Serious Case Reviews – Background (3 of 9)

Background

This meeting nearly never happened (as with last week's to discuss the latest CSSIW (Care & Social Service Inspectorate for Wales) report into Swansea's Children & Family Services, where only 2 out of 14 measures were shown to have improved and they were to do with political and corporate leadership, rather than the actual services themselves). From the outset, there was no intention to have a full Council debate on either of these serious matters. It was only considerable pressure from me (with RK's support), that they took place. Even so, the allowed extent (the remit) of both meetings was unsatisfactory and limited.

Councillors first saw the CSSIW report just before they arrived in the Chamber for the meeting, which meant that most members had about 10 minutes to read it before the Inspectors' presentation. (Entirely fortuitously, I got just over an hour to read it). I had already objected that this procedure, insisted on by CSSIW, was not only contrary to the law, in that it did not allow the three days publication of papers required by the Local Government Act & the Council's Constitution, but was also entirely unreasonable. I can speed read (loads of practice), many can't. Most Members would only be able to read (and comprehend) the report after the meeting was over and, if they then had questions, would be unable to ask them. I had sought to get the CSSIW Inspectors to return to Council. I asked them directly when we met the Minister and later at their presentation. They refused. In fact, the Chief Inspector over-ruled one of his Inspectors who had already accepted an invitation to attend the Scrutiny Board, on the grounds that 'that was not the way they did things'!

In regards to the SCRs, the Social Service Department's view was not to have a Council meeting at all. It was concerned about the effect that dragging this all up again in public would have on the families and that there would be disclosure of the children's identities. The first argument might just about stand for Child E (Chloe), but not for the others – Mother and sister in prison for causing the death of Child B (Carly) and given away by the mother and generally ignored by his carer (and everyone else) Child D (Kyle). It seems to me that any 'rights' the families might have had, had been sacrificed. In any event, should these rights over-ride those of elected members in being able to arrive at an informed judgement? What was the purpose of these reports being published if the elected representatives of the people of Swansea were not allowed to debate them? I expressed the view that the only way to deal with issues such as these was to be full and frank. If we (the Council) accepted the conclusions, if we had nothing to hide, then full and frank disclosure was the only way to proceed. To do otherwise would be, at least, to play into the hands of those who would allege a 'cover-up'.

Under Cllr Fitzgerald's tenure, as Cabinet Member, she had had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into providing any information on the SCR or circumstances surrounding the death of Aaron Gilbert. It was only Labour motions that got anything before Council – and even then her behaviour bordered on the contemptuous. Readers may need reminding, that Cllr Mrs Fitzgerald denied absolutely that Swansea Social Services had any involvement in Aaron Gilbert's death, even though a Social Worker had been suspended and disciplinary action initiated. That she misled Council seems beyond doubt.

Therefore, following Cllr Fitzgerald's sacking and Nick Tregonning's appointment, I discussed with him how he would deal with future cases. I was pleased that he agreed with my analysis and with his assurance that he would not try to hide anything and that such matters would be quickly brought before Council. I was therefore particularly disappointed when, following the initial presentation on the SCRs to Council, Nick seemed to waver and be inclined to resist a meeting/debate.

Considerable backstage negotiation then went on, which resulted in yesterday's meeting, although the ground rules were restrictive and were still being negotiated up to the meeting. I understand that not having a meeting was not a view shared across the Corporate Management Team and it was good that Nick Tregonning subsequently changed his mind. I was pleased that common sense won out over the Department's wish for anonymity being maintained with the children being referred to by letters. I thought this wrong – we had failed these young people, and the very least we could do was remember that they were real and use their names and not treat them as statistics. Not least, as their identities had already been made public anyway.