A magazine article of mine about why we need a public inquiry into how the various public services failed to protect Baby P has just come out. You can read it on my website.
Tag Archives: baby p
Second doctor suspended over death of Baby P
Whilst Haringey Council was undoubtedly the first in line for responsibility for failure to protect Baby P – their woeful performance deflected some of the heat from the health services. But news today that on the health side further steps in accountability are being taken as reported on Sky News:
Dr Jerome Ikwueke twice referred the little boy to hospital specialists after becoming concerned about suspicious marks on his face and body.
The General Medical Council’s interim orders panel suspended his registration as a doctor on Tuesday.
This follows the suspension in November of paediatrician Dr Sabah Al-Zayyat, who failed to spot that Baby P had serious injuries two days before he died.
Police launched an investigation but nobody was charged until Baby P died in a blood-spattered cot on August 3 2007.
According to prosecution documents, Dr Ikwueke saw the child 14 times in the months before his death at the hands of his mother, her boyfriend and a lodger in Haringey, north London.
There is clearly much we don’t yet know about who did what and when, but I’m glad to see that the health side of the equation is getting the scrutiny it needs – because in the end, if things were done wrong or people not up to the job, that needs to be put right before anyone else suffers.
Sharon Shoesmith in The Guardian
Sharon Shoesmith pleads her side of the story in today’s Guardian. Her account sheds adds very little to what has already been aired in public – so rather than go over the ground I’ve blogged about at some length previously I’ll just make three brief points this time:
1. It’s a journalistic scoop for The Guardian – so I’ve no complaints over the front page lead and three full inside pages they’ve given it. But what a contrast with the way that so many people who had concerns about how Haringey services were being run under Sharon Shoesmith were side-lined, ignore or had legal injunctions banning them from speaking out. That’s one reason why we need a public inquiry – so that we can hear (and learn from) all those other stories too.
2. One point Sharon Shoesmith tries to argue in the article is one I have heard before in relation to this case – that all of this episode puts off social workers from coming to Haringey or indeed people going into the profession at all. That misses the point of the real problem – well-run services and departments attract staff. Failing to deal with concerns – as was Haringey’s way – is what lies at the root of the problems. Run services well and respond properly when concerns are raised – that’s the answer – not wishing the public and media don’t notice problems.
3. It’s a shame the coverage doesn’t address not only the question about how Haringey did (or rather didn’t) respond to concerns raised repeatedly with it over the running of Children’s Services – but also didn’t address the question of the way all the senior staff and councillors closed ranks after the death of Victoria Climbie, with only the most junior person in the food chain being disciplined. Complaints about interventions by Ed Balls or the media need to face up to that reality – last time, those other people responsible for blunders got away with it because there wasn’t this pressure. Would letting more senior people duck responsibility and blame everything on the most junior person they could find really have been the right outcome yet again?
Old Holborn – please help
A while back, at the height of the Baby P postings on my blog, a blogger called Old Holborn posted this:
Shhhh. Don’t tell ANYONE
22 Nov 2008 by Old Holborn
Lynne Featherstone is doing sterling work digging deeper and deeper. Should Old Holborn give her the memo showing that Haringey were TOLD not to take children into care because it was too expensive? Proving that Baby P died because the …
Since then, another source told me of the same memo / email. I issued a Freedom of Information request to Haringey Council but they have responded saying that it would be too expensive to find. So I am making a public appeal to Old Holborn. If you have the memo of copy of the memo – then please send it to me.
How to keep up the pressure on MPs over Baby P
Whilst the media attention has momentarily diminished following the sackings and resignations at Haringey Council – no doubt they will spring into life each time a new Baby P issue is back on the agenda.
They will be things like: the new Serious Case Review and the publication of its executive summary; the new Health Commission investigation; the report from Ed Ball’s Task Force; Lord Laming’s report across the country and no doubt an explosion of coverage on the sentencing of those found guilty of ‘letting Baby P die’.
But there is a huge movement out in the country and beyond campaigning for justice for Baby P – witness the dozens of Facebook groups, some with six figure number of members.
Many of these campaigners are very surprised when I talk to them to find out that (at latest count) only 13 percent of MPs have signed the EDM I tabled calling for a public inquiry. They are worried that learning from Baby P’s ordeal will not happen if we do not have a public inquiry – and I agree.
To that end we should get more MPs signing the EDM. So if you have not yet lobbied your MP, and they aren’t one of those listed here as having already signed, please do so.
Here’s the text of the EDM, which is no.53:
PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO CHILD PROTECTION IN HARINGEY
03.12.2008Featherstone, Lynne
That this House deeply regrets the death of Baby P; welcomes the action of the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families to date; believes that many questions remain unanswered; and demands a full independent public inquiry to restore confidence in child protection in Haringey.
You can easily lobby your MP via www.writetothem.com.
Ten most popular blog postings (4th quarter, 2008)
No real surprises here, with one story dominating your and my attention – the awful death of Baby P.
10. George Meehan and Liz Santry resign – the two key Labour councillors (council leader and lead member for children’s services) finally took responsibility for Haringey Council’s failings.
9. Baby P investigation update – thoughts following a meeting with Cabinet minister Ed Balls.
8. Panorama on Baby P – my advance thoughts, particularly on how the pressure to agree may result in people not sticking by their concerns.
7. Baby P at PMQs – a very brief post, but got lots of traffic due to the Brown-Cameron spat making that PMQs very high profile.
6. The departure of Sharon Shoesmith – my reaction to the (eventual) departure of the head of Haringey’s children’s services and education.
5. The roles of Sharon Shoesmith and George Meehan – in which I explain why I believed they should take responsibility for the errors and blunders exposed in the Baby P saga.
4. Brian Coleman and the Fire Brigade – see no.3.
3. Fire Brigade rushes to help – the Brian Coleman saga where, for latecomers, I feared for my and family’s safety, called the Fire Brigade – who said I did the right thing – but Brian Coleman (Conservative London Assembly member) took it upon himself to criticise. Cue numerous comments on my various blog postings and via my website from firemen agreeing with my actions.
2. Reading the Baby P Serious Case Review – after initially being kept secret, the review was shown to a small number of MPs, myself included
1. Baby P verdict – reaction to the trial verdict.
So – that was the last quarter. Let’s see what gets your attention in the next one…
Things can change
I read a piece on Paul Linford’s blog about another boy who died in terrible circumstances at the hands of his foster parents – who astonishingly had been cleared to adopt. However, it was this boy’s tragic death, John Smith, that brought about a change in the law – a change that was able to be used for the trail following the death of Baby P:
A group of journalists from the Brighton Argus launched a “Justice for John” campaign after murder charges against his adoptive parents were dropped in favour of a lesser charge of cruelty on the grounds that it could not be proven who had struck the fatal blow. In the end, this led to a change of the law, and the creation of a new offence of causing or allowing the death of a child – the offence of which the vile killers of Baby P have now been successfully convicted and for which they will be sentenced early next year.
You can read the full post on Paul Linford’s site – but to my mind, there are two points rising from this. Firstly – it shows what can be done when people put their mind to it. For all the flaws in our democracy and system of government – individuals can get together and bring about change.
Secondly – Baby P’s tragic death raises the question of whether the maximum sentence for this (new) crime is high enough. It can cover such a wide range of circumstances that there needs to be the flexibility to deal with the circumstances of an individual case, but the maximum sentence available (I believe it is 14 years) is now facing a growing grassroots campaign organised primarily by mothers and grandmothers.
My own priority is to push for a public inquiry to ensure that the full range of necessary lessons are learnt and then changes applied because – vital though a just legal system is – in the end a court case and a jail sentence can only deal with the aftermath of tragedy. Avoiding the tragedy in the first place is the main objective.
But for me, the shining message from Paul’s post is that things can change. It takes action and commitment – and here we have a bunch of those who are only slightly less reviled than politicians – journalists – who saw something that wasn’t right – and took the action necessary. Hurrah for journalists – on this occasion!
Did Haringey Council really only mislead one set of inspectors?
This week was the special Haringey Council meeting called by the Lib Dems to debate the findings from Ed Ball’s ‘urgent investigation’ into Haringey following the death of Baby P.
It saw an astonishing outburst from the person we all saw apologise (finally) on behalf of the Labour Council – Liz Santry – Labour Member for Children’s Services as was. With the media’s attention having moved on, at this meeting I am told she lashed out blaming others. But that’s it you know – that’s the real issue in Haringey – that Labour always turn it all around and instead of really looking at what’s gone wrong, they simply rebut, deny, blame others. When will they ever learn?
What also is interesting, is that my Lib Dem colleagues on Haringey Council have called for all services to be re-inspected. This is because of the comments from Ofsted, in the form of Christine Gilbert, that they were ‘misled’ by Haringey officials when they did their inspection. If people misled one batch of inspectors, what are the chances that other inspectors carrying out other inspections were misled too?
There have been thirteen separate inspections over the last few years including the Audit Commission’s Comprehensive Performance Assessment in October 2006, the Commission for Social Care Inspection inquiry received as recently at 28th November this year and an Audit Commission report of the Council’s housing service.
There has to be now real doubt over the accuracy of these inspections – and so the call for re-inspections. Needles to say – Labour refused! As I said – when will they ever learn!
Baby P protest today
Was speaker at the London Baby P march, petition presentation and rally today. This was basically a grassroots wave of expression of feelings – started by Tracy, Amanda and Antonia on Facebook – and escalating today into 17 marches across the length and breadth of the country.
They handed in a 20,000 name petition to Downing Street and then marched on to Trafalgar Square to the rally. It poured with rain throughout – and I had thought that might reduce the numbers and atmosphere – but no – they were more determined than ever.
There were a number of speakers amongst whom I was one – interspersed with songs and poems. There were many moving speeches by mothers who were there because they, like the rest of Britain, could not bear to think of Baby P’s suffering and death.
The organisers wanted to give everyone an opportunity to demonstrate the depth of feeling about the failures that led to Baby P’s death. They want to make sure that the whole of children’s services is revolutionised – and they were categoric that this was not a witch hunt – but a plea for real change. They want to keep Baby P high on the agenda and they still want to push for a public inquiry – to answer the myriad of questions left untouched by Ed Balls’s actions so far. They have been about the core front line issues of practice and management in children’s services – but not the wider issues.
Wider issues such as the nature of inspections (Ofsted giving a three star rating shortly before the Ed Balls ordered investigation damning Haringey), the budgetary pressures that may have meant that staff were told not to take children into care in Haringey, the outsourcing of the child health team by Haringey Primary Care Trust (PCT) to Great Ormond Street so that the Trust when challenged said ‘not me gov’, the warnings that were continually ignored in Haringey, the secrecy and hiding of documents and many, many more.
Important though fixing front line services is – these other issues can also cause future tragedies and so also need addressing. That’s why a deeper and wider investigation is absolutely vital.
Baby P and accountability: what happens when services are outsourced?
At last, an opportunity to get out on record some of the issue around the health team’s part in the Baby P tragedy.
The health issues involved in Baby P are huge and in my view the health side has got off lightly thus far. I have previously posted some bits about the Baby P health issues on my blog, but so far this aspect has got relatively little attention from the media.
Therefore for the health and education debate on the Queen’s Speech this week – I briefed Norman Lamb on a few of the key issues which he raised in his opening speech. I paste them here for your information.
I would also add that I personally took the issues of bullying (the previous inspection by the Health Care Commission had found extremely high levels of bullying) and bad management leading to resignations and danger for children at risk in Haringey directly to the Chair of the PCT (Primary Care Trust). The response I got was simply that the service was now commissioned from Great Ormond Street Hospital. He said he would look into it anyway.
When I went back the week before last to discuss amongst other issues the health team part in Baby P – the first thing said to me was ‘thank goodness we are screened from the worst of the fall out from Baby P’. I thought this symptomatic of the problems with outsourcing or commissioning – no-one is accountable or responsible – albeit it was a statement of the bleeding obvious as Haringey and Sharon Shoesmith and Haringey Labour Council had rightly been first in the firing line.
At least when I remonstrated and said as MP for the area who was I to go to if not the Trust with these sorts of problems – Tracy Baldwin (CEO), who was there at the meeting, had the grace to say yes it was the Trust and they were accountable and they were the commissioners. Clearly she had not been told that I had come previously with such issues of importance.
So – roll on a proper investigation not just of the actuality of who did what in terms of failing Baby P – but also in terms of the problems left festering in the health team because no one took responsibility for sorting it – but just outsourced it!
Anyway, here’s Norman’s contribution in Parliament:
The Healthcare Commission drew attention, too, to the fact that there were areas of serious concern. Ian Kennedy, the chair of the Healthcare Commission, focused on patient safety, and I want to concentrate for a few minutes on the area of most significance—child protection, particularly the tragedy involving Baby P. Again, it is important again to acknowledge that the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families acted commendably fast in recognising the seriousness of the failings and in mapping out a way forward. However, it is also right to say that so far, the emphasis and focus, particularly in the media, have been on the failings of the local authority—and there were many—rather than on the failings of other agencies. I think that there are lessons to be learned, and it is important to reflect on them for a moment, particularly the situation in the local health service, because serious concerns have been raised with me.
I understand that the paediatric service for child protection in the borough was outsourced to Great Ormond Street. I understand that there was a team of four doctors, of whom two have resigned, one has been on special leave for a year, and one is off sick. Given the fundamental importance of that work—I make these comments not in any sense in a partisan way, as we all have a common view of the importance of addressing these issue—that is an alarming situation in itself. Incidentally, if either Secretary of State is unable to respond to these points today, I am happy for them to respond in writing later. What factors have led to this situation? Why has one of the doctors whom I mentioned been on long-term special leave for a year? Is it the case that the primary care trust cut funding for a designated doctor post, and is it the case that the paediatrician who did not recognise the broken back and ribs in the case of Baby P was a locum employee?
I have heard concern expressed that when children are brought into St. Ann’s hospital in Tottenham as possible victims of abuse, there is a tendency for no information to arrive with the child to put the medical team fully in the picture about possible concerns. That relates to the issues of co-ordination and the sharing of information between agencies dealt with in the report released by the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. I understand that when one doctor filled in a critical incident form at that hospital, in relation to another case, he was told not to do so because it would show up poor record keeping. I do not know whether there is any truth in that allegation, but it is a serious matter and it clearly needs to be investigated. What short-term steps have been taken to ensure that there are proper safeguards in place for other vulnerable babies and children in that borough? What are the longer-term lessons for the NHS—as opposed to the local authority, which has had its fair share of attention—particularly with regard to the responsibility and accountability of the clinicians involved?
Lynne Featherstone 