‘A big boy done it and ran away’
Ken Houston says whether the victims are small children or small shareholders , government ‘guardians’ never seem to accept responsibility; even by the dire standards of the social work establishment, the first week of October was not a good one.
Within a few days the press reported three distressing cases – one north, the other two south of the Border – which revealed how, yet again, failings by social workers led to the loss of human life.
Here in Scotland the subject was the death of a Lanarkshire foster parent who was not informed by social services about the violent tendencies of a teenage boy in her care. The two English examples – one in Bradford the other in Birmingham – repeated an already well-related story of social workers ignoring clear evidence of ill treatment towards children by parents and/or step-parents. The previous month, similar failings involving the death of a child in Coventry, another Midlands city, were made public knowledge.
On each occasion the reaction from social services spokespersons was depressingly familiar: much intake and sucking out of breath, then the usual excuses about lack of resources, shortage of staff, heavy workloads and, of course, dastardly Tory cuts.
It had not been my intention to raise this issue because, A), the failure to protect children (at a cost of £50k a year to the taxpayer for a basic qualified social worker if you add pension and other benefits to salary) is bad for the blood pressure; and B) the subject is normally not one appropriate to a business-related website.
However as these failings were being revealed, I had begun reading Hubris (*), a fascinating account of the downfall of HBOS by the veteran financial journalist, Ray Perman. And having finished the book I could not fail to infer a clear connection between the failings of social work and financial regulation.
In his book Perman, rightly, focuses on the unbelievable risks with shareholders’ money taken by the HBOS top brass and for their failure to heed warning signs before disaster struck.
But the author also devotes a chapter to the Financial Services Authority, the government-funded organisation set up by Gordon Brown, which was charged with monitoring HBOS and other financial institutions to ensure that shareholder funds were not put at exceptional risk.
In this, the FSA failed miserably. Just like social workers who (either through naivety, political correctness or moral cowardice) choose to take the word of cunning, manipulative or brutish parents that their children are not being abused, so FSA officials took the word of the banks that everything was hunky-dory.
For the sake of a quiet life, what they were told was what they wanted to hear.
When the whole thing went belly up, public opprobrium concentrated on the people in charge at HBOS (and at RBS and Northern Rock), their indignation heightened by the fact that those responsible walked away with huge pay-offs and with pensions intact, even though the consequences for thousands of small shareholders must have been devastating.
However, this partly meant that those who failed at the FSA were permitted to slope off into the night with little or no consequences. For example, the most senior official from the FSA to lose his post in light of errors in the handling of Northern Rock was rewarded with a £612,000 golden exit package and a £30,000 performance related bonus.
Consequently, the parallels with social work are chillingly obvious.
Failure by social workers to protect children hardly ever lead to dismissals or, if so, an appeal usually results in reinstatement or substantial financial compensation.
Indeed, if the first week of October was a bad one for social work, the month ended on a high note when it was announced that Sharon Shoesmith – in charge of social services at the London Borough of Haringey and, therefore, directly responsible for employees who failed “Baby P” - would receive compensation for unfair dismissal estimated to be at least half a million pounds.
Shoesmith was said to be “thrilled” by the outcome, just as previously she was “over the moon” when the courts initially ruled in her favour. Clearly this woman has moved on since little Peter was beaten and tortured to death despite being visited 60 times by a team of her social workers.
Shoesmith must wonder why she was not treated in the same way as Harriet Dempster, who retired from Highland Council (on a substantial pension) in 2010. Dempster was in charge of social work when the body of five-year old Danielle Reid (murdered by her mother’s boyfriend) was fished out of the Caledonian Canal, despite several attempts by other family members to warn social services that Danielle was being severely abused.
A subsequent independent inquiry described the structure and processes of the social work department as “chaotic”. Yet if Dempster had any regret at the failings towards this little girl, there was no evidence of mea culpa. In fact, not only did she keep her job but went on to accept a rise in annual salary reputed to be in the region of £15,000.
So where – and with whom - does the buck stop in social work?
Well, just as at the FSA (now reinvented as the Financial Conduct Authority) it seems not to stop with any individual, no matter how high up.
When something goes wrong, it’s all the fault of “the system” – the ultimate “get out of jail free card” all too regularly played by generously-remunerated public sector officials who fail to live up to their professional responsibilities.
(*) Hubris by Ray Perman is published by Birlinn
MORE POWERS: WEST MIDLANDS WON'T STAND IDLY BY
Unionist parties at Westminster hope they can fast track more powers through the Commons in time for draft legislation by next January. Dream on.
Not only will any new legislation be subject to keen scrutiny – that’s what parliaments are for – but it will also have to contend with arguments from economically struggling areas elsewhere in the UK that they should not be overlooked.
This is the Pandora’s Box that the Scottish referendum has sprung open. In an important article, Paul Forrest (pictured, third from left), head of research at the West Midlands Economic Forum, sets out why his region should not be disadvantaged by Westminster rushing through more powers for Scotland.
The Scottish Referendum debate has centred on whether Scotland is stronger in the Union or outside it – little attention has been paid to which option benefits the England and the West Midlands. The impact on the region of Scotland remaining in the UK could indeed be negative for the region.
The No-side appear to have adopted a negative campaign, simply stating that Scotland would be £1400 per head better off if it voted No. The Yes campaign, with its romantic populist approach, argue that the Independence windfall would be £1000 per head.
Whatever happens, major changes can be anticipated. The three main Westminster parties have already made un-costed commitments to further devolution if the vote is No, effectively moving toward further Scots financial autonomy in all areas, except defence, foreign affairs and social security.
Assessing the impact of either outcome is difficult, not least due to lack of hard data. It is relatively easily to quantify relations between national economies as they have clearly defined economic spaces, trading and tax regimes. Defining relations between sub-national entities such as Scotland and England or the West Midlands is reliant on assumptions, which can be politically slanted, because of data weaknesses.
Scotland and England have no single-defined border to determine the extent of the respective economies - according to some there are at least nine internationally acceptable variants of the North Sea border.
There is no agreement on the division of the continental shelf in the North Sea, currently the fisheries zones are used for determining allocation of North Sea energy resources. Statistically these resources are allocated by the ONS to the Continental Shelf (or Extra-regio). Proponents of Scottish independence assume North Sea revenues should be allocated to Scotland. With these revenues, Scotland per head provided an estimated £789 more in tax than the UK as a whole in 2012-13. Scottish public expenditure per head, however, in the same period was some £1256 (11%) higher.
If Scotland does vote yes, the true fiscal position will become quickly apparent and negotiation commence on an equitable and transparent redistribution of national asset and liabilities, including natural energy resources, debt and currency reserves as well a range of cross-border issues that have yet to be identified or quantified.
What could be the impact of the Scots remaining within the UK?
The current structure of funding is via a combination of the Scottish block grant and UK Departmental expenditure north of the Border.
Currently public expenditure in Scotland is equivalent to 9.3% of the UK total, despite an 8.4% population share. In 2012-13, per person this equated to £7932, 16% higher than the UK as a whole (£6722).
Annual recurrent public spend per head was 12.5% higher, and annual capital spend per head 48.2% higher than for the UK.
Significantly, Enterprise expenditure per head in Scotland was three times higher and the differential with the West Midlands, which received £262 per head, was more pronounced with Scotland’s receipt of £1001 per head. Similarly on transport activity, the West Midlands received £1112 per head compared to Scotland’s £2722.
There are arguments that Scotland receives more because of its greater relative deprivation and isolation, however there are parts of the West Midlands that suffer equally, if not more badly in terms of poverty and structural employment, whilst in Herefordshire, Shropshire and Staffordshire there are communities that are as equally isolated as many Scottish populations.
It is also argued that the Barnett Formula that determines the block grant is based on needs. However the baseline was calculated on the expenditure levels current when the political fudge was struck in 1979, with expenditure raised incrementally and proportionality since.
Expenditure was allocated according to 1979 population levels, although political expediencies subsequently have seen major funding variations. For capital expenditure, the national basis of the calculation has the perverse impact that London capital expenditure (by far the main recipient) reduces the available capital for other English regions, whilst simultaneously increasing the allocation available for Scotland.
The key problems of the Barnett Formula is its lack of transparency in its calculation and focus on political expediency rather than addressing very real social problems which are usually concentrated in specific pockets within regions, rather than generically to regions as a whole.
If there is a long-term structural unemployment problem in Wolverhampton it should be treated as equally urgently and effectively as if it were in East Kilbride or Newport.
With Scotland being promised control of some income and other taxes, such as Air Passenger Duty (APD), unless the Barnett Formula is restructured, or indeed a new methodology altogether adopted, this will exacerbate the asymmetrical devolution of governance that currently exists and put devolved administrations at a fiscal advantage.
If, for instance, the West Midlands took control of APD this could radically alter Birmingham Airport’s potential and consequently significantly boost the regional economy. The Davies Commission has implicitly and more recently explicitly stated the strengths of the Airport, but cited some reluctance on the part of international carriers to fly there, reducing or abolishing APD could transform its international attractiveness.
London, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland have institutions that take strategic economic views and lobbying for their implementation. English Regions, however defined, have no comparable capacity with no consensus on how devolution, if at all, should proceed. There are interesting proposals for combined local authorities, and both the Heseltine and Adonis Reviews have suggested ways forward. Proposals to give City Regions greater powers offers some scope, although again there needs to be mechanisms for them each to work together effectively. The One North proposal is an innovative approach that incorporates disparate City and local identities and harnesses them collectively to create a new regional approach.
The West Midlands, and indeed the Midlands collectively needs to decide how it can move forward and strengthen what is already one of the more dynamic and productive regions globally.
This article first appeared in The Birmingham Post
