|
|
libdem campaigns
Saturday, 29 November 2008
Reading the Baby P Serious Case Review
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!
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!
Labels: baby p, david laws, ed balls, sharon shoesmith
# Posted by Lynne Featherstone MP
Subscribe in a reader
[contact me] [email to a friend] [DiggIt!] [LibDig] [Del.icio.us]
[blog homepage] [my website] [most popular postings]
Subscribe in a reader
[contact me] [email to a friend] [DiggIt!] [LibDig] [Del.icio.us]
[blog homepage] [my website] [most popular postings]
Latest postings from this blog:
Comments:
From what you write it does appear that Sharon Shoesmith has been overly protective about her role and her department. That is not healthy. She would have emerged from this with more credibility by allowing independent review and, perhaps more importantly, by disqualifying herself from presiding over the review on the grounds of conflict of interest.
# Posted by 
@ 10:59 PM
@ 10:59 PM
Lynne
Well said. The blocking of the publishing of this report is a disgrace and smacks of a government trying to hide something.
There have clearly been a massive catalogue of errors in this case and to keep the report from being published will help no-one.
Ed Balls, like Gordon Brown disgraces (and to be frank the Labour government generally) disgraces the position of MP, never mind cabinet minister.
Dominic
Well said. The blocking of the publishing of this report is a disgrace and smacks of a government trying to hide something.
There have clearly been a massive catalogue of errors in this case and to keep the report from being published will help no-one.
Ed Balls, like Gordon Brown disgraces (and to be frank the Labour government generally) disgraces the position of MP, never mind cabinet minister.
Dominic
Thanks for the update Lynne.
There may be times when Ed Balls concerns (about publishing such a report) are justified, but one strongly suspects this occasion is not one of them.
Most people recognize that the issues at stake are the most serious imaginable: life and death. Both the avoidable death(s) that have already happened and the overriding need to avoid another tragedy on the Child Protection Register.
Many considerations have to give way to this, including the disruption of the vested interests of high-paying jobs and careers at Haringey. They are not delivering.
If further Climbiés and Baby Ps can be averted then short-term upheaval in Childrens Services is justified and necessary.
There may be times when Ed Balls concerns (about publishing such a report) are justified, but one strongly suspects this occasion is not one of them.
Most people recognize that the issues at stake are the most serious imaginable: life and death. Both the avoidable death(s) that have already happened and the overriding need to avoid another tragedy on the Child Protection Register.
Many considerations have to give way to this, including the disruption of the vested interests of high-paying jobs and careers at Haringey. They are not delivering.
If further Climbiés and Baby Ps can be averted then short-term upheaval in Childrens Services is justified and necessary.
Lynne
Thanks.
So I assume that what you are saying is:
1. All Ministers told us "Procedures were correctly followed."- This was their ENTIRE defence.
2. the Report says "Procedures were not followed"
In others words I assume the Report makes Ministers look: either wrong or liars.
Note these are purely my assumptions. You obviously cannot comment...
Thanks.
So I assume that what you are saying is:
1. All Ministers told us "Procedures were correctly followed."- This was their ENTIRE defence.
2. the Report says "Procedures were not followed"
In others words I assume the Report makes Ministers look: either wrong or liars.
Note these are purely my assumptions. You obviously cannot comment...
"So - publish - and be damned. Whoops - that must be what they are afraid of!"
Hmm. Unless the report says that Ed Balls and Gordon Brown personally murdered Baby P, which I doubt, then there's pretty much nothing in there that could make the government less popular on their handling of the issue than they currently are.
This strongly implies that they're actually sticking to some kind of 'principles over political advantage' point on the report.
I realise, given that you've been happy to make political capital over the whole tragedy both here and on LC, that you've no such qualms - but it's a bit much to criticise others for not sharing your shameless opportunism...
Hmm. Unless the report says that Ed Balls and Gordon Brown personally murdered Baby P, which I doubt, then there's pretty much nothing in there that could make the government less popular on their handling of the issue than they currently are.
This strongly implies that they're actually sticking to some kind of 'principles over political advantage' point on the report.
I realise, given that you've been happy to make political capital over the whole tragedy both here and on LC, that you've no such qualms - but it's a bit much to criticise others for not sharing your shameless opportunism...
John - I don't need to make political capital as you so sweetly put it. Labour did this to themselves.
However, you have no idea what it was like last time, when I was Leader of the Opposition on Haringey when Victoria Climbie died. Then the Labour Leader, Lead Member and Social Services Director all walked away from it bearing no responsibility - only the social worker at the end of the food chain took the blame, despite all the criticisms from the Laming report about failures by others and other systems.
They promised that lessons would be learned and that it would never happen again. And in my view it is not coincidence that it happened twice here in Haringey.
There is a very cosy, rank closing fraternity who protect themselves rather than deal with the actual issues.
Quite frankly, when I went personally to George Meehan (Labour Leader) and Ita O'Donovan (Chief Exec) to warn them that children were at risk because anyone who raises a concern over a child - including the whistle blower Nevres Kemal (amongst others), who lost her job for her trouble - they both did sweet FA as a response - and I went privately and confidentially so as not to make it political etc.
However, you like others, would prefer that I say nothing and do nothing.
My job is to keep holding Haringey's feet to the fire until we have a department that is safe and leadership that leads.
And yes - sticking my head above the parapet means that I put myself in the firing line from political enemies. And you know what - I don't care!
However, you have no idea what it was like last time, when I was Leader of the Opposition on Haringey when Victoria Climbie died. Then the Labour Leader, Lead Member and Social Services Director all walked away from it bearing no responsibility - only the social worker at the end of the food chain took the blame, despite all the criticisms from the Laming report about failures by others and other systems.
They promised that lessons would be learned and that it would never happen again. And in my view it is not coincidence that it happened twice here in Haringey.
There is a very cosy, rank closing fraternity who protect themselves rather than deal with the actual issues.
Quite frankly, when I went personally to George Meehan (Labour Leader) and Ita O'Donovan (Chief Exec) to warn them that children were at risk because anyone who raises a concern over a child - including the whistle blower Nevres Kemal (amongst others), who lost her job for her trouble - they both did sweet FA as a response - and I went privately and confidentially so as not to make it political etc.
However, you like others, would prefer that I say nothing and do nothing.
My job is to keep holding Haringey's feet to the fire until we have a department that is safe and leadership that leads.
And yes - sticking my head above the parapet means that I put myself in the firing line from political enemies. And you know what - I don't care!
After reading reports and information "available" from various websites i am so shocked that this country a "democratic" governed country is allowing this to happen and to keep information like this the case of baby p private! They are doing this to cover there own backs and seems to be alot of cowardly professionals trying to pass the blame onto everyone else...The most pathetic comment i have heard is haringey's officials saying "procedures were followed correctly" well no otherwise baby p would still be with us and with a loving and caring foster home which i have read one was found for him! That makes me really angry, the excuse of there not being enough foster homes doesnt cut it in this case because one was available.
The reports from eye witnesses and social workers also say that the house smelt of urine and had faeces on the walls which we now know some of which was blood, Did maria ward miss this? Is a dirty health hazardous environment not enough to remove a child alone? I think we all know why this case wasnt taken as seriously though dont we? mainly because baby p diddnt come from a working class family and if he had it might be a different story, Unfortunately our governmernt and society expects a family on benefits and in council housing to be "more scruffy" it is expected that the house would be in a state and the children dirty, most will say i am being stereotypical but i am only saying what everyone else is thinking, It doesnt mean that i am judging people on benefits because i am on benefits but i have worked since i was 16 and only claim benefits because my baby is young and i do not want any other person bringing my child up at this young age but god knows i have paid my tax upto the birth of my daughter and so i am entitled to goverment benefits. I do not live in a council house and i rent privately because i refuse to have my child living on dangerous estates with drugs and unruly teenagers..I can say this because i was brought up in south London going from council estate to council estate going home from school and getting into the lift to get to my block of flats and having to step over needles and old condoms, until i was 15, i know what goes on and i promised i would give my daughter better.
In my opinion the social workers in this case knew all along that procedures were not being followed but just couldent be bothered to do anything about it, About a week before baby p died maria ward visited the house she reports that he was sitting in a pram in the hallway with chocolate smeared round his face, why wasnt the mother asked to wipe the chocolate away? He had a broken back and broken ribs, why wasnt he taken out of the pram so he could be seen playing? or in this case even walking? why wasnt he checked over for bruises and marks? Even if the social workers believed that the incidents at hospital were all "accidental" then i think that alone should be questioned! If a child is turning up at hospital with bruises cuts and suspected broken legs then the mother is obviously unfit to have a child in her care! How could they allow this? I have seen pictures and with all the hospital evidence and reports why was this poor child abused for 8 months and not helped after 60 visits or reports?
It is a complete sham, I cant believe i am part of a country called "Great Britain" we only seem to get rights when we do something wrong! or commit a crime. I hear that they will only be sentenced for causing or allowing a child to die, that is shocking, What kind of message does this give to the monsters in society that are abusing children right now!
We have a right to see the report and i believe we have a right to know what is going on! Haringey council and the Doctor involved allowed a child to be abused over 8 months of being under there care, How are they still allowed to work in this field of work!?
Ed Balls wants to protect everyone who failed and cover up the incompetance of the people involved.
Baby p is only a fraction of how social services and the goverment is failing us on a daily basis, When is it going to stop? I am shocked that sharon shoesmith and the other pathetic officials involved in this catastrophic case have not resigned! They are obviously unable to protect the children of Haringey, Oh then she would lose her 100K salary! silly me....
Chantelle
The reports from eye witnesses and social workers also say that the house smelt of urine and had faeces on the walls which we now know some of which was blood, Did maria ward miss this? Is a dirty health hazardous environment not enough to remove a child alone? I think we all know why this case wasnt taken as seriously though dont we? mainly because baby p diddnt come from a working class family and if he had it might be a different story, Unfortunately our governmernt and society expects a family on benefits and in council housing to be "more scruffy" it is expected that the house would be in a state and the children dirty, most will say i am being stereotypical but i am only saying what everyone else is thinking, It doesnt mean that i am judging people on benefits because i am on benefits but i have worked since i was 16 and only claim benefits because my baby is young and i do not want any other person bringing my child up at this young age but god knows i have paid my tax upto the birth of my daughter and so i am entitled to goverment benefits. I do not live in a council house and i rent privately because i refuse to have my child living on dangerous estates with drugs and unruly teenagers..I can say this because i was brought up in south London going from council estate to council estate going home from school and getting into the lift to get to my block of flats and having to step over needles and old condoms, until i was 15, i know what goes on and i promised i would give my daughter better.
In my opinion the social workers in this case knew all along that procedures were not being followed but just couldent be bothered to do anything about it, About a week before baby p died maria ward visited the house she reports that he was sitting in a pram in the hallway with chocolate smeared round his face, why wasnt the mother asked to wipe the chocolate away? He had a broken back and broken ribs, why wasnt he taken out of the pram so he could be seen playing? or in this case even walking? why wasnt he checked over for bruises and marks? Even if the social workers believed that the incidents at hospital were all "accidental" then i think that alone should be questioned! If a child is turning up at hospital with bruises cuts and suspected broken legs then the mother is obviously unfit to have a child in her care! How could they allow this? I have seen pictures and with all the hospital evidence and reports why was this poor child abused for 8 months and not helped after 60 visits or reports?
It is a complete sham, I cant believe i am part of a country called "Great Britain" we only seem to get rights when we do something wrong! or commit a crime. I hear that they will only be sentenced for causing or allowing a child to die, that is shocking, What kind of message does this give to the monsters in society that are abusing children right now!
We have a right to see the report and i believe we have a right to know what is going on! Haringey council and the Doctor involved allowed a child to be abused over 8 months of being under there care, How are they still allowed to work in this field of work!?
Ed Balls wants to protect everyone who failed and cover up the incompetance of the people involved.
Baby p is only a fraction of how social services and the goverment is failing us on a daily basis, When is it going to stop? I am shocked that sharon shoesmith and the other pathetic officials involved in this catastrophic case have not resigned! They are obviously unable to protect the children of Haringey, Oh then she would lose her 100K salary! silly me....
Chantelle
I note several retirements and a firing.
How can that be?
We were assured by Mr Brown "all procedures were followed".
I am shocked. Is a gross injustice being done?
or are we going to receive an apology for misleading statements?
or do pigs fly?
How can that be?
We were assured by Mr Brown "all procedures were followed".
I am shocked. Is a gross injustice being done?
or are we going to receive an apology for misleading statements?
or do pigs fly?
Well done Lynne. It's a cover-up all right.
Until we realise, however that this sort of "management" stitch-up is endemic in ALL Public Sector organisations, we won't be applying sufficient joined-up thinking to get to the root of the problems. "Separate" thinking enables, for example the continuation of disgraceful episodes such as Victoria Climbie (obviously), "Deepcut", Child and Sexual Abuse in children's homes, etc., etc..
The reason thease problems are never cured, is that there is a cult of "unquestionnable management" in this country. A ridiculous belief that any manager can run anything, as long as they are " leaders" and "managers". The result of this is that, at ground level and just above ( ie local workplaces) the internal promotion systems often engineer "jobs for the boys" ( and girls). It is a regular occurrence that "line-managers" know next to nothing of the job, and frequently NOTHING WHATSOEVER. Surreally, and most insultingly, many front line (non-manager)experts have to learn to accept appraisals and criticism of their efforts and results from complete rookies, but obviously rookies with amazing egos that allow them to carry out such nonsense. What do they care ? They can quote various modern managenent manuals extolling the virtues of their "leadership" qualities, and revelling in the tripe that "experience" is not necessary !
Many an end of year "appraisal" speech is delivered to an expert practitioner by a rookie, in which the recipient spends the entire interview attempting to conceal the fact that their wide-open eyes and mouths are permanently stuck in the "gobsmacked position.
Keep up the good work Lynne. This stuff cannot be kept hidden.
Post a Comment
Until we realise, however that this sort of "management" stitch-up is endemic in ALL Public Sector organisations, we won't be applying sufficient joined-up thinking to get to the root of the problems. "Separate" thinking enables, for example the continuation of disgraceful episodes such as Victoria Climbie (obviously), "Deepcut", Child and Sexual Abuse in children's homes, etc., etc..
The reason thease problems are never cured, is that there is a cult of "unquestionnable management" in this country. A ridiculous belief that any manager can run anything, as long as they are " leaders" and "managers". The result of this is that, at ground level and just above ( ie local workplaces) the internal promotion systems often engineer "jobs for the boys" ( and girls). It is a regular occurrence that "line-managers" know next to nothing of the job, and frequently NOTHING WHATSOEVER. Surreally, and most insultingly, many front line (non-manager)experts have to learn to accept appraisals and criticism of their efforts and results from complete rookies, but obviously rookies with amazing egos that allow them to carry out such nonsense. What do they care ? They can quote various modern managenent manuals extolling the virtues of their "leadership" qualities, and revelling in the tripe that "experience" is not necessary !
Many an end of year "appraisal" speech is delivered to an expert practitioner by a rookie, in which the recipient spends the entire interview attempting to conceal the fact that their wide-open eyes and mouths are permanently stuck in the "gobsmacked position.
Keep up the good work Lynne. This stuff cannot be kept hidden.
# Posted by @ 9:21 PM
@ 9:21 PMblog feed
articles feed
- follow me on twitter
lib dem tv
archives
from my website
other links
Published and promoted by and on behalf of Liberal Democrats, 100 Uplands Road, London, N8 9NJ. Printed (hosted) by Island Networks, Rue Victoria 12, ÃŽle d'Aurigny, GY9 3UF, Great Britain, who are not responsible for its contents.