Tag Archives: haringey council

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.”

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.

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

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 verdict

Posted on by

The verdict in the Baby P trial has just been announced. My initial reaction as more and more details come to light is that my horror and sadness turning to anger. How after the Victoria Climbie tragedy can a poor child fall through safety net after safety net? The facts of the case are simply appalling.

Haringey Council should have prevented this death. I refuse to stand by and watch them squirm out of responsibility again. Between Baby P’s death and the trial they have tried their best to misinform, stonewall and bully anyone questioning their role and responsibility.

The Children’s Act was borne out of tragedy in Haringey after the death of Victoria Climbié. Yet eight years after her death the law created to stop this happening again has failed to prevent a similar tragedy in the same borough.

Hundreds of our local children rely on the council, its social workers, its officers and its leaders to protect them from abuse. This is why we need a full independent investigation into why Haringey Council has failed.

Update: huge coverage of this tragedy through the media, including BBC and The Independent.