Milford Mercury | Local News, Sport & Entertainment

Defending the indefensible

From the Milford Mercury, first published Thursday 13th Jan 2005.

LAST week, the Mercury highlighted Ombudsman Adam Peat's damning report into complaints against Pembrokeshire County Council made by a local woman whose children were wrongly placed on the at risk register.

The shocking report - available to the public from County Hall - charted the woman's three-year ordeal as she fought to have her children removed from the register and clear her own name.

Mr Peat found the council had been guilty of "repeated, prolonged and serious maladministration" in the way it had treated the woman, whom he gave the pseudonym `Mrs Price.'

He made a host of recommendations to the authority, including the making of full written apologies, an award of £5000 in recognition of the distress and damage it had caused, and prompt improvements to training and procedures to prevent similar suffering happening to anyone else.

Last week, council leader John Davies claimed the council's principal mistake had been one of "over caution." In the circumstances, the Mercury didn't think that was good enough, so went back to him this week with some more questions.

These are the questions, and the leader's responses...

1. In view of the "repeated, prolonged and serious maladministration" in this case, should director of social care Jon Skone now resign? If not, with whom does the buck stop?

JD: "This case is one among thousands dealt with during the time that Mr Skone has been Director of Social Services. It is difficult to see what justification there could be in his resignation. The important thing is to learn any lessons from the Ombudsman's report and to deal with the issues which arise in it."

2. The Ombudsman said "Mrs Price" was being punished for being difficult and non-compliant. Dr Fitzgerald, the external investigator, said that to remove the children from the register at review Child Protection Conferences (CPCs) would have meant "considerable loss of face" for a number of professionals. Rather than "over caution," isn't the root problem here one of institutionalised arrogance and inability to admit fault?

JD: "The matters raised in this instance represent complex issues involving a number of skilled people from a variety of agencies such as social workers, health professionals, police officers, teachers etc.

"The overriding responsibility of this group of people is the protection of children and they invariably face difficult decisions. Often the parents disagree with these decisions and when they do, it doesn't automatically follow that the decision taken is the wrong one. Social workers must be free to pursue their enquiries in a robust manner in discussions with parents.

"It should be remembered that at any one time the authority's social workers are dealing with between 600 to 700 children. In the course of a year, hundreds of referrals are dealt with in the context of Child Protection. At any one time, between 60 and 100 children are on the At Risk Register."

3. If the council's main error was one of "over caution," why did it take a month to respond to a letter from the school that the child had a bruise on his head?

JD: "A fading bruise on the face of one of the children was, quite appropriately, brought to the attention of social services by the school. The school felt there was no strong reason for an urgent referral but the council acknowledges that it took longer that it would have liked to follow-up the matter."

4. One key issue here is that the CPCs were conducted in a way which breached All-Wales Child Protection procedures and apparently disregarded good practice. How could the chairman [Maria Hemingway, Mr Skone's wife] have got things so badly wrong? Why was she allowed to chair successive conferences after mishandling the first? How many other conferences has she chaired? Should she now consider her position?

JD: "Child Protection Committees are multi-disciplinary and multi-agency bodies comprising a group of professionals including nurses, doctors, police officers, teachers as well as social workers. At the time they had genuine concern about the welfare of the children. It is not a matter for the chair of the committee to make a decision as to whether a child goes on the At Risk Register."

5. As leader, and formerly cabinet member with responsibility for young people, what responsibility for this extended debacle do you personally bear?

JD: "I refute your `extended debacle' description. It is certainly not a phrase used in the Ombudsman's Report. As I have said, many thousands of children have been dealt with by the authority over the years. This is one case. We acknowledge that errors were made and for these we have apologised."

6. What do you think is the most valuable lesson the council can learn from this episode?

JD: "At the time, the procedures referred to in the report were new. Since then training has taken place and managers have been directed to ensure that social services staff comply with the new procedures.

"The council is constantly working closely with the Social Services Inspectorate for Wales, as well as the Audit Commission. During the last 12 months the authority's social services directorate has undergone no fewer than four different inspections, including an inspection on the county council's response to the Victoria Climbie case.

"We have agreed to follow the recommendations set out by the Ombudsman in his report. The Chief Inspector of Social Services in Wales has been kept fully informed of the situation and arrangements have been made with the Area Child Protection Committee to commission a review of the issues raised by the Ombudsman. The review will be carried out by an external facilitator.

"In addition, the case conference procedures have been revised and extra resources have gone into supporting the team which manages the Child Protection Case conference processes."

Archive Home