Lynne Featherstone

Today is 10 years since Victoria Climbie died. As Leader of the Opposition in Haringey  I remember the beating of breasts by the then Labour leader of the Council about how lessons would be learned and how this must never happen again. And then it did. Eight years later - Baby Peter died another dreadful death - with over sixty visits to the home by Haringey Children's Services and other agencies.

And again the phrase 'lessons must be learned' were uttered.

It is clear to me that when Victoria died - lessons were not learned. Only the social worker at the end of the food chain took the punishment - everyone else walked away free - and nothing much changed. That is why it did all happen again eight years later.

But this time - the law had changed as a result of Victoria's death. For the first time in legislation, two positions were named as accountable for what happened in Children's Services - the Director and the Executive Member. That was a direct result of Victoria's death and Lord Laming (who conducted a public inquiry) recommendations.

That is why when Baby Peter died it was so important that the two people in those two positions - now accountable in law - lost their jobs. If no one, now the law had changed, lost their jobs - then again - nothing would have changed.

But this time - changes have been brought in. Scrutinised closely every month and under new Director and Senior Management - the latest Ofsted report this week - found that Haringey is finally improving. It has a long way to go - but nevertheless - let's hope that this is a real sign of progress and that, thanks to Victoria Climbie and the changes to the law that have now had effect - we really have learned the lessons this time.

The second inspection of Haringey's Children's Service has now reported. Last time they found that Haringey was not improving fast enough. This time - the report finds that they have done better. Given the staff are working very hard to improve things and there is a new Director - I would hope that this is the case.

The only question mark is really over how much confidence we can have in Ofsted. This is the inspectorate that gave Haringey 3 stars during the period that Baby Peter was falling through the Haringey net - and when it went public - gave them 1 star.

Hopefully - Ofsted too have improved their inspections and would not be fooled again by doing a desk inspection where Haringey provide (as they say happened last time) false information.

But I am very glad if, at last, things are getting better - both for any children at risk in Haringey - but also for those staff who have had to come through one of the most demoralising and difficult work situations that can be faced.

I was asked by London Tonight which was more shocking - the fact that there was another child, who experienced similar failures by Haringey Children's Services as Baby Peter - albeit this time thank goodness not ending in a death - or the fact this had only just come to light - four years after the event.

The first I heard of it was when Andrew Gilligan (Telegraph) 'phoned me to ask my view. My only view - was why was I only now hearing about this case - and from a journalist rather than being briefed by the Labour Leader of the Council or CEO?

Child 'Y' happened at approximately the same period as Baby Peter - yet when the furore over Peter broke - there was no mention to me of another case.

It is not hugely surprising that there was another child being let down by Children's Services at that time. Given the litany of casualness that came to light  surrounding the care of Baby Peter - if those same fault lines were undermining the department - in fact it was inevitable.

So - the shocking thing to me is that, despite all the work going on by a staff who are working their socks off to turn Haringey Child protection around, the leadership still displays an unchanged culture in terms of secrecy and cover up. Why was there no statement, no explanation - only the Executive Summary of the Serious Case Review on Child 'Y' sneaked onto an obscure website?

How many times have I heard the leadership in Haringey say 'lessons must be learned'? Sadly - the leadership has not learned one key lesson - that hiding things just makes it worse.

I received an update from the Information Commissioner on progress (or not) on my request for the Serious Case Review (the document compiled immediately after Baby Peter's death) to be published.

Subject: Information Commissioner's Office[Ref. FS50234513]

Dear Ms Featherstone,

 Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000

Complaint about the London Borough of Haringey – FS50234513

As you know, we have been considering whether we are in a position to make a final decision. In December, we decided that it would be necessary to arrange a meeting to discuss some of the issues raised by this case involving some senior staff members. Unfortunately, due to work commitments just before and after the Christmas break, it has not been possible to arrange this meeting until now. We expect the meeting to take place next week and before the end of January. I hope you will accept our apologies for this delay. I will update you again as soon as possible.

 At least I feel they are looking properly at my request - as Ed Balls disagrees with me vehemently. I think if your read the following original post - tell me if you think I am right - or whether Ed Balls is right to want to keep this under wraps. His chief argument is that staff will not speak if they know the Serious Case Review will be published. My view is that it is a duty to speak out and that if there were a public inquiry or tribunal - they would have to under oath.

This was my original post on the issue - in full as link didn't seem to be working.

Serious Case Review - Baby Peter and Beyond

I have been trying, ever since Baby Peter's tragic case, to get the Serious Case Review published. A Serious Case Review (SCR) is produced after any such case by the agencies involved in that child's care. It tells the chronological story of who did what and when. It is an invaluable document - but it is kept secret. An Executive Summary is published - but that really doesn't tell anything like the whole story.

I have been battling to change this - so that SCR's can be published. In Baby Peter's case I have asked the Information Commissioner to publish the SCR for Baby Peter. I don't believe that the ambition of that over-used phrase 'lessons must be learned' can ever be fully realised if the causes and actions are hidden.

The Information Commissioner came back to me to ask for more information as to why I thought it would be in the public interest for the SCR to be published. I sent him my reasons - which I paste below - and now the Information Commissioner is going back to Haringey Council for further information. This was my email to the Commissioner:

Having been Leader of the Opposition on Haringey Council when Victoria Climbie died and now MP in half of Haringey during the Baby P tragedy - I have come to the conclusion that a contributing factor to cases like these (and others) is the secrecy, the closing ranks culture and the lack of transparency.

The Serious Case Review (version 1) which I was allowed to read virtually under lock and key in the Department of Education (where I could not make notes or record any part of the document) was an eye opener to me. The executive summary of the same document which is published did not reflect the key problems, in my view, that were at least part-causal in the eventual tragedy.

The thing that struck me most was the litany of casualness with which people did their jobs (appointments missed, not followed up; files lost, handovers not done, meetings not attended). There was a litany of failures like these at every level, virtually by every person and every agency. I think that most people would expect that once a child is on the protection register and their case being brought to the Safeguarding Board - that there would be a rigour about all aspects connected with them.

This casualness and lack of care is only really demonstrated if you get to read the whole document. It does not come through in the summary and itself is cumulatively causal in my view.

Literally hundreds of professionals across the country emailed me about their knowledge and experience - as did the general public. I believe that the phrase which is dragged out 'lessons will be learned' won't be fully possible if the facts of the case and the failures in the case are kept hidden. As I say, the Executive Summary, does not reveal the extent of the small, but cumulative failures - which I believe many professionals would recognise in their own fields and therefore be able to do something about. Therefore it must be in the public interest to be able to see the whole document.

Simply issuing another 150 Laming-like recommendations every time a tragedy happens simply adds procedures that take professionals away from their work without ever being able to see the why and wherefore of such recommendations - nor to judge or be able to critique the new ways from an informed position. The issues are kept between local authority, the other agencies and the Government - so keeping out those who would, could and should benefit from reading the whole story.

I am not an expert nor a professional - but unless and until we really open out all the issues around cases such as these - there will continue to be an air of defensiveness and self-protection which work against the safety and well-being of children at risk.

Social workers need to work in an atmosphere of support and good management - which can only come from opening up the real events, letting them stand there for all to see - and those in the professions taking those lessons away.

The argument Ed Balls makes to me against publishing the Serious Case Review (s) is that staff would not speak freely if they knew that what they said might be published. My view is that anyone working in any field where there is such an event has a duty to speak and say what happened. They would have to if the case goes to public inquiry or hearing. Names and personal information should be anonymized. It was anyway in the SCR I read and social workers were referred to as social worker 1 or social worker 2. It is also the case that quite a lot of time elapses between the event and the publication as the SCR is written immediately (usually) and the case and the trial and exposure comes much later.

OFSTED did an audit of Serious Case Reviews and found that nearly two thirds, I believe, were inadequate. So - additionally - this would not have come to light without OFSTED's exposure. If they were published - these inadequate SCRs would have been exposed much earlier. So - whilst the Serious Case Review I am most concerned about is obviously the Haringey one - it is clear there is a wider issue too.

So - I believe it is totally in the public interest for the Serious Case Review to be published. Secrecy, lack of transparency and openess and closing ranks are at the heart of the problem in Haringey.

I hope you find in favour of publication.

Kind regards
Lynne Feathestone

Kim Holt has finally broken cover over the health team’s part in the Baby Peter tragedy with an interview in the Sunday Telegraph with Andrew Gilligan.

Who is Kim? She is (or rather was) a senior paediatric consultant in Haringey’s child protection health team.

Kim first came to me (over a year ago), terrified to talk to me, as she had been gagged - forbidden to talk to anyone. However, because I was her MP, she and I believed that must give her cover as it couldn’t be the case that a citizen loses their right to talk to their MP.

Kim was desperately worried that children in Haringey were at risk because none of the senior managers at Great Ormond Street were taking proper notice of the concerns she and three other senior consultant paediatricians had raised about the dreadful way things were being handled by management in charge of the child protection health team. The four consultants were so worried that they took the unusual step of jointly signing a letter enumerating their concerns and stating that they believed management were ignoring them. This was exposed in the Evening Standard recently also by Gilligan - with a scanned version of the letter for all to see.

In fact, when Kim tried to raise these issues and became vocal about them – guess what – the establishment turned on her. She was bullied by management – and worse – the situation was ignored. She eventually found herself on ‘special leave’ where she has been for two years – kept away from work by management at taxpayers’ expense to try and stop her exposing what had been going on.

Worse than that – additional to keeping her from working (and she a senior consultant paediatrician with an impeccable track record of 25 years of dedicated service) they tried to buy her silence. They offered her £120,000 if she would sign a statement saying all her concerns had been addressed.

But Kim wouldn’t be bought off. Kim’s real and genuine concern is and always has been the well-being of the most vulnerable of children. That is why over the year or so since she first came to me – I have completely and totally supported Kim and believed that she is the victim of bad management, bullying and a desire by those in charge to not rock the eminent boat of Great Ormond Street.

So – when Kim first came to see me to tell me about the bullying – I went to see Richard Sumray, Chair of Haringey Primary Care Trust (PCT) to talk to him privately about this situation. The child protection task had been handed over from Haringey PCT to Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH). The existing senior manager in charge had been transferred across from Haringey PCT to GOSH. It was now a matter for GOSH. That is what he said – but he also said he would look into it.

Then the Baby Peter trial concluded and all hell let loose. Haringey Council was rightly first in line, as the lead agency and the most culpable, and got all the attention. But knowing a little at that time about the health team and wondering why there was a locum in place – the locum who failed to recognise Peter’s broken back and ribs – I started asking questions.

I raised it in Parliament and if you look back in Hansard you will see me raise the issue of why out of four senior paediatric consultants, two had resigned, one was on sick leave and one on special leave. (You will also read that our health spokesperson Norman Lamb raised it too). I was, at that point, still bound to keep Kim’s confidence but was desperately trying to get the health team management looked at.

Kim was still not working and in my view was being kept from working because of her whistle-blowing. At this point, I ‘phoned Ed Balls office and told them of the dreadful treatment of Kim Holt and said if they didn’t do something at some point this would all blow up and with the reputation of the world’s foremost children’s hospital at stake – they needed to act.

I was very pleased that I was called shortly after this by the Chief Nurse from London Strategic Health Authority who I met with and who undertook to carry out a private investigation of the issues around Kim’s bullying and exclusion.

That investigation reports this coming week. Kim gave an interview to the Sunday Telegraph – finally – because she believes the report leaves out the important issues. She is gagged from talking about what is in the report. I have not seen it – but have met with its author and the NHS chief nurse who briefed me on their view of the content.

Now we wait to see the report. But if it doesn’t get Kim back to work, it doesn’t dismiss any managers and it doesn’t tackle the bullying culture – then it will all have been for nought.

Following on from my recent post on who inspects the inspectors, I raised the issue in Business Questions in the Commons.

The point I made was that with OFSTED giving 3 stars to Haringey just before the Baby Peter tragic story broke – and giving them 1 star soon after – we needed a debate on how to inspect the inspectors.

Harriet Harman – actually said she thought this was an issue for consideration. There was a lot of support in House for my request for a debate – so fingers crossed.

Of course, it’s even worse than I had time to state in the Commons (you only get a few words before Mr Speaker has a go at you for verbosity). Recently the judge in the Sharon Shoesmith appeal is having to investigate whether a hand written note which apparently instructs everyone at OFSTED who has emails re the Baby P case to delete them is genuine and whether its instruction was followed.

If it was – and emails turn out to have been deleted – this is just outrageous. We wait to hear the outcome of the judge’s investigations.

Here's my latest column from the Ham & High:

I have reached the next stage in my quest to get the Serious Case Review into Baby Peter's death published - and beyond Peter - the publication of all Serious Case Reviews. A Serious Case Review (SCR) is produced immediately after any such case by the agencies involved in that child's care. It tells the chronological story of who did what and when. It is an invaluable document - but it is kept secret.

I have been battling to change this. I have asked the Information Commissioner to find in favour of publication in the public interest. I don't believe that the ambition of that over-used phrase 'lessons must be learned' can ever be fully realised if the causes and actions are hidden as they currently are.

The Information Commissioner recently came back to me to ask for more information as to why I thought it would be in the public interest for the SCR to be published. I sent him my reasons (below) and now the Information Commissioner is going back to Haringey Council for further information.

As I await the decision - although I have previously blogged about this - I regard continued public scrutiny as so important that am putting all of this in the public domain again.

This was my email in response to the Information Commissioner's request:

Having been Leader of the Opposition on Haringey Council when Victoria Climbie died and now MP in half of Haringey during the Baby P tragedy - I have come to the conclusion that a contributing factor to cases like these (and others) is the secrecy, the closing ranks culture and the lack of transparency.

The Serious Case Review (version 1) which I was allowed to read virtually under lock and key in the Department of Education (where I could not make notes or record any part of the document) was an eye opener to me. The executive summary of the same document which is published did not reflect the key problems, in my view, that were at least part-causal in the eventual tragedy.

The thing that struck me most was the litany of casualness with which people did their jobs (appointments missed, not followed up; files lost, handovers not done, meetings not attended). There was a litany of failures like these at every level, virtually by every person and every agency. I think that most people would expect that once a child is on the protection register and their case being brought to the Safeguarding Board - that there would be a rigour about all aspects connected with them.

This casualness and lack of care is only really demonstrated if you get to read the whole document. It does not come through in the summary and itself is cumulatively causal in my view.

Literally hundreds of professionals across the country emailed me about their knowledge and experience - as did the general public. I believe that the phrase which is dragged out 'lessons will be learned' won't be fully possible if the facts of the case and the failures in the case are kept hidden. As I say, the Executive Summary does not reveal the extent of the small, but cumulative failures - which I believe many professionals would recognize in their own fields and therefore be able to do something about. Therefore it must be in the public interest to be able to see the whole document.

Simply issuing another 150 Laming-like recommendations every time a tragedy happens simply adds procedures that take professionals away from their work without ever being able to see the why and wherefore of such recommendations - nor to judge or be able to critique the new ways from an informed position. The issues are kept between local authority, the other agencies and the Government - so keeping out those who would, could and should benefit from reading the whole story.

I am not an expert nor a professional - but unless and until we really open out all the issues around cases such as these - there will continue to be an air of defensiveness and self-protection which work against the safety and well-being of children at risk.

Social workers need to work in an atmosphere of support and good management - which can only come from opening up the real events, letting them stand there for all to see - and those in the professions taking those lessons away.

The argument Ed Balls makes to me against publishing the Serious Case Review is that staff would not speak freely if they knew that what they said might be published. My view is that anyone working in any field where there is such an event has a duty to speak and say what happened. They would have to if the case goes to public inquiry or hearing. Names and personal information should be anonymized. It was anyway in the SCR I read and social workers were referred to as social worker 1 or social worker 2. It is also the case that quite a lot of time elapses between the event and the publication as the SCR is written immediately (usually) and the case and the trial and exposure comes much later.

OFSTED did an audit of Serious Case Reviews and found that nearly two thirds, I believe, were inadequate. So - additionally - this would not have come to light without OFSTED's exposure. If they were published - these inadequate SCRs would have been exposed much earlier. So - whilst the Serious Case Review I am most concerned about is obviously the Haringey one - it is clear there is a wider issue too.

So - I believe it is totally in the public interest for the Serious Case Review to be published. Secrecy, lack of transparency and openness and closing ranks are at the heart of the problem in Haringey.

I hope you find in favour of publication.

Kind regards
Lynne Featherstone

I have been trying, ever since Baby Peter's tragic case, to get the Serious Case Review published. A Serious Case Review (SCR) is produced after any such case by the agencies involved in that child's care. It tells the chronological story of who did what and when. It is an invaluable document - but it is kept secret. An Executive Summary is published - but that really doesn't tell anything like the whole story.

I have been battling to change this - so that SCR's can be published. In Baby Peter's case I have asked the Information Commissioner to publish the SCR for Baby Peter. I don't believe that the ambition of that over-used phrase 'lessons must be learned' can ever be fully realised if the causes and actions are hidden.

The Information Commissioner came back to me to ask for more information as to why I thought it would be in the public interest for the SCR to be published. I sent him my reasons - which I paste below - and now the Information Commissioner is going back to Haringey Council for further information. This was my email to the Commissioner:

Having been Leader of the Opposition on Haringey Council when Victoria Climbie died and now MP in half of Haringey during the Baby P tragedy - I have come to the conclusion that a contributing factor to cases like these (and others) is the secrecy, the closing ranks culture and the lack of transparency.

The Serious Case Review (version 1) which I was allowed to read virtually under lock and key in the Department of Education (where I could not make notes or record any part of the document) was an eye opener to me. The executive summary of the same document which is published did not reflect the key problems, in my view, that were at least part-causal in the eventual tragedy.

The thing that struck me most was the litany of casualness with which people did their jobs (appointments missed, not followed up; files lost, handovers not done, meetings not attended). There was a litany of failures like these at every level, virtually by every person and every agency. I think that most people would expect that once a child is on the protection register and their case being brought to the Safeguarding Board - that there would be a rigour about all aspects connected with them.

This casualness and lack of care is only really demonstrated if you get to read the whole document. It does not come through in the summary and itself is cumulatively causal in my view.

Literally hundreds of professionals across the country emailed me about their knowledge and experience - as did the general public. I believe that the phrase which is dragged out 'lessons will be learned' won't be fully possible if the facts of the case and the failures in the case are kept hidden. As I say, the Executive Summary, does not reveal the extent of the small, but cumulative failures - which I believe many professionals would recognise in their own fields and therefore be able to do something about. Therefore it must be in the public interest to be able to see the whole document.

Simply issuing another 150 Laming-like recommendations every time a tragedy happens simply adds procedures that take professionals away from their work without ever being able to see the why and wherefore of such recommendations - nor to judge or be able to critique the new ways from an informed position. The issues are kept between local authority, the other agencies and the Government - so keeping out those who would, could and should benefit from reading the whole story.

I am not an expert nor a professional - but unless and until we really open out all the issues around cases such as these - there will continue to be an air of defensiveness and self-protection which work against the safety and well-being of children at risk.

Social workers need to work in an atmosphere of support and good management - which can only come from opening up the real events, letting them stand there for all to see - and those in the professions taking those lessons away.

The argument Ed Balls makes to me against publishing the Serious Case Review (s) is that staff would not speak freely if they knew that what they said might be published. My view is that anyone working in any field where there is such an event has a duty to speak and say what happened. They would have to if the case goes to public inquiry or hearing. Names and personal information should be anonymized. It was anyway in the SCR I read and social workers were referred to as social worker 1 or social worker 2. It is also the case that quite a lot of time elapses between the event and the publication as the SCR is written immediately (usually) and the case and the trial and exposure comes much later.

OFSTED did an audit of Serious Case Reviews and found that nearly two thirds, I believe, were inadequate. So - additionally - this would not have come to light without OFSTED's exposure. If they were published - these inadequate SCRs would have been exposed much earlier. So - whilst the Serious Case Review I am most concerned about is obviously the Haringey one - it is clear there is a wider issue too.

So - I believe it is totally in the public interest for the Serious Case Review to be published. Secrecy, lack of transparency and openess and closing ranks are at the heart of the problem in Haringey.

I hope you find in favour of publication.

Kind regards
Lynne Feathestone

Liberal Democrat Opposition Day Debates:
The Liberal Democrat opposition day debates were both ones that Labour should have supported. Labour failed to do so on both votes.

The first was on Equitable Life – and I am sure that every MP in the House has had heartbreaking letters from people who have lost their life savings through Equitable Life and are fed up waiting for the always promised, never delivered compensation.

The second motion was asking Parliament to sign up to the 10:10 campaign. Lots of individual MPs (including me) and councils have already signed up to reduce their carbon emissions by 10% by the end of the year 2010. The motion was asking the House itself to sign up, all Government departments and Public Sector Bodies. Given the Labour Government (and the Minister) were so fulsome in their praise for the 10:10 campaign – I am still at a loss as to why they failed to support the motion. They refused to sign us up to the 10:10 campaign. Shame on them. Blimey – even the Tories supported this one.

Women’s Questions
I asked the Minister what the Government was doing about removing the barriers to employing women that had been highlighted in the Equality and Human Rights Commission statement that women’s maternity rights etc were putting employers off. The Minister said she didn’t accept that was the case!

Book on Baby Peter
Met with an author/film maker who is doing the background research on a potential book about Baby Peter. Having received literally thousands of emails during the height of the Baby Peter coverage from people all over the country – including many professionals from relevant fields – who all had such knowledge and contribution, I am very pleased that someone serious is going to do a serious book on this. Whilst Panorama and other documentaries have all tried very hard – it really is not possible to address the complexities of this subject in entertainment format – so am very happy to help.

Meeting with Peter Lewis, Director Children’s Services, Haringey
Following neatly on, had organised a meeting with Peter Lewis to touch base on progress in terms of child protection in Haringey. When I first met Peter after he was appointed following the furore over child protection in Haringey – he told me that it would take him three years to turn Haringey’s Children’s Services around. The first inspection of how he and the department were doing decided things were improving but not fast enough. I hadn't seen him for about six months - and I thought that some of the measures that Peter has brought in subsequent to that inspection to provide rigour in supervising (human rigour not tick box rigour) sounded like they would be effective. I also thought that his action to address the issue of recruiting social workers to Haringey (much needed – as unfilled posts and many agency workers currently) by bringing in social workers from the States and recruiting from big equivalent cities like New York showed initiative.

On education I brought Peter up to date with the Liberal Democrat campaign for Fair Funding (as our children get £1000 less per head than kids in Hackney or Islington) because we pay inner London staff salaries (high) and only receive outer London per pupil funding (low). Given that Haringey schools showed up recently as having a very high level of deficits in their budgets (one of the worst in the country) not surprisingly given that £1000 differential – the pressure has to be kept up to make the Government give us our fair share.

Meeting with new CEO at Whittington Hospital
First meeting with the new CEO of Whittington, Rob Larkman. This was a basically get to know you type meeting, setting out from my point of view the various key interests I have on behalf of local people. It was also about the funding problems coming down the track at our health services, the impact of the new Community Health Centre at the Hornsey Hospital site and in terms of the Whittington itself – my priority – which is making sure that patients are treated well - not just clinically - but as people.

The aspect which people raise with me about their hospital stays – when there are complaints – is always about how they were treated in human terms by the staff. Obviously – the vast majority of the staff are absolutely fabulous – and there are more people praising the Whittington and their treatment than are critical. But – those who do get badly handled – need their local hospital to take such issues really seriously. I have found that the Whittington has been very responsive in the past to any individual complaints I have taken to them – and now I want the new CEO to take over the last CEO’s promise to me – that patient treatment would be a priority.

I look forward to a good and constructive working relationship.

So Sharon Shoesmith is having her day in court. That's her right. But none of the furore in the media, in my view, is responsible for her sacking. The media fire storm was undoubtedly a dreadful thing to go through - but my understanding is that it was her attitude in the press conference Haringey Council held after the trial verdict that brought the media down on her like a ton of bricks. She did that to herself.

The apparent arrogance of saying that Haringey was wonderful, and showing the media charts to point out how brilliant her department was, said everything you need to know about Labour Haringey. In fact, Clare Kober the new Labour Leader, is quoted in the Daily Mail as saying "I have the utmost respect for you (Sharon Shoesmith) as a public servant ... I have every confidence that you are the individual to get us where we need to be" demonstrates the sort of poor judgement she and Labour have.

And it is a judgement based on a long history of blag it out, say the moon is the sun, and get out of trouble that way. It is precisely that sort of attitude that leads to the situation where a baby can die even with sixty visits from Social Services because Haringey always rejects criticism, is arrogant and refuses to listen when people try to warn them of problems or trouble. That is the part that worries me the most - because the culture at Haringey is one of cover-up, rank-closing and refusal to accept or deal with problems.

No wonder Haringey supported Sharon Shoesmith at first - regardless of the facts. They had paid a fortune to media trainers to prepare her and others to face the post-trial storm (money they should ask for back). It was all about protecting Haringey's reputation regardless of the real underlying situation.

That is why Victoria Climbie died and that is why Baby Peter died.

At least this time, unlike with Victoria Climbie, there has been a clear out of those in charge of Children’s Services and I hope that the new Director and new managers will ring the changes and turn the department around – no easy task.

So - back to Sharon and why Ed Balls was 100% right to sack her - regardless of the media and regardless of David Cameron and my contributions at the now famous Prime Minister's Questions.

After Victoria Climbie died and Lord Laming's public inquiry made its recommendations - one of the key problems Laming identified was that the leadership was weak and at fault - but took no blame in the consequences. Only Lisa Arthurworry, the social worker at the end of the food chain took the blame. George Meehan (Labour Leader at that time), Gina Adamou (Chair of Social Services at that time) and Mary Richardson (Director of Social Services) all suffered not one bit as a result. The two Labour politicians stayed in post and Mary Richardson subsequently moved to Hackney to be Director there.

The Director of Children's Services this time with Baby Peter was Sharon Shoesmith. In law, she is accountable and responsible for the litany of failures that went on under her stewardship. She should without doubt have instantly resigned. That - not only would have been the right thing to do - but would also have spared her some of the media fire that followed her dreadful performance at the press conference and beyond.

The investigations that followed Baby Peter's death all show a litany of casualness and failures by individuals and agencies. The substance of the failures and being the person in the accountable and responsible position in law is why she went.

As Ms Shoesmith refused to do the honourable thing, Ed Balls, therefore, had no choice but to sack her. He understood what had happened - and that if she remained in post despite the law that placed her in the accountable position and despite the terrible things that had occurred under her supervision - then Victoria, Peter, all Lord Laming’s work and the safety of children at risk in future would all be for nought.