Balls is talking Balls - Information Commissioner

An intriguing spat between Ed Balls, Schools Secretary, and Michael Gove, his Tory counterpart, over the right to see the full Serious Case Report (SCR) in the investigation on Baby P.

Gove, along with David Laws, the Lib Dem schools spokesman, has asked to see it privately. Balls has said tonight that he wanted to share it "in the spirit of cross-party co-operation".

But was he being genuine? In a fascinating letter, Balls says his mandarins told him no release was possible because of a ruling by the Information Commissioner in 2006. This set down a precendent against publishing SCR reports on the grounds individual whistleblowers could be identified and this could deter council employees from speaking out in future. Therefore, in this case, Thomas decided that putting the documents in the public domain wouldn't be in the publc interest.

"[The Information Commissioner] recognised the public interest in holding the agencies involved to account for their performance but concluded that overriding public intrest must be the protection of the children."

Spotted what Balls has done yet? Gove requested the SCR document be shown to him privately. But Balls has quoted an FOI decision coming down against making SCR documents public and available to anyone.

And tonight Richard Thomas, the Commissioner himself, has done Balls no favours at all by releasing a statement saying there's nothing stopping Balls sharing the report privately with Gove. And, for good measure, pointing out they only had to ask. 

'The ICO has not been consulted in relation to the release of the case review file regarding the tragic circumstances of the 'Baby P' case. We have not made a ruling on this case. 'The Data Protection Act is not a barrier to sharing personal information when necessary. However, case review files are likely to contain, not only sensitive personal information about the subject of the review, but often about third parties too, such as friends, relatives and professionals. This is a particular consideration where the matter is the subject of such emotive debate, and there may be safety issues for those involved in the case.

"There will be circumstances where reports need to be scrutinised by select committees and other bodies to ensure that important lessons are learned. Data protection does not prevent appropriate individuals from accessing relevant information in these circumstances. The ICO stands ready to provide advice to people on a case by case basis and common sense guidance is available on the Data Protection Act at www.ico.gov.uk"

Good to see Thomas's office being so robust...

Comments

[Guthrum]

There is something very wrong here, there is a story building on the Old Holborn blog that the Government put pressure on Haringey to keep children with their parents on cost grounds

[Chuck Unsworth]

Refresh my memory. When does Richard Thomas' contract come up for renewal? Does he think he'll be in office until after the General Election and we have a new regime? Or is he going for the customary massive early retirement payoff package?

[chris]

From Balls point of view its worse than that Chuck. Richard Thomas 's retirement was announced months ago and they are about to announce his replacmenet. He has absolutely nothing to lose in exposing the fact that the Minsiter, how can I put this, was economical; with the truth.

So the key issue is, what was Balls hiding? Who was he protecting and why?

[smokiloki]

This isn't the first time Mr Thomas has felt the need, and shown that he has the cojones, to tug HMG's short and curlies when they attempt to lay their mendacity at his door in Wilmslow.

[Eddie]

I recall that Gordon Brown became very defensive in the PMQ's when Cameron asked very reasonable questions about an independent investigation.
Brown suggested that Cameron was trying to score political points, when clearly he was not.
A couple of days later a whistle blower came forward and told how she had written to Government Ministers about her concerns in Haringey.
Now it appears that serious case reviews are being kept secret from the opposition.
I think there is more to this than has come out so far. The Government holds some responsibility and Gordon Brown knows it, that is why he was so sensitive to it. Time will tell. will the truth come out or, like in the David Kelly affair, will the Government claim that their hands are clean?

[emil]

Mr Thomas would be well advised not to go out for a walk on his own in the woods, and on no account to ever carry a blunt penknife in his pocket.

[tfa]

Is this report a serious document possibly outlining the failures of public policy?

Or the equivilent of a gruesome beetle in a matchbox that Ed Balls can only show to his friends?

[david]

what a load of "Balls"..as most things are with this "shipped in" politician,who purports to represent a "Northern seat" yet lives in "London" along with her indoors,,who believe it or not.. still represents a Northern seat.
This is called end...og in us..cant spell it but its a growth theory they probably learnt at Harvard.Like all politicians,behind the curve,reactive rather than pro active,usually wrong

[david]

what a load of "Balls"..as most things are with this "shipped in" politician,who purports to represent a "Northern seat" yet lives in "London" along with her indoors,,who believe it or not.. still represents a Northern seat.
This is called end...og in us..cant spell it but its a growth theory they probably learnt at Harvard.Like all politicians,behind the curve,reactive rather than pro active,usually wrong

[tris]

Labour obviously have a lot to hide here, in this, the most tragic of stories. Brown over-reacted madly when Mr Cameron asked him about it. Government ministers appear to have shown the social worker's concern scant regard. I wonder how much else will be found out. To the list of don'ts for Mr Thomas, I would add, going hillwalking. It seems to be dangerous to mix crossing the government with that kind of activity.