6. Professor Sally Holland

PROFESSOR SALLY HOLLAND (affirmed).

Questions From Counsel to the Inquiry

Ms Cowen: Professor, could you please state your full name to the Inquiry.

Professor Sally Holland: My name is Professor Sally Holland.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Thank you for attending today and thank you for assisting the Inquiry. Please remember to keep your voice up and to speak into the microphone in front of you, as that will help the stenographers to hear you for the transcript that is to be prepared of your evidence.

If anything’s not clear when I ask you a question, please ask me to repeat myself.

You have provided one witness statement for this module of the Inquiry. We don’t need to bring it up, but your witness statement is at INQ000361393. That statement was signed and dated on 30 November of 2023. Is that statement correct to the best of your knowledge and belief?

Professor Sally Holland: Yes, it is correct.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Professor Holland, by way of overview of your career to date, such as is relevant to the scope of this Inquiry, you were the Children’s Commissioner for Wales between April 2015 to April 2022; is that right?

Professor Sally Holland: That’s correct.

Counsel Inquiry: Ms Rocio Cifuentes assumed the post of Children’s Commissioner for Wales in April of 2022, so you were therefore the Children’s Commissioner for Wales during the majority of the period with which this Inquiry is concerned, namely January 2020 to May of 2022; is that right?

Professor Sally Holland: That is correct.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

I’m now going to ask you some questions about your office as the Children’s Commissioner for Wales.

As regards the office of the Children’s Commissioner for Wales, this is a statutory office, the principal aim of which is to safeguard and promote the rights and welfare of children in Wales; is that right?

Professor Sally Holland: Yes, that is correct.

Counsel Inquiry: You set out the Commissioner’s powers in your witness statement. These powers include the power to provide assistance to a child in certain circumstances, and the power to make representations to the Welsh Government about any matters affecting the rights and welfare of children. The Commissioner’s powers relate to the functions devolved to the Welsh Government and devolved to public bodies in Wales. Is that correct?

Professor Sally Holland: Yes, that is correct.

Counsel Inquiry: If I could ask you, please, to reflect on your work throughout the pandemic, can you please provide a brief overview of how you think the pandemic had an impact upon children in Wales?

Professor Sally Holland: Well, I’m very pleased this afternoon to have the opportunity to highlight the specific experiences of children and young people during this pandemic here in Wales. I think we – sorry, would you repeat the question again, the impact on children?

Counsel Inquiry: Please, yes, if you can provide a brief overview of how you think the pandemic had an impact upon children in Wales.

Professor Sally Holland: The impact was immediate, but also we’re now seeing a longer-term impact as well on children, particularly around confidence around school attendance and mental health. But children experienced an extraordinary period, losing many of the activities that all of us would have taken for granted in our own childhood, of course: attending school, socialising with friends, visiting grandparents, et cetera.

And we need to remember that these are not just nice to haves for children, but they’re an important part of their development and their ability to thrive. They need to do these things in order to grow and learn and thrive, so things like playing and being outside are not just a nice to have.

So, children, it did have a profound effect on children. I think that, you know, many people were very aware of that at the time, but sometimes their experiences were not always recognised separately from the general population. And I think, you know, it was seen at the time, and we were able to highlight at the time, the impact.

I think what has become more and more evident is that that has continued for many children, but particularly for children from specific groups. So just as adults are not all the same, neither are children. They don’t have the same views, they don’t have the same life experiences. And the inequalities that children experience outside of a pandemic became more and more evident during a pandemic.

Counsel Inquiry: Yes.

Professor Sally Holland: So inequalities caused by poverty, disability and, associated actually with those things, their ethnicity as well –

Counsel Inquiry: Yes.

Professor Sally Holland: – we really saw that difference, and children who were vulnerable for other social reasons –

Counsel Inquiry: Yes.

Professor Sally Holland: – safeguarding reasons, for example, for whom the home wasn’t necessarily a safe place all of the time. Inevitably it had a greater impact on those groups of children.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you, Professor, and we may pick up on some of those themes as we go through your evidence.

I would now like to ask you some questions about the means through which your office liaised with the Welsh Government during the pandemic.

I would like to ask you first about your meetings with Welsh ministers. Do you consider that you were able to meet with or consult relevant ministers in the Welsh Government throughout the pandemic?

Professor Sally Holland: The short answer to that is yes. I certainly did have regular engagement, particularly – just as the Older People’s Commissioner has just explained – with the Deputy Minister for Social Services, who is also my designated link minister and with whom I had weekly telephone calls from mid-March onwards, and they lessened slightly in frequency as time went on.

Right from the outset, in writing and verbally, we made it clear to government, including ministers, that they should see our office as a resource. We would retain our independent status and make sure that we fulfilled our legal functions, but we were a resource to help them analyse potential decisions that they might be making and as a conduit of children’s views and experiences. We were able to give them direct access to how children and those who were caring for them and caring about them were experiencing the pandemic. And we were also able to help them communicate decisions to children directly and in an understandable way.

So as I’ve said my main contact was with the Deputy Minister for Social Services. As before, meetings with other ministers continued and it became more frequent at certain times, for example with the education minister, that there were two education ministers in this period. And when there were crucial decisions to be made, for example, around exams and obviously school closures and openings, we had more frequent – more frequent meetings.

I felt there was a real – I think especially as time went on, both officials and ministers saw that we could what we could bring in terms of aiding them to meet the needs and rights of children. There was a real eagerness, I think, to hear about individual children’s experiences, it was hard for them to get access to that directly. That was always really what the Deputy Minister for Social Services wanted to know on our phone calls, you know: what’s going on? How are the most vulnerable children? And we knew that from our own direct communication with children but also our regular contact with institutions and agencies as well.

And –

Counsel Inquiry: Professor, I don’t want to interrupt you, but at this point I am just going to ask you, if you can, to just please slow down –

Professor Sally Holland: Of course.

Counsel Inquiry: – to enable the stenographer to keep pace with what you’re saying.

You’ve described that, I think, to summarise what you’ve said, that you do feel you were able to meet and consult Welsh ministers regularly.

If I can please ask you now about the first contact that your office had with the Welsh Government in relation to the pandemic. In your witness statement you described that your first contact your office had with the Welsh Government in relation to the pandemic was a discussion at your regular quarterly meeting with your branch on 4 March of 2020, and when you refer to your branch, that means the children’s branch of the Welsh Government, which reports to the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services, at that time Julie Morgan. Is that correct?

Professor Sally Holland: That’s correct, that was the first discussion we held.

Counsel Inquiry: Would it have been beneficial, do you think, to have a meeting to discuss the pandemic prior to 4 March of 2020?

Professor Sally Holland: Yes, I think it would have done. I think that it took the government some time to recognise the resource that we could be. Just to give one example, you know, by that point there was beginning to be a lot of discussion about schools potentially closing for most children and learning moving online for most children. We could have immediately helped them assess how that could be done. You know, teachers would need – teachers lacked basic equipment, they didn’t all have laptops at home, they lacked resources, they lacked training, that confidence, some of them, in online learning. And things like safeguarding rules needed to be sorted out. But most of all the digital gap, the digital divide for children. So that’s just one example of where I think we could have really helped them analyse and think through the impact of any measures they were considering on children as a whole but also on different groups of children.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you, Professor.

The minutes of that meeting, and I won’t ask for them to be brought up, on 4 March show no discussion of potential restrictions affecting children, or that might affect children. Do you think that that is somewhat surprising?

Professor Sally Holland: It is potentially surprising. I mean, those meetings were – had a number of roles. It was partly to discuss how the office was carrying out its functions and how we were using our budget, because although independent of government it’s funded by government. But we also discussed policy matters in those meetings, and I think, looking back –

Counsel Inquiry: Yes.

Professor Sally Holland: – it feels surprising. We asked for it to go on the agenda.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

You state that meetings with Julie Morgan began following the first lockdown in March of 2020. Do you think a meeting prior to this date with Ms Morgan would have been helpful?

Professor Sally Holland: I think it would have been helpful to discuss the specific issue. The first contact that I had at that – we had many contacts that week, the week that schools closed, for example, and lockdown was announced. We proactively contacted the government on 17 March, for example, to say we had had concerns from families that children were being sent home from an inpatient psychiatric unit because of concerns about the virus, and would they have the right care. And then the next day, the day that the closure of schools was announced, we had many contacts about mitigations with officials. My first call with the minister was on 19 March.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you, Professor.

I’m now going to move to ask you about another means by which you communicated with the Welsh Government during the pandemic and that’s the weekly matters arising emails which you discuss in your witness statement.

Your office shared weekly “matters arising” emails with the Welsh Government officials during the pandemic. Can you please describe the purpose of these emails.

Professor Sally Holland: Early on, as I say, we offered ourselves as a resource, and one resource that we had was a great deal of information about how families were experiencing the completely new conditions they were living under, because they contacted our office and asked for advice or to say they didn’t understand the guidance. We also were – we were proactively calling institutions like the youth prison and the secure unit to ask how they were and did they have everything they need. And we had lots of direct contact with children and young people directly as well. So we saw that we could be a resource.

We sent in, we collated – we offered to send in and collate matters that had arisen for us that week, through our casework or our other contacts. We saw it as both a source of information for government but also so that we could have accurate guidance back so that we could give accurate advice to families and children as well.

We – early on we said, rather than this being sent to lots of disparate parts of government, please could all of the directors or deputy directors come together. The government was keen to do that, so we effectively created a platform for some cross-portfolio discussions about children’s rights from early on. That was a new set-up which felt very valuable, I think, in terms of everyone updating everyone on what was happening with various children’s issues. And we were able to just point out where there were still many anomalies.

Counsel Inquiry: Yes. But if we can turn to an example now –

Lady Hallett: Before you do, I’m afraid you are going to have to slow down or the stenographer’s going to have my guts for garters, so …

Professor Sally Holland: I’m so sorry, my Lady, I will do my best.

Lady Hallett: I know it’s difficult, one’s speech pattern is very difficult to change, I know that, but if you could just – maybe just think about – have some water or something to try and take a breather.

Ms Cowen: Thank you.

If we can, please, bring up document INQ000191184 – and I can see that’s on the screen, thank you.

This is the document that was sent on 1 April of 2020, and it’s entitled “CCfW matters arising [between 26 March 2020 and 1 April]”.

If we now turn to page 1 of that document, and here we can see, under the heading “Health”, a series of concerns that were raised by your office. Further concerns are raised under headings of “Social care” and “Education”, and there is a final section at the end headed “Other concerns”.

This is an example of the matters arising emails that you sent during the pandemic. Do you consider that these emails were an effective means of communicating with the Welsh Government during the pandemic?

Professor Sally Holland: I feel that it was, I feel it gave them immediate access to issues being raised. We didn’t filter these particularly, we collated them and arranged them in themes for the convenience of the government. Some of the comments that were coming through to us were contradictory. You know, people saying “This isn’t working well” and other people saying there should be – “It is working really well for us”, but we wanted the government to get a real flavour of what was going on. So it felt effective because it went to all of the directors of the range of portfolios that were relevant for children straightaway.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you, Professor.

I’d now like to ask you about another means of communication, and that was through your participation in the Shadow Social Partnership Council.

The Inquiry understands that throughout the pandemic the council met more frequently and its membership was expanded to bring together partners from the trade unions, devolved employers, the private sector and the Welsh commissioner.

Can you please describe what the purpose was of the Shadow Social Partnership Council.

Professor Sally Holland: The purpose was, I believe, for the First Minister, other ministers and various senior officials, like the Chief Medical Officer, to explain to leaders the rules you have described in Wales, the latest evidence on Covid and what was happening on the ground, and the decisions that they were going to announce over the next – often it was the day before major decisions were made.

It also gave all of those parties that were present an opportunity to raise matters, much as we had done, but in less detail, in those weekly “matters arising” emails. So I felt it was important to be part of that meeting, I attended almost every one of those, and I always took the opportunity to raise a matter relating to children in those meetings.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Do you consider the council to have been an effective means of communication during the pandemic?

Professor Sally Holland: I think it was effective in terms of making sure that leaders across all sectors were hearing the same information at the same time, and it was – it was very effective to be able to have that direct dialogue with the First Minister. I think it probably helped to reinforce a bit of a sort of one public service ethos that we have in Wales, but I would be keen to point out that I don’t think that led to groupthink. You know, there wasn’t – it didn’t mean that everyone therefore agreed with everything, it was a forum where it was both encouraged and possible to raise concerns about announcements that might be coming. It gave us an opportunity as well to be ready to – in my case, to communicate decisions to children and young people and those who care for them effectively the next day.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

I’d now like to move to ask you about one of the Technical Advisory Group’s subgroups that related to children during the pandemic, and that is the children and education subgroup.

This subgroup was part of the Technical Advisory Group that provided advice to the Welsh Government. It first met on 1 May of 2020, and the purpose of this group was to give detailed consideration to the scientific and technical evidence regarding Covid-19 as it related to children and education settings.

Were you aware of the work of this subgroup?

Professor Sally Holland: I would say that I wasn’t aware of it when it was set up. I don’t recall being made aware of it when it was set up. As the pandemic progressed, on at least one occasion, perhaps more, my office was given access to some of their reports prior to it – shortly prior to publication. Sometimes, you know, we would ask “Why have you made this decision?” when we were scrutinising decisions, “What is the evidence for this?”, and we would be told it had come out of this group.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Dr Heather Payne, the senior medical officer for women’s and children’s health within the Welsh Government, chaired the children and education subgroup. In her witness statement, she refers to the subgroup as being subject to the first order decision of reducing deaths, which she says in her evidence limited the effectiveness of the subgroup as it was not able to prioritise the well-being of children.

Do you agree with her description regarding the priorities of the subgroup?

Professor Sally Holland: It’s difficult for me to comment on the priorities of that group because I had so little involvement in it. I do think that we saw some of what she was saying come out in some of the decisions to follow.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

I would now like to ask you some questions about the sources of Information that your office drew upon when providing advice to the Welsh Government, and in particular I want to ask about the surveys carried out by your office during the pandemic.

Your office undertook two large-scale surveys of children and young people in Wales. One survey was carried out in May of 2020, and a follow-up survey was carried out in January of 2021.

The May 2020 survey ran for two weeks from 13 May and has responses from over 23,700 children and young people aged between 3 and 18 years old.

If we can please bring up document INQ000191146, at page 5 of this document we here have a summary of key findings from the May 2020 survey.

If we can look at a few examples of these findings, under the heading “Are children worried?” It is stated that:

“37% of children and young people stated that they were not worried about Coronavirus on the day they completed the survey.”

If we can turn to page 6 of the document, under the heading “How confident do children feel about learning?” 51% of the total selected said they felt confident or very confident at that stage.

If we can now please turn to the survey carried out in January of 2021, the January 2021 survey ran for nine days from 12 January 2021 and had responses from over 19,700 children and young people.

We’ve now brought up document INQ000191147. If we can turn to page 9 of this document, please.

Under the section headed “Feelings”, at the third paragraph of this section, there is a comparison of findings between the May 2020 survey and the January 2021 survey. The survey states:

“There are some marked differences in reported feelings between the January 2021 respondents and the May 2020 respondents. In May 2020, 50% of [those aged between 12 and 18] reported feeling happy ‘most of the time’. This reduced to 39% in January 2021. Other [findings] … show negative trends, including a jump in those reporting feeling worried ‘most of the time’ from 14% of respondents to 20%.

“[Those aged between 7 and 11] responding in January also report more negative feelings on all indicators than the May 2020 respondents, but these differences were [noted to be] smaller.”

The Inquiry will have regard to the detailed findings of each of the surveys your office carried out. Can you please tell us in broad terms what the surveys told you about the impact of the pandemic upon children in Wales.

Professor Sally Holland: I think that the survey gave us the opportunity to take – to get views from a broad group of children, in fact it was one in 20 of children in Wales answered that – the first survey in May 2020. We were able to, of course, speak in depth to individual children, but this gave us a broad view.

It reminded us that children don’t all feel the same, they don’t all think the same, and that some children were thriving and feeling safe, but, as expected, some groups of children were finding the restrictions and the various changes to their daily way of life much more difficult than others. That impacted according to age. So adolescents tended to find things much more difficult and were more worried than children –

Counsel Inquiry: I’m sorry to interrupt you again. Can I just ask you to slow down –

Professor Sally Holland: I am trying.

Counsel Inquiry: – just a little bit, please.

Professor Sally Holland: Adolescents tended to be more worried about their learning and finding the restrictions more difficult than younger children, and children from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities and disabled children generally were finding life harder on almost all counts.

We saw a jump of unhappiness and worry and concern about learning between the first lockdown and the second lockdown. I think there was a sense of novelty in the first lockdown for many children, especially those who do feel safe and comfortable at home, which is the majority of our children, thank goodness, but the second lockdown was hard for the whole population and really hard for children in particular. And for adolescents, you know, they were getting near to another set of exams, they were concerned about their learning, and there were really missing socialising, that important developmental window that adolescents have to spread their wings and socialise with others.

I must emphasise, when we’re looking at the difference between the two surveys, that we don’t know whether the same children answered the survey both times, so I see it as much as a temperature test –

Counsel Inquiry: Yes.

Professor Sally Holland: – of how children were feeling in both of those lockdowns. However, we had such a large survey response, I’ve got some confidence that they’re a good representation on how children were feeling.

And they were pretty representative in terms of demographic factors and we worked hard to make sure that children who might not have easy access to answering a survey could do it, for example, children in custody, children in hospital, children – looked-after children, children in Roma communities, were all helped by support workers to fill in the survey.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you, Professor.

How did your office use the surveys that had been carried out when providing advice to the Welsh Government?

Professor Sally Holland: We worked with the Welsh Government on the survey, which was very unusual for us, but we thought the government wanted to hear from children, we certainly knew we had to hear from children, and it felt not a good use of resources for us to run separate surveys, but we led and managed the survey. And we fed in – as soon as we had the first 5,000 responses in May, so really within days of the survey opening, we were feeding in to officials, and they were – to the education minister, for example, some key education and well-being messages, and we had it fed back to us by them that, you know, the minister was reading these as they came in. We made sure they had the results as early as possible. Indeed, we managed to publish the results within a couple of weeks of the survey closing.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Do you think the Welsh Government paid satisfactory attention to the findings of the surveys that your office had carried out?

Professor Sally Holland: I think that there’s not a simple answer to that, it’s not a simple yes or no. There were certainly ways in which, you know, we can document that they did, because they said they did, and indeed, you know, with our support both the education minister – well, the education minister, the First Minister and the Minister for Social Services all spoke directly to children, saying what they’d heard from these surveys in press conferences and videos.

We know that, for example – you know, one specific example is libraries being a priority for re-opening because particularly children from black, Asian and ethnic minority communities said that that was a very important resource for them.

There were other times when I felt that it would have been good to have seen more public reflection from the government directly to children, as a sense of accountability as to how they had considered the results of the survey. You know, there were really striking responses in the 2021 survey, for example, on loneliness amongst 16 to 18-year olds. I think that was quite a surprise to people who were thinking about it more from a perhaps older people and disabled people –

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you, Professor. I should be clear, the Inquiry will have regard to –

Professor Sally Holland: Absolutely.

Counsel Inquiry: – the detailed findings in the report.

I’d like to move on now to ask you about a key mechanism through which children’s rights are considered in decision-making and that’s through the children’s rights impact assessment.

Under the Rights of Children and Young People (Wales) Measure Act of 2011, Welsh ministers are required to have regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child when exercising their functions, and an important part of how the Welsh Government meets this duty is completing and publishing children’s rights impact assessments; is that correct?

Professor Sally Holland: That is correct.

Counsel Inquiry: Can you please set out what a children’s rights impact assessment is supposed to cover and when it is supposed to be carried out, please.

Professor Sally Holland: So a children’s rights impact assessment should be started from as soon as a new policy or decision is being considered. It’s not something to be done after a decision has been made. And it doesn’t have to be at that point a formal document, but it should be around thinking about the impact on very – all of children’s rights, all 42 of their rights, but also the impact on different groups of children. And if there is going to potentially be a negative impact of a decision or a new policy or a new piece of legislation, then what would be the mitigations in place, and that should be an active, live discussion. Eventually it is written up into a formal document but the most important thing is that that thinking and consideration and analysis is done.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

On 12 May 2020 members of your office met with officials from the Welsh Government about children’s rights impact assessments.

Can we, please, bring up document INQ000329376. Thank you.

This is an email that relays what was discussed at that meeting to you and others. If I can ask you, please, to look at page 1 of this email, on the second paragraph which has just been brought up. This states that officials had been asked to do CRIAs in relation to decisions that had already been taken at the outset of the lockdown. The email goes on to state that your colleagues had advised that CRIAs were not a matter of retrofitting assessments and the importance of transparency was emphasised.

After this meeting, you wrote to Julie Morgan on 22 May of 2020 outlining concerns related to children’s rights impact assessments arising from the meetings that had been held between your office and Welsh Government officials.

Is it fair to say that at this stage you were concerned regarding how children’s rights were being considered by the Welsh Government?

Professor Sally Holland: I was concerned at this point in May that so much resource was going into writing up and filling in forms about decisions that had already been made. In May 2020 there were so many important decisions still to be made or being made at that point about mitigating children’s current experiences and deciding about children’s, for example, return to school, and many other aspects of their lives. I really felt that at that point in the pandemic it was not a good use of resource and it was not how children’s rights impact assessments are meant to be done.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Concerns over children’s rights impact assessments and integrated impact assessments being undertaken after decisions from the Welsh Government had already been taken and announced were also raised in a weekly “matters arising” email covering the week between 10 and 16 June of 2020.

Could we, please, bring up document INQ000121208, thank you.

At page 2 of this document, under the heading “Children’s Rights Impact Assessments”, you state:

“My team has spent a lot of time in recent weeks reviewing draft CRIA and IIA documents [IIA being integrated impact assessments]; many of which have followed decisions already taken and announced. I have discussed this and agreed a suggested way forward with Karen Cornish as Deputy Director responsible for CRIA and children’s rights, so this point is included for information only.”

By this stage had the concerns that you had in relation to CRIAs been addressed?

Professor Sally Holland: Could you remind me of what month that was?

Counsel Inquiry: So this was a “matters arising” email covering the week between 10 and 16 June of 2020.

Professor Sally Holland: Not really, I would say. We were gradually – I would say from June onwards there was, we saw improvement in how the government itself was doing its own proactive impact assessments on children’s rights, but also their involvement of us in discussions as they were considering options. But I still felt that it wasn’t being used in exactly the right spirit, and I’ll give you one example, if I may.

In June 2020, the government was considering easing legal responsibilities on local authorities regarding special educational needs. This had already been enacted in the rest of the UK, but not yet in Wales. Our immediate response was: well, have you done a children’s rights impact assessment on this? This is a really important decision about children with specific rights.

And we were told, well, that will just be included in the overall integrated impact assessment, which includes a children’s rights (inaudible) a small part of it, that will cover all the responses so far on education and childcare. And I felt they were missing a trick, really, to use resources like ourselves and other members of the children’s rights action group from the third sector to sit down and really think through: well, what impact would this have? Do we really need to do it? If you really need to do it, how can we mitigate it?

And I think that that was, at that point, still a disappointment. As I say, from that point onwards we did see some more proactive children’s rights impact assessments being carried out, and in fact, you know, one or two very good examples of them by the autumn.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Professor, you do give examples of good children’s rights impact assessments in your witness statement and the Inquiry will have regard to those.

You also state in your witness statement that, following the discussions in June of 2020, a set of overarching principles was introduced into the system for children’s rights impact assessments later in 2020 and you say that these principles reflected matters of importance to children, such as being listened to, being able to attend education, and having the opportunity to play and have exercise.

Did the adoption of these principles address concerns that you had held regarding the use of children’s rights impact assessments to protect children’s rights?

Professor Sally Holland: It was good to see the – a child-centred approach, it was good to see these principles being published, but it’s very important that we use rights language when the government is talking about – and the government has a legal duty to do so – when talking about how they provide for children.

This is important because children must know that we don’t provide things – services for them, for example, because we think it’s a nice thing to do or a good thing to do, but they actually have rights too, they have fundamental rights, and an entitlement to them. And it may sound a little pedantic but it’s important that that language is used.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

In your witness statement, you give examples of children’s rights impact assessments not being carried out at the time key decisions were taken during the pandemic. Which decisions do you consider to be particularly significant where children’s rights impact assessments were not carried out at the time the decision was taken?

Professor Sally Holland: Well, I’ve already given one example around special educational needs provision, they did eventually decide not to implement that legislation actually, but the early decisions in particular, the closure of schools and the early decisions to keep children at home with the rest of the population, it was very important that children’s specific needs were considered. I made it so clear to government that it was about the thinking not about the form filling.

Counsel Inquiry: Do you consider that not carrying out children’s rights impact assessments at the time decisions were made meant that children’s best interests were not given adequate consideration?

Professor Sally Holland: I think that we can see examples where children’s specific needs, as a specific population category, didn’t seem to be being seen separately from the whole population, and others where they were and where I feel that it was because children’s rights were being considered. May I give you an example of each?

Counsel Inquiry: Yes, please do, thank you.

Professor Sally Holland: So decisions that appeared to designed to address the negative impacts and to support children’s rights, including not removing children’s legal rights to social care, as well as additional learning needs provision, funding free school meals throughout the holidays, that was – as well as in term time, that was an early decision by the Welsh Government, and the real emphasis on well-being as well as academic skills as they returned to school.

But there were others that didn’t feel that children’s specific needs had been taken into account. Some quite vivid examples, really, parks and play spaces were – outdoor play spaces were re-opened to children after pubs had been opened in the summer of 2020. Pubs are obviously much more adults’ spaces than children’s. The following summer we were allowed to sit in pubs again and cafés with – without face coverings with up to six people from different households, but children were expected to sit in the classroom in an ordered situation in secondary schools and still wear face coverings, where they were still recommended.

And perhaps for me a really important example is that of how residential children’s homes were treated. So many of the public health guidance for children’s homes was exactly the same as those for older people, and obviously much more physically frail people, and we got very involved in the office because managers of children’s homes contacted us about their concerns that children were being asked to isolate if there had been perhaps one case in a children’s home for 28 days, in the same way as they would be if they were old and very physically frail, and not being able to attend school, for example, in that time. They weren’t being allowed to have contact with their families, a fundamental right, because they – their specific needs, as actually pretty healthy, often, young people, were not being seen separately from the whole population.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Professor, do you think the use of children’s rights impact assessments could be improved to better protect children’s rights in the future?

Professor Sally Holland: I think that certainly there were ways – I think that the government could use the Children’s Commissioner’s office better as a resource to consider decisions as they’re being considered, and other children’s rights experts as well. A very frequent ask for help we had from government during the pandemic was to review guidance that had been drafted for schools and for other settings, and we would give detailed comments back. Often within hours because it was always urgent of course.

I think that many of the comments we made could have been anticipated when they were – before pen went to paper to write that guidance, and we made clear we were available. So I think that they could do a really good job of just doing that proactive thinking about children’s rights rather than thinking: right, we’ve made the decision, now let’s consider how children’s rights are impacted.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you, Professor.

I’d now like to ask you about a particular example of a decision being made where the Children’s Commissioner for Wales had involvement in the decisions taken by the Welsh Government, and the decision I would like to ask you about is the closure and re-opening of schools and early childcare provision.

We know that school closures were considered at an early stage of the pandemic. Were you consulted about the potential closure of schools prior to the first lockdown?

Professor Sally Holland: No, I was not.

Counsel Inquiry: Do you think you should have been consulted about this?

Professor Sally Holland: I think we would have had a lot to add, and we would have been able to really help consider mitigations, which we did straightaway that week, but we could have – we could have added a lot.

We have – we had internal discussions in early March with our policy team about how – what mitigations might be needed, how different groups would be affected if schools were closed, and we would have – I think government would have benefitted from our knowledge and experience.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

You state in your witness statement that the initial decision to close school buildings to most learners would not have been contested by your office, as you agreed that the public health emergency warranted such a decision, but you did challenge the government about the lack of a children’s rights impact assessment in relation to this decision.

To the extent that you’ve not already covered this in your answers, what do you think a children’s rights impact assessment would have achieved at that stage of the pandemic?

Professor Sally Holland: I think that the pandemic reminded the whole population that schools are much more than just providers of academic learning. You know, they feed our children, they sometimes wash their clothes, and they are a very important source of well-being and support. And I think we would have really helped the government to think about that – all of the needs that are met by schooling and to think through how the sudden loss of those, for the majority of children, could have been mitigated.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

In your statement you refer to the announcement in June of 2020 in relation to schools re-opening in the autumn term of that year. A draft impact assessment was published after that decision had been made, and you raised this with the Welsh Government through an email sent on 4 June of 2020, which we don’t need to bring up.

On 6 July of 2020 you wrote to Kirsty Williams, minister for education, asking for publication for plans relating to schools re-opening in autumn of 2020, and you raised the need to allow school leaders to plan for their provision, and you raised the necessity of planning for different eventualities that may lead to children being unable to attend school.

The Welsh Government produced a revised operation and learning guidance document for comment on 7 July 2020. Did that document address the concerns that you had raised regarding to appropriate planning for different scenarios when schools re-opened?

Professor Sally Holland: We commented on so many versions of the guidance, it’s hard for me to recall that exact one. But we did remain concerned throughout the summer that there wasn’t enough contingency planning should there be another upsurge in cases and a decision be made to close schools again, nor for children who may need to isolate – so not for the whole school to be closed but what would happen in terms of their continued support and education. And for children that may be unable to return because of shielding or who may lack confidence in returning or may need a lot of support to return to school, because although most children were eager to return to school, some were very anxious.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you, Professor.

On 19 October the Welsh Government announced that there would be a firebreak lockdown from 23 October. When were you informed of that decision?

Professor Sally Holland: I did have some involvement with that closure, and that was the only period of school closure that my office and I were involved in before – we saw a draft and actually very comprehensive children’s rights impact assessment before the decision was made. It drew heavily on our survey findings. It did say that it would be difficult to mitigate any closures of schools in that time, a matter I raised when it was decided to close some of them, but we were involved early on.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Professor Sally Holland: Early-ish on.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Following the firebreak lockdown and the subsequent re-opening of schools, on 10 December of 2020 you were informed that secondary schools and colleges and many primary schools would be required to close from 14 December of 2020. You met on 10 December with Welsh Government directors and discussed plans in relation to the physical closure of secondary schools at that time. What were your concerns regarding the proposed closure of schools at that stage?

Professor Sally Holland: We were concerned that the closure of schools was really becoming an option that was – as almost one of the first options that was being used as part of virus control in terms of additional measures, and we wanted to know really exactly what the scientific evidence was to make sure that it was worth the impact that by then we knew that school closures would have. And we wanted to really remind government, because we were hearing, so often from young people themselves, that for them it wasn’t just that week – and at that point it was just proposed to be a week, of course it became much longer – but some children were having repeated requirements to self-isolate, often whole year groups if there had been a case in their year group, so some children had already lost – although healthy, had lost many weeks of schooling.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

You just mentioned when schools in Wales ultimately did start to re-open, that being in late February 2021. Are you able to summarise the concerns that you had regarding the physical closure of schools over this reasonably lengthy period?

Professor Sally Holland: We knew by that point, partly because of our survey that we’d carried out in May, that school closures had a profound effect on children. We did accept that the government – if the government felt that the – it would make a big difference to, for example, deaths that it would – it may be necessary sometimes to have measures that also affected children, who were less affected by the virus itself, although not of course entirely. But we were concerned about the length of time and very keen that it should be as short as possible and that children should have the opportunity to be eased back into school as well. So the initial plans were for infants and the youngest children to come back in.

There was originally no plan for children in years 7, 8 and 9 to return before Easter in Wales and we suggested to officials and the minister that they should at least have check-in days so that they wouldn’t have that big hurdle of coming back after that big length of time. We had already done another survey by then and we knew that confidence in learning was low, and we’re glad to say that that was taken up, but it … it felt like a really hard period for children.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Do you think that the impact of children missing education was appropriately considered in the decisions made in relation to the closure and re-opening of schools?

Professor Sally Holland: I think that there were a number of ministers and senior officials who had a good understanding of children’s rights and of children’s experiences, and I had frequent discussions, for example, with the Deputy Minister for Social Services about the difficult impact it would have particularly on certain groups, and with officials, I would say particularly in the children’s branch, of Welsh Government.

I think sometimes that understanding we couldn’t always see it translated into the major decisions being made, but at other times we could see mitigations. And to return to the firebreak, I was concerned that there wasn’t a good explanation given, particularly to young people themselves, as to why years 9 and above were asked to stay at home, but because of the children’s rights impact assessment I do think that we did see primary schools, special schools and vulnerable children in school for that week. So I think it’s a very mixed picture.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you, Professor.

Can I ask, please, for your views regarding the decision-making which led to schools being closed when the hospitality industry stayed open?

Professor Sally Holland: Sorry, did you say my views or my role?

Counsel Inquiry: Your views, please, whether you consider that to be appropriate?

Professor Sally Holland: Which period are you talking about at this point?

Counsel Inquiry: At various stages during the pandemic, but perhaps with specific reference to decisions in December of 2020.

Professor Sally Holland: Yes. I was in very regular contact with children and young people. For example, I had an advisory board of 30 young people from all over Wales, age 11 to 18, who I used as a bit of a kind of check-in and sense-making board, I met with them very frequently, and they, along with other young people we spoke to, had such a strong sense of what was fair. They thought it was fair that there should be measures, they were – to support the whole population, they were concerned about older people they knew, for example, but they had a keen sense of injustice at times where they felt that there were anomalies. And I agreed with them, there seemed sometimes to be an anomaly that was perhaps related to economic necessities rather than their immediate needs and long-term needs, in terms of well-being, education and development. And I think that juxtaposition of hospitality venues being open and schools being closed felt unfair to many children and young people.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you, Professor.

I’ll now move to my concluding questions, which seek your views on how children’s needs were prioritised by the Welsh Government and how they might be prioritised in the future.

Do you consider children to have been a significant political priority of the Welsh Government at the start of and before the pandemic?

Professor Sally Holland: I think if we start with before, I’m – the only conversations that I am aware of, and you’ll be able to put this of course to the government themselves, was thinking about the implications for exams in – earlier – before the mid-March, for example. So I think there probably wasn’t enough consideration, even enough thinking about how long it all might go on at that point and therefore what the impact would be on children.

I think that, as time went on, as I say, there were parts of government where there was a keen awareness in terms of their discussions with me. I don’t think we always saw that coming out in all of the big decisions.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

In her evidence to Module 2 of this Inquiry, the Children’s Commissioner for England, Anne Longfield, stated that the UK Government did not give adequate regard or priority to children’s best interests in response to the pandemic, did not adequately heed advice or evidence on the impact of the pandemic on children’s well-being in its decision-making, and did not provide adequate resources to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on children or to help them recover from its negative impact. She stated that this was especially true for disadvantaged children.

To what extent do you agree with this in relation to Wales?

Professor Sally Holland: I would say that that would be too strong a statement to say for Wales. You know, but having said that, I think as was said a number of times yesterday in this Inquiry, you know, for me, as Children’s Commissioner for Wales, I don’t see the UK Government as the baseline. We have high expectations, because it’s in our law. And at that point it was only in the law, embedded in the law, in Wales, it is now in Scotland as well, children’s rights. So it’s – we have high expectations. So I would say it would be unfair to say that the government didn’t pay regard to children’s rights and particularly didn’t consider disadvantaged groups. However, there was always more that they could have done, and I hope that I’ve managed to give you some examples of that.

Ms Cowen: Thank you very much, Professor, thank you.

My Lady, that concludes the questions that I wish to ask the –

Lady Hallett: Thank you.

Ms Cowen: – Children’s Commissioner.

Lady Hallett: I think Ms Heaven’s got one.

Questions From Ms Heaven

Ms Heaven: Professor Holland, I represent the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice Cymru.

Just one very short topic, please, and it relates to the opening up of early years childcare provision in June 2020.

So we can see from Tracey Burke’s witness statement – and of course she was director general for education and public services for the Welsh Government at the time – she explains in paragraph 69, my Lady, that the Welsh Government were behind the UK Government in re-opening childcare in June 2020, and what she tells us is that childcare for early years opened in England on 1 June 2020 but it was only re-opened in Wales on 22 June.

So my question is this: do you consider that the Welsh Government should have re-opened early years childcare provision earlier and in line with the UK Government?

Professor Sally Holland: Thank you for that question.

I think that the decisions were working on a different timescale in Wales, and I know this whole module will be examining the impact of that, so that decision was in line with other decisions around schools, and I presume that’s why it was made.

I think I would have liked to have seen children of all ages being able to return to provision a little earlier than they did.

Ms Heaven: Okay. So can I ask just this tag-on question, then: were you consulted about these decisions specifically in relation to early years provision and re-opening?

Professor Sally Holland: Erm …

Ms Heaven: To assist you, there’s no evidence in your witness statement that you were.

Professor Sally Holland: Yes, I actually don’t recall that. I think I have to say that most of the evidence that we brought to the government was in relation to schools. There were occasions when childcare issues arose, so we were reflecting what we were hearing, and most of our discussions with government around childcare and education were around education rather than childcare, although we did certainly have some.

Ms Heaven: Thank you, my Lady, those are my questions.

Lady Hallett: Thank you very much, Ms Heaven.

I think that completes the questions today?

Mr Poole: My Lady, it does, it completes the evidence for today. I was just going to ask – sorry.

Lady Hallett: Sorry, I was just going to say: thank you very much indeed, Professor.

As you may know, I’m very conscious of the impact on children, not that I’m sure many of us realised it at the time, but I suppose because we never knew how long things were going to go on for, and we will be doing specific research, and so it may well be that I’ll call on your expertise again, but thank you anyway for all that you’ve done.

The Witness: You’re welcome.

Lady Hallett: Thank you.

(The witness withdrew)

Mr Poole: My Lady, just by way of housekeeping, can I ask for permission to publish all of the witness statements from the witnesses that you’ve heard today and also, going forward, the witnesses that you will also be hearing evidence from?

Lady Hallett: Certainly. It will be the default setting, unless anyone indicates to the contrary.

Mr Poole: I’m grateful.

Lady Hallett: Thank you very much. 10 o’clock tomorrow, please, when I think we move to other expert evidence.

(4.17 pm)

(The hearing adjourned until 10 am on Thursday, 29 February 2024)