Children, Schools and Families Bill

I do not intend to detain the House for long, and I wish to address my remarks entirely to new clause 1 and related issues. As a result of my experience of serious case reviews in my city, I am extremely sympathetic to the case made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and the contents of new clause 1. However, I acknowledge that the recent changes made to the workings of serious case reviews and local safeguarding children boards by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are also important and ought to be mentioned. I am talking about the fact that the boards should have an independent chair—that is one deficiency that I can see in the matters to which I wish to refer—and that two lay people should be members of these boards. I have met people from my local board to discuss the matters to which I wish to refer, so I am able to say that those lay people might find themselves in a difficult position. If they are to be effective, they will require a great deal of support, back-up and extra bureaucratic and research capacity in order to have the confidence to raise issues as the only lay members in a body that is otherwise dominated by professionals. My Front-Bench colleagues may wish to refer to that later. I have had the unfortunate experience of dealing with two serious case reviews into the deaths of children. One related to a constituency case where a baby burned to death in a property. The baby's mother had a history of mental illness and other difficulties. At first she said that people from the neighbourhood had come into the house and burned it down—hon. Members will appreciate how damaging that was to the local community—but subsequently it became clear that she was responsible for the death of the child, which triggered the serious case review. The executive summary of the serious case review, which is all that we now know about the case, rehearses the connections that this young woman had with a number of agencies. It also makes it clear that at the birth of her baby, her attitude changed and she was a devoted and careful mother. Research carried out later, which came to my attention and was brought about by the Department for Children, Schools and Families, leads me to think that this is a classic case of what is known in the research field as "start again syndrome". I am grateful to the research commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for that discovery. The executive summary of the case review concludes:""Despite the indications of risk to"" the baby""which are evident with the benefit of hindsight, it should be acknowledged that he had been a wanted and well cared for baby. His mother was selective in deciding which information she divulged to each agency and in deciding which help she would accept…The events which led to"" the baby's""death were unpredictable and, as such, could not have been prevented."" When I came to read that some months later, I was deeply troubled by the idea that events that are unpredictable cannot be prevented. That is a leap of logic no one concerned with risk assessment procedures could very easily accept. When I looked further into the matter, I discovered that at the very moment that the executive summary was released, the local authority issued a press release, embargoed to the time of the release of the executive summary, which began in this fashion:""A review following the unlawful killing of baby"" X""by his mother has found that his death could not have been prevented."" That is, in itself, an extraordinary interpretation of the remarks in the executive summary. The press release, in turn, was accompanied by a statement issued by the author of the serious case review, the first sentence of which read:""The events which led to"" the baby's""death were unpredictable and, as such, could not have been prevented."" I find the fact that the three documents were issued within the same time frame quite disturbing as an account of that set of circumstances. I was even more concerned when I discovered the same phrases—expressing the idea that things that could not be predicted could not be prevented—being mentioned in other serious case reviews in other parts of the country, almost as though there was a culture of offering up such phraseology as a justification for the events that had taken place. I am extremely concerned by that. I looked further into the case and discovered that both serious case reviews carried out within a year concerning the death of children were carried out by the same person, who was the regional chair of a charity that received grant aid from the local authority that was running the local safeguarding children board. I am troubled by that. Let me make it clear that the lady who authored the two serious case reviews did not receive any benefit as a result of the grant aid. I make no suggestion of anything like that, but none the less I am troubled by the idea that two serious case reviews in the same time frame can be carried out by the same person who is also acting in a lay and voluntary capacity and receiving a grant from the local authority that supports the local safeguarding children board. I do not think that that survives any valid test of proper independence. I am troubled by these matters, as well as by the phrases that express the idea that things that were not predictable could not have been prevented—if we applied them to other matters with which this House deals, we would all be very troubled by them. I am concerned about these matters, which lead me to the conclusion that new clause 1 points us in the right direction, and so I am inclined to support it. I hope that what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says in his speech will lead me to a different conclusion, but that is where matters stand.