The buck has to stop with Sharon Shoesmith
Diane Abbott, MP for Hackney North & Stoke Newington
This article titled “The buck has to stop with Sharon Shoesmith” was written by Diane Abbott, for guardian.co.uk on Friday 27th May 2011 17.10 UTC
Am I the only person to think that there is something inappropriate about Sharon Shoesmith, the London borough of Haringey’s former head of children’s services, standing on the steps of the royal courts of justice giving the appearance of someone who thinks that she has been vindicated over the death of Peter Connelly, also known as Baby P?
All along, Shoesmith has appeared to think that it is wrong she should ultimately take responsibility for the death of that little boy. She seemed to believe that she earned her £133,000 salary through the elegance of her report writing alone. And she appears to have no notion that the buck should stop with her and that there should have consequences.
Yet, years before the tragic death of Baby P, Lord Laming produced a report about another child who died in hideous circumstances in Haringey, at a time before Shoesmith was involved. That child was Victoria Climbié. It was not much remarked on at the time, but Laming was clearly frustrated by the unwillingness of social services bosses to take any real responsibility for what happened. In fact some of these bosses were some were even able to move on to higher paying jobs. Laming said in his Victoria Climbié report:
“It is not to the handful of hapless, if sometimes inexperienced, front-line staff that I direct most criticism for the events leading up to Victoria’s death. While the standard of work done by those with direct contact with her was generally of very poor quality, the greatest failure rests with the managers and senior members of the authorities whose task it was to ensure that services for children, like Victoria, were properly financed, staffed, and able to deliver good quality support to children and families. It is significant that while a number of junior staff in Haringey Social Services were suspended and faced disciplinary action after Victoria’s death, some of their most senior officers were being appointed to other, presumably better paid, jobs. This is not an example of managerial accountability that impresses me much.”
And he returned to the theme in the report that he wrote after the death of Baby P: “I strongly believe that in future, those who occupy senior positions in the public sector must be required to account for any failure to protect vulnerable children from deliberate harm or exploitation.” But Shoesmith appears to believe that feeling sorry is enough. And, in her triumphalism, she has overlooked the fact the court has upheld the damning Oftsed report that formed the basis of her sacking.
I believe that is no coincidence that the Victoria Climbié tragedy was followed with in a very few years by the Baby P tragedy and in the very same local authority. As long as six-figure salary social services bosses feel that they will suffer no penalty when these tragedies happen on their watch, these tragedies will continue to recur. Laming can write brilliant reports. Rank and file social workers can be made to fill in even more forms. But if top social services bosses can keep their jobs and walk away with their gold plated pensions, then nothing will change.
Apparently Shoesmith could get nearly £400,000 compensation as a result of this case. It may be that there were procedural problems with her sacking. And like Laming, I do not believe in making scapegoats of “hapless frontline staff”. But, when it comes to the people at the very top of social services departments, the principle that they should pay with their jobs when things go as badly wrong as they did in the Baby P case is a good one.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010
Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.
Sure. But she has rights, too. If you want to sack her without hesitation, you’d better expect to pay for it.
If it weren’t for the death and abuse of children, this would be quite ironic. Regardless of who the employee is, it is pretty scandalous that a Secretary of state chose to summarily dismiss someone without following the proper procedures, thus giving them the opportunity to take legal action and obtain high levels of compensation.
Whether one feels she is entitled to it is another debate. What we also do not know clearly enough is whether the department was properly staffed and resourced. All of these the ultimate responsibility of central government, a government that the MP for Hackney North supported. No one responsible there.
Well said, Pierre.
Ms Abbott accurately points out: “It was not much remarked on at the time, but Laming was clearly frustrated by the unwillingness of [Haringey’s] social services bosses to take any real responsibility for what happened. In fact some of these bosses were some were even able to move on to higher paying jobs.”
Is it pertinent perhaps that one of those highly paid social services bosses who failed “to take any real responsibility” for her part in Victoria Climbié’s death moved on to a higher paid job working for … Hackney Council?
If resignation is a consequence of it being “their watch” then perhaps Balls should have resigned too.
A disciplinary hearing would have led to a clearer idea of how much responsibility Shoesmith actually bore. Was there a clear policy and procedure in place to deal with these suspicions and if so, did the director take steps to see that it was followed? If so, then perhaps the procedure was at fault or perhaps procedures cannot deal with these situations.
I always understood that the Lamming report was in good part responsible for the form filling that Ms Abbott implies is counter-productive..