Category Archives: Blog

New Deal of the Mind

Posted on by

Went to Xmas drinks with the Trustees and others involved in New Deal of the Mind. For anyone who doesn’t know what this is – is it the result of Martin Bright’s original article in the New Statesman titled ‘New Deal of the Mind’ which laid out a brilliant vision for creating work or training for an army of young people so that rather than become a lost generation without jobs or hope in this dreadful recession – they would be charged with projects throughout the land taking living histories, recording the recession – and many other such programs.

The New Deal of the Mind came into being and now exists to enable young people to find work or apprenticeships or training in the creative fields. If you want to get involved – just let me or Martin Bright know.

I was so enthusiastic about New Deal of the Mind – that I am now one of their Patrons. You can see a short film here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDlOCs3_ZBs

Posties or management?

Posted on by

I see on the news this morning, that a new survey by Consumer Focus is showing that half of those ‘sorry you were out’ slips delivered by posties because things are too big to get through our letterboxes, were shoved through the door when people were in.

The response by the Royal Mail is to repeat the mantra that this is against company policy and that any post person found sticking these notes through the door without ringing – and judging from the report – without even carrying the parcel to the door – will be disciplined.

So – if the Royal Mail is so shit hot on clamping down on this practise – how come it is such a common experience? During this so-called disciplining – are posties noses growing longer?

Or is it the management – not really walking the talk? I am tabling a Parliamentary Question to find out how many disciplinary actions have been taken in each delivery office over each of the last three years.

The Royal Mail needs to show us that it is an exemplar service right at the moment when the battle for survival is so fierce. We love our Royal Mail – but we need them to shape up – otherwise they will write their own obituary.

Kim Holt's character and professional witnesses intimidated?

Posted on by

Since the publication of the report last week  into Kim Holt’s (one of the Senior Consultant Paediatricians in the Haringey Child Protection team) allegations of bullying by management – which have seen her on ‘special leave’ for two years – I hear tell of what appears to be intimidation, or at very least, harassment.

Many professionals who work in the various departments associated with child protection – health, children’s services, etc. – gave witness statements to the report’s authors supporting Kim – stating how valuable her work was, what an excellent professional she was and what an advocate of good practise in child health care etc etc etc. In fact, the report itself praises her and states there is no criticism of her professionalism whatsoever. What the report doesn’t do however is investigate the bullying or the management’s ignoring of warnings about danger to the children it is meant to be protecting.

These witnesses were (and still are) pretty scared of speaking up and coming forward. I know – I spoke to several during the course of Kim’s case and they all spoke to me on the basis that I would not name them. I think this speaks volumes for the case that Kim makes of management bullying and the very serious outcomes that a bullying and silencing management begets – in that warnings are ignored and people are too scared to go public.

Kim was one of the four consultants who signed a letter to the management of Great Ormond Street Child Protection team saying that children were in danger because of a variety of things not being done properly. The letter also stated that the consultants were concerned because management was ignoring their warnings.

Now – post publication of the report – it would seem that those witnesses who were promised anonymity may find themselves being approached by their management and asked if they have given evidence on Kim’s behalf. News has reached me – as they say.

I would say this is a classic example of bullying. Now who is it who could possibly want to know who may have supported Kim against the establishment?

Bankers – with a W

Posted on by

The pre-budget report from the Chancellor seemed reasonable – that is – until Vince tore it apart. Let’s just just take the bankers (no – you take them)  and their bonuses.

As far as I understood it – Darling was proposing that if the bankers used their profits to increase their capital reserve – they would be left in peace. If, however, they chose to use their profits to pay bonuses – then there would be a 50% levy on any bonus over £25,000. They would use anti-avoidance measures so the banks couldn’t dodge this.

That all seemed fine until Vince got going.  And he had lots to go on as the entire pre-budget report was left untouched by George Osborne’s really pathetic response. It was so astoundingly bad, embodying only political rhetoric but not a single word really about what the Tories would do, that I can’t imagine that won’t be the gist of the media coverage.

But I digress. Vince posed simple questions really: what anti-avoidance measures? No answer – just a repetition of ‘anti-avoidance measures’. What would stop bankers converting proposed bonuses to salary and thus avoiding the levy? No answer.

This is just a tiny part of Vince’s demolition job – but just those two simple questions blew gigantic holes in the idea that the bankers are going to feel any wind blowing on them from Darling’s proposals. 

However, it’s not just about what can stop the bankers’ bonuses. I’ve been pondering on what sort of person must there be sitting on the Board of RBS ? To threaten to resign on mass if bonuses are not paid – is  stupid, arrogant and a shocking indictment of the nature of man – well man on bank board.

I would say let the bastards go. But the real question that keeps running through my brain is what sort of human being, what individual, thinks in this time of great hardship for the country and for those hit by the recession – that it is OK to be paid a bonus? Let alone a bonus that is more than most peoples’ annual salary?

These must be pretty dismal human beings, to whom the god of money (above and beyond what they are paid for being on the Board) has made them no longer understand nor care about others’ well-being. Whether or not the Government succeeds in curbing their bonuses (and Vince’s response rather led me to believe that this was an unlikely outcome) surely this is a time when these men of good fortune should be showing leadership and saying that they would not dream of taking a bonus when others less fortunate than themselves are losing their jobs and their homes? You would think……………..

Perhaps this is clear evidence that bankers should be spelt with a w.

Great Ormond Street and Kim Holt

Posted on by

A report, published today by NHS London, investigating the allegations of Kim Holt is the result of the investigation that I got for Kim to try and get justice for her (see previous post). But it wasn’t only justice for Kim – it was also about trying to make sure that the management of the child protection health team came under the same spotlight that the sacked managers in Haringey Children’s Service had come under for their part in the Baby Peter tragedy.

The failings that Kim (with three other senior consultant paediatricians) had alerted Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) management to were so serious, that when they were ignored by management, they had to resort to signing a letter jointly to Dr David Elliman and Jane Elias – the management team at GOSH. The letter was quite explicit and expressed the doctors’ concerns and also expressed their anger that those concerns were being ignored and their view that this put vulnerable children at risk.

The report is very critical of Great Ormond Street (GOSH) and the senior managers – but where is the resultant action? As I said in my last post – if there is no consequence to poor management, if no jobs are lost – then what is going to make senior managers take notice next doctors tell them children are in danger. Nothing!

Baby Peter and beyond – Great Ormond Street in the dock

Posted on by

Kim Holt has finally broken cover over the health team’s part in the Baby Peter tragedy with an interview in the Sunday Telegraph with Andrew Gilligan.

Who is Kim? She is (or rather was) a senior paediatric consultant in Haringey’s child protection health team.

Kim first came to me (over a year ago), terrified to talk to me, as she had been gagged – forbidden to talk to anyone. However, because I was her MP, she and I believed that must give her cover as it couldn’t be the case that a citizen loses their right to talk to their MP.

Kim was desperately worried that children in Haringey were at risk because none of the senior managers at Great Ormond Street were taking proper notice of the concerns she and three other senior consultant paediatricians had raised about the dreadful way things were being handled by management in charge of the child protection health team. The four consultants were so worried that they took the unusual step of jointly signing a letter enumerating their concerns and stating that they believed management were ignoring them. This was exposed in the Evening Standard recently also by Gilligan – with a scanned version of the letter for all to see.

In fact, when Kim tried to raise these issues and became vocal about them – guess what – the establishment turned on her. She was bullied by management – and worse – the situation was ignored. She eventually found herself on ‘special leave’ where she has been for two years – kept away from work by management at taxpayers’ expense to try and stop her exposing what had been going on.

Worse than that – additional to keeping her from working (and she a senior consultant paediatrician with an impeccable track record of 25 years of dedicated service) they tried to buy her silence. They offered her £120,000 if she would sign a statement saying all her concerns had been addressed.

But Kim wouldn’t be bought off. Kim’s real and genuine concern is and always has been the well-being of the most vulnerable of children. That is why over the year or so since she first came to me – I have completely and totally supported Kim and believed that she is the victim of bad management, bullying and a desire by those in charge to not rock the eminent boat of Great Ormond Street.

So – when Kim first came to see me to tell me about the bullying – I went to see Richard Sumray, Chair of Haringey Primary Care Trust (PCT) to talk to him privately about this situation. The child protection task had been handed over from Haringey PCT to Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH). The existing senior manager in charge had been transferred across from Haringey PCT to GOSH. It was now a matter for GOSH. That is what he said – but he also said he would look into it.

Then the Baby Peter trial concluded and all hell let loose. Haringey Council was rightly first in line, as the lead agency and the most culpable, and got all the attention. But knowing a little at that time about the health team and wondering why there was a locum in place – the locum who failed to recognise Peter’s broken back and ribs – I started asking questions.

I raised it in Parliament and if you look back in Hansard you will see me raise the issue of why out of four senior paediatric consultants, two had resigned, one was on sick leave and one on special leave. (You will also read that our health spokesperson Norman Lamb raised it too). I was, at that point, still bound to keep Kim’s confidence but was desperately trying to get the health team management looked at.

Kim was still not working and in my view was being kept from working because of her whistle-blowing. At this point, I ‘phoned Ed Balls office and told them of the dreadful treatment of Kim Holt and said if they didn’t do something at some point this would all blow up and with the reputation of the world’s foremost children’s hospital at stake – they needed to act.

I was very pleased that I was called shortly after this by the Chief Nurse from London Strategic Health Authority who I met with and who undertook to carry out a private investigation of the issues around Kim’s bullying and exclusion.

That investigation reports this coming week. Kim gave an interview to the Sunday Telegraph – finally – because she believes the report leaves out the important issues. She is gagged from talking about what is in the report. I have not seen it – but have met with its author and the NHS chief nurse who briefed me on their view of the content.

Now we wait to see the report. But if it doesn’t get Kim back to work, it doesn’t dismiss any managers and it doesn’t tackle the bullying culture – then it will all have been for nought.

Tories still don't get it!

Posted on by

You know all the hoo ha over MP expenses and the subsequent setting up of the independent Kelly Commission to recommend how to proceed to take all of this out of MPs’ own hands?

Well – the recommendation was for an Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) to be set up. All Parliament had to do for it to come into being was rubber stamp its’ setting up and the people to be on it with a straightforward motion to the House.

It was truly dreadful, therefore, to find that the Tories had tabled an amendment to this motion to remove one of the people proposed (independently) to serve on it. We had all agreed, cross party, to abide by the Kelly recommendations and keep well out of anything to do with its composition or anything. And here were the Tories still trying to fiddle and change outcomes – even when we are now desperate to get politics cleaned up and sorted. But they still don’t get it.

To stop them – we used a pretty obscure procedure which resulted in the amendment not being put but leaving the main motion setting up IPSA to be passed.

David Heath our Shadow Leader of the House said this:

“We managed tonight to prevent Parliament making a mockery of the independence of IPSA. MPs should not be picking and choosing the members of the authority in charge of MPs expenses. Nor should Conservative MPs be second-guessing a fair and open competitive selection process. We may have had to use an obscure procedure, but we kept Parliament honest.”

As I said to David Heath, ‘IPSA FACTO’! (my first and only Latin joke!).

A debate on who inspects the inspectors

Posted on by

Following on from my recent post on who inspects the inspectors, I raised the issue in Business Questions in the Commons.

The point I made was that with OFSTED giving 3 stars to Haringey just before the Baby Peter tragic story broke – and giving them 1 star soon after – we needed a debate on how to inspect the inspectors.

Harriet Harman – actually said she thought this was an issue for consideration. There was a lot of support in House for my request for a debate – so fingers crossed.

Of course, it’s even worse than I had time to state in the Commons (you only get a few words before Mr Speaker has a go at you for verbosity). Recently the judge in the Sharon Shoesmith appeal is having to investigate whether a hand written note which apparently instructs everyone at OFSTED who has emails re the Baby P case to delete them is genuine and whether its instruction was followed.

If it was – and emails turn out to have been deleted – this is just outrageous. We wait to hear the outcome of the judge’s investigations.

The Wave

Posted on by

Sadly won’t be able to join the march or the Wave today (still hobbling) – but well done to everyone who is going to show just how vital the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference is. The sun is shining and it will be a fantastic demonstration. I know Nick Clegg and a big cohort of LibDems are going and I am sure members of all political parties will be there – as will the Women’s Institute. They are joining the Wave – and I always think when the W.I. march – it is a statement from the heart of Britain.

The Whittington – on the sick list?

Posted on by

Whittington Hospital protestHere’s my latest Ham & High column:

The world works in mysterious ways. If I hadn’t broken a bone in my foot a couple of weeks ago – I might not have heard what was being planned for the future of the Whittington in such a timely fashion.

The position put out by Rachel Tyndall (CEO for North London Central NHS) in a letter to senior NHS managers was that the Whittington would lose its Accident & Emergency services.

But after the letter was publicised, the situation abruptly changed. A revised letter was sent out in which options for the future of the Whittington designate it a ‘local hospital’. That is a very comforting sounding phrase – but it would still mean an end to 24 hour A&E cover.

The rapidity with which the original proposals to end all A&E were dropped does make me doubt how well thought out they were – and also whether they have really been abandoned fully or are still lurking waiting for a chance to come back.

So I have sent out emails and letters to inform local people what was going on, with the background on the threats to close or reduce the A&E services at the Whittington Hospital. You can sign the petition yourself at http://campaigns.libdems.org.uk/saveouraande

The responses are pouring in at a volume I have actually never seen before, with over 1,000 signatures in the first 48 hours. It is already quite clear that local people don’t want to lose their local A&E nor see it reduced – nor do they feel the NHS has been  communicating well or fully on the subject.

In the background to all this are talks about merging Royal Free and The Whittington – either completely or some of the services. The principle of raising the quality of health services by providing them via the best means available is a good one – and it may be that some services are best provided through only one or the other of these two hospitals. But A&E is one of the services that needs to be local and 24 hours – that’s the point.

As one constituent wrote to me, who works elsewhere in the NHS themselves, said of the Whittington, it “exists to provide a local and emergency service and is at risk of having its lifeblood sucked away”.

I have held meetings in the last week with the key people at both the London North Central Review Panel and the Whittington. Whilst all the NHS senior people are saying no decisions have been made, that original letter with its set of proposals – all of which meant closing the Whittington’s A&E – make it clear which way thoughts are running on the issue.

Although there are promises to bring the issue to public consultation, consultation has to be over a meaningful range of options – not a set that already assumes a key decision. With the consultation pencilled in for September 2010 – after the next elections please note – there is a whiff in the air of putting controversial decisions off until after the votes with the ability to then push them through with the public voice neutered.

That is why it is so important that local peoples’ views are heard loud and clear NOW. Otherwise when the Health Authority ‘options’ finally come to public consultation – we may find that there are no options that keep the Whittington A&E open.