Whoever is to be blamed, and however the degrees of blame are to be portioned out, the bottom line is that “Baby P” was killed after a horrific 18 month life, during all or most of which he was repeatedly beaten and physically injured by his mother, and her partner, and, perhaps, the lodger.
Other articles:
- Haringey; why the "business model" didn't work, by Pauline Bradley, from Solidarity 3/142
- A reply to the criticisms in the comments below, by Sean Matgamna.
This happened while the family was being supervised by the social services and “Baby P” was known to be at risk. Everyone involved from the social services must share some of the blame.
A narrow trade-unionist response to this terrible event — rallying round to defend the social workers involved — is ruled out by the nature of the work they did, in which (to repeat, however the blame should finally be apportioned) they failed utterly. Here, a narrow trade-unionist response would be the opposite of a socialist response.
What happened is beyond excusing or excuse-making. Those responsible should be called to account and removed from such work. Everyone, from the case workers, to their supervisors, to the medical doctor who, examining “Baby P” a few days before he died, did not notice that he had a broken back.
That said, however, the press outcry against Haringey social services department should not be allowed to determine what is done now. Already it is determing it. The minister responsible, Ed Balls, publicly acknowledges that his response has been influenced by the agitation of the Sun newspaper.
The one million people who have put their names to the Sun’s petition for the social workers, managers, and doctors to be sacked evidently needed to find an outlet for their proper sense of outrage. But in its day-to-day attitudes, the Sun, in relation to society, is the near equivalent of the wretches who tortured and finally killed “Baby P”.
The Sun and the rest of the “red-top” press and their owners are unashamed supporters of all the things in this society that make the ill-treatment of children inevitable. The Sun and its rivals hounding social workers here are the Devil campaigning against the sin he devotes his time to encouraging!
An authoritative report in the Lancet estimates that at any given time upwards of ten per cent of children in Britain — one million! — are victims of ongoing physical abuse from parents and guardians. Everybody interested knows that this is true, and that if the estimate errs, it errs by underestimation.
You can see aspects of it in the streets and the supermarkets, where parents routinely shout at, threaten, bully, or slap a distressed small child, adding to the distress. Within the family — whether old-fashioned nuclear family, or families where the mother’s or father’s partners are not directly related to the children — the children are the easy scapegoats, the safe targets, for the stronger adults’ anger, frustration, and for their sense of helplessness in society. They are the safe targets to whom the abuse — physical, verbal, social — which the adults themselves experience (and most likely experienced as children) can be passed on.
The young partner of “Baby P”‘s mother is reported to be illiterate. He is therefore someone most grievously wronged and injured by the education system, and thus someone condemned to a pretty miserable existence. Such people are themselves scapegoats; and children like “Baby P” and one million others in Britain are the "scapegoats of the scapegoats".
None of this diminishes the monstrous behaviour of “Baby P”‘s murderers — that is what they are, whatever they were charged with — or lessens their personal responsibility. None of it is meant to imply that they they should not be held fully accounted and properly punished.
The point is to try to understand the social preconditions of the terrible things done to “Baby P” and the terrible things being done now to vast numbers of other children. Poverty, social degradation and exclusion, ignorance, ill-treatment when the ill-treaters were themselves children, the sense of their own social helplessness — all this is the reason why people capable of better behaviour wind up venting their distress and compensating for it by ill-treating and sometimes killing small children in their care.
The conditions that foster such behaviour are produced by the social regime of which the Sun and the other vigilante would-be avengers of “Baby P” are both champions and by-products.
A narrow trade-unionist response is no way for socialists to respond now; but neither is the approach of that press which exults in hypocritical outrage against the inevitable results of the social conditions of which they are the inveterate champions and defenders.
Comments
redux.
So if the only problem is the inconsistency between the politics of the paper, and their outrage, if Solidarity called for "all the social workers involved to be sacked", then it would be completely fine?
As usual, Sean does have a point - but he has written an article which misses out some of what should be fundamentals. The true point is that, presumably, socialists can place such importance on some jobs, and their competent performance, that we can sometimes think that some people should not practice them. It would be absurd to advocate for rank incompetence in fields designed to protect people from suffering and death.
But no breath in the article of empathy with the position of the social workers? That they were working at 50% over the case work target (no doubt too high itself), to take one example? There are plenty more points, adequately covered by the previous article on this site, the Socialist Worker article, and Michael Lavalette's various pieces dotted around the internet. No consideration that good workers might have been under too much pressure? That with different procedures, and better training, those social workers might have been able to do a good job? That there is something going on here, institutionally, apart from incompetent individuals, and beyond the generally specified decadence of capitalist social relations? Nothing to say about Balls, and his culpability, beyond that he did what the Sun asked of him?
Nothing of this - just "those responsible should be called to account and removed from such work". I'm alot more charitable than some, who would probably leap on this as evidence of some terrible heresy. It isn't, it's a question worth raising. But once again, it's been done in an oddly lazy way. Socialist principle number one. Don't blame the workers, blame the bosses. If you're going to alter that, the reasons better be pretty good, and thoroughly examined.
"Trade unionist" response is basis of a socialist one
Dear Sean,
You say:
"A narrow trade-unionist response to this terrible event — rallying round to defend the social workers involved — is ruled out by the nature of the work they did, in which (to repeat, however the blame should finally be apportioned) they failed utterly. Here, a narrow trade-unionist response would be the opposite of a socialist response."
From reports the front line workers had recommended that the child be taken into care, they were systematically lied to by the mother, they got little support from managers etc. they were working within legal and procedural framework that has been constucted to undermine the autonomy of individual professionals and with a ridiculous set of limitations about the financial risk and legal jeopardy that the council would accept.
In fact they were constrained on almost every level from doing what was right. I'll leave to one side the attitude of the doctor who refusd to examine baby P as his reported comments speak from themself.
That there were errors of judgement, that those who visited the home could have pushed further, etc., may be grounds for concern, but do not open up the workers to the blanket condemmation of either the Sun or Sean i.e. they failed utterly.
So why does the nature of their work rule out some basic working-class solidarity Sean?
A trade unionist response does not mean defending the indefensible. It's not a case of the worker is always right but that every worker has the right to proper representation and that the union acts to ensure that management reaction is proportionate. In this case it seems that the witch-hunt which you've joined, whilst admittedly exposing the hypocrisy of those who hae led it, seeks to deny these workers any such rights.
The "narrow" to my mind trade unionist response is to demand that the agreed disciplinary/capability procedures be adhered to and not short circuited to produce a few quick scalps for the mob. You may have something different in mind but I fail to see what that could be.
From that starting point you would broaden out your response to take on some of the broader social and political issues which impinge upon the case. In that sense it would be the basis not the "opposite" of a socialist response.
For you however that approach seems ruled out as
“What happened is beyond excusing or excuse-making. Those responsible should be called to account and removed from such work.”
So making reference to the working conditions, regulations, etc. as above would likely be seen to be irrrelevant factors in light of your moral outrage at the tragedy. So you limit the possibilities of developing any more rounded socialist response by ruling out any discussion of the context.
Yet you allow for mitigating circumstances in the case of those directly responsible. You go to describe the 'cycles of abuse' and alienation that can be seen daily on our streets. Yet these are a product of aa society in which collectivism and social solidarity are in decline but there is no guidance to how they might be reclaimed. Particularly when the response of the community in the Shannon Matthews case would have provided an effective counterpoint to highlight how working class communities can respond.
In the isolated and alienated workforce in Haringey some such collective response would be welcome and we would support it. A refusal to work over hours, beyond caseload thresholds, without supervision etc. A demand that the council has a responsibility to defend its employees from any vigilantism etc. Surely ourselves as socialists would support the workers in any such move?
Instead what is likely to happen is that following the uproar further reforms will be brought in to undermine social workers and introduce more private sector involvement with less well trained and accountable workers in their place.
You conclude:
“A narrow trade-unionist response is no way for socialists to respond now; but neither is the approach of that press which exults in hypocritical outrage against the inevitable results of the social conditions of which they are the inveterate champions and defenders.”
So what is the response Sean which you would endorse? Or has moral outrage and frustration now become a substitute for analysis and programme?
Thank Mike
Some Lessons?
I thought that Pauline Bradley's piece was very reasoned and well thought out, however, I disagree with SM's piece and am not sure I understand why he thinks he needs to take a different line to the rest of the left on everyhting histherto existing?
SM says
"A narrow trade-unionist response to this terrible event — rallying round to defend the social workers involved — is ruled out by the nature of the work they did, in which (to repeat, however the blame should finally be apportioned) they failed utterly. Here, a narrow trade-unionist response would be the opposite of a socialist response."
I am not sure what a narrow trade union response to this would be, but Unison of which I am a member is obligated to defend all its members and rightly so.
If I was in haringey that is what I would be doing.
It strikes me that the wrong people have been pursued by the press: the social services department, police and NHS and even councillors did not kill Baby P! It was his family.
SM seems to want to walk a narrow line between these positions and I think he is wrong on this issue.
Mike
Who is responsible?
I don't agree with either Mike or Sean. Those who were legally and in practice able to prevent the death of Baby P certainly share responsibility for his death though obviously they were not its direct cause. On the other hand, to state "Those responsible should be called to account and removed from such work. Everyone, from the case workers, to their supervisors, to the medical doctor who, examining “Baby P” a few days before he died, did not notice that he had a broken back" is to ignore the fact that not all those involved had equal power or authority to determine his fate. Bureaucratic systems, training, prevalent assumptions that children should remain if at all possible with their families, cost considerations and overwork all also seem to have played a role. The case workers are not responsible for these. Those in control of the Social Services department - managers and their political bosses - were. There may have been cases of individual negligence / incompetence which need first of all to be proven; and then the remedy has to be appropriate for the particular case. Here it seems to me there is a role for 'narrow trade unionism' in ensuring that procedures are fair and avoid scapegoating.
Unison official position on Baby P
The following is the official position of UNISON.
I will add more thoughts over the weekend
Mike
The torture and killing of Baby P at the hands of his mother and carers has rightly horrified and angered the British public. We, in UNISON, share that horror and anger. We feel the same revulsion over the stabbing of two young brothers in Manchester last week – Romario Mullings-Sewell, 2, and his three-month old brother, Delayno. These are appalling tragedies.
It is a sad fact that there will always be people that torture and kill babies and children and they will use every means to hide their actions from the world.
As a civilized society, we should put in place the best measures we can to protect those most at risk of such treatment and, every day, tens of thousands of children are safe and well thanks to those measures.
When something goes wrong, as in the case of Baby P, it is right that we as a society question what went wrong, how it happened and how to prevent it happening again. And it is right that if someone didn’t do their job properly, they should be dealt with. Similarly, if it is the system that is at fault, then it needs to be changed.
We, as a society, place an enormous burden on social workers and other child protection professionals. And sometimes it seems that they cannot do right for doing wrong – if they take the child away from abusive parents or carers, they are attacked. If they don’t and the child is subsequently hurt or killed, it’s their fault.
If we want social care professionals to do our work for us, we must support them all the way down the line. Far too often, we hear of teams continuing to operate with over 40% of social work posts vacant. We hear of social workers carrying an additional 50% on top of their caseloads. Survey after survey has revealed the high turnover rate that accompanies these huge caseloads. The stress of knowing that at any moment their tenuous grip on the safety of a child could be lost, must be unbearable.
Every time there is such a tragedy, there is rightly a huge public outcry, a public inquiry, demands for heads to roll and recommendations to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
But some of these recommendations have created a bureaucratic burden which keeps social workers at their desks, away from the children who need them. New IT systems which were supposed to help aren't working properly. Social workers now feel that there is so much red tape, that it interferes with their ability to protect a child. They should not be intimidated by procedures but should be allowed to do their best for the child.
We urge the Government, local authorities and others will influence to give social workers the means to do the job properly.
No wonder 70% of local authorities report difficulty in recruiting social workers, average vacancy rate overall running at 12%.
I agree with Bruce
I agree with Bruce (and largely with Tom, though his suggestion towards the end of his comment that it is a socialist principle never to blame workers is mistaken).
One additional point is that any social worker whose competence is suspect is entitled to a fair disciplinary process. Petitioning in a national newspaper for the lot of them to be sacked with a casual disregard as to which bears how much, if any, responsibility, is in complete contradiction to that - as is publishing their personal details and photos on tabloid front pages.
Call that 'narrow trade unionism' if you like, but it is something that socialists should defend.
The Sun and the other tabloids are not just hypocritical on this issue - they are wrong.
Blame figures
One thing that does seem interesting in this case is that if the media could pursue the mother and one of the two men who perpetrated the murder of Baby P for legal reasons then the degree of focus on the agencies would rightly or wrongly be less attentive!
It is the lack of a tangible blame figure that leads The Sun to blame the agencies involved rather than the people who killed the Baby.
Also, where was the father of baby P in all of this? Surely he should have been raising alarms if he had concernes about the welfare of the child?
The Lancet and other research shows that over 1 million children are abused each year in this country,and much of that is at home of course (if not all of it). The "Gary-Glitter-old-man-in-the-bushes" are far less common abusers than your own father or uncle, mother or brother or sister. How many of those who signed the Sun's petition fit this category?
Mike
Other lessons for Baby P
A narrow trade unionist response has some benefit but needs to be extended to understand and explain the complex nature of these cases and child protection.
For those practicing in children’s social work and safeguarding the issues of large work loads, bureaucratic demands (performance indicators) and the nightmare of implementing the Integrated Children's System (electronic documents) has a genuine impact on the ability of individual workers and teams to cope with very complex and challenging cases. Leaving staff teams demoralised and a significant problem of recruitment and retention, of suitable staff (Haringey had a large amount of agency staff).
There are real issues of young, relatively young social workers having to deal with complex child protection cases and what appears a real lack of understanding of risk management, which is crucial when responding to the issues similar to Baby P.
However along side this is also a need for accountability about decisions when working with children and families. If mistakes happen then we need to accept the responsibilities for our decisions. In regards to Baby P, although we are not yet aware of all the full facts there appears to be clear mistakes around: -
• Hospital visits
• Legal thresholds
• Social workers not aware of all facts (male partner in the home)
• Child protection concerns being viewed as a continuation and not separate so therefore not subject to re –
assessment
• Too higher optimism and the focus being on the parent not the child
• Not moving fast enough regarding a high risk case
• Poor sharing of information
The focus of an Independent review should be about how we learn from cases, at which point we could have intervened differently, which may have led to a different conclusion.
Sean is right to focus on the social preconditions, which causes such terrible things, quite often social workers are working with children and families where there are two generations of attachment disorders caused by abuse, which generally can be attributed to ‘poverty, social degradation and exclusion, ignorance, ill-treatment when the ill-treaters were themselves children, the sense of their own social helplessness’
But when judging social workers and their managers, you need to realise the specific pressures, the huge grey areas and the conflict from keeping the child with the parent and all the risks, which may be attributed to this against placing the child into ‘care’ and the poor outcomes, which this often leads to.
Having clear views and judgement is always easy with hindsight, but if mistakes are made we need to learn from them, this may mean that individuals, if the are incompetent will need to be moved, whether this is a social worker or senior manager.
But Janine’s point is correct and not narrow; when we face criticism we need our rights protected and fair processes in places to make impartial judgments and not a witch hunt by the media and opportunistic politicians.
Sparky
just to be clear...
I didn't mean to say that it is "a socialist principle never to blame workers". Just that if socialists are to blame workers, then "the reasons better be pretty good, and thoroughly examined."
my thoughts on "Baby P"
I feel there are several problems with Sean's article and response to the "Baby P" case. Starting with a focus throughout on blame. It is necessary and right to look at the "Baby P" case in detail and while blame is part of it surely the main focus should be what we can learn and how we can ensure that tragedies like this don't happen again (although unfortunately under a poorly resourced and business focused model of intervention this is inevitable).
Sean makes the point that "everyone in Social Services" must share some of the blame however this is apportioned. Why? My understanding is that the main social worker involved with "Baby P" made a recommendation for removal from the family home that was supported by direct management but overruled by senior management. Legal advice was given saying a threshold for an emergency care order wasn't reached and therefore management didn't want to take it to court and incur costs without succeeding in removing the child. Therefore the decision was financial and legal and the social worker's recommendation overruled. There were also errors of judgment, the 'chocolate on the face', being the one that has most hit the media. However in this case it appears that the social worker's recommendation was the right one despite those errors. Lessons need to be learned but I can't see anything to suggest the workers involved should lose their job.
Sean makes the point that a "narrow trade-unionist" rallying round to defend the social workers involved is precluded by the "nature of the work they did". This is a point I really don't understand. As a starting point defending workers is not usually defined by us as "narrow" trade unionism (even though of course it has its significant limitations) unless the action fails to address wider issues. I think Unison has behaved reasonably in not just rallying round the workers involved but in pointing out the failures of social services departments generally in terms of workload and systems, and government policy. The point they make is that what happened with baby P happened in a context of a poorly resourced service working on a business model. This is not a narrow approach, but rather seeks to address underlying issues so that the same mistakes are avoided. Sean's article does not talk about the system in this way. Instead he criticises social services, including the grass roots workers as a block. On the other hand Sean's article makes valid points about the treatment of children in our society, which Unison does not address.
I work in a neighbouring London borough which picketed Haringey Council in support of the social workers and against the people baying for blood (understandably but wrongly) outside the Council buildings. I was unable to attend the pickets in person but was and am thoroughly in support of them. I supported two motions in my branch offering solidarity to Haringey and in support of the workers involved and to our council highlighting the workload issues involved in this case and pressurising the council to look further into these issues at our own council. Was I wrong to do so? I don't think so.
When Sean states that defence of the social workers is precluded by "the nature of the work they did" I'm not sure if he means because errors were made or because they work in child protection / safeguarding children's teams. Either way I think this is wrong. Competent social workers regularly make mistakes (I include myself in this bracket) due to caseloads that are too high, inappropriate supervision and discussion of practice and a focus on performance indicators (targets) which as we know don't measure competence or workload effectively. Mistakes and errors of judgement particularly within this system are obviously a problem but in this case they didn't change the situation i.e. the worker made the same recommendation which was ignored. Surely workers aren't expected to search for a different job every time they make a mistake / error of judgement. If so me and all of my colleagues are job hunting! As well making mistakes, there is often inadequate input by social workers because they are overworked.
The alternative meaning is that because they work within a system (doing their best) that fails to protect children, social workers are culpable for that system. The fact they chose the 'wrong' job means they aren't entitled to 'narrow trade union solidarity'.
Sean uses the word "scapegoating" frequently in his article and yet it seems to me that the social workers involved are being scapegoated for a 'safeguarding children's service' which isn't able to safeguard children and never will be while it continues to be under resourced and set targets focused on a business model where intervention to support children and families at an early stage is practically impossible.
"Why the business model didn't work"
For Pauline Bradleys' piece in the last issue of Solidarity, which is referred to in this discussion, see here.
UNISON's Response
Just for info at the moment links to the evidence UNISON have submitted to Lord Laming's inquiry
http://www.unison.org.uk/news/news_view.asp?did=5052.
I'll try and post some more detailed commentary over the weekend. But first reading suggests this is a more focused attack on the system of child protection than the broader perspective in the original press release. That may be due to the particular remit and the nature of the evidence called for I'll try and find out.
Nevertheless I think it is clear that individual bad practice cannot always just be the fault of the system and that we are in favour of accountability of individuals up to as necessary dismissal and even criminal prosecution.
But we want that to be a transparent process in which rights to representation, appeal etc are in place and we have no truck with summary dismissals which may serve to appease the immedate mood of righteous outrage but are likely to preclude any lessons being learnt.
Disagreements over fundamentals here...
Mike F says:
"Nevertheless I think it is clear that individual bad practice cannot always just be the fault of the system and that we are in favour of accountability of individuals up to as necessary dismissal and even criminal prosecution."
Sean says:
"What happened is beyond excusing or excuse-making. Those responsible should be called to account and removed from such work. Everyone, from the case workers, to their supervisors, to the medical doctor who, examining “Baby P” a few days before he died, did not notice that he had a broken back."
Lynne says:
"Sean makes the point that "everyone in Social Services" must share some of the blame however this is apportioned. Why? My understanding is that the main social worker involved with "Baby P" made a recommendation for removal from the family home that was supported by direct management but overruled by senior management. Legal advice was given saying a threshold for an emergency care order wasn't reached and therefore management didn't want to take it to court and incur costs without succeeding in removing the child. Therefore the decision was financial and legal and the social worker's recommendation overruled. There were also errors of judgment, the 'chocolate on the face', being the one that has most hit the media. However in this case it appears that the social worker's recommendation was the right one despite those errors. Lessons need to be learned but I can't see anything to suggest the workers involved should lose their job."
I have to say, that as a "narrow trade unionist" in Islington, next door to Haringey, I agree with Lynne! Are Mike and Sean saying Unison and other unions should join the rampage to hang social workers out to dry?
Mike C, Islington
Spot the difference
Mike C - If you think that Mike F and Sean are arguing the same thing, then you need to read their contributions again.
Mike F is saying that while socialists need to assess the shortcomings of the overall system of social work, not all individual malpractice can be totally explained by failings in the system, and that we might sometimes have to support workers being sacked. Sean is arguing that everyone involved in the Baby P case is to some degree culpable and they should all be 'removed from such work', and gives no assessment of the overall system of social work.
accountability
Mike B as my earlier post made clear I don't agree with Sean. Thinking about all of this I've considered my own responses as a UNISON rep defending members on serious charges of neglect or exploiting clients. For context because i can't expect you to know it I'm a mental health nurse in an A&E dept.
For sake of confidentiality etc to cite an example, an extreme one admittedly, consider I was asked to represent Beverly Allitt. Clearly as the evidence is produced it moves quickly beyond disciplinary action etc.
But the circumstances in which it happened and particularly how she manged to qualify as a nurse though missing huge chunks of her training etc also needed to be examined and were of concern to trade unionists. This led to an inquiry which has certainly tightened things up appropriately I think.
The point about the latest UNISON resonse is conditioned as maybe having a narrower focus because of the specific remit of the inquiry. I was trying to emphasise the difference with the original UNISON press release you posted which I think was more balanced and says:
'When something goes wrong, as in the case of Baby P, it is right that we as a society question what went wrong, how it happened and how to prevent it happening again. And it is right that if someone didn’t do their job properly, they should be dealt with. Similarly, if it is the system that is at fault, then it needs to be changed.'
If you reread my comment it was trying to reemphasise that original balance. Specifically on this case I wouldn't claim to know enough detail about the actions of the social workers to presume any blame hence my assertion of the right to due process.
In the case of the doctor where I do understand a bit more about "duty of care' there does seem a clearer potential case of failure to be addressed. But again that doesn't mean I think she should have her picture on the front page of the Sun either before due process has taken its course or indeed thereafter given the reported terrible effect on her family etc.
Hope that clarifies things.
Tx Mike F
Response to the debate from Sean Matgamna
Click here for a response to the debate from Sean Matgamna.
Correction
Mike F--you are absolutely right and I have re-read all the contributions with my 18 month sitting in his high chair watching teletubbies, and eating breakfast!
I stand corrected on that point, and am not afraid to apologise. It does not take away my disagreements with SM on these matters though, although i see he has posted a very long repsonse to the critiques of his piece!
MikeyBear/Mike Calvert
all these Mike's are a bit confusing!