The BBC provides a positive spin for Brown in the latest internet headline on the Baby P case: "PM vows to prevent Baby P repeat". The first two paragraphs of the article feature Brown's rejection of "buck passing" by Michael Gove, Shadow Secretary for Children, without featuring the source of this accusation. Instead the article refers to the loss of the natural father and Gove's initial statements are downgraded to the bottom of the article.
The article is distinctly odd, as politics, paternal loss and whistleblowing are amalgamated in process that is anything but impartial. The 'personal' angle to this story is best dealt with in a separate article from the political headlines of the day, since the air of accusation surely intrude on a private man's grief. Brown's statements on action are interspersed with the response of the natural father giving the impression of the Prime Minister responding directly to a public statement of loss. This is highly inappropriate, especially when the failings of Haringey Council are "alleged".
The whistleblowing act by the social worker, Nevres Kamal, was sent in a series of letters by her lawyer to the Department of Health and individual MPs (the BBC omits this latter fact) whilst she pursued a claim for racial discrimination from Haringey Council. The letter was passed by the Department of Health to the Department of Education and Skills, raising the alarm over an individual child's case and stating that there were wider problems with the conduct of standards by Haringey Council. The BBC appears to have information on the scope of the letter. No other paper states that the letter specifically referenced Lord Laming's report or its recommended procedures:
A lawyer acting for former Haringey social worker Nevres Kemal sent a letter about her concerns over the council to the Department of Health in February 2007.
She was worried that children in the borough continued to be "at risk".
This was despite an inquiry into the killing of eight-year-old Victoria Climbie - she died from abuse and neglect in the same borough eight years ago.
Ms Kemal believed recommendations made by Lord Laming following that inquiry were still not being followed.
Her letter was passed to the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), which said proper procedures were followed.
The Independent states that the letter demanded a public inquiry over the shortcomings in Haringey's social services, a more salient fact than the curious reference to Lord Laming, when the author of the BBC article means the legal procedures set down for child protection.
The permanent secretary of the former DES stated that they replied to the letter and forwarded the letter to the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) one month after they received an urgent warning that children were at risk. One month!!! The CSCI met with Haringey Council and confirmed to its own satisfaction that the individual children concerned were not at risk whilst failing to respond to the wider allegations of Nevres Kamal.
Details of the case had also been scrutinised through the Joint Area Review involving other agencies and through court proceedings, the CSCI said.
But it added that its inspectors ended their inquiries at that point, and did
not explore Ms Kemal’s wider concern, expressed in a letter from her lawyer,
that child protection procedures were being flouted. That admission will
raise concerns about the broader oversight system.
Of greater concern is the confusing facts now coming to light that appear to show that the DES delayed replying to these allegations for one month and that the CSCI may have acted upon Kamal's letter rather than through a referral from the DES:
Last night, the Department for Children, Schools and Families confirmed it had received the letter 21 months ago.
A spokeswoman said: "Our records show we received a letter dated 16 February 2007, forwarded to us from the Department of Health, detailing an employment tribunal issue with Haringey Council, and containing an allegation that child protection procedures were not being followed in Haringey. Officials from this department replied on 21 March 2007. In that letter they made the point that ministers could not comment on the specific details of the employment tribunal case. As is standard practice, they suggested that the individual should notify the relevant Inspectorate, the Commission for Social Care Inspection, to take appropriate action and they provided the necessary contact details."
A misleading BBC article leads to an exploration of the media on this issue: an attempt by a social worker's lawyer to warn the government and individual MPs of problems at Haringey, before the social worker was prevented from further publicity by an injunction. A government that took one month to reply to allegations of inadequate child protection and confusion as to whether the CSCI was involved by the DES or directly by the social worker herself.
Does the government take one month every time it receives an allegation that children may be at risk? Does the government ignore allegations of departmental negligence in a local council when the source is a disgruntled employee? Does this make them any less serious, if the alleged council is Labour controlled?