Children's Social Services - Will we ever get it right?

[Neil Down]

10 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

He's been there over two years.  (29 June 2015)

He means dog minutes

[censorship]

8 hours ago, Chris Thomas said:

Nothing has changed since I made the statement in Tynwald on 18th July http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/OPHansardIndex1618/1026.pdf

The original independent report will be published on Tynwald order paper alongside a government response and action plan at the next sitting of Tynwald which is in October.

All Tynwald members, those who gave evidence in the inquiry, and the wider public will have the original report for nearly two weeks to prepare for the Tynwald sitting.

Summary information is available as a Cabinet Office document at https://www.gov.im/media/1358079/update-on-independent-report-on-children-and-family-services.pdf

Oh Chris, you really are part of the machine now aren't you.

If there really is no attempted whitewashing going on, then why not share the full report with the people who gave evidence? Why only produce an executive summary? Why then have to withdraw and redraft the executive summary as it didn't fully reflect the contents of the report? Why can't you trust the public?

Simple question, who identified the executive summary was inaccurate - was it the report authors?

[Chris Thomas]

4 hours ago, censorship said:

If there really is no attempted whitewashing going on, then why not share the full report with the people who gave evidence? Why only produce an executive summary? Why then have to withdraw and redraft the executive summary as it didn't fully reflect the contents of the report? Why can't you trust the public?

Simple question, who identified the executive summary was inaccurate - was it the report authors?

The full independent report will be shared with the people who gave evidence, and everybody else, in October. Government is producing a response and action plan which will be published at the same time.

I understand that the independent report authors wrote an executive summary of their report which they shared with those who had taken part in their investigation. I did not participate in the investigation and have not seen that executive summary.

Simple answer to your simple question - I understand the independent report authors identified the executive summary needed revision in the light of comments made by those who received it.

I do trust the public.

Edited August 16, 2017 by Chris Thomas

[censorship]

15 hours ago, Chris Thomas said:

The full independent report will be shared with the people who gave evidence, and everybody else, in October. Government is producing a response and action plan which will be published at the same time.

I understand that the independent report authors wrote an executive summary of their report which they shared with those who had taken part in their investigation. I did not participate in the investigation and have not seen that executive summary.

Simple answer to your simple question - I understand the independent report authors identified the executive summary needed revision in the light of comments made by those who received it.

I do trust the public.

So, you're not going to let the families who came forward and gave evidence an opportunity to see the report until two weeks before its debated (if you lot even bother debating it) and then only at the same time as the media and general public. So if there are any errors or anything they are concerned about, they will not be able to have that addressed before publication.

Meanwhile, the department will be able to see it all, warts and all, so it can have errors etc 'addressed' as well as lining up all the defences and excuses necessary, while also giving time for anyone criticised to safely parachute out without any difficult questions.

This is plainly wrong. But who cares, Tynwald again riding roughshod over the public to protect its own ivory towers. I thought you were about solutions, not becoming part of the problem.

[Roger Mexico]

16 hours ago, Chris Thomas said:

The full independent report will be shared with the people who gave evidence, and everybody else, in October. Government is producing a response and action plan which will be published at the same time.

I understand that the independent report authors wrote an executive summary of their report which they shared with those who had taken part in their investigation. I did not participate in the investigation and have not seen that executive summary.

Simple answer to your simple question - I understand the independent report authors identified the executive summary needed revision in the light of comments made by those who received it.

I do trust the public.

But according to the very update that you linked to earlier, it's not that the "authors identified the executive summary needed revision in the light of comments made by those who received it".  The Executive Summary was actually removed: 

Quote

 

The authors have made revisions to the report as a result of comments, views and opinions expressed during the consultation process in June. The final report will, therefore, differ from the draft released in June and any public sharing of the content of the draft could cause confusion and misunderstanding.

It is important to note that the revision includes the removal of the Executive Summary which the consultation indicated did not fully reflect the rationale behind the key findings and the comprehensive evidence that supported conclusions and recommendations.

 

This gives rise to two problem.  Firstly if the summary was inaccurate, surely it is more than likely that what it was summarising was equally wrong.  The participants haven't seen this, so they have no way of telling if it is, so it is very probable that you will be producing an incorrect report to Tynwald.  Certainly if the summary was so incorrect that it had to be withdrawn, there's going to more wrong with it than a comma in the wrong place.  

Secondly even the update is untrue and a replacement Executive Summary has been written, there is no way of knowing if the participants will agree to that either, because they won't seen that either.  What is more this process devalues the very idea of producing "an action plan in response to the recommendations"  (p 2).  Because if there's no agreement on what the problems are - how can the solutions be right?

As to your not having seen the Executive Summary - well you certainly ought to have.  Because according to the update statement published by your own Department, the Cabinet Office:

Quote

 

To whom has the full report been released?

Following the decision to present the investigation and the Government’s response to Tynwald in October, the full report was released to the Council of Ministers. The Social Policy and Children’s Committee of the Council of Ministers, which includes the Ministers for Health and Social Care, Education and Children and Home Affairs, has been tasked with providing an action plan in response to the recommendations.

 

So as a member of CoMin you had every chance to read the whole report, never mind the summary.  And you certainly ought to, because the Social Policy and Children's Committee of CoMin, which is supposed to be producing the 'action plan' is a body of which you happen to be Chair.

You may well trust the public, but the way in which this has been handled makes it look as if the Manx Government does not.  Instead the report is being kept secret until the very last moment when it has to be legally published.  It is being published with an 'action plan', based on no public discussion of the Report and (at best) inadequate input from participants.  And the Chair of the Committee producing the plan seems unaware of what is happening.

If the (revised) Report had been published as originally intended, in June, then public discussion over the Summer could have fed into the recommendations and priorities of such a plan and both still been considered at the October Tynwald (though shoving it into a session that is usually notoriously busy may indicate a desire to reduce debate).  Instead the hope seems to be to let both public and politicians have as little time to consider it as possible and go through the usual routine of "Lessons have been learned...Everything under control ...Actions have been taken ... Going forward".

The way child protection has been handled on the Island and the lack of external scrutiny of it has long been a  matter of serious concern (something which Tynwald has admitted).  But yet again it rather looks as it civil servant protection has a higher priority.

[Uhtred]

16 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

But according to the very update that you linked to earlier, it's not that the "authors identified the executive summary needed revision in the light of comments made by those who received it".  The Executive Summary was actually removed: 

This gives rise to two problem.  Firstly if the summary was inaccurate, surely it is more than likely that what it was summarising was equally wrong.  The participants haven't seen this, so they have no way of telling if it is, so it is very probable that you will be producing an incorrect report to Tynwald.  Certainly if the summary was so incorrect that it had to be withdrawn, there's going to more wrong with it than a comma in the wrong place.  

Secondly even the update is untrue and a replacement Executive Summary has been written, there is no way of knowing if the participants will agree to that either, because they won't seen that either.  What is more this process devalues the very idea of producing "an action plan in response to the recommendations"  (p 2).  Because if there's no agreement on what the problems are - how can the solutions be right?

As to your not having seen the Executive Summary - well you certainly ought to have.  Because according to the update statement published by your own Department, the Cabinet Office:

So as a member of CoMin you had every chance to read the whole report, never mind the summary.  And you certainly ought to, because the Social Policy and Children's Committee of CoMin, which is supposed to be producing the 'action plan' is a body of which you happen to be Chair.

You may well trust the public, but the way in which this has been handled makes it look as if the Manx Government does not.  Instead the report is being kept secret until the very last moment when it has to be legally published.  It is being published with an 'action plan', based on no public discussion of the Report and (at best) inadequate input from participants.  And the Chair of the Committee producing the plan seems unaware of what is happening.

If the (revised) Report had been published as originally intended, in June, then public discussion over the Summer could have fed into the recommendations and priorities of such a plan and both still been considered at the October Tynwald (though shoving it into a session that is usually notoriously busy may indicate a desire to reduce debate).  Instead the hope seems to be to let both public and politicians have as little time to consider it as possible and go through the usual routine of "Lessons have been learned...Everything under control ...Actions have been taken ... Going forward".

The way child protection has been handled on the Island and the lack of external scrutiny of it has long been a  matter of serious concern (something which Tynwald has admitted).  But yet again it rather looks as it civil servant protection has a higher priority.

Great post Rog. So what do we have; government incompetence or shifty government footwork. Either eminently possible. Even if we adopt a very kind interpretation, one thing is abundantly clear - Chris Thomas hasn't got a damn clue what's happening on his watch.

[notwell]

Who puts together the 'executive summary'? Is that the people producing the full report or someone working for government who reads it and then does the summary?

How big is the actual report?

[Uhtred]

5 minutes ago, notwell said:

Who puts together the 'executive summary'? Is that the people producing the full report or someone working for government who reads it and then does the summary?

How big is the actual report?

Where an Executive Summary forms a part of the report itself, which is usual, (and it generally appears at the outset) it would be authored by the same persons who had written the report, not by a third party.

Of course, anyone who wanted to could write a summary of the report, but the Executive Summary would, I believe, be as I describe above.

[Uhtred]

6 minutes ago, Uhtred said:

Of course, anyone who wanted to could write a summary of the report...

Once it's in the public domain of course!

[TheTeapot]

That's an excellent post from Roger, I hope Chris Thomas (good to see him back on the forums) responds.

This situation reminds me of the FIFA corruption report by Michael Garcia where everyone knew there was loads of dodgy stuff going on, but when the report was finished it wasn't released, just a summary which according to Garcia didn't represent his findings at all. In the end the actual report eventually got leaked to the German press, and like I suspect this one will be, wasn't actually as interesting or as controversial or damming as most people expected it to be.

[Chris Thomas]

2 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

So as a member of CoMin you had every chance to read the whole report, never mind the summary.  And you certainly ought to, because the Social Policy and Children's Committee of CoMin, which is supposed to be producing the 'action plan' is a body of which you happen to be Chair.

You may well trust the public, but the way in which this has been handled makes it look as if the Manx Government does not.  Instead the report is being kept secret until the very last moment when it has to be legally published.  It is being published with an 'action plan', based on no public discussion of the Report and (at best) inadequate input from participants.  And the Chair of the Committee producing the plan seems unaware of what is happening.

If the (revised) Report had been published as originally intended, in June, then public discussion over the Summer could have fed into the recommendations and priorities of such a plan and both still been considered at the October Tynwald (though shoving it into a session that is usually notoriously busy may indicate a desire to reduce debate).  Instead the hope seems to be to let both public and politicians have as little time to consider it as possible and go through the usual routine of "Lessons have been learned...Everything under control ...Actions have been taken ... Going forward".

The way child protection has been handled on the Island and the lack of external scrutiny of it has long been a  matter of serious concern (something which Tynwald has admitted).  But yet again it rather looks as it civil servant protection has a higher priority.

Thanks for your helpful comment Roger Mexico, and apologies for any misunderstanding my posts here are causing.

For further clarity it might be helpful to break things down as follows:

1. The production of an independent report following investigation of several cases by an independent person. Various people provided evidence and, quite rightly, these people had a chance to comment on aspects of the report, apparently through receipt of an executive summary. I was not involved in this process and have not seen any executive summary or other extract of the preliminary version of the report.
2. Presentation of the final version of the independent report to Ministers, and then to Tynwald and the public. The independent report I received will be published without change when it is placed on the Tynwald order paper at the first available sitting. I have seen this independent report, as have other Ministers.
3. Determination of the process regarding the independent report. I chair the CoMin sub-committee which is "tasked with providing an action plan in response to the recommendations", and have been fully involved in consideration and decisions in respect of the process regarding the independent report, as you state.

The action plan will be presented to Tynwald alongside the original independent report in exactly the same way as other reports are. There is no attempt to reduce debate, rather an attempt to inform and thus enhance debate. Tynwald could vote in various ways in respect of the report, response and action plan, including - for instance - deciding to extend the debate.

Surely we will be in a better place with action, responsibility, resource and timeframe etc. agreed?

Edited August 17, 2017 by Chris Thomas

[Chris Thomas]

1 hour ago, TheTeapot said:

That's an excellent post from Roger, I hope Chris Thomas (good to see him back on the forums) responds.

This situation reminds me of the FIFA corruption report by Michael Garcia where everyone knew there was loads of dodgy stuff going on, but when the report was finished it wasn't released, just a summary which according to Garcia didn't represent his findings at all. In the end the actual report eventually got leaked to the German press, and like I suspect this one will be, wasn't actually as interesting or as controversial or damming as most people expected it to be.

Thanks for support Teapot. The full, unchanged independent report will be published at the beginning of October, as I answered to Mr Speaker in July Tynwald.

[Chris Thomas]

2 hours ago, Uhtred said:

Even if we adopt a very kind interpretation, one thing is abundantly clear - Chris Thomas hasn't got a damn clue what's happening on his watch.

Why?

[Uhtred]

22 minutes ago, Chris Thomas said:

Why?

Roger Mexico's post appears to clearly illustrate that a range of observations you made were/are incorrect - though I grant you that interpretation presupposes that Roger himself is correct. Feel free to correct his remarks if you dispute them.

[Chris Thomas]

1 hour ago, Uhtred said:

Roger Mexico's post appears to clearly illustrate that a range of observations you made were/are incorrect - though I grant you that interpretation presupposes that Roger himself is correct. Feel free to correct his remarks if you dispute them.

I have clarified things for Roger Mexico. I stand by my statements in this thread, except perhaps the semantic point made that a "revision" of an executive summary is not necessarily the same as its "removal", but neither of us can know as neither of us has seen either the draft executive summary or the draft report during its preparation by its authors.

Edited August 17, 2017 by Chris Thomas