I’m back on The Westminster Hour tonight (Sunday) – tune in to Radio 4 from 10pm.
If you miss the show you’ll be able to listen again on their website.
Category Archives: Blog
Youth Parliament debates in Commons chamber
An historic event today – the United Kingdom Youth Parliament sits today in the House of Commons chamber. I remember the debate and vote in the House as to whether this should be allowed or not – and it was hotly debated. I voted for – obviously. I am firstly Youth Spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats – but also on the Board of Directors of the Youth Parliament itself. I think it can only be a good thing.
Sadly – I can’t actually be there due to consituency commitments – but I have no doubt they will all remember this day for the rest of their lives. And if it raises aspiration – then it will on that alone – have achieved its purpose.
Fair Funding debate – at last!
I was telephoned by the Speaker’s Office this afternoon with glad tidings. I have succeeded in getting an Adjournment debate on Fair Funding in Haringey Schools. It is scheduled for next Wednesday. Hurrah!
For anyone who doesn’t know – my campaign to get fair funding for Haringey schoolchildren came about because currently the funding is diabolically unfair. Even Gordon Brown, when I quizzed him a while back at Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs), agreed it was an ‘anomoly’.
This ‘anomoly’ arises out of the injustice of us (Haringey) having to pay inner London teacher salaries but only receiving outer London per pupil funding. The differential is stark. Our kids each get £1,183 less than children in Camden, Hackney or Islington.
Haringey Council, Haringey NUT and the schools are now all supporting fair funding for Haringey Schools.
I’ve raised the issue not only in Prime Minister’s Questions, but also on the floor of the House, had two meetings with the former Schools Minister Jim Knight (it’s a pain when the Minster changes – which he has). I have a request into the new Minister, Vernon Coaker, for a meeting too.
Now – at last – I have scored an Adjournment Debate. It will last half an hour – and it will be just myself and then the Minister will answer.
To date – the answers and meetings have generally ended with the Government saying that the Funding Review will take care of this – a funding review that won’t introduce whatever its recommended new funding is until 2011. I lobbied for Haringey to have specific representation on the Review Panel – but they refused and they have also refused so far to give a guarantee that we will receive fair funding in the Review.
I have heard other Members in the House raise the issue of differentials they experience in their constituencies – but the last one last week was around a £350 differential – which is bad – but our differential of £1183 is killing.
Our teachers do a brilliant job trying to deliver the absolute best education with the budget they have. However, there were some recent figures that showed that Haringey had the most or nearly the most schools in deficit. The Heads are struggling to try not to make any reductions in the staffing – but clearly with such a huge loss of funding around £32 million per year – it is getting impossible. Just imagine the difference that money would make.
I am emailing all my schools to ask them to let me know their particular situation and how the under-funding is affecting them – so I can illustrate the argument with the facts on the ground.
Hopefully we will get it through to the Government that this is just not fair. Our schools are struggling terribly with their budgets – and if ‘every child matters’ how come our children don’t matter as much as them next door?
Serious Case Reviews – 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
Bus stop on a slippery slope
There is a bus stop on Muswell Hill – and Muswell Hill is aptly named. The steep gradient sees toddlers tumble, mothers with buggies hang onto them for dear life, wheelchairs needing restraining and older people picking their way fearfully to get to said bus stop. As for when it is wet or slippery….
It has been there a long time – but what has changed is that this is the primary bus stop that local people in Muswell Hill will have to use to get to the new community health centre at Hornsey Hospital at the bottom of the hill.
We (Liberal Democrats) have campaigned successfully on this to the point where Transport for London (TfL) agreed to consult on moving this badly sited stop. I have now submitted my own and local residents submissions to that consultation.
My LibDem colleagues Cllr Martin Newton, Cllr Gail Engert and myself met TfL officers at the bus stop in the summer to point out how dangerous it was for the young, the old and the disabled. As TfL agreed to look into the issue I wrote to local residents to get their views on moving the bus stop and then included all responses in my submission to the consultation.
For example, one of the letters is from a woman in her seventies, trying to push her husband in a wheelchair down the steep slope, and literally having to bend over backwards not to lose control.
So – let’s hope that TfL are moved to action by the responses to the consultation.
You can watch more about this story in this YouTube clip:
The video is also available on the YouTube website.
GFest – gayWise LGBT Arts Festival
Went to the launch of GFest – London’s premier LGBT cross-arts festival. As Equalities spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats – this is the second year I have been asked to come and speak at the launch – and it is a great honour.
GFest is a platform for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) organisations and venues to promote LGBT arts. Organised by arts charity “Wise Thoughts” which is based in my constituency.
This is the third year of the festival – which each year is growing like Topsy and this year has over 100 artists from all over the world – a testament to the organisers – Wise Thoughts.
David Lammy MP (Labour) hosted the meeting, and the other speakers were Ben Summerskill from Stonewall, Richard Barnes (Tory Deputy Mayor of London) and me.
Last year I remember saying that ‘artists are streetfighters’ and so I said the same again – for it is true. All the speakers touched on the issues around the Daily Mail’s column on Stephen Gately, Nick Griffin’s open homophobia and the appalling killing of a gay men in Trafalgar Square.
Legislatively speaking – gay rights are pretty advanced these days (with exceptions like the blanket ban on gay blood donations and unequal protection in schools against homophobic bullying). The point I was making was that whilst legislation might be in place – clearly from those horrific examples above – at street level there is still a very very long way to go.
Also we forget, in London, how cosmopolitan we really are and how different it is elsewhere.
It was a good launch and I hope that many Londoners will flock to the various exhibitions, shows and so on that form the festival.
This week's other bits…………
Liberal Democrat Opposition Day Debates:
The Liberal Democrat opposition day debates were both ones that Labour should have supported. Labour failed to do so on both votes.
The first was on Equitable Life – and I am sure that every MP in the House has had heartbreaking letters from people who have lost their life savings through Equitable Life and are fed up waiting for the always promised, never delivered compensation.
The second motion was asking Parliament to sign up to the 10:10 campaign. Lots of individual MPs (including me) and councils have already signed up to reduce their carbon emissions by 10% by the end of the year 2010. The motion was asking the House itself to sign up, all Government departments and Public Sector Bodies. Given the Labour Government (and the Minister) were so fulsome in their praise for the 10:10 campaign – I am still at a loss as to why they failed to support the motion. They refused to sign us up to the 10:10 campaign. Shame on them. Blimey – even the Tories supported this one.
Women’s Questions
I asked the Minister what the Government was doing about removing the barriers to employing women that had been highlighted in the Equality and Human Rights Commission statement that women’s maternity rights etc were putting employers off. The Minister said she didn’t accept that was the case!
Book on Baby Peter
Met with an author/film maker who is doing the background research on a potential book about Baby Peter. Having received literally thousands of emails during the height of the Baby Peter coverage from people all over the country – including many professionals from relevant fields – who all had such knowledge and contribution, I am very pleased that someone serious is going to do a serious book on this. Whilst Panorama and other documentaries have all tried very hard – it really is not possible to address the complexities of this subject in entertainment format – so am very happy to help.
Meeting with Peter Lewis, Director Children’s Services, Haringey
Following neatly on, had organised a meeting with Peter Lewis to touch base on progress in terms of child protection in Haringey. When I first met Peter after he was appointed following the furore over child protection in Haringey – he told me that it would take him three years to turn Haringey’s Children’s Services around. The first inspection of how he and the department were doing decided things were improving but not fast enough. I hadn’t seen him for about six months – and I thought that some of the measures that Peter has brought in subsequent to that inspection to provide rigour in supervising (human rigour not tick box rigour) sounded like they would be effective. I also thought that his action to address the issue of recruiting social workers to Haringey (much needed – as unfilled posts and many agency workers currently) by bringing in social workers from the States and recruiting from big equivalent cities like New York showed initiative.
On education I brought Peter up to date with the Liberal Democrat campaign for Fair Funding (as our children get £1000 less per head than kids in Hackney or Islington) because we pay inner London staff salaries (high) and only receive outer London per pupil funding (low). Given that Haringey schools showed up recently as having a very high level of deficits in their budgets (one of the worst in the country) not surprisingly given that £1000 differential – the pressure has to be kept up to make the Government give us our fair share.
Meeting with new CEO at Whittington Hospital
First meeting with the new CEO of Whittington, Rob Larkman. This was a basically get to know you type meeting, setting out from my point of view the various key interests I have on behalf of local people. It was also about the funding problems coming down the track at our health services, the impact of the new Community Health Centre at the Hornsey Hospital site and in terms of the Whittington itself – my priority – which is making sure that patients are treated well – not just clinically – but as people.
The aspect which people raise with me about their hospital stays – when there are complaints – is always about how they were treated in human terms by the staff. Obviously – the vast majority of the staff are absolutely fabulous – and there are more people praising the Whittington and their treatment than are critical. But – those who do get badly handled – need their local hospital to take such issues really seriously. I have found that the Whittington has been very responsive in the past to any individual complaints I have taken to them – and now I want the new CEO to take over the last CEO’s promise to me – that patient treatment would be a priority.
I look forward to a good and constructive working relationship.
Y-Gen
Went to visit Y-Gen in Crouch End. Y-Gen is a great organisation that exists to improve young peoples’ lives. They work with those who provide services for young people.
I was meeting a group of their young people who were all doing A2 year at school – but who voluntarily came into Y-Gen for many, many hours outside of their normal school hours to train and assess services for young people. They do it by awarding a ‘Youth Mark’. I guess the best way to describe it is an equivalent to a ‘Kite Mark’. The Youth Mark they award can be bronze, silver or gold – to organisations who provide young peoples’ services – but it is unique in that this ‘mark’ is awarded by young people based on a rigorous and extensive analysis and assessment of that service provision – by young people. It is not a matter of failing any organisation – but working with them to improve their service delivery.
Y’Gen has a wealth of experience in a number of areas including developing youth engagement programmes, providing personalised support to help young people overcome barriers to learning, database management and producing analytical reports.
These young people who you can see in the picture have all received certificates themselves for their work in this program. They told me about two organisations that they had been in to assess – Exposure and Wood Green Library. They spend about 40 hours in an organisation making observations, conducting interviews and assessments before working with their trainers to deliver the final reports.
I was so impressed with their work – that I stayed chatting for far longer than I should have – but it was a very inspiring project to visit – very uplifting. And the skills that these young people develop, the commitment they show and their enthusiasm and interest will no doubt stand them in extremely good stead for the years to come when they themselves go on to further education and the working world.
Nick Griffin's grin
Someone had obviously coached Nick Griffin for his Question Time debut, and the key advice given, was obviously to smile – whatever. Media trainers will always give such advice but they may have to rethink it. Mr Griffin’s attempt to present himself and the BNP as reasonable by hideously grinning throughout Question Time served only to make the British public see him even more clearly as a racist, homophobic, bigot.
And that’s good – the BNP is the appropriate party for a racist or a homophobe to vote for. On the doorstep, when I come across the thankfully rare occurrence of an obvious racist – I always say that I don’t want their vote.
But the BNP seats at the European table didn’t all come from racists. And the Government and local councils have not addressed some of the issues that drive those who feel disenfranchised into the arms of the BNP because they feel they are getting ignored or believe they delivered a raw deal.
The BNP and their ilk will always feed off of those who are disgruntled, disenfranchised and ignored. A vacuum in terms of political attention provides the perfect feeding ground for those who feed off of that discontent. Additionally, where there is a scarcity of resources – the extra pressures brought by high levels of immigration and asylum seeking means extra pressure on public services – school places, health services and housing key amongst them in those areas.
The Government does not give local councils the full costs of bearing the weight of new immigrants and asylum seekers – so it does add pressures. If you take social housing in Haringey – for which the demand outstrips provision by such huge proportions that my surgeries are always populated by those who are desperately in need of housing. And yes – there is very occasionally ‘racism’ towards those who are perceived as arriving in this country with lots of children and immediately getting a house against those who are on the housing list for years and get nowhere. The stories are legion. The Equality and Human Rights Commission did an investigative piece of work to establish whether this tale of the ‘newly arrived’ jumping the housing queue was true – and found it was not. What is needed is more housing, and to publish transparently who gets what accommodation so that the suspicion can be allayed.
Back to Question Time. Yes – the BBC was absolutely right to invite Nick Griffin on to the program. It had no choice with the two MEPs having been elected. However, I don’t expect that those two seats at the European Parliament warrant more than a visit to Question Time once every few years if that – proportionally. If the rating s for last night persuade QT to offer that platform any more often than is proportionally deserved then they will lose the moral high ground which they claimed for giving the BNP that exposure this time round.
And media trainers will have to go back to the drawing board – as ‘smile and the world smiles with you’ just didn’t do it for the BNP.
Hatred, hope and a wet balloon
Last night I watched Panorama ‘Undercover: Hate on the doorstep’ which was looking into the abuse that ethnic minorities encounter in some areas of Britain and the hook / contrast was with the Equality Commission having said that Britain was pretty good in terms of tolerance and issues of race. The program set out to disprove that statement – pretty successfully.
Two undercover reporters, one male and one female and both Muslim, moved into a house on an estate near Bristol. For the eight weeks they were there they were abused, both verbally and physically, by local youths and children. Things were thrown at them, they were threatened and beaten on one occasion – just for existing.
This morning I was listening to Nick Ferrari on LBC talking about how London is not friendly to fat people. A woman came on – afraid have forgotten her name – who had been beaten up and abused on the tube because she was fat. She said, and other callers to the program said, that they faced verbal abuse every single day of their lives because they were overweight.
So what is this all about? In the end it has to be about people feeling they have nothing and are nothing and the only thing that makes them feel better is abusing someone else. But how do you change a culture? Punishment is fine and necessary – as are laws – but that doesn’t mean that things will be different in future. So how do you change behaviour?
Funnily enough, today one of my meetings was with the Prince’s Trust who came to brief me on their work. One of their programs – called Team Project – is about getting the long-term unemployed aged 16 to 25 back into work, education or training. It is a twelve week program which kicks off with a residential week which is pretty physical, outward bound kind of stuff. The kids then do voluntary work with the community and also learn skills and experience work environments etc.
I asked what the number of young people in any one cohort year was – 44,000. The Prince’s Trust put through about 12,000 of the most challenged and marginalised youngsters through the Team Project each year. They then do an assessment on the success of those who have gone through the scheme which is rigorous and tough. About 70% of the young people after the project – go into work, education or training. That is a pretty stunning result.
We had a bit of a meander through the philosophical issues around how you get the have-not kids to mix with the haves (how to heal a divided society) and whether a national, civil youth service would be an answer. If it was – should it be compulsory? But the real answer – whatever the programs and projects – is that there are no quick, cheap fixes. Any work undertaken amongst the challenged groups they work with – like the long-term unemployed, the socially excluded, ex-offenders and so on – needs to be sustained and relatively long term. The Team Project is twelve weeks so not cheap – but in the end – if that investment works then it has to be worthwhile.
It was a bit of a meetings day really – with Shadow Cabinet/Home Affairs team/briefing by Prince’s Trust/lobbying by Relate / meeting with Martha Lane Fox and Nick Clegg about the digital divide and then to top it off – the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, Second Reading.
This Bill was meant to be a Bill that would start rolling the great reform agenda for decades to come. Sadly – it has turned out to be a wet squib. Where is the abolition of the hereditary peers? Where is the end of the male line of accession kicking females out of the way? Where is anything worth having a constitutional bill for – all gone, all watered down. Alack and alas.
Lynne Featherstone 