Claire Tyler is the new chair of Cafcass

Children & Young People Now reports that the Lib Dem peer Baroness Claire Tyler has been appointed chair of Cafcass - the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service:

Education Secretary Michael Gove, who appointed Baroness Tyler, said her appointment would "help ensure that children’s interests are always at the heart of care and family court proceedings". 

She joins after a tough four years for the court service, which has battled to cope with a dramatic increase in caseloads since the Baby Peter case, as well as fend off criticism from MPs and unions. 

Latest figures indicate Cafcass is winning its battle to reduce the number of unallocated cases. By the end of March last year there were just three unallocated cases, compared with 986 by the end of August 2009.

Praise for Lynne Featherstone over Great Ormond Street

Andrew Gilligan, now the Daily Telegraph's London editor, wrote an article yesterday about Great Ormond Street Hospital's dishonourbale attempt to absolve itself of its share of the blame for the death of Peter Connelly (Baby P).

Writing of one of the doctors who has blown the whistle on the hospital, he concluded:

Kim Holt is very lucky to have as her MP the superb Lynne Featherstone, who has been fighting her constituent’s corner for the last three years. The hospital has been sabre-rattling against her as well, publishing on its website a, shall we say, unsatisfactory account of its dealings over the issue. Ms Featherstone has now published her response – and she, too, accuses Great Ormond Street of “concealing” and “misleading.”
This kind of behaviour is always a deeply telling sign of an institution in real trouble. Ms Featherstone has called on Ms Collins to resign, and says that if what is known now had been known at the time, she would have gone three years ago, along with Haringey’s Sharon Shoesmith. I agree.

Lynne Featherstone calls on chief executive of Great Ormond Street Hospital to resign

The term "social worker" is often used as easy and unfair shorthand when the shortcomings of the caring professions are discussed. This was certainly the case in the death of Peter Connelly ("Baby Peter"), when the medical profession bore a heavy responsibility too.

And yesterday Mark Pack reported on Liberal Democrat Voice:

Liberal Democrat MP Lynne Featherstone today called for Jane Collins, Chief Executive of Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH), to resign after the BBC published evidence that key criticisms of the hospital were withheld from an inquiry into the death of Baby Peter. In a further twist today, claims by the hospital that they subsequently did provide all the evidence to a second investigation were denied by the person who ran that investigation.

Lynne Featherstone added on her own blog:

Haringey was rightly in the spotlight as the lead agency in the wake of the Baby P tragedy – but perhaps that spotlight detracted from the terribly dangerous conditions in which vulnerable children were being left by the management failures by GOSH.

The fact that these failings – this vital information – never reached the Serious Case Review because it was removed from the addendum submitted to the Serious Case Review is a scandal. Dr Collins is the author of the addendum.

I have called for an investigation into the withholding of this vital information and wait to see whether real justice will be done.

For the full background to Great Ormond Street's involvement in this case, Lynne commended a report on the BBC London pages.

Six of the Best 101

If the Alternative Vote had been in use at the 2010 general election, the Liberal Democrats would have won 32 more seats, and a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition would also have had a Commons majority, find the British Politics and Policy at LSE blog.

Mark Pack ponders the perils and pitfalls of allowing, and moderating, online comments.

"Michael Gove is to be commended for publishing the two Serious Case Reviews (SCR) on the tragic events leading up to the death of Peter Connelly (Baby P). Labour always refused to do so – but if that somewhat overused phrase ‘lessons must be learned’ is to mean anything – then publishing SCRs is a real step in the right direction," says Lynne Featherstone.

Virtually Naked discusses Ed Miliband continuing lack of alternative economic policy, as revealed at prime minister's questions today.

Regular readers of this blog will be familiar with Sir Peter Scott's lighthouse near Sutton Bridge in Lincolnshire. Now it is for sale, reports Malcolm Redfellow's Home Service.

Crying All the Way to the Chip Shop presents the headstone of Tony Wilson, the Manchester music mogul.

Baby Peter sentences to be reviewed

Of course he was no longer a baby when he died, but at least we are allowed to give him a name now.

Anyway, the BBC reports that the sentences in the case are to be reviewed to see if they should be referred to the Court of Appeal:

Last week Baby Peter's mother, her boyfriend and their lodger were jailed for causing or allowing Peter's death.

Peter's mother must serve at least five years and the lodger at least three years. The boyfriend was given life for rape, with a 10-year minimum term.

He had been convicted of raping a two-year-old girl.

He was given an additional 12-year jail term, to run concurrently, for his "major role" in Peter's death.

There is always danger of injustice if the sentence in a case is determined by the amount of publicity it received. But it is hard to believe that justice has been done here when you compare these sentences with the 13 years given to Chris Lewis for smuggling cocaine.

Baby P, Child M and anonymity

Congratulations to the Mail on Sunday for printing details of the serious case review into Baby P's death. Haringey Council has refused to publish it, and Ed Balls has supported its decision on the grounds that doing so might deter people from investigating into similar cases in future.

These grounds sounds spurious. Social services staff are always telling us how professional they are, yet this argument is predicated on the assumption that they will not behave professionally when things go wrong. And if we adopt Ed Balls' logic then we will never publish the results of any inquiry into anything.

The re-emergence of this case has made me think about the increasing tendency to keep children's identities secret. Like a number of bloggers, I started giving Baby P the dignity of real name - Peter - when discussing the case and the sky did not fall.

Is it for the child's sake? Not always.

Last week Chicken Yoghurt discussed the case of Child M:

Child M and his family are facing deportation to Iran, where it is likely that his mother, sister and brother will be imprisoned and risk the death penalty if they are made to return. The family also spent 52 days in Yarl’s Wood immigration centre over the summer of 2008. This experience affected the whole family detrimentally. Child M suffered from violent nightmares, ringworm and his hair started to fall out.

If you were fighting a campaign to help Child M and his family stay in Britain, the first things you would want to publicise would be his name and a photograph. But it appears that the law prevents campaigners from doing this. So anonymity is certainly not in Child M's interests here. Rather, it looks calculated to protect the interests of the government.

And it could soon get worse.

Just before Christmas many journalists welcomed Jack Straw's decision to open up the family court system to journalists - see the UK Press Gazette report, for instance. But they missed the small print.

For, as the Independent on Sunday's Matthew Bell revealed:

as of April, because of a change in legislation being introduced by Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary ... it will ... be illegal for any children currently in care to speak out, even if they feel they are being maltreated.

Clearly, we need to question whose interests the anonymity of children involved in legal proceedings serves. It is not always those of the children themselves.

Baby P: The incompetence of Haringey Council was always the story

Ed Balls today received the report on children's services in Haringey this morning. You can read the full text of his statement on the Independent website.

As a result of the report's contents, George Meehan, the leader of Haringey Council, and Liz Santry the cabinet member for children and young people, have both resigned. Sharon Shoesmith has been removed from her post as director of children's services and five other members of staff connected with those services in Haringey have been suspended or are under review.

Lynne Featherstone writes:

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.

And this has been the story here all along: the fact that Haringey Council is no good at protecting children. Those bloggers who thought the real villain here were David Cameron or the press, or thought that the whole affair was simply to ghastly to mention, mystify me.

Lynne also says:

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!

It is this culture that is at the heart of the political debate over the death of Peter - to give Baby P his real name.

Over at the dear old Guardian, Patrick Butler does his best to rally the troops by writing of Sharon Shoesmith:

A journalist who met her two years ago, shortly after she had taken up her current role, recalls her as appearing relaxed, confident and competent, with a clear understanding of the wider children's policy agenda ...

Shoesmith, 55, appears widely respected among her peers in Haringey: an open letter signed by 61 primary and secondary school headteachers in the north London borough last month called her an "outstanding public servant" who had in her previous role revitalised Haringey's once embarrassing and demoralised education service. It said: "Should the Child P case result in her loss from the borough, then our children and young people will lose one of their most effective, determined and committed champions."

Surely, all that does is make you worry about the judgement of headteachers in Haringey?

Later. See this Lib Dem Voice story about Haringey's chief executive too.

Baby P: For legal reasons we can't know what the legal reasons are

There have been two developments in the case of Baby P - or Peter, to give him the dignity he was denied in life. Both involve excessive secrecy.

Lynne Featherstone has now read the Serious Case Review. You may recall that Ed Balls was at first unwilling to release it even to directly interested MPs and tried to hide behind the Information Commissioner.

Having read the report, Lynne writes:

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.

The second point is that the sentencing of the three people convicted over the child's death has been postponed for at least three months. But we are not told why beyond the usual formulation of "legal reasons".

There may be good reasons for this and for the anonymity of all involved in the case. but unless we are given some clue as to what these reasons are, it is hard to see why the public should have confidence that justice is being done.

Ed Balls 0 Information Commissioner 1

Yesterday Ed Balls told the Commons that he could not release the full, confidential, serious case review of the case of Baby Peter because of professional advice and an earlier ruling of the Information Commissioner. As I reported, the Commissioner then issued a press statement issuing himself from Balls's decision.

Today Balls relented and announced that the report will be shown, on privy council terms, to five MPs, including Lynne Featherstone and David Laws.

It would be interesting to know if the original decision came from Balls or his civil servants and how enthusiastic he was to overturn it.

House Points: Haringey, Philip Hollobone and ocarinas

My House Points column from today's Liberal Democrat News.

I had intended to write the definitive column on Baby Peter and Haringey, but Philip Hollobone and his ocarinas broke in. His bizarre contribution has also been noted by Kerry McCarthy, Labour MP for Bristol East, but no one else. He is lucky.

House of fools

Who to blame for the scenes at prime minister’s questions last week? Least at fault was David Cameron. Though his later questions amounted to "What did you just call me?" he was entitled to raise the death of Baby P.

Cameron asked if it was acceptable that the review into the child’s death had been overseen by Haringey’s own children's services director. Lynne Featherstone and our councillors have rightly been asking more pointed questions than that.

More to blame was Gordon Brown. He has always had a tin ear for anything beyond economics and last Wednesday his answers were particularly graceless. He has arrived at a state of mind where, even as the economy collapses around him, he is so convinced of his own righteousness that anyone who questions him must have base motives.

But the real villains were Brown’s backbenchers for barracking Cameron. They heard him mention a Labour authority and social workers and that was enough for them. This ingrained belief, even in the face of the strongest evidence, that "their people" can do no wrong is one of Labour’s least appealing characteristics.

The death of Baby P - wouldn’t it be more dignified if we were allowed to call him by name? - was raised again when Ed Balls answered questions on Monday. He tried to slip a statement through. Mr Speaker cut him sort short and said he would have to come back another day and do it properly. The atmosphere was tense.

At which point the Tory Philip Hollobone took it into his head to stand up and ask Balls this question:

On another subject, the ocarina is an easy-to-play, easy-to-learn, easy-to-teach circular flute, and the centre of the UK’s ocarina industry is in Kettering. My constituents, David and Christa Liggins, actively promote the use of this low-cost musical instrument in schools across the country. Would the Secretary of State agree to meet my constituents and me to discuss how this low-cost instrument might help the Government to teach more school pupils how to play musical instruments?

So now Kettering is not only home to Britain’s ocarina industry: it is also home to the House of Commons’ greatest fool. Quite an accolade for the town.

The Information Commissioner distances himself from Ed Balls

Today Ed Balls told the Commons:

The hon. Gentleman [Michael Gove] will know, as I wrote to him and to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) this morning, that yesterday I endeavoured to see whether I was able to release the full, confidential, serious case review to parliamentarians, but the clear professional advice given to me was that that would be the wrong thing to do, given the ruling of the Information Commissioner and the importance of making sure that in future, serious case reviews are done properly.

How then to explain the following the following press statement issues by the Information Commissioner's Office today? It says:

The ICO has not been consulted in relation to the release of the case review file regarding the tragic circumstances of the 'Baby P' case. We have not made a ruling on this case.

The Data Protection Act is not a barrier to sharing personal information when necessary. However, case review files are likely to contain, not only sensitive personal information about the subject of the review, but often about third parties too, such as friends, relatives and professionals. This is a particular consideration where the matter is the subject of such emotive debate, and there may be safety issues for those involved in the case.

There will be circumstances where reports need to be scrutinised by select committees and other bodies to ensure that important lessons are learned. Data protection does not prevent appropriate individuals from accessing relevant information in these circumstances.

At the very least, Ed Balls needs to find himself some new professional advisers.

Thanks to Looking for a Voice.

The history of child abuse inquiries

The other day, while discussing the death of Baby P (can't we all, like Heresy Corner, call him Peter now?) I wrote:

Ed Balls has now announced yet another enquiry, but such enquiries have had remarkably similar findings going right back to the death of Dennis O'Neill in 1945.

The extent to which the death of Dennis O'Neill and the events that followed it set the pattern for later deaths and inquiries can be seen from this article on the Community Care site:

Sir Walter Monckton’s one-man, four day inquiry opened on 10 April 1945. He found that the Goughs had been selected “without adequate inquiry being made as to their suitability” and that “there had been a serious lack of supervision by the local authority”.

Shropshire Council’s public assistance officer had informed Newport officers that he was “unable to see his way clear to arrange supervision of your cases” because Newport was paying the Goughs a higher boarding out allowance (fostering fees) than Shropshire’s rates. “Disparities of this kind had caused trouble in the past. It was not a question of saving money but of avoiding friction with foster-parents,” the inquiry said.

On 20 December 1944, a clerk from Newport, a Miss EM Edwards, was in Shropshire to discuss the payments dispute. While there she was asked to visit the boys, although the inquiry found she “had little experience to qualify her to undertake a visit to supervise the children in their foster home”. Nonetheless, she knew things were not right.

In her report she recommended the “immediate removal” of the boys and commented that she “several times impressed upon Mrs Gough the necessity of calling in a doctor for Dennis”. Neither authority responded with any urgency. In Shropshire, the report was put aside for an officer to deal with “on his return from annual leave on the 10 January” – Dennis died on 9 January.

The issues that contributed to his death – poor record-keeping and filing, unsuitable appointments, lack of partnership working, resource concerns, failing to act on warning signs, weak supervision and “a lamentable failure of communication” – were not buried with Dennis O’Neill. These failings were to feature regularly in inquiries held into the death or abuse of children in care for the next 60 years – up to and including that of eight-year-old Victoria Climbié.

The death of Maria Colwell in 1973 is always mentioned when there is a new child abuse scandal involving a local authority. The death of Dennis O'Neill seems to have been forgotten. I came across it by chance myself because of my Shropshire fixation.

Baby P, anonymity and the internet

Martin Belam writes about the difficulty of keeping information out of the public domain in the internet age. The identities of Baby P and those convicted of harming him are projected by legal injunctions, but their names are not hard to find with a little Googling.

He concludes:

It is difficult to see how much longer the court ruling can be expected to hold. If the anonymity restriction is lifted, it will at least remove the curious moral anomaly that people who worked on the case are free to be named, shamed and hounded by the press, whereas the actual perpetrators of the dreadful crime are protected by the state from the prying public.

It will also allow the child the dignity of being remembered under his full name.

Gordon Brown is behaving like a small-town Tory

On Wednesday Gordon Brown accused David Cameron of being party political because he raised the Baby P case at prime minister's questions. Today, says the BBC:

Gordon Brown says he is disappointed by "partisan talk" after the shadow chancellor warned his actions could lead to sterling's collapse.

Brown has clearly convinced himself that he always acts in the national interest and that those who criticise him can only do so from base motives.

It is tempting to compare him to the dictator of some old East European state. But he reminds me more of the Conservatives I used to tangle with in local politics.

For decades their type had run the town with their own business interests firmly in mind, but if you ever questioned this they would look aghast and accuse you of being political.

Of course the death of Baby P is a political matter

Developments in the Baby P case today include the news that a former Haringey employee had raised concerns about the standard of social care in the borough with ministers. Rather than listen to her the council had obtained court injunction preventing her from speaking about the matter. See the report on the Daily Telegraph site.

If this is the attitude Haringey takes to criticism how will it ever learn when things are going wrong?

To keep up with developments I recommend the blog written by Lynne Featherstone, the Lib Dem MP for part of Haringey.

Lynne is quoted on the Telegraph site too, talking about Haringey's use of an injunction against Nevres Kemal:

"It is absolute obstruction," she said.

"You have to think that everyone is acting on behalf of their own self interest, to protect themselves.

"Nowhere is the interest of the child being served. An injunction on the social worker is madness."

I think she is right to take up this issue. But I wonder what those Lib Dems who seemed so appalled that David Cameron raised it in the Commons on Wednesday think about it.

On reflection I think those most at fault for those unedifying scenes were Labour backbenchers. They heard Haringey Council and social workers mentioned and rode to the defence of their people by barracking Cameron. It was this that made him genuinely angry and he had every right to be angry.

And one of the best things about being a Liberal Democrat is that you are not caught up in the often over-cosy relationship between Labour councillors and their Labour supporting staff. As Lynne shows, this leaves us free to raise issues like the death of Baby P.

Incidentally, wouldn't it be more dignified if we were allowed to give the child his real name?

Time to sort out Haringey children's services

From The Times website:

The Times has also learnt that Haringey Council, sharply criticised after the death of Victoria Climbie eight years ago, hampered the investigation into the death of Baby P by not handing over all their information to murder squad detectives.

It was only when the trial got to court and the judge requested that they provide all their evidence that police officers were able to see everything they had.

A senior source involved in the inquiry said: "The council came in with pages and pages of stuff that we had no idea existed and had never seen before."

Gordon Brown's response on this case at prime minister's questions today reminds us that he has a tin ear when it comes to anything but economics and I suspect their was a touch of the deep-grained Labour instinct to protect their own in their too. David Cameron's indignation was far more appropriate to the occasion.

Ed Balls has now announced yet another inquiry, but such inquiries have had remarkably similar findings going right back to the death of Dennis O'Neill in 1945. What is needed is the will to do something about the situation.

If the deaths of Victoria Climbie and Baby P. do not make the case for the government to go in and sort out children's services in Haringey, it is hard to see what could.