there was lots more contact during the pandemic because obviously there were a lot of decisions being made often at high speed. I would often be telephoned the night before there was an announcement, such as a closure of schools, to let me know what was happening. And, you know, that was courtesy, I think, as much as anything which, I was grateful for [that]. So, the meetings were much more regular at all levels. I would meet officials formally once a fortnight. Would meet with the Minister for Children every month, probably every six weeks, I think, the Secretary of State. So there was more contact. I don’t think that that led to responding to the advice that I was giving. I think the situation was very fluid, and somewhat chaotic, and it wasn’t easy to see it – well it was very difficult to see – where decisions were being made and they certainly didn’t seem to be made primarily by those people that were talking to me”. Upon further questioning, Baroness Longfield stated: “there were occasions where that discussion about ‘This is what we’re thinking we might do’ where that was put to me. But I don’t think that the conversation we had when concerns were raised led to a change in the pattern or the decision”.
- Government did not consult the Children’s Commissioner before closing schools, or before issuing guidance on which children would be deemed vulnerable and therefore potentially the subject of school or local authority risk assessments before attending school (when other children were made to stay home).
- Asked specifically about whether anyone in government had consulted or even mentioned forthcoming changes to children’s social care law before 16 April 2020, when she was emailed by the Department for Education, Baroness Longfield said: “No they hadn’t”.
- Baroness Longfield told the Inquiry she was “horrified” by the changes made to children’s social care law (which Article 39 legally challenged): “I was horrified that these changes were being proposed because my starting point had always been that actually these children need additional help at this time rather than less”.
- Lead counsel for Article 39 asked Baroness Longfield to outline the tangible benefits for children of making the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child [UNCRC]: “I think it’s very important to have that certainty that the incorporation of the UNCRC would bring to children’s rights in this country. I think what we saw was that the pandemic was one of the biggest tests, if you like, to how prepared as a country we were for an emergency of this kind for children. And I think in many, many ways we failed that. What the incorporation would do – and make it very clear – that the commitment to children, children’s rights, was a core consideration, was a core element of our legal system in this country, then backed up by impact assessments. We [would be] making it absolutely crystal clear that we took these issues very seriously. It would mean that we’d be asking people to uphold a greater importance to children’s rights, and it would be seen, rightly, as part of domestic law in this country”.
- Asked by lead counsel for Save the Children UK, Just for Kids Law, Children’s Rights Alliance for England, Centre for Young Lives and the Child Poverty Action Group (‘the children’s rights organisations’) about identifying the correct individual within government to raise matters of concern relating to children beyond schools, such as play and safeguarding, Baroness Longfield stated: “Well, it was virtually impossible, and impossible before the pandemic, but also during it. There was no lead for anyone looking at issues around children’s play. Clearly, if you’re looking at specific health issues, then you know that there’s a Secretary of State for Health, but no-one in the round took responsibility for children’s best interests. My view, and I’ve advocated this for some time, is that there should be representation at the Cabinet table with a specific responsibility for children. Someone that can advocate for children, not for the institutions around children, not for schools, not for hospitals, and the like, but actually for children. And I think that, you know, what that brings you to is of the machinery of government that is ill-suited to the lives of children’s and makes it too easy for children to be overlooked. And there were avoidable mistakes that happened at the time and I do believe that as a country that we and the Prime Minister should, at the end of this Inquiry, offer an apology to the children for the experience they had. And with that, a commitment that it should never happen again, and with that, a promise that children’s rights and children’s best interests should be enshrined at the heart of our government and our society more generally”.