Tag Archives: baby p

Reading the Baby P Serious Case Review

Posted on by

Well, I read the full Serious Case Review into the death of Baby P at the end of the week. I was given sight of this document following the ho ha when Ed Balls appeared to use the Information Commissioner for cover, saying others could not be allowed sight of the review – and then the Information Commissioner went public clearly not happy with being used in this way. Net result – several MPs, myself included, were allowed to see the report.

Access was given on ‘privy council terms’ – political speak for promising to keep the contents confidential, so I can say nothing of what I have read. The reading was done on my own, in an empty room with one table and one one chair and one copy of said document marked ‘confidential’. I sat alone there for two hours. You are not allowed to make notes of its contents – but you are allowed to note your impressions.

What I can say is that having read the document I am even more of the opinion that it would be in the public interest for it to be published – obviously with some parts anonymized and with a tiny – very tiny – bit of editing of any personal information around the family.

Otherwise – how will all those who have an interest or experience or knowledge or expertise be able to judge Ed Balls action when the investigative report comes in on Monday? That report he has said he will publish – but surely the wider audience can only benefit from understanding how resonant the original document is and was.

To this end – I, David Laws (Liberal Democrat Shadow to Ed Balls) and Michael Gove (Conservative Shadow) wrote to Ed Balls at the end of last week asking him to publish the full Serious Case Review. He has since written back to say no.

Mr Balls’s key rationale for his refusal is that a Serious Case Review is for lessons to be learned. He says that if such documents were to be published – then those who contribute to them might feel nervous about doing so in the future and not talk or give their information freely. Utter bunkum!

Far from being a danger, the light of public scrutiny should be an essential safeguard to ensure that these reviews are carried out properly. Because – quite frankly – these reviews are barely ‘independent’ as they are commissioned by the Safeguarding Children board – in this case chaired by Sharon Shoesmith, one of the very people whose own actions are up for questioning. The ‘independent’ person commissioned on this one has already gone public on the fact that he wasn’t given any independent access to people or documents and that the report went to the sub-committee (chaired by Ms Shoesmith) something like five times for ‘correction’.

So public scrutiny should be welcomed, not feared. As we know already that public scrutiny doesn’t put people off saying what happened and their role in it. They did for Laming’s public inquiry and they did in court and as their jobs depend on it. So you should say goodbye to that old myth, ‘we can only find out the truth if we keep it secret’ Mr Balls.

I rate that old chestnut along with the ‘shhhhhhh don’t say anything brigade’ who keep wailing that this will put off decent social workers coming to Haringey. Nooooo – what will put decent, good, hard-working social workers off coming to Haringey is the constant poor management, cover ups, closing of ranks and appalling leadership – or lack of.

So – publish – and be damned. Whoops – that must be what they are afraid of!

Baby P Q & A

Posted on by

Cllr Gail Engert (Lib Dem, shadow spokesperson for children, schools and families) asked a series of 20 questions about Haringey Council’s handling of the Baby P tragedy earlier this week. The Journal has reproduced them – and the answers Gail got – in full.

What happened at Haringey Council last night?

Posted on by

As I wasn’t actually at the Haringey Full Council last night – watching via webcast instead – I asked Ed Butcher, one of the local Liberal Democrat councillors and my Head of Office, if he would write a guest blog to cover the meeting properly. Here it is:

Opposition means lots of things, but one thing I hadn’t fully appreciated until last night’s council meeting is the physicality of being in opposition. As Labour councillor after Labour councillor voted in hollow and weak voices to keep George Meehan and Liz Santry in post, not one of them was able to look us in the eye. Their sorrow and weariness was apparent, but they defiantly limped on.

At times like this you have to ask what you would have done differently. I simply do not accept Haringey Labour’s excuses. After over 40 years of running the borough, I don’t think they fully appreciate the culture of silence, stonewalling and secrecy that exists. This is what we would change. But, the real story is that I don’t think they really know what’s going on themselves.

Haringey Labour councillors have become so trusting and reliant on the advice of their officers that they have become incapable questioning it. With governance should come a healthy scepticism about what you’re being told. Having seen the Director of Children Service speak after the verdict, the public can make up their own mind as to the quality of that advice.

The culture of secrecy pervades the organisation. People who worked in Haringey child protection services have come forward with alarming stories claiming that they were told to shut up when they tried to raise concerns. This goes right to the top, where I know there have been attempts to bully and threaten my council colleagues into silence rather than welcome our independent scrutiny.

Even in last night’s meeting, probably the most public meeting our council has ever had, the Labour whip could not help themselves from shutting down the debate. We tabled two important motions. One was a vote in no confidence in the leader and the executive member for children’s services. The second was a motion to stop any compromise deals. Haringey has a dark history in paying off its staff to silence them – most notably a former Chief Executive whose departure cost £1m. The purpose of this motion was clear. There should only be two ways for any officer to leave following this. Either they resign of their own accord or they are sacked for gross incompetence. Not a penny of council tax money should be used to buy their silence. So with only 15 minutes of the council meeting left, the Labour whip accused us of talking for too long and decided it was far more important to move on to other business, such as appointment to outside bodies, rather than use the remaining time to discuss compromise deals. Plus ça change…

At the council meeting we were told that we could be reassured because of a litany of actions since the death of Baby P. There have been reviews, training, external checks, and now a further inspection. None of this has been open to scrutiny, none of them public. Not much of an assurance.

I asked Councillor Santry what she had done to review matters. She seemed to think an intermittent committee reviewing targets was enough. It says it all really.

I have little doubt there will be a blood letting and they will resign following the inspection report. But I wasn’t voting for change of face at the top, I was voting for a change of culture. I only hope the process the Government have imposed can deliver this. My fear is a stage managed departure will leave much unchanged and our at risk children at even greater risk.

Haringey Council debates Baby P's death

Posted on by

Haringey Labour can no longer distinguish between right and wrong. I watched some of Haringey Full Council’s meeting last night on their webcast and spoke to one of the councillors afterwards.

The first thing I saw was them misleading the Council by suggesting that the Lib Dem Group couldn’t ask questions as their Leader Robert Gorrie and Gail Engert (Schools and Children’s spokesperson for the opposition) had had sight of the full serious case review. They hadn’t – and stood up to say so – correct the record. Then the Council said that the MP had been given a copy. No I haven’t. That I had seen it. No I hadn’t. And no – I wasn’t there but one of the councillors stood up to correct that record. The MP had not received a copy nor had she seen it. I will see it later today under Privy Council terms. That was before they even got started.

What was most clear that Haringey Labour are still in the business of self-preservation before anything else. The Lib Dem Group did a fantastic job of holding Haringey’s feet to the fire – but whilst Labour didn’t use the tricks I thought they would use to block debate and to get out of their culpability they used a different one to block the vote of no confidence. They wouldn’t allow the vote – and so when I hear on the news today that Labour leaders etc survived a vote of no confidence. No they didn’t – they didn’t allow it to the vote.

Why Polly Toynbee is wrong

Posted on by

Tonight will see the Haringey Liberal Democrat Council Group’s motion of no confidence in Haringey’s political leadership debated – well that is if the Labour Members don’t talk it out by spending so long on other things it is not reached. That is their usual tactic in Haringey – although they should be utterly ashamed if they try that one. Their other tactic (and I remember only too well as Leader of the Opposition on Haringey for five years) was to put an amendment negating everything in the Lib Dem motion and saying how wonderful they are. They wouldn’t dare this time – I hope.

Leaving the politics aside for the moment, over the weekend it because clear that Ed Balls has decided to allow five MPs (including myself) to have sight of the Serious Case Review in full version. I have been calling for it to be published (redacted – i.e. with personal or sensitive information blocked out) and I think the Information Commissioner has said that is possible. But am not sure and will check. If I do see it it will be on Privy Council basis – i.e. that I can never reveal what it says – which may be difficult. It won’t be difficult if the urgent investigation has looked at it and investigated the key issues and Ed Balls takes swift and stringent action upon receiving it. Any less – and I will continue fighting at full blast.

I have had so many helpful contributions from those in the profession, people who have had personal experience of Haringey from the staff side. I hope the inspectors are going to talk to those who have recently left Haringey Social Services – as I am told that they often leave because of the way things are run.

I note the Polly Toynbee brigade’s feeble attempt to protect Labour Haringey by rattling sabres about not slagging them off otherwise social workers won’t come. But Polly – they won’t come because bad management has left them clearly vulnerable and children unsafe – not because that is now out in the wide world. What Haringey needs is a Social Services department that can start again – enabling social workers to do their very best – not just jump to fill in forms for fear.

For goodness sake – at one of my surgeries, staff were literally afraid to speak to me. I know staff have all been warned by email not to talk about Baby P – well that may be a very successful, information hiding corporate approach – but it hardly fills me with confidence about a change in culture and openness at Haringey. That’s what needs changing – and change won’t come from hiding away the problems.

This week's Ham & High column

Posted on by

It’s now up on my website, and is about the issue of the moment – Baby P:

Our justice system has done its part with the prosecution of those responsible, but we also need to be sure that we learn what can be learnt. There is much we do not yet know – such as why there was a four month gap between the decision to have Baby P checked over by a paediatrician and the appointment actually taking place.

But we do know how Haringey Council has been responding to warnings about how it was looking after children. For all the good work done by many front line staff, at the most senior levels the reaction to concerns and warnings has been one of delays, hostility, failures to act and unwillingness to accept responsibility.

You can read the full article, which goes into detail about Haringey’s previous mistakes, over on my website.

We need a fresh start in Haringey

Posted on by

Ed Balls made a statement to the House of Commons on Thursday about the Baby P case and the actions he was taking. Mr Balls was able to say to most questions essentially – I will wait until I get the report from the urgent investigation I have commissioned and then I will decide and act.

Understandable – except none of us have had access to the Serious Case Review full document. In response to requests by myself, David Laws (Lib Dem spokesperson on Children and Schools) and Michael Gove (Conservative spokesperson) Ed Balls has said that the Information Commissioner has ruled that such a document cannot be published – though as Iain Dale reports, that doesn’t seem to be the full story.

My tack, when Madam Deputy Speaker called me to ask my question in response to Ed Balls statement, was to call for three things to happen so that Haringey can have a new, fresh start – which is what we desperately need.

Firstly that those accountable must go – and the Children’s Act 2004 names those key accountable posts. It came into being because of Victoria Climbie’s death and Lord Laming’s subsequent report – so we should make sure the lesson learnt then is followed now.

Secondly – that Haringey be put under special measures so that we can be held safe whilst things are being resolved.

And thirdly that there would still be a need for a public inquiry because the two week urgent investigation cannot possibly touch on the wider issues. I give you two examples. Firstly, budgetary pressures. It became clear from the figures about how many children were taken into care in Haringey before and after Baby P’s death that Haringey was reducing the numbers of children being taken into care whilst Baby P was being visited all those times. Directly after (and part of which could be a natural reaction) the figures shot up. Also John Hemming, a Lib Dem MP colleague who specialises in this area, had also found figures on reductions because of budgetary pressures. So Haringey’s decisions around budgets needs scrutiny for starters.

A second example of an area needing wider scrutiny – what part did the fragile state of the health team charged with looking after health needs of children at risk in Haringey play? After all, the paediatrician who failed to diagnose Baby P’s broken back was a locum in that very department. A post deleted, the key post of ‘named doctor’ who has particular responsibility in Child Protection cases. £400,000 of cuts required by the PCT (Primary Care Trust). Doctors leaving because of unhappiness with management. An unbelievably high level of sickness. A high level of bullying found by the last Health Care Commission inspection. All in all – a service that needs looking at. Hopefully some of this will be being pursued anyway by the urgent investigation team – but there are wider issues to go in to.

I did go personally to see the Chair of Haringey PCT with all these concerns. I was told – this is no longer the concern or business of the PCT. They had ‘outsourced’ their health team to Great Ormond Street Hospital. So – in my limited research as to why such an important local service would be outsourced – this is what I have been told thus far. Great Ormond Street want to become a Foundation Trust Hospital. In order to do so it has to demonstrate ‘community outreach’. Great Ormond Street had none and no experience in that area. Hence it negotiated with Haringey to take on that department. Well – if that’s all the case, is that what should have happened?

And as I said to Ed Balls – there is a wealth of information that people are contacting me about that needs to come to the inspection and that’s why we need a public inquiry. And we need a new start with new faces at the top – so that everyone involved in child protection in Haringey is imbued with the necessary zeal and support to make that fresh start and to make our vulnerable children as safe as they can be.

Is information being kept from the Baby P investigation?

Posted on by

The inspection ordered by Ed Balls following the death of Baby P is looking at the local authority, health services and police. I’ve received a tip off from someone working in one of these agencies about how the visit of the inspectors to their staff team had been handled.

The reason they rang me was that they were concerned that the inspectors were seemingly allowing this team to present the picture they wanted. The manager chose which staff would meet the inspects – and prepped them prior to the visit. No-one else was allowed to speak to the inspectors.

My caller felt passionately that the services were being allowed by the inspectors to manage the inspection so that staff who had voiced concerns in the past did not get to meet the inspectors.

I’ve raised this issue with Ed Balls, who assures me that his inspectors are excellent. Well, I hope so – but it doesn’t fully reassure me as so often in the past I’ve heard the excuse, “it’s all ok, we know what we’re doing” when that turns out not to be the case. So – let’s hope the inspectors are as good as said, but one to keep an eye on.

Baby P investigation update

Posted on by

Yesterday saw Ed Balls (Secretary of State for Children) at his request. He was basically offering me the opportunity of a chat given my concerns over Baby P. It was helpful to be able to have this discussion and after the meeting I wrote to Ed Balls to formally raise several issues.

This includes an issue over who will get to speak to those investigating Haringey. I have had a number of people who have contacted my office wishing to bring their concerns about Haringey Children’s Services and the associated agencies involved to the attention of the inspectors. These are people who work for the services and therefore have direct and pertinent knowledge. The information such people could provide would be invaluable in allowing the “rigorous scrutiny” that the Secretary of State demanded in his letter to the inspectors. I ask Mr Balls to indicate how they can make their concerns known to the inspectors confidentially before the end of the review. I understand the inspectors will be leaving Haringey on Friday.

At my meeting with Beverley Hughes (Minister for Children) yesterday she suggested that if I wished the inspectors to look at the political leadership issues I should raise that directly with the inspectors. My particular issue is that role of the individuals named in Section 18 and 19 of the Children’s Act 2004, which places requirements on the political leadership of councils. However, having then spoken to the inspectors, they have refused to stray beyond the remit laid out in the Secretary of States letter describing the terms of reference for the investigation.

This was a bit of a surprise as it contradicted what Beverly Hughes had said to me the day before. She seemed very genuine when we talked – so I don’t think this was intended.

So – I have asked Ed Balls if he would let it be known to the inspectors that he would like them to review those named in statute as being responsible for the services.

Last night was the first public meeting with Labour councillors since the verdict from the Baby P trial. George Meehan (Labour Leader of Haringey Labour of Haringey Council) has been entirely absent since the conviction. But last night there was nowhere to hide – and so he finally, after prompting by Robert Gorrie (leader of the Liberal Democrat group) made an apology:

In his statement, Mr Meehan said he would wait for the outcome of the review before commenting in detail on the case. But he added: “There is no failure to apologise in full by this council, we do so unreservedly.” Lib Dem councillors asked him to to offer his personal apology, to which Mr Meehan replied: “I have no problem saying I personally apologise.”