The wider questions from the Baby P tragedy

I’ve got a piece over on the New Statesman blog:

There are wider issues untouched by Ed Balls’s short, sharp investigation.

For example – Sharon Shoesmith was in charge of education as well as child protection – following the recommendations of Lord Laming turned into legislation by the 2004 Children’s Act. It seemed a good and obvious idea at the time – stopping the gap through which children might fall if teachers didn’t communicate worries with social services. But it clearly didn’t work. Is this the failing just of staff in Haringey, or is there a deeper problem with the manner – or perhaps even concept – of merging the two? It’s not fashionable for politicians to say, “I don’t know”, but on this one I don’t. My mind is open – but I am sure we need to consider the issue carefully.

And what about inspections? Just before Victoria Climbie’s death outside inspectors gave Haringey a glowing report. Just as this time Haringey got a glowing report just before all the truth over Baby P’s death came tumbling out. Huge resources go in to inspections. Are they really being well used?

You can read the full piece here.

What to make of yesterday?

The day of reckoning when finally George Meehan paid the price for not listening, not heeding and not doing the job he promised to do after Victoria Climbie. I remember the breast-beating Council meeting back then – ‘this will never happen again’, ‘lessons must be learnt’ and ‘I personally will sit on the child protection committee’. Though no-one senior took responsibility and resigned.

Mr Meehan’s departure this time is, however, just one drop in this dreadful ocean. Liz Santry has gone because her position put her in the legally accountable position. But neither went until the depth of the failings in Haringey were blazed across the country as Ed Balls read his statement – ending the hopes they had of hanging on. There was nowhere to go once they knew the damnation contained in the Ofsted report.

But remember, only last Monday at Haringey’s Full Council meeting, every one of the Labour councillors backed George Meehan and Liz Santry – and that’s part of the problem too. And why I say that Labour in Haringey has lost sense of right and wrong. Over-politicised, each move only to ensure their political future. That is an issue that bears scrutiny too.

Anyway – in the cold light of the morning after the night before – I am thinking that Ed Balls lived up to his name – and did the necessary and did it well.

I might and do disagree with him on the degree of holding safely by an outside team and don’t understand why he is giving any sort of time lag before deciding next June whether to take the Children’s department away from Haringey. I think he would have been better to put it into full special measures and then give it back slowly as and when Haringey has proved itself changed.

And the other area of disagreement is around the need for a public inquiry – which I still believe is absolutely vital to get at all the issues, wider issues, virtually untouched by this short sharp investigation. This was right for the short term and the urgent situation – but in the longer term there are sheafs of unanswered questions. More of that later.

For now I just want to really pay tribute to the people of this country, whose outpouring of grief and anger stoked the fires, and to the media whose relentless pursuit through broadcast and press left no place to hide.

And to all those in the Commons who kept the spotlight on Baby P and forced the issue. Without this force majeureHaringey’s Labour council would have bunkered down and simply hoped to let the storm pass – like last time – and then in a few years time we would have been here again wondering how it could happen three times in the same borough.

The verdict on Haringey Council

So – the report finds Haringey Council guilty – and then some. I have never seen such a damning and devastating criticism of an authority as this litany of failure – both systemic and personal, and at every level and more or less in every agency. But particularly singled out for special damnation – Haringey Council.

So – given all that, what an earth is Ed Balls doing commissioning more reports and waiting until next June before removing Haringey Children’s services from council administration? Yes more information may be necessary. Yes – Balls is right to put in John Coughlan to lead the department back to health. But we need children in Haringey who are at risk to be held safe in full special measures and only given back to Haringey itself as the department is changed, new management structures put in, and staff either re-trained, sacked or exonerated depending on their part and culpability.

When and as Haringey proves itself worthy of taking control of Children’s Services – then and only then – should they get the department back. They have to prove themselves first.

As to the resignations of George Meehan and Liz Santry – it’s a shame it took until they publicly had nowhere to go in the face of such extreme criticism before they finally acknowledged their responsibility.

And none of this sadly goes to the heart of the rotten culture in Haringey which is secretive, arrogant, rank-closing and abuses power. Lord knows I have been shouting this from rooftops for long enough. Now at least I have Ed Balls and the Government shouting the same thing with me!

George Meehan and Liz Santry resign

Just got the news: Haringey Council leader George Meehan and Liz Santry (Cabinet member for children and young people services) have resigned. Update – Sharon Shoesmith has been removed from office too.

Here’s the Sky report:

http://video.news.sky.com/sky-news/app/flash/SkyvideoWrapper.swf?playerType=embedded&type=sky_production&videoSourceID=1302399&flashVideoUrl=feeds/skynews/latest/flash/balls_babyp_embed_011208_sens.flv

Baby P report goes to Ed Balls today

So the report from Ed Ball’s urgent investigation arrives on his desk today. I expect it to be hard-hitting and demonstrate failures at many levels both systemic and personal. I don’t know whether he plans to make a statement on it right away or wait – but I do know what I want to hear from him.

First and foremost, is a strategy that effectively puts Haringey into special measures where the best social services chief and key other posts go in and hold Haringey safe whilst the changes that are needed are put into place.

We need good managers and social workers within the department to feel supported and we need to attract the very best to Haringey and imbue the department with the zeal and commitment it needs. The children who rely on social services must have a secure base to build from.

In terms of what happens to the staff involved in the tragedy – that is a matter for employment terms to take its course – be that exoneration, disciplinaries or sacking. That is not a matter for me.

Secondly, and part of that new start, is that the two leadership roles identified both by Lord Laming in his findings after Victoria Climbie and put into legislation as the accountable, buck stop here roles – Director of Children’s Services and Lead Politician for Children’s Services – must resign.

We can have no new start, nor rebuild confidence in Haringey whilst those who were in command and on whose watch Baby P died are still in place. Nor should there be any pay off for failure.

Last time no-one senior went – only the social worker at the end of the food chain took the blame for the lot. That is why Laming put in the importance of buck stops here positions and why the Government put it into legislation. Credit to Labour for implementing that recommendation. Now let’s see it mean something.

Lastly – there will almost certainly still be a need for a public inquiry. So many threads and issues cannot possibly be touched by a two week investigation – nor can they be examined properly by Lord Laming’s Review which takes in the whole country.

For example, what part did budget play? Why did children taken into care in Haringey drop so much compared to the rest of the country when Baby P was being visited all those times? What use is a desk research inspection that awards three stars – but has no knowledge of what is really going on in a children’s department? Is our inspection regime sufficient? What part does the award system play when the authority in answer to Baby P’s death thinks that this means they have done well? Did Haringey even tell the inspectors? And following procedures and ticking boxes – the perfect paper trail to a dead baby – is that a good regime to hold children safe?

And what about the health team outsourced to Great Ormond Street? Who is accountable when the view is that this is not the problem of the Primary Care Trust (PCT) now that it has been outsourced. Who is accountable? Why did so many doctors leave that team or go off sick?

I could go on and on – but I hope you get the point.

"Pressure builds on Baby P care chief" – The Observer

From today’s paper:

The senior council officer at the centre of the Baby P tragedy will come under intense pressure to resign from her £110,000-a-year job tomorrow, when a report by national inspectors into the failings of Haringey council is presented to the children’s secretary Ed Balls.

Westminster sources said they believed that Sharon Shoesmith, the council’s director of children’s services, would either quit ‘quietly’ of her own accord, or be put under such pressure to leave by government and opposition politicians that she would have no option but to go…

The Liberal Democrat MP Lynne Featherstone, who was a Haringey councillor at the time of the Climbié case, and whose Hornsey and Wood Green constituency covers part of the borough, said that Shoesmith had to stand down or be ousted. ‘She has to go. We cannot have a new start and restore faith in our social services when those who were responsible remain in charge.’

Robert Gorrie, leader of the Liberal Democrats on Haringey Council, says Shoesmith should not receive a ‘cosy deal’. ‘This needs to be done in a way inwhich we are not seeing payment for failure,’ he said. ‘If people are found to have failed in this crisis, we should not be negotiating deals under which they go quietly with a large pay-off.’

What happened at Haringey Council last night?

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

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

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

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.