Lynne's Parliament and Haringey diary

So - Dr Al-Sayyat - the doctor who famously failed to diagnose Baby Peter's broken back and broken ribs - is suing Great Ormond Street Hospital over her dismissal.

For all the criticism over her behaviour, that shouldn't let Great Ormond Street off the hook. As far as I can tell Great Ormond Street’s management has a lot of responsibility for the hospital’s failings during the Baby P tragedy.

Yes, it was Dr Al-Sayyat who saw Baby Peter, failed to spot major injuries and was then dismissed following an investigation. But just as with Sharon Shoesmith - who wasn't the actual front social worker visiting the house but paid the proper price for overseeing a system that failed so badly – so the senior people in charge at Great Ormond Street should have to take responsibility for a system that failed so badly.

Jane Collins (CEO), Dr Elliman (designated safeguarding doctor) and Jane Elias (senior management) are the key people at Great Ormond Street, who are commissioned by Haringey Primary Care Trust (PCT) to be responsible for running the children's health service for Haringey.

The Evening Standard recently published a damning letter from four senior paediatricians to Elliman and Elias over desperately serious concerns about the safety of children at risk in the borough. Moreover, they say in their letter that their concerns are being ignored by management. And when the letter was published – Jane Collins went on TV and rather than facing up to the issue and taking action, she dodged around.

So – there is still a job to be done to ensure that the senior management at Great Ormond Street are properly held to account.

Between 2006 and 2008 out of four senior paediatricians, two resigned, one was off sick and one was on special leave. That left the staffing at Great Ormond Street's services to Haringey's children at danger level. And I only got those figures after digging and digging to find out why it was a locum doctor – Dr Al-Sayyat – who had looked at Baby Peter.

Those responsible for there being dangerously low staffing levels in such a vital service need to pay the same price as those in Haringey Council did for their part in Baby Peter's tragic death.

Labels: baby p, great ormond street, sharon shoesmith

There's a write-up of the story in the Daily Telegraph.

Labels: baby p

So - good! The Attorney General, Baroness Scotland, is going to take a look at the sentencing for the Baby P case - and may then lodge an appeal over them being too lenient.

With an 'indeterminate' sentence - it does mean that it could be forever. But with the minimum sentence length given out, it could mean - say - that the mother would be out in five years - which would be a travesty of justice. Once she or the others have served their minimum sentence, it's up to the Parole Board to decide whether to release any of them at any point in time - but just because we have that safeguard doesn't mean there shouldn't be minimum lengths of sentence which they will definitely serve and which reflect the horror of what happened.

Labels: baby p

Politics Home has written up my comments to the media today on the death of Baby P:

Ms Featherstone said the first serious case review into the death of Baby P has been shown to be “incompetent or at worst a cover up” by the second review released today.

You can read the full story here.

Labels: baby p

So - sentences have now been handed out following the trial over the death of Baby P.

This coincided with the publication of the second Serious Case Review which finally lays bare the litany of failures by every agency involved and by all the individuals who did not do their job properly.

What is so shocking is that virtually no-one did what I am sure the people would expect when a child is on the at risk register.

As to the future. Well, Haringey (who issued a statement then bunkered down not willing to face the media - which doesn't bode well for a change in attitude) would like this to draw a line under the whole sorry story. But there should be no lines drawn. That is what they did after Victoria Climbie when they promised this would never happen again and that lessons had been learned - when clearly they hadn't.

If Haringey Council doesn't change its rotten culture of secrecy, cover-ups and acceptance of inadequate performance - then there can be no assurance that a few years down the line another vulnerable child will not suffer again as those meant to protect them fail to do their jobs properly.

Labels: baby p, haringey council

I blogged earlier about how the spotlight - rightly - is turning on Great Ormond Street and its role in the death of Baby P. As I mentioned, Andrew Gilligan has written a big piece on the story - and here's the link to it which I didn't have when blogging earlier.

Labels: andrew gilligan, baby p, great ormond street

When I found out that the last doctor to see Baby Peter failed to recognise a broken back and ribs – like the rest of the nation I thought she must be a terrible doctor. And she clearly was. However, I also read that she was a locum – and ever since then I have been digging and digging to find out why there was a locum and what lay beneath.

I found out. And whilst I have no doubt that Haringey Labour Council and Sharon Shoesmith were first in line for retribution being the lead agency and lead individual – I have also had no doubt that there were other agencies who were just as bad.

There was a locum because the consultant pediatricians, four of them, in the children’s health department in Haringey (commissioned by Haringey PCT and run by Great Ormond Street – GOSH) had either left, been off permanently sick or on special leave! On digging I found that these doctors had raised their concerns with GOSH and been ignored. Yet again - management taking no notice of dangers being flagged up by professionals - just as the police and a senior social worker at Haringey raised concerns that Baby P should be taken away from the family.

I raised it on my blog. I got Norman Lamb (Lib Dem Health Spokesperson) to raise it in a health debate. I raised it myself in a speech in the chamber. But it is only now that investigative journalist for the Evening Standard, Andrew Gilligan, has found out the real detail of the story and broken it in the paper that the part that GOSH and Haringey PCT played in Baby P’s death is coming to light. He actually has a copy of the letter to the management at GOSH saying that they don't believe the management has taken their concerns seriously and listing the reasons that children's lives were at risk.

And yesterday – the Health Care Commission report into Baby P’s death also came out with findings that make it clear that there were systemic and individual failings in GOSH and the Health Trusts - all scandalous stuff.

What has been going on in children’s health in Haringey is practically a mirror image of what was going on in Haringey Council, Children’s Services and the Safeguarding Board.

I hope that this now all comes to light and that equally drastic and appropriate action is taken.

Needless to say - I will be writing to Ed Balls in this regard.

Labels: andrew gilligan, baby p, ed balls, great ormond street, haringey council, norman lamb, sharon shoesmith

So - Haringey Council knew that Baby P's mother had a boyfriend - in fact they had a video of her talking about him. And there was a record in the case notes. And yet when asked during the furore of the first trial - as ever - they denied that they knew that he was living there . Just when we think this horrific tragedy will have bottomed out - and there surely can't be any more shocking revelations of Haringey's incompetence and lies - we find out there are.

Panorama revealed the existence of this video interview with Baby Peter's mother last night - a video made by a senior social worker.

Yet another reason why we still need a public inquiry. So far, the spotlight has more or less remained on the Children's Services department at Haringey - but given how much is still surfacing - just imagine what lies beneath in terms of how Haringey is working (or not working).

There has been no real examination of the gagging clauses that prohibit staff who leave from speaking about their former department. There has been no examination of Haringey's arrogance in its failure to listen to whistle blowers, the family or opposition politicians - all who raised real concerns about child protection in Haringey. There has been no examination of the budgetary issues that gave rise to a reported memo instructing the department not to take more children into care. There has been scant attention to Ofsted finding Haringey 'good' when it wanted to make them look good - and then 'bad' when heads had to roll. (Panorama did at least touch on this - possibly because when I did an extensive background briefing for them I emphasised the lack of scrutiny of their role). The health team has thus far got off virtually unscathed - with its management bullying unquestioned - even though there was a locum doctor who failed to recognise a broken back and ribs. Why was there a locum? Why had all the paediatrician's left in the previous two years? And so o and so on.........

Without a public inquiry - much of what went wrong will stay wrong. Moreover - allowed to fester under the radar - the culture which was the rotten bottom of what goes on at Haringey will remain.

Labels: baby p, haringey council

Busy Saturday morning, so here's the story from The Times about the latest heart-wrenching news from Haringey,

The failings of social workers at Haringey Council have again been exposed in a criminal trial.

The local authority, which is still reeling from the criticism it received after its failing in the Baby P case, confirmed the two-year-old rape victim was known to social workers and was on its “at risk” register.

Officials at the North London borough said last night that a Serious Case Review was under way into how the girl could have been raped while in their care...

The Serious Case Review into the care the child received from social workers is being conducted by Graham Badman, chair of the Haringey Local Safeguarding Children Board.

But Lynne Featherstone, Liberal Democrat MP for Hornsey and Wood Green, said that more questions about the performance of the council needed to be answered. “We desperately need a public inquiry to get to the bottom of this,” she said.

Labels: baby p, haringey council

Thought I'd continue with my mini-experiment with YouTube films - especially as plaster cast has not yet come off! - so here are my views on the staff sackings over Baby P:



You can also watch the film on the YouTube website here.

Labels: baby p, haringey council

The BBC reports:

A social worker and three managers have been sacked for failings in the care of Baby P, Haringey Council has said...

Haringey Council said Cecilia Hitchen, the deputy director of children and families, had been dismissed for "loss of trust and confidence" following the damning Ofsted report in December last year.

A council spokesman said social worker Maria Ward, team manager Gillie Christou and head of safeguarding services Clive Preece were sacked for gross misconduct.

Labels: baby p, haringey council

Good Friday - and BBC Radio 4's Today programme booked me early bird time - 6.45 am - to talk about the leaked information showing police failings in the Baby P case (click here to hear the piece).

What the leak - to Tim Donovan of BBC London - basically revealed was things like notes not being taken, a case report languishing in a drawer when the case wasn't handed over and so on. Each of these 'failures' being small in themselves - except that this was a child known to be at risk and therefore we, the public, would expect absolute rigour in all procedures - not the sort of casualness exemplified.

Because the spotlight was so firmly on Sharon Shoesmith and Labour Haringey - rightly so, as they are the lead agency and she had the lead position and was accountable under the Children's Act of 2004 - the other agencies (health, lawyers and police) have not come under the same scrutiny. That's one reason why I've consistently pushed for a full public inquiry.

And furthermore - I want Ed Balls to admit that he was wrong in refusing to publish the full serious case review. The part each agency played in the ultimate tragedy of Baby P is important if he really means that 'lessons must be learnt' and 'this must never happen again'. Unless everyone involved in protecting children can know what went wrong and why - they can't learn the lessons that need to be learned.

Although I was looking forward to mostly having the day off - I agreed to do the Today interview because the issue is incredibly important - and my concern has always been that with the passing on of the media tsunami the underlying issues would simply not be addressed. Anyway - my sense of duty was rewarded 'cos in the green room was Clark Peters (of The Wire and new film in which he plays Mandela). So that was interesting - but then a small woman walked in and sat next to me.

She turned, extended her hand and said "Carole King". "Carole King the singer?" I stuttered stupidly. "Yes" she said. You have to understand that this woman's songs were the backdrop to my life and love life in the 70s and then again when I sang all the songs from Tapestry to my girls to sing them to sleep. What a treat. And she said she would perhaps come back next year to do a tour. What a morning!

Labels: baby p, ed balls, tim donovan

That's the headline on today's BBC report:

Police mistakes meant a chance to charge Baby P's mother for assaulting him was missed several weeks before his death, an unpublished report says.

Delays securing an independent medical opinion meant the six-month legal deadline passed within which to charge the mother with common assault.

The report into what happened to Baby P before his death in August 2007 found several police errors.

The Metropolitan Police said it could not comment for legal reasons.

Lynne Featherstone, Liberal Democrat MP for Hornsey and Wood Green, said there had been a "monumental failing" by the police.

You can read more on the BBC site.

Labels: baby p

Here's what you've been reading the most on my blog over the last three months:

10. Lap dancing in Crouch End - one of the big local issues coming up for decision

9. Heading up the party's Technology Board - see number 1.

8. Sharon Shoesmith - see number 2.

7. Reading the Baby P Serious Case Review - see number 2.

6. Why the number of female MPs matters - see why I think so.

5. What should you do with your emails? - a fun way to demonstrate to Jacqui Smith what's wrong with the government's latest plans to keep tabs on what we're all doing.

4. Not so equal pay at Cambridge University - not Cambridge University at its best.

3. Politicians and Twitter: why The Times is wrong - not The Times at its best.

2. Sharon Shoesmith in The Guardian - I've found this blog really useful during the Baby P tragedy, as it's given me the chance to raise issues and expound on my views at the length the issue demands, but which the media rarely gives MPs.

1. Are you a techno wizard? - no surprise that news about the Liberal Democrats online (and other) work should attract the attention of an online audience!

Labels: baby p, cambridge university, haringey council, jacqui smith, lap dancing, most popular blog postings, sharon shoesmith, technology advisory board, twitter

OK - so now I've had time to have a look at all Lord Laming's proposals (from his review into the state of Children's Services following the Baby P tragedy) - but my view is not much altered as his report is much as I expected. Another 50+ recommendations because his first recommendations were not implemented.

There's some good strengthening stuff - but I still can't see what will make it different so that we avoid the next time. For example - take the Safeguarding Children Board. This is where all the partners around child protection meet to discuss children at risk. In Haringey it is the Board that Sharon Shoesmith chaired, and it is from this Board that the deeply flawed Serious Case Review into the death of Baby P flowed. So flawed that Ed Balls has ordered a second Serious Case Review to be produced and has put in an independent chair.

Lord Laming has recommended an independent chair for all Safeguarding Children Boards and he further suggests the addition of two members of the public - but I'm not convinced this will really deal with the sort of events that went wrong in Haringey.

In the case of Baby P, my understanding is that various of those attending the Board did raise matters of concern - but the management wore down those who raised concerns and in the end forced through what it wanted to do. So - whilst Laming's proposal could be a help, what we're missing is a requirement to minute the discussions and disagreements. Lord knows every other bit of information is recorded, computerised, etc etc - but no records are kept of these crucial meetings - and that makes it far too easy to bulldozer past disagreements.

Next let's look at Lord L's recommendation for a National Unit for Safeguarding to ensure his recommendations are implemented. Forgive me - but the last thing we need is more central attempts to micromanage what is happening on the ground all round the country.

The eyes and ears that can really help are on the spot - locally. The tragedy is that they were ignored by Sharon Shoesmith and by the Labour Haringey leadership. It's a strengthening of local accountability and scrutiny that we really need.

What went wrong in Haringey was that the Labour administration, ineffective and defensive, didn't challenge officers. Ranks were closed, jobs were protected and there was a refusal by Labour or senior officers involved to engage or listen to the many voices that were trying to warn Haringey that children were at risk.

Quite frankly - I could go on and on. There are wider issues untouched by Laming's investigation: budgetary pressures, the inspection regime (inspectors say things are good, something goes wrong, inspectors say things are bad), the temptation to fudge or mislead when jumping through government hoops brings funding, the need for whistle blowers to have somewhere to take their concerns and have them acted on; the failures of the health services - and so on.

I don't want to be a misery guts - but I just don't feel that Lord Laming's work is going to really cut through the culture and attitude that Labour Haringey operates and which is the reason (in my view) why we have now had two tragedies, Victoria Climbie and Baby P, in Haringey.

Labels: baby p, ed balls, lord laming, sharon shoesmith

Not (yet) had time to blog about Lord Laming's report into the state of children's services - so instead here's a link to press coverage with my views:

Liberal Democrat MP Lynne Featherstone, who represents Haringey in north London where the Climbie and Baby P deaths occurred, has repeated her calls for a full public inquiry into the Baby P case.

She said: "Clearly the rulebook doesn't need to be rewritten, the rules just need to be applied. To do this, Haringey needs two things above all - more accountability and more openness.

"However, key questions remain unanswered, such as why did Haringey's whistle-blowing policy fail so badly?

"Why were the people who warned that something was wrong ignored? We have had review after review and yet we seem no closer to the truth." (epolitix.com)

Labels: baby p, haringey council, lord laming

The Laming findings on how his recommendations following the Victoria Climbie tragedy have been implemented will be reported tomorrow.

I have had some qualms about Lord Laming looking at his own recommendations as I have been afraid he might not want to find fault. However, he takes the issue of child protection extremely seriously and is the wise old owl who realised that the leadership was key to changing the way a department works – hence the Children's Act 2004 which made clear where individual responsibility should rest - and so ultimately was why Sharon Shoesmith and Liz Santry were in the frame.

From all the leaks, I expect that Laming will have looked pretty thoroughly at social workers’ caseloads and discovered that they are not kept to the 12 cases I believe he recommended. But I also hope that he has looked at the line management. We were all gobsmacked that Baby P could be visited so many times to no avail. Surely we must see the creation of a culture where if the social worker visiting is too scared or inexperienced etc to ask to see the child from top to bottom – it would be normal for her or him to go back and report this, be supported, and be accompanied back to satisfy themselves of the true condition of the child.

More tick boxes and process driven stuff is the last thing we need - so I'm glad that Laming looks to be staying clear of that. However, I am pretty sure that the atmosphere on the Safeguarding Children Board in Haringey was such that the members gave up putting forward their professional views – as my understanding is that they were simply over-ruled by management and bludgeoned ultimately into silent acquiescence. This needs to change - and so a key recommendation I will look for will be to have the Board discussions and particularly disagreements minuted. They are not currently.

Outside of the leadership and management within Children's Services – I am fearful that the wider issues will not feature – and those wider issues if not examined now will cause us regret after some future tragedy.

So what about the joining together of education and children's social services - has it worked? I tread carefully as they were joined to stop children falling through the gap – but clearly in Haringey the Director of Education found herself then in charge of an area where she had no experience. How significant was that? During the furore – Ms Shoesmith was supported by many Heads of Schools who praised her education record – but amongst the hundreds of people from social services who contacted me, not one praised her work on that side.

What about the issue of Haringey Labour Council not heeding any of the warnings that children were at risk? They had plenty – from me, from relatives, from whistleblowers and from opposition members. They ignored all of them. If something is wrong – how can the administration be made to listen? Secrecy, cover-ups and rank closing were the culture of Haringey Labour and officers. Gagging orders, injunctions, refusal to submit to scrutiny and so on meant that no light shone on what was going on. Moreover, even since the furore and the shaming of Haringey – Labour are still blocking moves to proper oversight.

Then there's the inspection regime. Ofsted gave Haringey three stars just whilst all this was going on under the cover. How can we rely on an inspection system that failed so miserably? And what of the Government whose system of stars makes authorities jump through hoops to get funding and autonomy - putting the temptation in front of people to fiddle and distort the system?

And what of budgetary pressures – they are ever-present. It was said that in an email managers were told not to take children into care because there was no funding. What part did this play?

And finally - what of the nightmare going on in the health services? More of that later.

So you can see – whilst I am hopeful Lord Laming’s recommendations will address some of the issues – in my view we still need a public inquiry on these other issues to ensure that the whole debacle and failure that let Baby P be killed is properly and extensively addressed.

Labels: baby p, haringey council, liz santry, lord laming, sharon shoesmith

I went to the Haringey Strategic Partnership meeting last night particularly to have the opportunity to raise some of my ongoing concerns over the plans for child protection post Baby P. Peter Lewis, who took on the role after Sharon Shoesmith’s sacking, will present Haringey Council’s response / action plan to the hideously damning Joint Area Review report by OFSTED commissioned by Ed Balls.

The action plan is pages and pages of issues, identified leads and objectives and so on and so forth. As I said to the meeting – and the meeting is all the key players in Haringey, not just the council – I can’t judge the actions as the majority as they are about details which go beyond what I know of. However the three key issues I raised which as I said might be in the many pages but I couldn’t identify them were:

- firstly that much of what went wrong in Haringey was culture and attitude – and unless that changed all the proposed actions would not deliver a safer child protection regime

- secondly – that so very many people - including myself - warned Haringey that children were at risk and they took no notice. Were there measures that would ensure that warnings were heeded rather than rebutted and ignored?

- lastly, what measures were there that would ensure that professional advice and experience was not simply steamrollered into submission by management? Decisions made by the Safeguarding Children Board that led to Baby P’s death were by agreement – but my understanding is that concerns were raised, professional judgements and warning were given – but that the managerial lead simply intimidated or ignored those who raised concerns into submission.

The answers were not wholly satisfactory. On the first – yes promises that culture and attitude would be entirely different. Good – but haven’t seen the text that will go with the action plan to the Secretary of State today. On second one – the answer was about escalating the issues brought by staff to senior managerment. Given I went to the lead politician and the chief executive with my warnings and they ignored me – not convinced escalation is the safeguard we need. And on the third – well we will see!

Labels: baby p, haringey council, peter lewis

I met with a whistle blowers' support and advice service yesterday. Following Baby P and the appalling problem anyone who tried to tell Haringey what was going on met with - i.e. Labour wouldn't listen and ignored me, other elected Lib Dem members, Nevres Kamal (the whistle blower) and so on. Clearly the next issue has to be getting a failed council like Haringey to understand that they have to change. They cannot go on ignoring those who bring warnings to them just 'cos they don't want to deal with stuff and are afraid of it getting out into the ether and damaging them politically.

That is why they refused to scrutinise child protection when the Lib Dems put it forward as an area that needed looking at. Even more shockingly - at Full Council last Monday - Labour once again refused point blank a proposal by the Lib Dems to set up a special permanent group of members to watch over child protection. So - Labour have learned nothing and changed nothing about their resistance to proper engagement and scrutiny. Protect and hide (themselves and their actions of lack of) seems to sill be their creed.

Hence - my meeting with this legal based charity that stand to help those whistle blowers (in complete confidence) who find themselves turned on, spat out, bullied etc as did Nevres when she tried to warn of dangerous and negligent goings on in Haringey Childrens' Services.

Labels: baby p, nevres kemal

A magazine article of mine about why we need a public inquiry into how the various public services failed to protect Baby P has just come out. You can read it on my website.

Labels: baby p

Whilst Haringey Council was undoubtedly the first in line for responsibility for failure to protect Baby P - their woeful performance deflected some of the heat from the health services. But news today that on the health side further steps in accountability are being taken as reported on Sky News:

Dr Jerome Ikwueke twice referred the little boy to hospital specialists after becoming concerned about suspicious marks on his face and body.

The General Medical Council's interim orders panel suspended his registration as a doctor on Tuesday.

This follows the suspension in November of paediatrician Dr Sabah Al-Zayyat, who failed to spot that Baby P had serious injuries two days before he died.

Police launched an investigation but nobody was charged until Baby P died in a blood-spattered cot on August 3 2007.

According to prosecution documents, Dr Ikwueke saw the child 14 times in the months before his death at the hands of his mother, her boyfriend and a lodger in Haringey, north London.

There is clearly much we don't yet know about who did what and when, but I'm glad to see that the health side of the equation is getting the scrutiny it needs - because in the end, if things were done wrong or people not up to the job, that needs to be put right before anyone else suffers.

Labels: baby p, nhs

Sharon Shoesmith pleads her side of the story in today's Guardian. Her account sheds adds very little to what has already been aired in public - so rather than go over the ground I've blogged about at some length previously I'll just make three brief points this time:

1. It's a journalistic scoop for The Guardian - so I've no complaints over the front page lead and three full inside pages they've given it. But what a contrast with the way that so many people who had concerns about how Haringey services were being run under Sharon Shoesmith were side-lined, ignore or had legal injunctions banning them from speaking out. That's one reason why we need a public inquiry - so that we can hear (and learn from) all those other stories too.

2. One point Sharon Shoesmith tries to argue in the article is one I have heard before in relation to this case - that all of this episode puts off social workers from coming to Haringey or indeed people going into the profession at all. That misses the point of the real problem - well-run services and departments attract staff. Failing to deal with concerns - as was Haringey's way - is what lies at the root of the problems. Run services well and respond properly when concerns are raised - that's the answer - not wishing the public and media don't notice problems.

3. It's a shame the coverage doesn't address not only the question about how Haringey did (or rather didn't) respond to concerns raised repeatedly with it over the running of Children's Services - but also didn't address the question of the way all the senior staff and councillors closed ranks after the death of Victoria Climbie, with only the most junior person in the food chain being disciplined. Complaints about interventions by Ed Balls or the media need to face up to that reality - last time, those other people responsible for blunders got away with it because there wasn't this pressure. Would letting more senior people duck responsibility and blame everything on the most junior person they could find really have been the right outcome yet again?

Labels: baby p, haringey council, sharon shoesmith

A while back, at the height of the Baby P postings on my blog, a blogger called Old Holborn posted this:

Shhhh. Don't tell ANYONE
22 Nov 2008 by Old Holborn
Lynne Featherstone is doing sterling work digging deeper and deeper. Should Old Holborn give her the memo showing that Haringey were TOLD not to take children into care because it was too expensive? Proving that Baby P died because the ...

Since then, another source told me of the same memo / email. I issued a Freedom of Information request to Haringey Council but they have responded saying that it would be too expensive to find. So I am making a public appeal to Old Holborn. If you have the memo of copy of the memo - then please send it to me.

Labels: baby p

Whilst the media attention has momentarily diminished following the sackings and resignations at Haringey Council - no doubt they will spring into life each time a new Baby P issue is back on the agenda.

They will be things like: the new Serious Case Review and the publication of its executive summary; the new Health Commission investigation; the report from Ed Ball's Task Force; Lord Laming's report across the country and no doubt an explosion of coverage on the sentencing of those found guilty of 'letting Baby P die'.

But there is a huge movement out in the country and beyond campaigning for justice for Baby P - witness the dozens of Facebook groups, some with six figure number of members.

Many of these campaigners are very surprised when I talk to them to find out that (at latest count) only 13 percent of MPs have signed the EDM I tabled calling for a public inquiry. They are worried that learning from Baby P's ordeal will not happen if we do not have a public inquiry - and I agree.

To that end we should get more MPs signing the EDM. So if you have not yet lobbied your MP, and they aren't one of those listed here as having already signed, please do so.

Here's the text of the EDM, which is no.53:

PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO CHILD PROTECTION IN HARINGEY
03.12.2008

Featherstone, Lynne
That this House deeply regrets the death of Baby P; welcomes the action of the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families to date; believes that many questions remain unanswered; and demands a full independent public inquiry to restore confidence in child protection in Haringey.

You can easily lobby your MP via www.writetothem.com.

Labels: baby p, ed balls

No real surprises here, with one story dominating your and my attention - the awful death of Baby P.

10. George Meehan and Liz Santry resign - the two key Labour councillors (council leader and lead member for children's services) finally took responsibility for Haringey Council's failings.
9. Baby P investigation update - thoughts following a meeting with Cabinet minister Ed Balls.
8. Panorama on Baby P - my advance thoughts, particularly on how the pressure to agree may result in people not sticking by their concerns.
7. Baby P at PMQs - a very brief post, but got lots of traffic due to the Brown-Cameron spat making that PMQs very high profile.
6. The departure of Sharon Shoesmith - my reaction to the (eventual) departure of the head of Haringey's children's services and education.
5. The roles of Sharon Shoesmith and George Meehan - in which I explain why I believed they should take responsibility for the errors and blunders exposed in the Baby P saga.
4. Brian Coleman and the Fire Brigade - see no.3.
3. Fire Brigade rushes to help - the Brian Coleman saga where, for latecomers, I feared for my and family's safety, called the Fire Brigade - who said I did the right thing - but Brian Coleman (Conservative London Assembly member) took it upon himself to criticise. Cue numerous comments on my various blog postings and via my website from firemen agreeing with my actions.
2. Reading the Baby P Serious Case Review - after initially being kept secret, the review was shown to a small number of MPs, myself included
1. Baby P verdict - reaction to the trial verdict.

So - that was the last quarter. Let's see what gets your attention in the next one...

Labels: baby p, brian coleman, ed balls, george meehan, liz santry, most popular blog postings, pmqs, sharon shoesmith

I read a piece on Paul Linford's blog about another boy who died in terrible circumstances at the hands of his foster parents - who astonishingly had been cleared to adopt. However, it was this boy's tragic death, John Smith, that brought about a change in the law - a change that was able to be used for the trail following the death of Baby P:

A group of journalists from the Brighton Argus launched a "Justice for John" campaign after murder charges against his adoptive parents were dropped in favour of a lesser charge of cruelty on the grounds that it could not be proven who had struck the fatal blow. In the end, this led to a change of the law, and the creation of a new offence of causing or allowing the death of a child - the offence of which the vile killers of Baby P have now been successfully convicted and for which they will be sentenced early next year.

You can read the full post on Paul Linford's site - but to my mind, there are two points rising from this. Firstly - it shows what can be done when people put their mind to it. For all the flaws in our democracy and system of government - individuals can get together and bring about change.

Secondly - Baby P's tragic death raises the question of whether the maximum sentence for this (new) crime is high enough. It can cover such a wide range of circumstances that there needs to be the flexibility to deal with the circumstances of an individual case, but the maximum sentence available (I believe it is 14 years) is now facing a growing grassroots campaign organised primarily by mothers and grandmothers.

My own priority is to push for a public inquiry to ensure that the full range of necessary lessons are learnt and then changes applied because - vital though a just legal system is - in the end a court case and a jail sentence can only deal with the aftermath of tragedy. Avoiding the tragedy in the first place is the main objective.

But for me, the shining message from Paul's post is that things can change. It takes action and commitment - and here we have a bunch of those who are only slightly less reviled than politicians - journalists - who saw something that wasn't right - and took the action necessary. Hurrah for journalists - on this occasion!

Labels: baby p

This week was the special Haringey Council meeting called by the Lib Dems to debate the findings from Ed Ball's 'urgent investigation' into Haringey following the death of Baby P.

It saw an astonishing outburst from the person we all saw apologise (finally) on behalf of the Labour Council - Liz Santry - Labour Member for Children's Services as was. With the media's attention having moved on, at this meeting I am told she lashed out blaming others. But that's it you know - that's the real issue in Haringey - that Labour always turn it all around and instead of really looking at what's gone wrong, they simply rebut, deny, blame others. When will they ever learn?

What also is interesting, is that my Lib Dem colleagues on Haringey Council have called for all services to be re-inspected. This is because of the comments from Ofsted, in the form of Christine Gilbert, that they were 'misled' by Haringey officials when they did their inspection. If people misled one batch of inspectors, what are the chances that other inspectors carrying out other inspections were misled too?

There have been thirteen separate inspections over the last few years including the Audit Commission's Comprehensive Performance Assessment in October 2006, the Commission for Social Care Inspection inquiry received as recently at 28th November this year and an Audit Commission report of the Council's housing service.

There has to be now real doubt over the accuracy of these inspections - and so the call for re-inspections. Needles to say - Labour refused! As I said - when will they ever learn!

Labels: baby p, haringey council

Was speaker at the London Baby P march, petition presentation and rally today. This was basically a grassroots wave of expression of feelings - started by Tracy, Amanda and Antonia on Facebook - and escalating today into 17 marches across the length and breadth of the country.

They handed in a 20,000 name petition to Downing Street and then marched on to Trafalgar Square to the rally. It poured with rain throughout - and I had thought that might reduce the numbers and atmosphere - but no - they were more determined than ever.

There were a number of speakers amongst whom I was one - interspersed with songs and poems. There were many moving speeches by mothers who were there because they, like the rest of Britain, could not bear to think of Baby P's suffering and death.

The organisers wanted to give everyone an opportunity to demonstrate the depth of feeling about the failures that led to Baby P's death. They want to make sure that the whole of children's services is revolutionised - and they were categoric that this was not a witch hunt - but a plea for real change. They want to keep Baby P high on the agenda and they still want to push for a public inquiry - to answer the myriad of questions left untouched by Ed Balls's actions so far. They have been about the core front line issues of practice and management in children's services - but not the wider issues.

Wider issues such as the nature of inspections (Ofsted giving a three star rating shortly before the Ed Balls ordered investigation damning Haringey), the budgetary pressures that may have meant that staff were told not to take children into care in Haringey, the outsourcing of the child health team by Haringey Primary Care Trust (PCT) to Great Ormond Street so that the Trust when challenged said 'not me gov', the warnings that were continually ignored in Haringey, the secrecy and hiding of documents and many, many more.

Important though fixing front line services is - these other issues can also cause future tragedies and so also need addressing. That's why a deeper and wider investigation is absolutely vital.

Labels: baby p

At last, an opportunity to get out on record some of the issue around the health team's part in the Baby P tragedy.

The health issues involved in Baby P are huge and in my view the health side has got off lightly thus far. I have previously posted some bits about the Baby P health issues on my blog, but so far this aspect has got relatively little attention from the media.

Therefore for the health and education debate on the Queen's Speech this week - I briefed Norman Lamb on a few of the key issues which he raised in his opening speech. I paste them here for your information.

I would also add that I personally took the issues of bullying (the previous inspection by the Health Care Commission had found extremely high levels of bullying) and bad management leading to resignations and danger for children at risk in Haringey directly to the Chair of the PCT (Primary Care Trust). The response I got was simply that the service was now commissioned from Great Ormond Street Hospital. He said he would look into it anyway.

When I went back the week before last to discuss amongst other issues the health team part in Baby P - the first thing said to me was 'thank goodness we are screened from the worst of the fall out from Baby P'. I thought this symptomatic of the problems with outsourcing or commissioning - no-one is accountable or responsible - albeit it was a statement of the bleeding obvious as Haringey and Sharon Shoesmith and Haringey Labour Council had rightly been first in the firing line.

At least when I remonstrated and said as MP for the area who was I to go to if not the Trust with these sorts of problems - Tracy Baldwin (CEO), who was there at the meeting, had the grace to say yes it was the Trust and they were accountable and they were the commissioners. Clearly she had not been told that I had come previously with such issues of importance.

So - roll on a proper investigation not just of the actuality of who did what in terms of failing Baby P - but also in terms of the problems left festering in the health team because no one took responsibility for sorting it - but just outsourced it!

Anyway, here's Norman's contribution in Parliament:

The Healthcare Commission drew attention, too, to the fact that there were areas of serious concern. Ian Kennedy, the chair of the Healthcare Commission, focused on patient safety, and I want to concentrate for a few minutes on the area of most significance—child protection, particularly the tragedy involving Baby P. Again, it is important again to acknowledge that the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families acted commendably fast in recognising the seriousness of the failings and in mapping out a way forward. However, it is also right to say that so far, the emphasis and focus, particularly in the media, have been on the failings of the local authority—and there were many—rather than on the failings of other agencies. I think that there are lessons to be learned, and it is important to reflect on them for a moment, particularly the situation in the local health service, because serious concerns have been raised with me.

I understand that the paediatric service for child protection in the borough was outsourced to Great Ormond Street. I understand that there was a team of four doctors, of whom two have resigned, one has been on special leave for a year, and one is off sick. Given the fundamental importance of that work—I make these comments not in any sense in a partisan way, as we all have a common view of the importance of addressing these issue—that is an alarming situation in itself. Incidentally, if either Secretary of State is unable to respond to these points today, I am happy for them to respond in writing later. What factors have led to this situation? Why has one of the doctors whom I mentioned been on long-term special leave for a year? Is it the case that the primary care trust cut funding for a designated doctor post, and is it the case that the paediatrician who did not recognise the broken back and ribs in the case of Baby P was a locum employee?

I have heard concern expressed that when children are brought into St. Ann’s hospital in Tottenham as possible victims of abuse, there is a tendency for no information to arrive with the child to put the medical team fully in the picture about possible concerns. That relates to the issues of co-ordination and the sharing of information between agencies dealt with in the report released by the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. I understand that when one doctor filled in a critical incident form at that hospital, in relation to another case, he was told not to do so because it would show up poor record keeping. I do not know whether there is any truth in that allegation, but it is a serious matter and it clearly needs to be investigated. What short-term steps have been taken to ensure that there are proper safeguards in place for other vulnerable babies and children in that borough? What are the longer-term lessons for the NHS—as opposed to the local authority, which has had its fair share of attention—particularly with regard to the responsibility and accountability of the clinicians involved?

Labels: baby p, norman lamb

My Liberal Democrat colleague David Schmitz has been selected to fight the Seven Sisters ward by-election, caused by the sad death of long-serving councillor Fred Knight.

David is also the Lib Dem Parliamentary Spokesperson for Tottenham and a seasoned campaigner. He's a barrister - which can come in handy - like in the case of the Wards Corner development where he has been giving free legal advice to members of the Wards Corner Community Coalition who are fighting to save the Latin American Market and building.

David is also campaigning on holding Labour-run Haringey Council to account over the hideous mismanagement and dreadful behaviour over the tragic death of Baby P - in which I too have been holding Haringey Labour's feet to the fire. And he has been vocal and effective in ensuring that not a single penny in pay off is made to anyone found to have been guilty of gross misconduct.

David's story of how he became involved in local campaigning is one to warm my heart - seeing a problem, doing something about it. As he recounts:

A few years ago, the house next door to us became a drugs den. Haringey Council's inability to deal with the problem turned me into a local campaigner.

When the drug den was destroyed by fire, my partner and I bought the wreck and spent a year doing it up as our home. I was so impressed by what Lynne and the Liberal Democrats were achieving in Haringey that when our building work was done, I decided that the time had come for me to join in their campaigns.

So - I am optimistic that Seven Sisters will take this opportunity to send a message to this arrogant Labour Council by electing a Liberal Democrat who will fight and stand up for local people!

Labels: baby p, david schmitz

Early Day Motions (EDMs) are a form of Parliamentary petition which MPs can sign. They 'lapse' at the end of each Parliamentary session, so with the start of a new one I've tabled an EDM again calling for a public inquiry:

That this House deeply regrets the death of Baby P; welcomes the action of the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families to date; believes that many questions remain unanswered; and demands a full independent public inquiry to restore confidence in child protection in Haringey.

You can check to see which MPs have signed it here - and if your MP isn't one of them, you can quickly and easily lobby them by using WriteToThem.com

Labels: baby p

The Sun and The Times have stories today which quote me. First, the Sun:

SHAMED Haringey Council squandered £19,000 trying to make Baby P scandal boss Sharon Shoesmith look better.

MPs were furious last night after learning spin doctors were hired following the tot tragedy.

Their role was to give media advice to the head of children’s services and her colleagues.

Ms Shoesmith, 55 — now suspended — was given role-play exercises by up to three firms on how to answer probing questions from journalists.

She twice refused to apologise at a press conference over her department’s shocking failure to save the 17-month-old “at-risk” tot after his evil mother and stepdad and a lodger were convicted of torturing him to death.

Lib Dem MP Lynne Featherstone said: “It is absolutely outrageous that this money has been wasted on spin doctors. Every penny would have been better spent on improving our children’s services.”

Full story here, and in The Times:

Police are investigating allegations of serious abuse of a five-year-old victim of child trafficking while he was in the care of Haringey, the London council that failed to prevent the death of Baby P.

The Metropolitan police child abuse team launched the investigation last month after claims that the child was being beaten while in the care of his adoptive family...

The police investigation will come as a fresh blow to Haringey, which was severely censured last week for its "inadequate" child protection measures following the death of Baby P, who died despite 50 visits from social workers and other public agencies. The children's minister, Ed Balls, described an Ofsted report into the department's child protection measures as "devastating"...

Police are investigating allegations that a five-year-old boy was abused while in the care of Haringey, the London council that was severely criticised over the death of Baby P.

An investigation was launched by Scotland Yard last month after claims that the boy, who had been a victim of child trafficking, was beaten while in the care of his foster family.

The boy, known as Child C, had been taken from his home in Africa and, once in Britain, was adopted as a “miracle baby” by a follower of Gilbert Deya, the evangelist who claimed to be able to cure infertility through prayer...

Last night Haringey was also condemned by MPs after it was revealed that the council had spent £19,000 on external media advisers after Baby P’s death to help Ms Shoesmith cope with the expected public interest. This included role-plays on how to handle hostile journalists.

Lynne Featherstone, the Liberal Democrat MP for Hornsey and Wood Green, which is part of the Haringey borough, said: “It is absolutely outrageous that this money has been wasted on spin doctors. Every penny of this cash would have been better spent on improving our children’s services.”

Full story here.

Labels: baby p, haringey council, sharon shoesmith

I read front page in the Guardian yesterday that Christine Gilbert, Ofsted's Chief Inspector, has come out publicly to say that Ofsted were lied to by officers in Haringey in terms of the information they provided when they inspected Haringey. Result - Ofsted gave Haringey three stars just weeks after Baby P's death.

Well - I'm glad she said it. I've no doubt Haringey did present inaccurate information and was trying to pull the wool over Ofsted's eyes - given they wanted three stars because the government hoops they have to jump through mean resources, money and political advantage all come from three stars.

However, as neatly as Ofsted wishes to put all the blame on Haringey, I would just like to point out the feebleness of that as an excuse for an inspection regime. Ed Balls has now moved to say basically these interim inspections are useless and Ofsted must do face-to-face inspections annually. But what on earth confidence can we have in any inspection regime given this failure? Surely the questions and examinations have to go deeper.

And last but not least in this dishonourable performance management system is the Government itself who set it up. Ed Balls is only too willing to look at the narrow focus of the social work and systems end - but not really so far said anything about the Government's part in this devastating failure. It is the Labour Government who set up a performance management system with targets, tick boxes and gold stars on inspection. What bigger perverse incentive can you have in a rotten borough then to be allowed to present false information to achieve a false status? Come on Ed - look at your own part in all of this.

And today, news has broken that Ed Balls and Alan Johnson are launching a task force to change the practice, spread best practise and look at training of social workers. Yes - some of things are suggested may well be good so no problem with that or the task force - but the focus is still narrow. We need a proper public inquiry to look at all the issues that are much wider than just what happens in the departments themselves. As before - even the Government system of performance management is called into question.

Labels: alan johnson, baby p, ed balls, haringey council

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.

Labels: baby p, ed balls, haringey council, sharon shoesmith

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 majeure - Haringey'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.

Labels: baby p, ed balls, george meehan, haringey council, liz santry

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!

Labels: baby p, ed balls, george meehan, haringey council, liz santry

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:

Labels: baby p, george meehan, haringey council, liz santry, sharon shoesmith

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.

Labels: baby p, ed balls, haringey council

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.'

Labels: baby p, haringey council, robert gorrie, sharon shoesmith

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!

Labels: baby p, david laws, ed balls, sharon shoesmith

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.

Labels: baby p

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.

Labels: baby p, ed butcher, haringey council

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.

Labels: baby p, gail engert, haringey council, robert gorrie

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.

Labels: baby p, ed balls, haringey council

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.

Labels: baby p, haringey council

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.

Labels: baby p, david laws, ed balls, haringey council

Well worth a watch for the new figures they've unearthed about how Haringey has been looking after children:

Labels: baby p

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.

Labels: baby p, ed balls, haringey council

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."

Labels: baby p, ed balls, george meehan, haringey council, robert gorrie

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.

Labels: baby p, haringey council

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.
  

Labels: alix mortimer, baby p, ed balls, neil williams

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.

Labels: baby p, gordon brown, haringey council, ken livingstone, liz santry, sharon shoesmith

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.

Labels: baby p, george meehan, haringey council, ita o'donovan, nevres kemal

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

Labels: baby p, haringey council

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.

Labels: baby p, ed balls, sharon shoesmith

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.

Labels: baby p, nevres kemal

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.

Labels: baby p, haringey council

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.

Labels: baby p, ed balls, haringey council

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.

Labels: baby p, ed balls

There was an unedifying spat at Prime Minister's Questions today between David Cameron and Gordon Brown, which seemed to turn the tragedy of Baby P into a political football. It was just awful to watch.

I didn't think I'd get the chance to ask a question myself - but just before the end of PMQs, the Speaker called me. I made that point that when Leader of the Opposition on Haringey Council during the Climbie affair I was given all sorts of assurances about how lessons had been learnt, never again etc.

So - whilst the national review Gordon Brown talked about is welcome, it isn't all that we need. We need an independent public inquiry into what went wrong in Haringey - and for those responsible to to be held responsible.

My goodness - if the Controller of Radio 2 resigns over the tasteless Brand / Ross prank phone call - then surely there will be people held accountable for the tragedy of Baby P?

Labels: baby p, david cameron, gordon brown

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.

Labels: baby p, haringey council

Yesterday - was phoned by journalists for comments on the poor 17 month old boy who died in a north London hospital having being horrifically wounded. It looks as if Haringey may be in the frame as the child was thought to be on the 'at risk' register and the police have arrested his mother and her boyfriend.

Of course, the first thing I (and everyone else) always think of when this sort of news hits the streets is Victoria Climbie. Having been a councillor at the time - and seen the catalogue of mistakes made by a number of agencies (not just Haringey Council) - I can't help wondering whether this case is in any way a result of lessons not being learned. I was always horrified that no officer and no politician resigned or was sacked over Victoria - only the end of the chain social worker paid any price for that tragedy.

However, no information hard information as yet - so need to wait and see before forming any views or conclusions.

Labels: baby p