Haringey Council have failed a child – but who will accept responsibility?

During the week I had a piece up on the Guardian website:

I refuse to shrug my shoulders and accept the inevitability of horrific tragedy as Haringey Council fails to prevent another child’s death. They say lightning never strikes twice – in my home borough, it has.

Calm reflection in the wake of media frenzy is a sensible response. However, turning this intense scrutiny to something purposeful that will help to prevent it happening again is extremely important.

After the national spotlight moves away, Haringey residents will still be left wanting answers – ultimately, are our children safe? Guaranteeing zero risk of malicious harm to children is of course impossible. We can never eliminate risk. But children’s services, like many of our frontline services, are supposed to do their utmost to manage and minimise risk. Their training, their support networks and the organisation behind them must support them to make these difficult judgments.

Haringey Council’s defence has been that no one could have protected against deceitful carers and parents. But closer scrutiny of the case reveals that Baby P’s bruising stopped when he was removed for a short while from his abusers. It would not have been overly cautious to have put two and two together.

Social workers have a difficult and often thankless task. After the death of Victoria Climbié, it was her social worker who was offered up as a sacrificial lamb. My wrath now is not towards the social workers who made mistakes, but towards the system that let them. As a local councillor when Victoria Climbié died, I was told lessons would be learnt. This time I am going to make sure they are.

After a decade of fighting Haringey Council, first as a councillor and now as an MP, I have come to realise that there is an endemic institutional culture that accepts and defends failure. As I write, Haringey Labour leadership are holed up in their bunker hoping they can weather the storm again. They have only just issued a statement expressing their “deepest sorrow” over the tragedy.

In his report on Climbié’s death, Lord Laming said there should be no place to hide when it comes to responsibility. The head of Radio 2 resigned over corporate failure, and that was over a distasteful broadcast. We are talking about the death of a child that might have been prevented. Who will resign for Baby P

Sunday: double dose of media

Appearing on Radio 4's The Westminster Hour with Carolyn QuinnI’m doing the paper review with Adam Boulton a bit after 10:00am on Sky in the morning, and then it’s The Westminster Hour on Radio 4 from 10pm in the evening tomorrow (Sunday).

If you miss the radio show you’ll be able to listen again on their website.

If you want to get advanced notice of my media appearances like this one, you can use the media events service at Flock Together. You’ve got three choices:

  1. Using this feed: http://feeds.libdems.org.uk/LiberalDemocratsMediaAppearances, or
  2. By email: register at FlockTogether and pick “Media appearances” as one of the categories of events you want to be emailed about. (If you are an existing Flock Together user you can also change your preferences – login and then click “Edit your preferences” in the left-hand menu; you need to tick “Media Appearances” under “Email options”), or
  3. On the web: take a look at the dedicated Flock Together page.

Inspectors praised Haringey just weeks before Baby P's death

Today’s Evening Standard:

GOVERNMENT inspectors gave Haringey’s social services a clean bill of health just weeks after the death of Baby P, the Standard can reveal.

The council’s children and young people’s services chief Sharon Shoesmith received a glowing report from Ofsted in a report written by an inspector who had been a senior Haringey official. Inspectors led by Juliet Winstanley, who worked under Ms Shoesmith, congratulated her former boss’s department on providing “a good service for children” and working well with police to tackle domestic violence. The praise came despite accusations that Haringey failed to pass on all relevant documents to officers investigating Baby P’s death.

Now the same watchdog has been sent in by Children and Schools Secretary Ed Balls to find out why the baby was left to die. The revelations will raise fears that the new Ofsted investigation could be tainted…

[Ofsted said] The study was “a paper-based exercise and not an in-depth inspection”.

“There are major differences between the thorough inspection we are currently leading in Haringey and last year’s review.

“Looking at policies, procedures and paperwork gives part of the picture, but cannot of itself safeguard vulnerable children like Baby P.”

Lynne Featherstone, Liberal Democrat MP for Hornsey and Wood Green, said she had “no confidence” in Ofsted’s new investigation.

She described Ms Winstanley’s report as “quite extraordinary”.

This all raises yet another set of questions we need answers to.

Nevres Kemal's injunction should be lifted

A madly busy day again today – so a bit of a blog cheat to point you at the PoliticsHome write-up of my BBC appearance:

Ms Feathstone called for the injunction preventing Nevres Kemal [the Haringey whistleblower whose lawyer wrote to four ministers] from speaking about her warnings over Haringey social care to be lifted.

“She must be unmuzzled. She has to say what she knows and that has to feed in to the investigation,” she said.

The injunction she said was part of a “culture of closing ranks” which had caused some of the problems in care at the council.

“It’s absolutely obstructive. You have to think that everyone is acting on behalf of their own interest to protect themselves,” she warned.

I have also tabled an EDM (a form of Parliamentary petition):

That this House welcomes the Government’s announcement of an independent review of child protection services across the country; and calls for a separate independent public inquiry of Haringey Council’s child protection services in order to restore confidence in the child protection system in this borough.

It’s been signed by 16 MPs already – and if yours hasn’t signed it, you can send them a message asking them to sign very easily via www.writetothem.com. It’s EDM 2487.

Baby P: the four month gap in care that needs explanation

There are many – so many – questions about the death of Baby P rattling about in my mind. About how on earth any fellow human being could inflict those cruelties on him. About how safety net after safety net could fail to protect him.

Increasingly there is one question looking to me as key to understanding what went wrong – it’s around the four plus months gap between a decision that Baby P needed to be seen be a paediatrician and that actually happening.

Haringey’s report own report tells us:

“From March, a main element of the child protection plan was to obtain a developmental paediatric assessment” [Paragraph 2.1.6]

But he wasn’t seen by a paediatrician until 1st August [Paragraph 2.1.15]. There are serious questions about how that inspection was carried out and why Baby P was returned to his mother after it. But it only took place four plus months after it was decided that this inspection was a “main element” of the plans to ensure Baby P’s well being. How can you leave such a key inspection for so long?

There’s a hint in Haringey’s own report that something went very wrong, for one conclusion – even in this report, for all its whitewash features – is that Great Ormond Street Hospital (who provided the paediatric care services) should develop, “a waiting list priority system that acknowledges the needs of the child, including the implications of a child subject of a child protection plan” [Paragraph 4.3.7]. You don’t say that unless you think the opposite is the case at the moment, do you?

Other Baby P news: Haringey Council kept information back from police and prosecutors – Telegraph – and whistleblower warned ministers about problems in Haringey several months before Baby P died – The Independent.

Baby P: Haringey apologises

Just seen Haringey’s apology for what they did not do to save Baby P. It would have been so much better if they had made one on day one, and not had that defensive, arrogant – aggressive even – attitude initially.

So that’s something. However, it doesn’t change the position on the senior politicians and councillors. Now Ed Balls has ordered an urgent investigation into what on earth is going on in Haringey then – if there are significant failings found (and how can there not be?) – at that point I would hope that those would do the decent thing

In terms of what comes next then Ed Balls has said he will take whatever action is necessary following this urgent investigation – and I think that we may need special measures to take over Haringey’s services for children. I believe a full public inquiry will then still be needed to get to the bottom of the full range of issues raised.

Baby P inquiry – a good first step

Very briefly as rushing from interview to interview today – but wanted to blog that I welcome the announcement of an inquiry into Baby P’s death. I think it’s a good first move by the government – and a very swift response – though as I said in Parliament yesterday, I suspect it won’t be enough to tell us all that we need to know about what went wrong.

When this investigation reports, Ed Balls (the relevant Cabinet minister) has said if he is not satisfied he will put Haringey Council into what is essentially special measures. I think that is appropriate.

The reluctance to apologise goes to the core of it. There has been tremendous defensiveness from Haringey Council – thinking more about the council than the child.

There is much more we also need to address – such as why Lord Laming’s inquiry into Climbie didn’t prevent this happening. Were the recommendations not followed? Were they inadequate? Are there other lessons to learn and actions to take? More when I can get to a keyboard again.

Baby P at PMQs

There was an unedifying spat at Prime Minister’s Questions today between David Cameron and Gordon Brown, which seemed to turn the tragedy of Baby P into a political football. It was just awful to watch.

I didn’t think I’d get the chance to ask a question myself – but just before the end of PMQs, the Speaker called me. I made that point that when Leader of the Opposition on Haringey Council during the Climbie affair I was given all sorts of assurances about how lessons had been learnt, never again etc.

So – whilst the national review Gordon Brown talked about is welcome, it isn’t all that we need. We need an independent public inquiry into what went wrong in Haringey – and for those responsible to to be held responsible.

My goodness – if the Controller of Radio 2 resigns over the tasteless Brand / Ross prank phone call – then surely there will be people held accountable for the tragedy of Baby P?

Hazel Blears and me: follow the debate at the New Statesman

The New Statesman have a piece on my website about that speech by Hazel Blears last week. Although it was her swipes at political bloggers that got most comment, that wasn’t what I decided to pick up on. As I write over on the New Statesman:

What should happen if an unpopular politician is voted out in an election? You’d have thought that the answer is “they lose power” and – thankfully – in many countries around the world, that’s what happens.

But the UK is rather different. It has a special little retirement scheme. Got booted out of office? Don’t worry, just hang round for a while and you’ll be given a place for life in Parliament, complete with voting rights, without any risk of ever losing an election again.

I am talking, of course, about the House of Lords. What more eloquent example do we need of the willingness of some in our political establishment to freeze out the public that even now, well into the twenty-first century, we have our laws voted on week after week (when Parliament sits!) by people beyond the reach of democracy?

The rest of the piece goes on to other issues, and you can read it in full here. There’s also a response from Hazel Blears (the speed of online debate!) though I was a bit disappointed that – in my view – she doesn’t actually address any of the points I’ve made. Anyway – read it and judge for yourself.

Exercising people power: my response to bank behaviour

I joined in the economic debate in Parliament yesterday:

Lynne Featherstone: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me about bonuses? I opened an account at Barclays a few weeks ago. On the news that it was seeking funding to avoid Government intervention, possibly involving not paying bonuses, I contacted the bank to say that I did not want to go ahead with my account, and it was very worried by that, having asked me the reason why. I wonder whether there is anything in people power—perhaps by having to print directors salaries and bonuses on bank statements. Does he think that that might give the public some sense of where they want to keep their money? (TheyWorkForYou.com)