Update on publication of Baby Peter Serious Case Review

I received an update from the Information Commissioner on progress (or not) on my request for the Serious Case Review (the document compiled immediately after Baby Peter’s death) to be published.

Subject: Information Commissioner’s Office[Ref. FS50234513]

Dear Ms Featherstone,

 Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000

Complaint about the London Borough of Haringey – FS50234513

As you know, we have been considering whether we are in a position to make a final decision. In December, we decided that it would be necessary to arrange a meeting to discuss some of the issues raised by this case involving some senior staff members. Unfortunately, due to work commitments just before and after the Christmas break, it has not been possible to arrange this meeting until now. We expect the meeting to take place next week and before the end of January. I hope you will accept our apologies for this delay. I will update you again as soon as possible.

 At least I feel they are looking properly at my request – as Ed Balls disagrees with me vehemently. I think if your read the following original post – tell me if you think I am right – or whether Ed Balls is right to want to keep this under wraps. His chief argument is that staff will not speak if they know the Serious Case Review will be published. My view is that it is a duty to speak out and that if there were a public inquiry or tribunal – they would have to under oath.

This was my original post on the issue – in full as link didn’t seem to be working.

Serious Case Review – Baby Peter and Beyond

I have been trying, ever since Baby Peter’s tragic case, to get the Serious Case Review published. A Serious Case Review (SCR) is produced after any such case by the agencies involved in that child’s care. It tells the chronological story of who did what and when. It is an invaluable document – but it is kept secret. An Executive Summary is published – but that really doesn’t tell anything like the whole story.

I have been battling to change this – so that SCR’s can be published. In Baby Peter’s case I have asked the Information Commissioner to publish the SCR for Baby Peter. I don’t believe that the ambition of that over-used phrase ‘lessons must be learned’ can ever be fully realised if the causes and actions are hidden.

The Information Commissioner came back to me to ask for more information as to why I thought it would be in the public interest for the SCR to be published. I sent him my reasons – which I paste below – and now the Information Commissioner is going back to Haringey Council for further information. This was my email to the Commissioner:

Having been Leader of the Opposition on Haringey Council when Victoria Climbie died and now MP in half of Haringey during the Baby P tragedy – I have come to the conclusion that a contributing factor to cases like these (and others) is the secrecy, the closing ranks culture and the lack of transparency.

The Serious Case Review (version 1) which I was allowed to read virtually under lock and key in the Department of Education (where I could not make notes or record any part of the document) was an eye opener to me. The executive summary of the same document which is published did not reflect the key problems, in my view, that were at least part-causal in the eventual tragedy.

The thing that struck me most was the litany of casualness with which people did their jobs (appointments missed, not followed up; files lost, handovers not done, meetings not attended). There was a litany of failures like these at every level, virtually by every person and every agency. I think that most people would expect that once a child is on the protection register and their case being brought to the Safeguarding Board – that there would be a rigour about all aspects connected with them.

This casualness and lack of care is only really demonstrated if you get to read the whole document. It does not come through in the summary and itself is cumulatively causal in my view.

Literally hundreds of professionals across the country emailed me about their knowledge and experience – as did the general public. I believe that the phrase which is dragged out ‘lessons will be learned’ won’t be fully possible if the facts of the case and the failures in the case are kept hidden. As I say, the Executive Summary, does not reveal the extent of the small, but cumulative failures – which I believe many professionals would recognise in their own fields and therefore be able to do something about. Therefore it must be in the public interest to be able to see the whole document.

Simply issuing another 150 Laming-like recommendations every time a tragedy happens simply adds procedures that take professionals away from their work without ever being able to see the why and wherefore of such recommendations – nor to judge or be able to critique the new ways from an informed position. The issues are kept between local authority, the other agencies and the Government – so keeping out those who would, could and should benefit from reading the whole story.

I am not an expert nor a professional – but unless and until we really open out all the issues around cases such as these – there will continue to be an air of defensiveness and self-protection which work against the safety and well-being of children at risk.

Social workers need to work in an atmosphere of support and good management – which can only come from opening up the real events, letting them stand there for all to see – and those in the professions taking those lessons away.

The argument Ed Balls makes to me against publishing the Serious Case Review (s) is that staff would not speak freely if they knew that what they said might be published. My view is that anyone working in any field where there is such an event has a duty to speak and say what happened. They would have to if the case goes to public inquiry or hearing. Names and personal information should be anonymized. It was anyway in the SCR I read and social workers were referred to as social worker 1 or social worker 2. It is also the case that quite a lot of time elapses between the event and the publication as the SCR is written immediately (usually) and the case and the trial and exposure comes much later.

OFSTED did an audit of Serious Case Reviews and found that nearly two thirds, I believe, were inadequate. So – additionally – this would not have come to light without OFSTED’s exposure. If they were published – these inadequate SCRs would have been exposed much earlier. So – whilst the Serious Case Review I am most concerned about is obviously the Haringey one – it is clear there is a wider issue too.

So – I believe it is totally in the public interest for the Serious Case Review to be published. Secrecy, lack of transparency and openess and closing ranks are at the heart of the problem in Haringey.

I hope you find in favour of publication.

Kind regards
Lynne Feathestone

0 thoughts on “Update on publication of Baby Peter Serious Case Review

  1. I thank you, Lynne.

    Not a child, not a baby P, not even a youngster – but my own 83 year old relative died as a result of neglect in care. While in the care of a so-called care home. To this day, I am still trying to work out how on earth this care home was ever allowed to accept elderly, vulnerable people, if so many systems were not in place to protect them.

    They refused to allow me full access to the full report of the investigation carried out by the local authority, and have only allowed me access to an abridged and anonymised version. I have now been told that the investigation and the report were never carried out with the intention of it being “in the public domain”.

    And all along, I have asked why others were allowed full input to all the meetings, but I was not. All the guilty parties were allowed – but I was not. Their interests were protected. Mine were not.

    The secrecy protects the guilty, but does nothing to give me any indication that lessons will be learned. I asked why all the staff involved were not required to swear an oath that they were all telling the truth and nothing but the truth, I was told that they would never agree to any questioning if that was a requirement. So much for openness and transparency.

    I also argued that it was surely a professional ‘duty of care’ of all involved to speak out, for what they said to be heard/seen/read in public, so that we could have confidence in their future work.

    If it all happens behind closed doors, then how can any one of us have faith in their standards of care.

  2. Of course you are right and Ed Balls is wrong. I think we would know a lot less about this case were Ed Balls not to have been dogged by you from the outset.