Tag Archives: baby p

Meeting Beverley Hughes about Baby P

Posted on by

Following my request to meet with the Secretary of State for Children, School and Families last week – I was given a short meeting with Beverley Hughes the Minister. The reason I wanted to meet was to really find out more about the terms of reference and remit of the urgent investigation Ed Balls has ordered.

I asked if it would be made public – and am assured it will be following the department’s decision on what comes next.

I asked if the three inspectorates would be including any public and service user information to inform their investigations. She said it was up to them.

Would it look at the political leadership – as the political leadership is made accountable under the Children’s Act of 2004 – brought in as a measure because last time with Victoria Climbie there was no actual senior officer or politician held accountable in the end?

I raised this because there is a willingness to look at the health, social services, and police – all welcome – but, so far, almost no desire to look at the political part in all of this – both ministerial and local administration. The Children’s Act places clear responsibility on the political (as opposed to staff) side of councils, and so the question of how councillors behaved has a legal point to it beyond the obvious ‘they’re in ultimate charge, so they hold responsibility’ point.

I’ve blogged already about some of my concerns on how Haringey Council has – at both the senior staff and political level – failed to react properly to concerns raised with them.

The Minister said there was no instruction to do so – but that we (myself and local Liberal Democrats) were welcome to talk to the inspectors ourselves. So we will.

All in all – good to see the steps now being taken, but plenty of work ahead to ensure that in the end all the relevant issues are looked at and the right issues learnt.

Panorama on Baby P

Posted on by

Trailers for tonight’s Panorama on Baby P (BBC1, 8:30pm) point to how the police advised Haringey not to return Baby P. Haringey went against that advice – and then the police apparently did an about-face and agreed with them.

I think this probably points to one of the problems that will be uncovered in a public inquiry – that ultimately those who sit in partnership on the Safeguarding Children Board – i.e. the local authority, the health and police agencies psychologically (and for safety perhaps) find that they ultimately have to agree amongst themselves. It means the focus can become, “what’s the minimum we can all agree on?”

However, Laming rightly made it quite clear in his recommendations post Victoria Climbie, that the central focus, the eternal focus, the over-riding focus for anyone coming in contact with the child – must be the child.

He advises the use of critical faculties and judgement and to ensure for themselves that they are satisfied that everything is in order – not to listen to anyone else. Or rather – they can listen to what parents or carers or other adults say – but they need to hold their own council and judgement directly focused on the child.

So – what occurs to me – is that sitting together on this Safeguarding Children Board – perhaps they acquire a group mentality where decisions are agreed. This would be normal – but in this type of board – perhaps this is exactly the wrong approach?

Where difference occurs as Panorama says did occur between police advice and Haringey Council – then simply conceding for sake of unanimity is not the answer. No one can let an inner voice that says that any part of the decision-making is wrong go unheeded.

It is difficult – and maybe it is that the local authority has ultimate say – but when the authority is as bad as Haringey is – then the dangers are too immense.

Why do I say Haringey is bad? Because it is coming to light every day that passes just how many times people tried to warn them of the dangers to children in this borough. We 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.

Now we know that the police, the grandmother, the opposition politicians – almost everyone took their concerns to Haringey.

Ed Balls has said he is angry. Ed Balls has said he will take whatever action is necessary. When the report from the urgent investigation he has ordered lands on his desk – he will face the real trial of a politician. For it is clear and becoming clearer each day that there have been systemic and personal failings – particularly by the political and officer leadership in Haringey as well as those others in the frame. If he really takes the action that is necessary – he will be a politician really fit for his office.

Today is Questions to Mr Balls as Secretary of State for Education – and if I manage to catch Mr Speaker’s eye – the questions today need to be about the terms of reference of the investigation he has ordered. Who has drafted the terms of reference? Will it include reviewing the conduct of the political leadership (a councillor – the lead member – is named in the Children’s Act of 2004 as responsible – so her conduct must be examined). Will the findings of the inquiry by Ofsted etc be made public? Will they publish the Serious Case Review in full? Will the findings of the investigation be made public? Will the investigation have any interaction with or input from the public or service users? Many, many questions…

Two blog posts from others that are well worth a read on this topic:

  • From Neil Williams, who was leader of the Haringey Liberal Democrat group at the time of Baby P’s death – and has written about how Haringey tried to keep him quiet when he raised concerns.
  • From Alix Mortimer – on how the anger and frustration and horror over Baby P’s death can be used for good.

The roles of Sharon Shoesmith and George Meehan

Posted on by

On Saturday went on Ken Livingstone’s LBC show.

Most of the time was spent on Baby P, not surprisingly. Just to break for a brief moment from Baby P – Ken said at the end that I could spend the last minute ranting about whatever I wanted. So I did. I made an appeal to Gordon Brown to re-open the sub-post offices in London that he has closed. Having decided to stop any further closures it seems to me that those of us who were unfortunate enough to have had the axe already fall should have the closures reversed.

Back to Baby P – Saturday was the day Sharon Shoesmith received some support in the form of a letter to the media from 61 head teachers in Haringey. Sharon is Director of Education here in Haringey. As Ken put it on air – she’s their boss.

But this isn’t about her competence or otherwise in education – it’s about her responsibility and accountability for the social services side of her brief – which includes having – under the Children’s Act of 2004 – the responsibility for child protection in Haringey. Under this legal framework her and the political leadership side of the equation have the ultimate responsibility.

Whilst she has – rightly – been in the firing line, thus far George Meehan, Labour Leader of Haringey Council, has not had the decency to step forward to take his share of the responsibility. He was leader too during the Victoria Climbie affair – and it is worth remembering some of the damning conclusions in Lord Laming’s report:

The manner in which a number of senior managers and elected councillors within Haringey discharged their statutory responsibilities to safeguard and protect the welfare of children living in the borough was an important contributory factor in the mishandling of Victoria’s case … I was left unimpressed by the manner in which a number of senior managers and councillors from Haringey sought to distance themselves from the poor practice apparent … [The report’s criticisms] are directed not just at the front line staff … but at senior managers and councillors.

Neither George nor any of the other councillors so criticised resigned their posts then.

What Sharon Shoesmith, Geroge Meehan and Liz Santry (the Haringey Council Cabinet member for this area) don’t seem to understand is the really, really deep sense of outrage amongst the public.

One illustration of the depth of public concern and anger over this issue is that in the last week my website has been read more heavily that at any time ever before. My office is inundated with phone calls and emails – all virtually of one voice – how could this happen again in Haringey and this time they must not be allowed to get away with it.

During the time of the Laming inquiry I wrote a newspaper column, quoting Ambrose Bierce – and the quote seems all too apposite once more: responsibility is “a detachable burden easily shifted to the shoulders of God, Fate, Fortune, Luck or one’s neighbour. In the days of astrology it was customary to unload it on a star”. If only it were not so.

Haringey Council's systematic failures

Posted on by

Some months after the lawyer for Nevres Kemal (the whistleblowing social worker) had written to the four ministers David Lammy (minister as well as the tragic Baby P’s own MP), Patricia Hewitt, Ivan Lewis and Rosie Winterton and got no satisfactory response – her story finally came to me – can’t say how.

Concerned by what I heard – anything that links Haringey with serious failures in child protection automatically sets alarm bells ringing – I decided that the best and most direct action I could take would be to bring it to the attention of George Meehan who, as Leader of Haringey Council (as he was at the time of the Victoria Climbie tragedy), ultimately must bear responsibility for its actions.

I personally wrote to him, both about the issues raised by Nerves Kemal and also two other cases which I thought indicated a systemic failure in Haringey’s Children’s Services.

I quote a few of the paragraphs from my letter of November 2007:

There have been a few cases in terms of Children’s / Social Services issues that concern me and I wanted to bring them to your attention…

[There] is a seeming repeating pattern. A parent or social worker makes a complaint about something to do with a child – be that against the school or the Council department. From analysing three cases in particular, what seems to happen is that the first instinct of the authorities is to turn the complaint on the complainant in a sort of closing of ranks.

I then go on to describe the three cases, the third of which being Nevres Kemal:

The third case: Social Worker Nevres Kemal. I’m sure you know she was dismissed for breach of confidence and trust. But my concern is the pattern again – that tables appeared to turn on her after she raised the issues of no medical reports being completed on a case.

The point I am raising George, is that it would seem that there is a pattern of the Council exhibiting more interest in protecting the school, Authority, department than investigating the actual complaint. Moreover, that in seeking to protect the ‘establishment’ the real issues are not being investigated – which may lead to incompetent people staying in post, bad practice and so on – and worst of all – children being at risk … I could not rest easy without bringing this initially to your attention.

I then asked for a meeting, and finally managed to get one with George Meehan on 31st January 2008. Ita O’Donovan (Chief Executive of Haringey) was in attendance at George’s request – so it was Haringey’s more senior politician and most senior member of staff at the meeting.

I brought the case histories and the letters with me and went over my extreme concerns with them both. They assured me they were as concerned as I was and Ita O’Donovan said she was looking at this in particular and commissioning an expert examination (I believe that is what she said).

But chasing letters following the meeting asking what had happened were not responded to.

So whilst Ms Kemal raised concerns with Ministers – and I subsequently raised them face-to-face with those directly accountable in Haringey – it seems from the unfolding of tragic events that neither route produced the right response. And the horror of this is that if both at local and national level there was no effective response – then we do not have in place adequate safeguards.

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

Posted on by

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

Inspectors praised Haringey just weeks before Baby P's death

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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.