Earlier this morning on Sky News, LibDem MP Lynne Featherstone called for heads to roll in the Baby P investigation. Specifically, she said that senior officials in the Children's Services department of Haringey Council should be sacked. She went on to put a lot of blame on the Labour group which controls the Council and implied that heads should roll there too. I think she is right, but not for politically partisan reasons.
People need to feel that the buck stops with someone. It should stop with Sharon Shoesmith, but the woman is clearly blinkered to her ultimate culpability. I agree with those to deprecate those whose only preoccupation is to scapegoat social workers and I do not seek to do so here. The story told by the whistleblower Nevres Kemal in today's Mail on Sunday show quite clearly that Ms Shoesmith headed a totally disfunctional department, where social workers had no clear lines of authority, where they were scared stiff to gainsay their leaders and where few procedures were ever laid down or followed. That is Ms Shoesmith's fault. I can't see how anyone could argue otherwise.
It may also be said that there was a failure of political leadership. Councillors, should, it is alleged have monitored what was going on and acted accordingly. In theory that is absolutely correct. The Cabinet Member for Children's Services is perhaps the only politician who could have noticed and then taken action. But she didn't. Her only role so far has been to issue a belated, albeit very well put, apology on behalf of the political leadership of the Council.
I have some sympathy for councillors in this predicament. Although Cabinet members get a salary, it is very part time, and it is surely impossible to monitor all the work of a large council department with such a huge budget - especially if you have no expertise in the policy area. You do your best, but often your best isn't good enough. Sad though that it, the buck has to stop somewhere.
Finally, a word about LibDem MP Lynne Featherstone. It is she who has made the running on this, even though Baby P lived in the neighbouring constituency. Baby P's MP was David Lammy who has maintained a vow of silence, despite having been warned of the problems in Haringey by Nevres Kemal's letter six months before Baby P's death. Lynne Featherstone hasn't just reacted to the current crisis. She broached Haringey Council's leader in 2006 alerting him to the problems within the Children's Services department, yet he did nothing. Featherstone hasn't sought to play politics, but she is clear where the blame lies and is demanding that those responsible are held to account for their decisions and negligence. She has shown herself to be a very adept politician on this issue and it is unbelievable that she isn't being used more widely by the LibDems. Nick Clegg seems to have punished her for running Chris Huhne's leadership campaign. If he has any sense he will give her a leading job soon. She has more talent in her little toe that certain other LibDem women have in their whole bodies.
I agree with Lynne Featherstone that the country is demanding that someone takes responsibility for what happened. It seems clear that Ms Shoesmith must be sacked but I also think that there needs to be some political accountability too. I'm not talking about nationally, but locally there are two politicians - the leader of the council and the Cabinet member for Children's Services - who need to think very carefully about whether their own resignations might help to start the closure process.
24 comments:
Well said. I hadn't realized that David Lammy knew about Nevres Kemal's complaint. How come he sat by whilst child protection was compromised and a good social worker had her career trashed by false allegations of child abuse? If that's his idea of justice...
Oh Iain. Of course heads must roll. But Ed has told us - all the procedures were followed. So that's OK. Oddly, Balls does not then say - "So the procedures are clearly non-functional".
Also - New Labour and the concept of "personal responsibility", are not bedfellows. NL want to control EVERYTHING, want to measure and put targets on EVERYTHING. But when things go wrong - who's responsible. Not me. OK, must be the next guy up. Not me. OK ...
and so on.
Indeed, it all ends up in Brown's lap - and as we know, Brown is NEVER responsible for anything.
I wish they'd all die. I really do. New Labour. Just FUCK OFF WILL YOU AND LEAVE US ALONE.
"how quite clearly that Ms Shoesmith headed a totally disfunctional department, where social workers had no clear lines of authority, where they were scared stiff to gainsay their leaders and where few procedures were ever laid down or followed."
Clearly modelled on the Dear Leader's management style, then.
Sharon Shoesmith's resignation should have been instant.
Her utter failure to understand this is as bleakly damning a comment on the state of public life in Britain today as any I can imagine.
Clearly someone has to be accountable, but where do you start and end?
You're right Ian, some politicians should be feeling responsible. It must be difficult for a politician to check on such a large department, but then they did seek and accept the posts they've got.
Ms Shoesmith is obviously not up to the job, despite the letter of support by local Headteachers. He comment of, "some of our (child protection) policies worked very well", still irks me.
What of the 60 visits made by various social workers and healthcare professionals? Are any of these people responsible, at least in part for the disaster?
Then there are the lawyers. Apparently, right up to the time baby P died they were advising that there was not enough evidence for the child to be taken into care.
The whole episode has been horrendous, from the mother of baby P, her boyfriend and other friend, to social workers and on up, people have failed this baby.
Does this include MP's? Six of them were informed by letter in 1997 that Haringey Council was not protecting children properly. It's obvious from Rosie Wintertons reply on "Any Questions" that she did not even read the letter; did any of the others?
There also seems to be confusion about the roles of the Inspection bodies. On Friday morning it was reported that CSCI had already handed over responsibility to OFSTED when the "whistle blowers letter" had been received and padded on. By Friday evening CSCI were saying that they had carried out a review of the service in Haringey.
There is obviously a lot of investigating to do yet.
Hat tip to Woman On A Raft for this. Spot on
Since the PM doesn't take responsibility for any of his bad calls why should ministers?
If ministers don't accept responsibility for their bad calls, why should local authority divisional heads?
If divisional heads don't accept responsibility for their actions, why should social workers carry the can?
If social workers don't think it is fair they are held responsible for their decisions, why should the parent of Baby Peter be held responsible for failing to protect him?
If the other parent - the one who isn't on trial - didn't notice something was wrong, then why should anybody be responsible for anything?
So when the boyfriend and his brother plead 'not guilty' to see if they can get away with it, or when the mother seems to think she'll be out by Christmas, we shouldn't really be surprised. Nobody (apart from one whistle-blowing social worker) has set the slightest example in this horrendous chain. Nobody will until our leaders re-discover the concept of their own personal responsibility.
Lynne herself may be very switched on to problems across different areas, but that unfortunately isn't true of all politicians. I read somewhere else that she was also asking pertinent questions of the legal department. If it is the case that a barrister with experience of trade unions was making delicate decisions pertaining to child protection legislation (which has very detailed case law relating to technical terms such as threshholds for intervention) and that there were no procedures in place for obtaining external specialist advice, then that would surely need to be looked into thoroughly.
Lawyers should be aware of their own limitations. A specialist in one field doesn't necessarily translate into an expert in another, any more than an obstetrician would be well placed to advise on treatments for chronic back pain. Also, the extent to which there has been merely academic experience of a field should be relevant since this is very different from direct experience of practise.
Equally though, politicians from any party should, in my view, be subject to the same level of scrutiny themselves. They should not have the right to sit in judgement on public servants or bankers or anyone else without holding themselves to at least the same high standards. Possibly higher.
As for the Lib Dems making better use of Lynne Featherstone, it is for them to decide which values they truly regard as precious in terms of their own organisation and structure.
'Baby P whistleblower breaks her silence to speak to the Sunday Mirror' by Kate Mansey is at:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport2/football/top-stories/2008/11/15/baby-p-whistleblower-breaks-her-silence-to-speak-to-the-sunday-mirror-115875-20897787/
Elby - completely agree - instant resignation - hells belles it would have been better for her in the long run - a little bit of integrity these days goes a long way. Now, the ejeet has got the whole of the blogosphere out for her - she'll never work again.
Did anyone else notice how Greater Manchester acted in response to the tragedy of the two babies being killed - almost like it was a slick press operation rather than convincing - however, infinately better - apology, independant inquiry within three hours.
There are some theories that Brown was so poor at PMQ's because this is deeper than suspected and DFC hit a 3rd rail.
Laming should be given carte blanche - and in the words of the sage of Glasgow gutters, the Hammer, "in times of crisis there should be unity". Social workers alone should not carry the can - if there are genuine training issues - such as ignorant of what authority they possess. This needs to be a nationwide audit.
I really had forgotten what a pompous, vain, inglorious and disgusting man John Reid is.
Nothing can be done to stop instances of bestiality such as this occurring- the beasts are too cunning. If we want to minimise them then Social Services should have an incentive to succeed- and be held responsible both for events like baby P and for the children unnecessarily taken from their home. It seems to me that they are rewarded for following procedures regardless of their success. At the least those who drew up the procedures should be fired (they clearly haven't the honour to resign!) as they should when unfounded allegations are acted upon. They might then come to value criticism from the front line workers as this will help them improve.
Unfortunately, I live in the Socialist Republic of Haringey where they charge an exorbitant council tax and then use your money to wage an advertising and PR campaign to tell you how good they are and how well they're doing. We get a monthly magazine full of spin about how great they are and isn't Haringey brilliant, with a foreward from the fat controller himself. We have ads hanging from street lamposts with statements such as "You asked us for more street lights so we've spent £X million it this year on new lights" or "You asked for better schools. Did you know that Haringey has just had its best GCSE results ever." Pure political propaganda paid for with our money.
The terms of reference of these 'investigations' need to be watched closely. Labour are hiding something. There need to be full audits of the relevant departments to determine exactly WHO is being paid to do WHAT, at all levels.
Nick Clegg may be doing his best, but he seems hobbled by the fact that he won the leadership election by such a small margin (or possibly no margin at all depending on some reports about the receipt of late postal ballots.) Without a clear statement from Chris Huhne regarding these myths (or otherwise) there might be a long term corrosive impact on Nick's authority in the party and potentially also on the institution of the Leader of the Liberal Democrats who actually doesn't have much power within the party structures which seem to pride themselves on according power to local parties. Add to this the effect of him being relatively young and inexperienced in Westminster terms and the beefy, seasoned characters elsewhere in the Party, it might not seem surprising that he isn't able to make that much of an impression. Lib Dems are noticing themselves that swapping leaders doesn't guarantee your problems disappear over the rainbow. As some of them are aware they have unresolved issues going back to the time when Sir Menzies Campbell was leader; deposing him hasn't helped magic those away. That might suggest that any difficulties lie elsewhere, somewhere other than the Leader's Office.
You are right to give this a political edge, one of the few commentators to do so and comments here bear this out.
There's some serious politicking going on in Haringey which is a battlefield between New Labour and the LibDems at local and national level.
Both the Labour-run council and government are at the centre of this storm and both have a lot to answer for.
Haringey head teachers swift support for beleaguered child services head Sharon Shoesmith smacked of political skulduggery.
The more the national media digs on this outrage the more shocking revelations come to light.
http://theorangepartyblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/haringey-heads-letter-smacks-of.html
The more we learn about this story the worse it gets. It looks as if, when the whistleblower spoke up, the department took its revenge by threatening to take her daughter into care. If this proves to be the case, prosecutions and jail sentences should follow.
Public services everywhere are on the decline, even criminals are allowed to stay in the police now...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7732250.stm
obviously not as terrible as this tragic case but worth a look nonetheless.
Mr Dale
This is your blog and everything but why have you allowed the comment from anon. @ 2.54?
I just deleted it. Thanks for pointing it out.
This is, to some extent, a tragedy with a political dimension. But it is not a party political issue. MPs of all parties have spoken with heartfelt sorrow and anger on this tragedy - Conservative, Lib Dem, Labour.
The political dimension, the divide, is between those who believe in the accountability of the State, and those whose first loyalty is to the State. In the latter camp are ministers, officials and officers of national and local government, and allied professions. The latter group will be keen to insist that "procedures were followed", moving later to "no one is directly at fault" and "we will learn lessons" before moving finally to "it is time to move on".
Dick the Prick
Unfortunately the incompetent cow will work again - that is how the system operates. She'll leave Haringey with huge compo and will turn up at Hackney Council - mark my words.
Mr Iain said: "...there needs to be some political accountability too. I'm not talking about nationally."
Rarely do I disagree with you... but this time I do so absolutely.
Certainly there are problems on the ground. It still beggars belief that those charged with protecting Baby P missed such obvious signals of abuse. There are also those higher up who clearly haven't been monitoring and managing those in on the front line. And as you point out there's a question of political (indeed moral) responsibilty within Haringey.
But the Government shouldn't be allowed to buck-pass its share of the blame either.
Right from upon high there has been a cavalier attitude to child protection recently - even cynical, given they knew about the Baby P case. Only a few months ago Government Ministers were warned:
"Vulnerable children face a greater risk of harm because of a dramatic rise in the cost of taking them into care."
Greater cost I hear you cry? How so?
Well the Government in their infinite wisdom has decided that Courts should be self-funding. As such, the Courts have been forced to raise the charges thet levy on Court proceddings.
Prior to June this year, seeking a court order to remove a child into protective care cost a reasonable £150.
And afterwards...
"The Family Proceedings Fees Order 2008 increases the cost of issuing care proceedings from a modest £150 to a whopping £2225. Add to this a fee of £700 for an Issue Resolution Hearing and £1900 for a final hearing and we have a grand total of court fees for care proceedings of £4825 if the case goes the full distance.
This is in addition to any other fees on interim applications along the way, including placement orders, which are often sought at the same time. The fee for that is an extra £400."
My gosh!
Oh yes, and the warnings, who were doing that? The Family Justice Council, chaired by Britain's most senior judge Sir Mark Potter, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and The Law Society amongst others.
Stephen Gerlis, a district judge, said: “Cynics might say that the increase [in fees] is designed to dissuade councils from issuing proceedings, and they would not be far wrong.” Ministers had admitted, he said, that the new care procedure (called the public law outline) was to discourage “unnecessary and premature use of care proceedings.”
The Government has countered that they are to provide an additional £40 million to local authorities to cover these costs. Except...
As Stephen Gerlis for The Times reports on the 28th April 2008: "What has to be borne in mind is that this £40 million is not “ring-fenced” for care proceedings. Indeed, there are some suggestions that local authorities are unable to identify these funds at all, as they do not appear to be identified as such in the block grant paid to them by central government."
This is a national disgrace. Not only have the Government placed significant hurdles in the way of local authorities attempting to protect children but they have purposely set out to discourage “unnecessary and premature use of care proceedings”.
More here:
Children ‘put at risk by higher court fees’
Government putting a price on the future of children
In closing Iain, there should indeed be some accountabilty at the national level.
Lammy really needs to explain himself, even if he is a Minister in another department. Otherwise people will begin to think he is more interested in Barack Obama than in Tottenham.
His handling of the Second Reading of the Mental Incapacity Bill is regarded as possibly the worst Ministerial performance ever and this wasn't the first time he'd cocked up. His continuing front-bench career seems to owe more to the colour of his skin than the force of his intellect.
No you can't David.
Yes, I too think Lammy had better come forward and give reasons as to why this appalling case wasn't taken up by him and his staff when it was on his desk. Lynne Featherstone has dealt and will further deal with this sad news calmly and soundly. There should be more like her.
iain this is all well and good/ the death of a child is always a tragedy. but spare a thought for the tohusands of children who die every year through the medical procedure of abortion. their souls need our prayers too.
Post a Comment