|
Archived Transcript for 7 December 2001:
Pages 1 to 50
1
1 Friday, 7th December 2001
2 (9.30 am)
3 MR GARNHAM: Sir, good morning. I begin today with
4 a correction. I said on Monday 3rd December that the
5 Inquiry had received on my count 263 documents from
6 Haringey. In fact there were 263 categories of
7 documents. The number of individual documents disclosed
8 by Haringey is in excess of 630. These 630, comprising
9 many pages in some cases, have had to be sorted,
10 considered for relevance initially for our next two
11 witnesses, Mairs and Kitchman, because of the proximity
12 of their evidence, then logged, paginated and taken to
13 the printers.
14 This exercise has produced Update 18 which comprises
15 on our first look through the documents relevant to
16 Mairs and Kitchman. Update 18 was received from the
17 printers this morning and will be distributed as soon as
18 we can get it upstairs. The balance of the documents
19 from Haringey are in the course of being assessed and
20 processed. They will form a very substantial update for
21 the documents bundle but we will aim to get them out at
22 the end of next week.
23 To cope with the processing of this enormous volume
24 of additional documentation the Inquiry has been obliged
25 to employ two additional members of staff this week.
2
1 The Solicitor to the Inquiry has asked me to thank the
2 documents team led by Steve Condie for their very
3 considerable efforts this week in handling this vast
4 amount of fresh documentation so efficiently.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I did not know any of those
6 details but I was aware on the floor that my office is
7 in that there was a huge amount of activity taking place
8 and people working long hours. I have noted what you
9 have said about the extra expense to the Inquiry and
10 this is a matter that I will bear in mind and should it
11 lead to further expense and delays then that is
12 certainly something that I will consider in detail.
13 MR GARNHAM: Thank you sir.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: That gets us off today to a rather sombre
15 start.
16 MR GARNHAM: Yes, sir. I am told that Update 18 is now with
17 the parties so it has got upstairs.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: I do share the view of Mr Fitzgerald that the
19 team under Mr Condie has worked exceedingly hard and we
20 are indebted to them.
21 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. Ms Gibson will call the first
22 witness today.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you Ms Gibson.
24 MS GIBSON: The first witness is Dr Patel.
25 DR INDRAVADAN PATEL (sworn)
3
1 MS GIBSON: Good morning Dr Patel. Thank you for attending.
2 Could I ask you to begin by giving the Inquiry your full
3 name and your professional address.
4 DR PATEL: Dr Indravadan Purshottamdas Patel. I practice at
5 The Surgery, 85-87 Acton Lane, Harlesden, London NW10
6 8UT.
7 MS GIBSON: Could you be supplied with your two statements
8 to the Inquiry, volume 5, page 60 and 5, page 61.501.
9 Do you have those?
10 DR PATEL: Yes.
11 MS GIBSON: Can you confirm that the contents of those
12 statements, both those statements are true?
13 DR PATEL: They are true, yes.
14 MS GIBSON: You have been in general practice since 1972?
15 DR PATEL: That is correct.
16 MS GIBSON: And is it right that you are the only doctor in
17 your practice?
18 DR PATEL: I am, I have locums in when I need.
19 MS GIBSON: That is depending on your workload?
20 DR PATEL: Workload or if I have to go out or on courses.
21 MS GIBSON: Thank you. Is your practice a busy practice?
22 DR PATEL: Extremely busy.
23 MS GIBSON: Can I ask you what your annual turnover is in
24 respect of new patients? It may be you do not have the
25 figure to hand. If you have any idea?
4
1 DR PATEL: As I am practising in the inner city area, which
2 is very high turnover, an average patient stays up to 12
3 months or sometimes longer or sometimes less if they are
4 temporary patients.
5 MS GIBSON: Is it right you have quite a high turnover of
6 new patients because of people coming and going into
7 your area?
8 DR PATEL: That is correct.
9 MS GIBSON: Would it be fair to say that the area in which
10 your practice is situated and from which your patients
11 come is an area where there is considerable economic and
12 social deprivation?
13 DR PATEL: Correct.
14 MS GIBSON: Can I ask you who your other permanent members
15 of staff are?
16 DR PATEL: I have Practice Nurse Mrs Grace Moore, Practice
17 Manager Zira Terezan, administrator Mrs S Patel and the
18 receptionist Omra Tegaria Aningren, and a health visitor
19 and dietician but they are part-time.
20 MS GIBSON: Can I ask you about your own training in matters
21 of child protection. You say you have completed courses
22 in paediatrics for general practitioners. Is that
23 something that you have regular ongoing training in
24 relation to or are you referring back to your initial
25 training in the 1970s?
5
1 DR PATEL: It is ongoing training for the child health
2 surveillance and on schedule training which I do attend
3 at Great Ormond Street or local paediatric department.
4 MS GIBSON: Is that an annual requirement that you go?
5 DR PATEL: It is not compulsory but I go to brush up on the
6 knowledge in paediatric.
7 MS GIBSON: Is that more or less on an annual basis?
8 DR PATEL: Correct, on annual basis.
9 MS GIBSON: Is there any component in that paediatric
10 training of child protection work?
11 DR PATEL: It has not been given up to now but now it is
12 coming up, protection, what to do next, questions and
13 how to go about. It has been coming recently.
14 MS GIBSON: So it has only recently been a component in the
15 training courses that you go on?
16 DR PATEL: That is correct.
17 MS GIBSON: Prior to that what did you do to keep yourself
18 updated on child protection issues?
19 DR PATEL: I have not done anything up to now because there
20 was no situation arised.
21 MS GIBSON: So are you saying that when you dealt with
22 Victoria's case that was your first experience, and we
23 know at that time obviously your practice did not see
24 any particular problem with Victoria, but is that the
25 only case you have dealt with that turned out to be
6
1 a child protection case?
2 DR PATEL: That is correct.
3 MS GIBSON: Is it the position you have never had to make
4 any referral to social services previously?
5 DR PATEL: That is correct.
6 MS GIBSON: So that is in the whole of your years of
7 practice from the 1970s onwards?
8 DR PATEL: That is correct.
9 MS GIBSON: Do you know who your local child protection
10 officer is?
11 DR PATEL: No, I have no knowledge.
12 MS GIBSON: Do you receive any kind of training through the
13 primary health care team on a joint basis, other
14 professionals?
15 DR PATEL: It is going to happen now.
16 MS GIBSON: Do you know when that will take place?
17 DR PATEL: I have not got any information yet.
18 MS GIBSON: At the point in time that you were dealing with
19 Victoria's case in 1999, again I know that the issue of
20 ongoing referral did not arise because nothing untoward
21 was seen by your practice nurse, but had you become
22 aware of child protection issues, would you have felt
23 comfortable or would you have known what to do in terms
24 of referring the case on to social services?
25 DR PATEL: If I had been informed or had a suspicion I would
7
1 have delivered to social services definitely.
2 MS GIBSON: Where would you see duties lying in terms of
3 patient confidentiality in such a situation?
4 DR PATEL: One has to contact the parents who are
5 responsible for the child and also inform that I am
6 going to contact social services because I am not happy
7 about the child's condition.
8 MS GIBSON: And if they expressed if they were unhappy about
9 you contacting social services, what would you do, if
10 you felt that the child's interests necessitated
11 contacting social services?
12 DR PATEL: I would put the child's interests first. If it
13 is clinically evident the child has been badly
14 mismanaged then I would take a decision to inform social
15 services, at the same time I inform the parents that
16 I am taking this action whether they like it or not.
17 MS GIBSON: Have you received any policies from your local
18 Medical Committee or elsewhere indeed on child
19 protection issues?
20 DR PATEL: Not yet, but I think there is "Working Together"
21 document indicates in this relation.
22 MS GIBSON: You are familiar with the "Working Together"
23 document, that guidance?
24 DR PATEL: It has come very recently.
25 MS GIBSON: Just have a look at volume 39. Can I ask you to
8
1 look at page 1 first of that bundle. Is that the
2 document that you are talking about that has just come
3 to you recently?
4 DR PATEL: That is correct.
5 MS GIBSON: And prior to that did you have the predecessor
6 to that document, Working Together under the Children
7 Act, was that sent out to you?
8 DR PATEL: I recollect but I have not seen that, I do not
9 think I have seen it. I cannot say 100 per cent.
10 MS GIBSON: If you turn to page 26, that section deals with
11 the role of the general practitioner and towards the
12 bottom of the page your responsibilities to take part in
13 regular child protection training.
14 DR PATEL: That is correct.
15 MS GIBSON: And you are familiar now with that?
16 DR PATEL: That is correct.
17 MS GIBSON: Just recently. What steps have you taken or are
18 you planning to take in terms of child protection
19 training for members of your staff?
20 DR PATEL: We have decided up after this that we should send
21 a nurse and practice manager on the courses and also
22 myself to be involved in the courses to learn about it
23 for future management.
24 MS GIBSON: And this is really the first time that members
25 of your staff will have been involved in that sort of
9
1 ongoing training?
2 DR PATEL: That is correct.
3 MS GIBSON: Prior to this recent information that has come
4 to you in the form of "Working Together", had you ever
5 received any previous directives from your local Medical
6 Committee suggesting that you and members of your staff
7 should have ongoing child protection training?
8 DR PATEL: That is correct because we have not received up
9 until now.
10 MS GIBSON: This is the first time it has happened?
11 DR PATEL: That is correct.
12 MS GIBSON: I want to ask you a little bit about your
13 practice's involvement with Victoria's case. It is
14 right that Victoria was registered on 8th June at your
15 practice and was seen by your practice nurse Grace Moore
16 for an initial health check?
17 DR PATEL: That is correct.
18 MS GIBSON: What does that health check consist of?
19 DR PATEL: Direct questions to escorting parent and then
20 taking the height, weight and general family history,
21 which is on the computer screen which we feed into.
22 MS GIBSON: Is that initial health check always conducted by
23 your practice nurse or do you ever do that yourself?
24 DR PATEL: Either she does or I do. Whoever has been given
25 allocation.
10
1 MS GIBSON: What sort of experience does your practice nurse
2 have? How many years' experience has she had?
3 DR PATEL: She is with me since 1996 and prior to that she
4 has been trained as a nurse, regional nurse, and while
5 she was with me she was sent regularly for the courses,
6 various courses for health purposes.
7 MS GIBSON: At the time of Victoria's case in 1999 would she
8 have had some basic knowledge of child protection
9 issues?
10 DR PATEL: Well she would not have child protection but she
11 would have adequate training for the Well Person
12 examination, that is Well Person child examination.
13 MS GIBSON: During that initial health check Victoria's
14 weight is noted down as being 19 kilogrammes to a height
15 of 114 centimetres. Would that be within the normal
16 range for a child of her age?
17 DR PATEL: Within normal guideline I would say.
18 MS GIBSON: You have, as you have already stated, in your
19 practice many families and children who come as
20 temporary residents within the borough staying with your
21 practice for a short period of time before moving on.
22 Is it the position that you have many children who come
23 from overseas?
24 DR PATEL: When they come overseas they register temporary
25 first because usually in the inner city where I practice
11
1 they are offered accommodation, and sometimes they
2 register permanent, but then we have to have proof they
3 are abroad and new immigrant people there to register.
4 In that case we will not have any information of
5 previous GP.
6 MS GIBSON: When you do not have any information of
7 a previous GP because the child has come from overseas,
8 you obviously do not have the advantage of being able to
9 call on the child's previous medical records.
10 DR PATEL: That is correct.
11 MS GIBSON: Presumably that must make life a lot more
12 difficult in being able to monitor a child because you
13 have no background history.
14 DR PATEL: That is correct.
15 MS GIBSON: Would it be practical within the context of your
16 practice, which you have already said is very busy, to
17 have a more comprehensive initial screening process for
18 children like that who come from overseas and who you do
19 not have a great deal of knowledge about?
20 DR PATEL: It would be nice to have a comprehensive
21 assessment team or for those who come first time to
22 register, but we have the protocol which I follow.
23 MS GIBSON: Which protocol is that that you follow?
24 DR PATEL: The Well Person examination, height, weight and
25 general questions.
12
1 MS GIBSON: Would it be practical for you in terms of time
2 and resources to make a more comprehensive assessment,
3 perhaps to find out details of whether the child was
4 attending school, some of the parents' attitude to the
5 child in terms of what the child's behaviour and
6 development was like?
7 DR PATEL: It would be welcome if we have some sort of,
8 those type of policies for every child who comes to
9 register.
10 MS GIBSON: Do you think practically that will be something
11 that you could implement?
12 DR PATEL: If we have the resources and human resources are
13 available.
14 MS GIBSON: Do you think that might assist in being able to
15 monitor children whose parents are perhaps transient,
16 moving around a lot?
17 DR PATEL: It would be appreciated if some system is there.
18 MS GIBSON: Is there anything else in terms of guidance that
19 you as a busy general practitioner would think would
20 assist in terms of looking out for children, both
21 children in need and children in need of protection?
22 DR PATEL: Social services can play an important role
23 because they have always nonmedical problem, then
24 medical problem.
25 MS GIBSON: What are your links with social services like?
13
1 DR PATEL: If there is alarming case we contact each other
2 or they always contact the practice if they belong to
3 me.
4 MS GIBSON: Do you have any joint training with social
5 services?
6 DR PATEL: No.
7 MS GIBSON: Any links of that sort?
8 DR PATEL: No joint training.
9 MS GIBSON: Do you think that would be something that would
10 be valuable to understand a little more about their
11 role?
12 DR PATEL: It would be appreciated.
13 MS GIBSON: Thank you very much Dr Patel.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr Mason.
15 MR MASON: Good morning, Dr Patel. Firstly, you have
16 already told the Inquiry that you have not referred any
17 child to social services before Victoria. Have you
18 referred any child since Victoria to social services
19 because of any child protection concerns?
20 DR PATEL: I have done very recently one child had a problem
21 and I referred her to paediatric and also social
22 services.
23 MR MASON: Secondly you were asked about the examination
24 protocol and whether or not you thought it could be made
25 more detailed for the children or patients you have not
14
1 seen before. Is the protocol something that you are
2 responsible for or do you get the protocol from the
3 Health Authority or some other body?
4 DR PATEL: The protocol comes on the computer from the
5 Health Authority.
6 MR MASON: So it is the Health Authority that sets the
7 standard for your examination?
8 DR PATEL: That is correct.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Dr Patel a few questions please.
10 Roughly speaking, I do not need to be precise, how many
11 children are registered with you under the age of 16?
12 DR PATEL: Under the age of 16 I would have at least 100
13 plus.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Under the age of 16?
15 DR PATEL: Under the age of 16?
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
17 DR PATEL: I think there are more than that, I would say up
18 to 200.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: From zero to 16?
20 DR PATEL: Zero to 16 I would just guess because I have not
21 looked it up. It would be under 200.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: You say you are in an area of high
23 deprivation, a lot of social problems in the area in
24 which you work.
25 DR PATEL: Correct.
15
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Is it not surprising that you do not come
2 across a proportion of children who may be involved with
3 social services for one reason or another?
4 DR PATEL: I have not come across in my practice but I heard
5 that people have social services being involved in some
6 men, women and children but not in my practice.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Why is your practice different from other
8 practices?
9 DR PATEL: Because we are -- usually mother brings the
10 children if there is a problem and under five the health
11 visitor examines the child, and after five we have
12 a link for sometimes school contacts if there is
13 a problem.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: If you suspected that you had a child in
15 front of you that might be being abused but you were not
16 sure but you were worried about the child, who would you
17 consult about that child?
18 DR PATEL: If I am worried about a child on health ground,
19 which I am not very clear, I would report immediately to
20 paediatrician on duty and arrange to see straightaway or
21 with an appointment and also inform social services if
22 I think there is a need to be involved.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Looking back on what happened to Victoria, do
24 you think there are any ways in which GPs could be more
25 involved to prevent tragedies of that kind happening?
16
1 DR PATEL: Of course if there is a suspicion but when she
2 came first time to register with my practice the nurse
3 did not alarm anything or nothing has come up on
4 translation, I mean on talking to the parents.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: You said there is the possibility now of some
6 training for you and your colleagues.
7 DR PATEL: That is correct.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: It is actually quite some time since Victoria
9 died. Do you think that these matters have been taken
10 sufficiently seriously?
11 DR PATEL: It has been taken seriously locally.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: But the training has not happened yet.
13 DR PATEL: I think they were in the pipeline.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: It is a long pipeline.
15 DR PATEL: Well, I cannot answer for that.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: It must feel a long pipeline.
17 DR PATEL: Could be, yes.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Dr Patel.
19 MS GIBSON: I have no more questions. Thank you very much
20 for attending, Dr Patel.
21 MR GARNHAM: Our next witness is Angella Mairs, please.
22 MS ANGELLA MAIRS (sworn)
23 MR GARNHAM: Good morning Ms Mairs.
24 MS MAIRS: Good morning.
25 MR GARNHAM: Would you give the Inquiry your full name.
17
1 MS MAIRS: Angella Mairs.
2 MR GARNHAM: And your professional address or your last
3 professional address.
4 MS MAIRS: Duke House, Audley District, Crouch End.
5 MR GARNHAM: I think it is right that you have produced one
6 statement for this Inquiry -- sir it is volume 2,
7 page 203 -- and a copy of it has now been put in front
8 of you.
9 MS MAIRS: Yes.
10 MR GARNHAM: Would you glance through it and confirm that
11 you have signed it.
12 MS MAIRS: Yes, I did sign it.
13 MR GARNHAM: Are there any amendments you wish to make?
14 MS MAIRS: A couple, yes. Page 17, where it says "Systems
15 and Checks in Place":
16 "48. ... There was no system for reading files if
17 you were not worried about a worker."
18 What I want to put is:
19 "There was no system in practice ...". So the word
20 "in practice".
21 MR GARNHAM: Insert the words "in practice" after "no
22 system"?
23 MS MAIRS: Yes. The other bit is 49 at the bottom where it
24 says:
25 "To my knowledge, there is no policy or requirement
18
1 that says that a Team Manager has to read all the
2 files~..."
3 What I want to say, I have got it written down here.
4 MR GARNHAM: If you read it out.
5 MS MAIRS: "While there is a written policy that we should
6 read files, in practice resources did not permit us to
7 do this and this was common knowledge."
8 After that, where it says "in practice" that should
9 still remain.
10 MR GARNHAM: So we take out the half sentence from "to my
11 knowledge" down as far as "although" and replace it with
12 what you have just dictated?
13 MS MAIRS: Yes.
14 MR GARNHAM: Can I ask you about those two corrections
15 first? What is it that led you to make them?
16 MS MAIRS: I made a mistake. There is a policy but what
17 I was trying to say in practice we did not practice it.
18 MR GARNHAM: Were you not aware of the policy at the time
19 you made the statement?
20 MS MAIRS: Yes, I was.
21 MR GARNHAM: So it is a matter of it slipping your mind at
22 the time you made the statement?
23 MS MAIRS: Yes.
24 MR GARNHAM: I think it is right that you qualified in 1996.
25 MS MAIRS: 1986.
19
1 MR GARNHAM: I am sorry. You worked for three years in the
2 London Borough of Lambeth?
3 MS MAIRS: Yes.
4 MR GARNHAM: Then in 1989 you were appointed Team Manager in
5 Hackney?
6 MS MAIRS: Haringey.
7 MR GARNHAM: I am sorry, Haringey. And that was in the
8 Children and Families Team?
9 MS MAIRS: Yes, it was.
10 MR GARNHAM: 1992 to 1995 you managed the Advice and
11 Assessment team in Haringey?
12 MS MAIRS: Yes I did.
13 MR GARNHAM: From 1995 to 1997 you were the Team Manager for
14 the Child Protection Investigation and Assessment Team?
15 MS MAIRS: Yes I was.
16 MR GARNHAM: Then in June 1997 you became Team Manager in
17 the DIAT, the Duty Investigation and Assessment Team?
18 MS MAIRS: That is correct, yes.
19 MR GARNHAM: I think it is right that initially there were
20 two teams as part of that section of the office.
21 MS MAIRS: Yes, there was.
22 MR GARNHAM: You managed one of them and the other one was
23 managed initially by an agency manager?
24 MS MAIRS: Yes.
25 MR GARNHAM: And then in October 1998 Carole Baptiste took
20
1 over the management of that team?
2 MS MAIRS: Yes.
3 MR GARNHAM: And that arrangement continued I think
4 until January 2000?
5 MS MAIRS: Yes.
6 MR GARNHAM: When you became the sole Team Manager?
7 MS MAIRS: Yes.
8 MR GARNHAM: Were you happy in that role you were performing
9 in the DIAT?
10 MS MAIRS: Yes.
11 MR GARNHAM: You were. The reason I ask is because I think
12 it is right that you sought from your employers
13 a redundancy quote in July 1999.
14 MS MAIRS: Yes I did.
15 MR GARNHAM: If you were happy what was it that prompted you
16 to seek a redundancy quote?
17 MS MAIRS: During that period we were going through
18 a situation where we had to reapply for our jobs and
19 I wanted to see what options were open to me if I did
20 not get the post.
21 MR GARNHAM: But assuming you got the post you were content
22 to stay?
23 MS MAIRS: Yes, I was.
24 MR GARNHAM: Throughout the period with which this Inquiry
25 is primarily concerned there were two teams in the DIAT.
21
1 MS MAIRS: Yes.
2 MR GARNHAM: One managed by you with Rose Kozinos as the
3 Senior Practitioner?
4 MS MAIRS: Yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: And the other managed by Carole Baptiste with
6 Barry Almedia as Senior Practitioner, is that right?
7 MS MAIRS: That is right.
8 MR GARNHAM: Baptiste's team included amongst its social
9 workers Lisa Arthurworrey?
10 MS MAIRS: Yes.
11 MR GARNHAM: And Valerie Robertson?
12 MS MAIRS: Yes.
13 MR GARNHAM: You and Carole Baptiste were both in turn
14 accountable to Dave Duncan, he was your manager?
15 MS MAIRS: Yes, he was.
16 MR GARNHAM: Is it right that there was a period when
17 Carole Baptiste was only working for half of each week?
18 MS MAIRS: Yes, when Carole started in October 1998 she
19 started as a part-time Team Manager up until
20 about July/June of the following year.
21 MR GARNHAM: What arrangements were made to provide
22 management cover while she was on part-time work? What
23 happened in the other half of the week?
24 MS MAIRS: The initial arrangement was for me to take
25 responsibility up until January because initially Carole
22
1 was going to come back in January but she did not, so
2 I would cover with Dave, with extra support from Dave
3 with the practice, with the senior practitioners at the
4 time.
5 MR GARNHAM: What happened after January through until July
6 1999?
7 MS MAIRS: What happened was that Dave Duncan tried to
8 recruit into the post but it did not happen, we did not
9 get anyone to replace it, so the responsibility was with
10 myself as well as Dave Duncan and the senior
11 practitioner, but with Dave taking more of the
12 responsibility because of the pressure on me as
13 a manager having to try and manage the situation.
14 MR GARNHAM: This happened in a fairly busy office?
15 MS MAIRS: Extremely busy office.
16 MR GARNHAM: Where both you and Mr Duncan were busy?
17 MS MAIRS: Extremely busy.
18 MR GARNHAM: But it is right, is it, that Baptiste's team
19 had to look to Duncan and to you for guidance during the
20 half of the week when Carole Baptiste was absent
21 throughout the first half of 1999?
22 MS MAIRS: Yes.
23 MR GARNHAM: That must have put considerable additional
24 strain on you and Mr Duncan.
25 MS MAIRS: Yes, it did.
23
1 MR GARNHAM: Is it also correct that you agreed to provide
2 some cover for Carole Baptiste during the second half of
3 1999 when she had the habit of being absent from the
4 office?
5 MS MAIRS: Yes.
6 MR GARNHAM: Because that is right, is it not, that is what
7 happened, she came to be present less and less often?
8 MS MAIRS: Yes, there was a period, yes, there was, there
9 was an period when Carole was absent, there was a period
10 that went through when she was not around.
11 MR GARNHAM: And you picked up the responsibility for her
12 team during that time as well?
13 MS MAIRS: Yes, I did.
14 MR GARNHAM: And nothing we have heard so far suggests that
15 your workload and that of your team had dropped off in
16 that period?
17 MS MAIRS: No it did not.
18 MR GARNHAM: So again you are being stretched to provide
19 management cover for an absent colleague?
20 MS MAIRS: Yes.
21 MR GARNHAM: Given all your other duties, were you able
22 properly do you think to cover for Ms Baptiste during
23 those two periods?
24 MS MAIRS: I think to a certain extent I was. I was making
25 sure that workers at least were given supervision and
24
1 some support with the help of senior practitioners.
2 MR GARNHAM: But do you think the quality of support, the
3 depth of support you were able to provide would have
4 inevitably been less than would have been available had
5 there been a manager there full-time?
6 MS MAIRS: Yes, absolutely, that is the case.
7 MR GARNHAM: Between January 2000 and July of that year
8 I think it is right that you were the sole Team Manager
9 in the DIAT at the North Tottenham office?
10 MS MAIRS: Yes.
11 MR GARNHAM: Then you moved to Hornsey as a Team Manager,
12 again in the DIAT?
13 MS MAIRS: Yes.
14 MR GARNHAM: You remained there until 20th March of this
15 year when you were suspended?
16 MS MAIRS: That is correct.
17 MR GARNHAM: Does that remain the position at present?
18 MS MAIRS: Yes, I am still suspended.
19 MR GARNHAM: What has emerged thus far during the course of
20 this Inquiry it might fairly be said is that all was not
21 entirely well in the North Tottenham District Office
22 Duty Investigation and Assessment Teams. Do you agree
23 with that?
24 MS MAIRS: There was a period during restructuring where
25 things became very stressful, staff morale was low and
25
1 less support was being offered, so to a certain extent,
2 and workers were very unhappy, people left, experienced
3 workers left, yes, because of the restructuring.
4 MR GARNHAM: Can I indicate the areas of difficulty which we
5 have heard about so far now and then I will take you
6 through them one by one and ask for your views on them.
7 There seem to me to be seven problem areas.
8 First, the management qualities of you and
9 Carole Baptiste. Second, the relationship between your
10 teams and other agencies. Third, a group I put together
11 for the sake of convenience: workload, resources and
12 allocation of work. Fourth, staffing, recruitment,
13 retention and induction. Fifth, restructuring. Sixth,
14 the use of child protection advisers and seventh,
15 procedures.
16 I indicate those simply so you know where we are
17 going and what I will be asking you about but we will
18 work through one by one.
19 First, management skills. Can I ask you about your
20 management style? What are your skills as a manager?
21 MS MAIRS: I have been in Haringey now I think almost
22 13 years and I have been a manager since being in
23 Haringey and I have managed Children and Family service
24 for a long period of time. I have had lots of training
25 over the period I have been there.
26
1 MR GARNHAM: What are you good at as a manager?
2 MS MAIRS: I think I am good at setting up systems,
3 organising, and getting things done, and being clear and
4 focused and also supporting workers.
5 MR GARNHAM: What are your weaknesses if you have any?
6 MS MAIRS: Maybe doing too much.
7 MR GARNHAM: You tend to take too much on?
8 MS MAIRS: Taking on too much I would say.
9 MR GARNHAM: During the course of the Inquiry so far a
10 number of different and often conflicting views have
11 been expressed about your management style and I want to
12 ask you about them so you can comment on them.
13 Barry Almedia said that you were hard-working and loyal.
14 Rose Kozinos described you as an approachable manager.
15 Miss Robertson, Valerie Robertson said that she felt
16 more comfortable in her role once you had taken over as
17 manager because she got more direction.
18 MS MAIRS: Yes.
19 MR GARNHAM: Mr Almedia was not even prepared to accept when
20 it was suggested to him that you were directive in the
21 style you adopted. Now, do you agree with those
22 descriptions of your management style: hard working,
23 loyal, approachable, able to give direction at least to
24 those who need it?
25 MS MAIRS: Yes.
27
1 MR GARNHAM: Others have taken a different view about you
2 and I want to ask you about that as well, please.
3 Lisa Arthurworrey described your influence in the office
4 in somewhat florid terms. She drew an analogy with
5 a girls' school. She said that you were the
6 headmistress, Rose Kozinos was the head girl, there were
7 other head girls and "we the social workers were the
8 children". What do you think about that as
9 a description of the way you ran that office?
10 MS MAIRS: I would not agree with that. That was never the
11 case. I always practiced from the perspective that you
12 treat people the way you expect to be treated and
13 I always respected workers' views and people that I work
14 with, that is the way I deal with situations.
15 MR GARNHAM: I think what she meant in that analogy was that
16 your style was to appoint certain people or there were
17 appointed certain people who you regarded as your
18 deputies like Rose Kozinos, and that you expected the
19 rest of the team to do as they were told like
20 schoolgirls.
21 MS MAIRS: No, I do not accept that at all whatsoever.
22 MR GARNHAM: Miss Robertson said, Day 29, page 238, that you
23 had a reputation with some people as being a bully.
24 Were you a bully?
25 MS MAIRS: No, I was not a bully.
28
1 MR GARNHAM: Not with any of your staff?
2 MS MAIRS: I do not believe in bullying anyone, it is not
3 the way I deal with situations. I see bullying as
4 oppressive behaviour and I would never consider bullying
5 anybody.
6 MR GARNHAM: Marina Hayes, which team was she in?
7 MS MAIRS: Carole Baptiste's team.
8 MR GARNHAM: She described you as very autocratic and very
9 controlling. I have to say she also accepted that
10 perhaps as a result of those two things you managed the
11 Duty Team quite well. First of all the negative aspects
12 of that, autocratic and controlling.
13 MS MAIRS: I do not agree with that. There was -- as
14 Manager you are expected to ensure the department
15 policies and procedures are carried out, but in terms of
16 being autocratic and controlling I was very clear what
17 needed to be done. If a worker was not very happy about
18 things, they were very clear who they could go to to
19 talk about it, as well as talk to myself about it or
20 anyone else. I would always offer that support.
21 MR GARNHAM: Were you accustomed to lay down the law to make
22 very clear what your views were on the way things were
23 being done? Was that your style?
24 MS MAIRS: My style was to ensure that management procedures
25 were being carried out. I was accountable to my
29
1 managers, social workers were accountable and certain
2 things had to be done and if they were not done, yes,
3 I would challenge workers but that would be done in
4 a separate office, not in the main room, in the team
5 room; I would take workers aside and I would discuss it
6 and we would look at the best way to deal with it. That
7 is the way I would deal with it.
8 MR GARNHAM: I doubt if anybody would quibble with the need
9 for a manager to do that and I suspect the criticism
10 that has been made of you is directed at the manner in
11 which you do it, the way in which you say what you have
12 to say. But you would say that there was nothing in the
13 suggestions that you did that in a bullying or
14 autocratic way?
15 MS MAIRS: No, I would not agree with that.
16 MR GARNHAM: Marina Hayes went on however to describe the
17 atmosphere which she said resulted from your style of
18 management. She says she did not find the atmosphere on
19 the team to be supportive, in fact she found work there
20 a struggle. Were you conscious of Marina Hayes finding
21 work a struggle because of the atmosphere in your
22 office?
23 MS MAIRS: No, I was not conscious of that.
24 MR GARNHAM: She said she hated going to work and that the
25 team was riven by conflicts which were irreconcilable,
30
1 Day 30, page 115. Hated going to work, team riven by
2 conflicts which were irreconcilable.
3 MS MAIRS: Is she referring to the conflicts within what was
4 happening in her team, Carole's team or generally
5 overall?
6 MR GARNHAM: My understanding was that she was describing it
7 overall but do you think there is any truth in it if we
8 limit it to Carole's team?
9 MS MAIRS: I think there were some issues of conflict
10 amongst members of staff in Carole's team which I was
11 aware of.
12 MR GARNHAM: What was the nature of those conflicts?
13 MS MAIRS: There was a personality clash between two workers
14 in the team.
15 MR GARNHAM: Namely?
16 MS MAIRS: John Myrie and Roma Rayburn. I understand
17 because I had to intervene at one stage when Carole was
18 away because Roma got very upset and --
19 MR GARNHAM: So the conflict was between those two
20 individuals, was it?
21 MS MAIRS: As well as that, there was also -- I understand
22 that there was conflicts between Carole and some of the
23 workers who were abusive towards her and not respectful
24 in the way in which she was doing her -- carrying out
25 her management duties because that was reported to me by
31
1 Roma when I dealt with the situation when she was crying
2 because John had upset her for some reason and I made
3 a decision to place her in my side of the team.
4 MR GARNHAM: Was it for you to make that decision?
5 MS MAIRS: At the time Carole was not around and I felt
6 given the situation and how upset she was I made that
7 decision and when Carole came back I informed her of
8 that.
9 MR GARNHAM: Which half of the year was that in, before or
10 after July 1999?
11 MS MAIRS: I think it may have been after July 1999.
12 MR GARNHAM: I am interested in the way you describe that.
13 You say you made the decision although it was a member
14 of the other team, and when Ms Baptiste returned, you --
15 I think your words were "informed her".
16 MS MAIRS: Discussed it with her.
17 MR GARNHAM: It sounds from that as if you are making the
18 decision and Carole Baptiste accepting your word on the
19 subject.
20 MS MAIRS: No, because when I informed -- when I discussed
21 it with Carole, Carole was not happy about it because
22 one of the -- because she decided that what she wanted
23 to do was to have group supervision with her team to
24 look at the conflicts within that team, so it must have
25 been after July because it was maybe before the memo
32
1 came from the team.
2 MR GARNHAM: Lisa Arthurworrey was a member of
3 Carole Baptiste's team, she was a member of this team
4 that had these difficulties, is that right?
5 MS MAIRS: Yes, very.
6 MR GARNHAM: She, Marina Hayes, described how the bad
7 atmosphere at work and the heavy workload got both she
8 and Lisa Arthurworrey down. Were you aware of that?
9 MS MAIRS: No I was not aware of that, no.
10 MR GARNHAM: She said that there was a very divisive
11 atmosphere in the office with groups and sub-groups. If
12 she did not do as you told her, she told the Chairman
13 you would shout at her. Anything in that?
14 MS MAIRS: No, that is not true. I have never shouted at
15 anyone in the team. I do not shout at people, that is
16 not the way I behave.
17 MR GARNHAM: I think she said you were one of two managers
18 or seniors who would have shouted at her if she did not
19 do as she was told, but that is not true?
20 MS MAIRS: That is not true. I would have liked her to give
21 me an example of that, at what stage that happened, in
22 what context, but that is not the way we behave in the
23 team.
24 MR GARNHAM: Would you have any reason for giving her
25 instructions at all since she is not in your team?
33
1 MS MAIRS: Only from the point of view if she came to me for
2 advice or I may have dealt with her on Duty, but again
3 I cannot remember doing that. I can only remember
4 actually when Carole was not around supervising Marina
5 and she was happy with that and felt it was a good
6 thing.
7 MR GARNHAM: She described to us in fairly graphic terms how
8 miserable she was when she was working in that team.
9 You had not picked that up?
10 MS MAIRS: No, I did not.
11 MR GARNHAM: Do you know Pauline Bradley?
12 MS MAIRS: Yes.
13 MR GARNHAM: What was her place in this team?
14 MS MAIRS: I cannot remember when she joined the team but
15 when she joined she came to my team, I supervised
16 Pauline Bradley.
17 MR GARNHAM: She told us she could well see the comparison
18 between working in your team and living in a girls'
19 school but she said your team was more chaotic than any
20 girls' school. What do you say about that?
21 MS MAIRS: I would never describe the team as being chaotic.
22 People were very clear what they needed to do and if
23 they were not clear they knew where they needed to go
24 for that help and support and I was always round, I was
25 always available for consultation and support and things
34
1 were put in the right order, they were not -- I would
2 not describe it as being chaotic at all.
3 MR GARNHAM: Shanthi Jacob, you know her?
4 MS MAIRS: Yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: Where would she fit in the structure?
6 MS MAIRS: She is a long-term children and family senior
7 practitioner. She is not in the team.
8 MR GARNHAM: She nonetheless said that she was aware that
9 the atmosphere in your team was like a girls' school,
10 she accepted that analogy as being accurate, but
11 presumably you would say she was wrong about that?
12 MS MAIRS: As far as I am concerned, yes.
13 MR GARNHAM: She acknowledged that a hierarchical structure
14 was necessary in a Duty Team to make the Duty system
15 work, but she said nonetheless there was such
16 a hierarchical structure with you in charge, others as
17 your lieutenants -- that is not her word, but others as
18 your deputies and then the schoolgirls at the bottom,
19 but you do not recognise that?
20 MS MAIRS: No, but I acknowledge when you manage a Duty
21 Crisis Intervention Team you need to be focused, you
22 need to be clear. Workers need to know exactly what
23 they are doing and what they are not doing at any one
24 time because of the basis of the amount of referrals
25 that we are getting and the fact that we are dealing
35
1 with continuous crises.
2 MR GARNHAM: So you do see a need for a relatively directive
3 style of management?
4 MS MAIRS: Yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: I think in fairness to you I should say, to
6 complete the picture I have painted of views expressed
7 of you to this Inquiry, that Barry Almedia rejected the
8 parallel with the girls' school and said there was
9 nothing in that and denied that you were a bully.
10 MS MAIRS: No.
11 MR GARNHAM: That range of evidence does however suggest or
12 might suggest that those working in your team or coming
13 into touch with your team fell into two camps. Those on
14 the one hands who found your style of management
15 divisive and destructive, and those on the other who
16 thought your firm leadership was a benefit. Were you
17 conscious of there being a difference in view amongst
18 team members as regards the way you managed the place?
19 MS MAIRS: No I was not because there was workers I did not
20 manage.
21 MR GARNHAM: It may be that the basis of the differing views
22 on your management style reflects the personal reaction
23 of those people to the way you went about your job, but
24 if that was right that in itself would be a problem,
25 would it not?
36
1 MS MAIRS: Sorry?
2 MR GARNHAM: If some people took different views to your
3 management style than others and some were happy and
4 some were miserable about it, that would be a problem in
5 itself?
6 MS MAIRS: Yes.
7 MR GARNHAM: Because you need to ensure as a manager in
8 a position like yours that you achieve one way or
9 another a degree of consensus amongst those you manage?
10 MS MAIRS: Absolutely.
11 MR GARNHAM: So if this Inquiry were to conclude that there
12 was that sort of split, that sort of differing camps,
13 would you acknowledge that that represents a problem in
14 the way the team was working?
15 MS MAIRS: To a certain extent, yes.
16 MR GARNHAM: Can I test your management style by rather more
17 concrete issues? First, according to Shanthi Jacob,
18 Day 29, page 152, you gave a direction that all strategy
19 meetings should be held at North Tottenham District
20 Office on certain days of the week. Is that true?
21 MS MAIRS: No, that is not true.
22 MR GARNHAM: Did you give any direction about holding
23 strategy meetings I think it was Tuesday and Wednesday
24 but I may have that wrong?
25 MS MAIRS: There is a strategy meeting procedure that all
37
1 Duty practice managers are expected to follow.
2 MR GARNHAM: Did that proscribe days of the week when
3 meetings would be held at North Tottenham District
4 Office?
5 MS MAIRS: There were set days when strategy meetings will
6 be held, yes.
7 MR GARNHAM: Two questions. First of all, was that
8 procedure established by you?
9 MS MAIRS: The strategy meeting procedures was established
10 by myself and Karen Cooper the Child Protection Adviser,
11 but the strategy meetings slots were in the diary but
12 not necessarily for them to happen in the office, but
13 once you booked them you booked them, so if it is going
14 to happen at the hospital it will still be booked in the
15 diary on that same day, but that is the slot.
16 MR GARNHAM: What were the days when these slots were
17 catered for, do you remember which days of the week?
18 MS MAIRS: I think Monday, Friday, Wednesday afternoon, you
19 need to check those.
20 MR GARNHAM: There were certain days of the week or half
21 days of the week when this could happen?
22 MS MAIRS: Yes and then we had emergency slots, if there was
23 an emergency situation you could slot them in as well.
24 MR GARNHAM: She said, Shanthi Jacob, that you would have
25 approved of her holding the strategy meeting in
38
1 Victoria's case in your offices on 28th July despite the
2 fact that Victoria was a patient at the NMH. Would you
3 have approved?
4 MS MAIRS: No, I would not have approved. What we try and
5 do, we always try if a child is in hospital, is to have
6 the strategy meeting in the hospital to enable the
7 doctors and so forth to attend. This is not always
8 possible but that is my understanding of the procedures
9 in what we do.
10 MR GARNHAM: That certainly is what Haringey's Child
11 Protection Guidelines require, is it not?
12 MS MAIRS: Yes, it is.
13 MR GARNHAM: I do not think we need look at it, sir it is
14 volume 24, page 31. They say that where a client is
15 a child patient in a hospital the strategy meeting must
16 be held there. That sounds a slightly different
17 direction from the one you just indicated because you
18 said you should try and hold them but it is not always
19 possible.
20 MS MAIRS: It is not always possible because of the problem
21 of resources, but the procedures clearly state.
22 MR GARNHAM: Whose resources?
23 MS MAIRS: The resources that the department provide.
24 MR GARNHAM: Your department?
25 MS MAIRS: We do try and have them there.
39
1 MR GARNHAM: Your evidence is that you try to have such
2 strategy meeting at the hospital but resources sometimes
3 at your office prevent that.
4 MS MAIRS: Yes it does.
5 MR GARNHAM: In which case the procedural guide that I have
6 referred to is not complied with.
7 MS MAIRS: Yes.
8 MR GARNHAM: But the guides also make provision for
9 circumstances when it is not possible to deal with them.
10 Let us have a look at that, volume 24 please. If we
11 start with page 1 to identify the document, this is
12 Haringey's CP Guidelines which have been referred to as
13 the Purple Book. Is that the Purple Book?
14 MS MAIRS: Yes, it is.
15 MR GARNHAM: You are familiar with these I imagine, are you?
16 MS MAIRS: Yes, I am.
17 MR GARNHAM: You are looking concerned as if you need
18 something.
19 MS MAIRS: My glasses.
20 MR GARNHAM: Identify first of all page 1 and then turn to
21 page 6:
22 "The Guidelines do not provide a definitive answer
23 in all circumstances. They form the basis for good
24 interagency cooperation and communication for the
25 promotion of the welfare of children. They cannot be
40
1 a substitute for sound professional judgment. Any point
2 of divergence from the procedures must be authorised by
3 the Team Manager and recorded on the files."
4 Am I right to understand the position then that
5 strategy meetings in respect of children in hospital
6 should be held at the hospital but if they are not that
7 alteration has to be authorised by you in this case or
8 by Carole Baptiste if she were available and then
9 endorsed on the file?
10 MS MAIRS: Yes.
11 MR GARNHAM: That did not happen in this case, did it?
12 MS MAIRS: No it did not.
13 MR GARNHAM: We know from the evidence we have heard that
14 the strategy meeting involving Victoria followed
15 immediately after the strategy meeting on another child
16 also held in the office and it has been suggested, and
17 I want to ask your view about this, that it was done
18 like that as a matter of convenience for either your
19 staff or the police who were in the office for the first
20 meeting. Is that right?
21 MS MAIRS: At one stage we had regular meetings with the
22 police and in terms of the police availability that
23 decision was made, that if they were in the office doing
24 one strategy meeting, then they could do another
25 afterwards instead of having to come back. So that was
41
1 something that was talked about.
2 MR GARNHAM: That seems to run counter, does it not, to the
3 ordinary requirements and the rule, page 31 in this
4 volume, paragraph 2.1?
5 MS MAIRS: But it still does not say that we should not have
6 a strategy meeting if the child was in hospital, we
7 should still do so.
8 MR GARNHAM: "In the event of the child being in hospital
9 the meeting must be held at the hospital."
10 We have looked at the circumstances in which it is
11 permissible to diverge from that direction and we have
12 seen that but you appear to be saying that Victoria's
13 case was held at North Tottenham District Office because
14 the police were going to be there anyway and it was
15 convenient.
16 MS MAIRS: No.
17 MR GARNHAM: You tell us what it is then.
18 MS MAIRS: I do not know how the strategy meeting came to be
19 booked because I was not involved at that stage. I can
20 only say the procedure says that if a child is in
21 hospital we have the strategy meeting at the hospital
22 and that would be my understanding. In terms of why it
23 did not happen, I am not too sure because I did not book
24 it.
25 MR GARNHAM: How do we fit that in with the answer you just
42
1 gave that there was this understanding with the police
2 that if they had an officer there already, subsequent
3 strategy meetings would be held also in the office?
4 MS MAIRS: Not in terms of a child being in hospital.
5 I think probably police would agree if a child is in
6 hospital then the strategy meeting would be held in the
7 hospital and I would have expected to us book it in the
8 hospital even though we had that arrangement.
9 MR GARNHAM: So Shanthi Jacob, when she said she would have
10 expected you to agree this, had misunderstood what was
11 likely to be your reaction had you been asked?
12 MS MAIRS: Yes, she must have done because we also had
13 regular Duty meetings, but the Duty senior practitioners
14 as well as the Duty Manager, with myself on a monthly
15 basis, to go through Duty procedures so that senior
16 practitioners are aware what should take place on Duty.
17 MR GARNHAM: So Miss Jacobs should have known jolly well you
18 would never have approved --
19 MS MAIRS: She should have known, yes.
20 MR GARNHAM: -- of the meeting being held there. I see.
21 The reasons for having strategy meetings, when a child
22 is in hospital, in hospital are obvious because it makes
23 it much easier to get input from doctors and nurses.
24 MS MAIRS: Yes.
25 MR GARNHAM: The danger is if you have them in your office
43
1 you lose that input.
2 MS MAIRS: That is a possibility, yes.
3 MR GARNHAM: The second way of testing your management style
4 I want to suggest to you is this. Is it right that you
5 were always willing to take on the management
6 responsibility of others? You took on, you have told
7 us, Carole Baptiste's responsibility when she was
8 absent, did you not?
9 MS MAIRS: That was agreed by the Commissioning Manager and
10 myself. I was willing to help to try and ensure that we
11 had an effective and functioning team because how the
12 Duty Investigation and Assessment Team work, if my half
13 of the team is working and Carole's half is not working,
14 then it could have an adverse affect on the other half,
15 and because we had joint meetings it could not just be
16 seen as a separate identity, it was very important that
17 both us as managers were clear about what was going on.
18 MR GARNHAM: Yes. You were also content I think to take on
19 some supervisory responsibilities of Barry Almedia when
20 he went off to do an NVQ course during the summer of
21 1999.
22 MS MAIRS: I do not accept that.
23 MR GARNHAM: You do not accept that that is right?
24 MS MAIRS: No, I did not.
25 MR GARNHAM: He did go off to do this course.
44
1 MS MAIRS: The NVQ management training is on a monthly
2 basis, he is on a training one day a week -- one day
3 a month, and then he is given a thing, a study day, so
4 it did not mean he left the office.
5 MR GARNHAM: If I suggested that I am sorry. I meant to
6 suggest what you have just told us, that he was away
7 some of the time and he had other responsibilities
8 because he was preparing for this course.
9 MS MAIRS: Yes.
10 MR GARNHAM: Is it right that whilst that happened, when he
11 was not available to supervise, you would take over that
12 as well?
13 MS MAIRS: No, I did not take over that, I was not in
14 a position to take over, I was busy supervising a hell
15 of a lot of other people and I did not say to Barry he
16 is not to supervise his workers while he was doing the
17 NVQ. We were just not in a position to do that in terms
18 of what was available to us in terms of resource.
19 MR GARNHAM: This is very disconcerting, is it not, if one
20 senior practitioner like Mr Almedia believes, so he
21 tells us, that he was excused from supervision because
22 you were going to take it over and you say no he was not
23 excused, he should have been doing it?
24 MS MAIRS: No and it was not my decision to excuse Barry
25 because I was not managing Barry.
45
1 MR GARNHAM: Was he excused?
2 MS MAIRS: No he was not.
3 MR GARNHAM: Then it remains very disconcerting because it
4 suggests some people are not getting supervised when
5 they should.
6 MS MAIRS: Yes, it does.
7 MR GARNHAM: How did that come about? Barry Almedia was one
8 of the two senior practitioners, I think he was in
9 Carole Baptiste's team.
10 MS MAIRS: Yes.
11 MR GARNHAM: There he is believing, wrongly it seems, that
12 he was excused from supervision.
13 MS MAIRS: I only saw that -- I first read it when I read --
14 it first came to my knowledge when I read Barry's
15 transcript and kind of very surprised that he would make
16 that statement because Carole was part-time, so for me
17 to take on extra supervision and tell Barry that he does
18 not have to do that, I would not have done that.
19 I would not have been able to do it.
20 The expectation was that as Senior Practitioner he
21 was expected to supervise admin staff as well as up to
22 one, possibly two social workers at that stage.
23 MR GARNHAM: But the net effect of all this must be a cause
24 of concern for you because here we have a team divided
25 into two teams, one of which you lead, the other which
46
1 is led by a woman who is often not there or is on
2 occasions not there. Her deputy is someone who says he
3 was excused supervision and you were doing it and you
4 say, "No I was not". That looks like a net with a lot
5 of holes in it.
6 MS MAIRS: I am not sure what point -- in relation to Barry
7 I can only say I have never told Barry that. At what
8 point is he saying I made that decision?
9 MR GARNHAM: Summer 1999.
10 MS MAIRS: And Carole Baptiste was his manager at the time.
11 MR GARNHAM: Correct.
12 MS MAIRS: That would not have been my decision to make and
13 I did not make that decision.
14 MR GARNHAM: I see. Third test of your management Ms Mairs.
15 It has been suggested that you were enthusiastic in
16 closing files. Now, were you anxious to see cases
17 closed whenever possible?
18 MS MAIRS: No. I mean I am not too sure, I need to be clear
19 in what context you are using it because I need to make
20 it very, very clear that under no circumstances do
21 I close a file unless we are satisfied with the work
22 that has been completed.
23 MR GARNHAM: I understand but were you always looking
24 whenever you had contact with a file to see whether we
25 were now in a position to close this file? Was that an
47
1 early indicator that you would look for when you looked
2 at a file?
3 MS MAIRS: Depending on what was going on at the file, at
4 what stage we were at in relation to the investigations.
5 MR GARNHAM: I see. So you would say yes you were keen to
6 close files but only when the work was done and it was
7 proper to close the file?
8 MS MAIRS: Yes, because we had certain time scales to meet
9 and we have not always met those time scales.
10 MR GARNHAM: That perhaps explains a document I wanted to
11 ask you about. Do you have volume 29A please, page 36?
12 MS MAIRS: Yes.
13 MR GARNHAM: That is a document we have recently been
14 provided with a copy of and it has your name at the foot
15 but it is undated. Can you tell us when that came into
16 existence?
17 MS MAIRS: Since the advent of the Duty Investigation and
18 Assessment Team.
19 MR GARNHAM: That is a reasonable conclusion from how you
20 sign it off. Do you know when since that came into
21 existence?
22 MS MAIRS: I wrote it maybe.
23 MR GARNHAM: Before or after Victoria's death?
24 MS MAIRS: Well before Victoria's death, well before.
25 MR GARNHAM: You drafted it and it sets out Duty Managers'
48
1 roles and responsibilities whilst on Duty.
2 MS MAIRS: Yes.
3 MR GARNHAM: Paragraph 6 says:
4 "Duty Managers must ensure time limit is given to
5 Duty workers on cases to ensure throughput of cases."
6 MS MAIRS: Yes.
7 MR GARNHAM: "Throughput" was important was it in the
8 management of your team's work?
9 MS MAIRS: I think it was important in terms of the overall
10 management of Duty, not just important by itself
11 because -- shall I explain how Duty worked?
12 MR GARNHAM: Please.
13 MS MAIRS: On Duty social workers would be on every four
14 weeks, a week at a time, and then we will have something
15 like between 65 to 70 referrals a week. So if you have
16 a situation the important thing was that the Duty
17 Manager will go through all those referrals that week
18 and try and clear the system.
19 MR GARNHAM: Because next week more will be coming in?
20 MS MAIRS: Yes.
21 MR GARNHAM: That is why it is important in that regard to
22 get a proper rapid throughput?
23 MS MAIRS: Yes.
24 MR GARNHAM: Did the same approach apply to cases being
25 investigated?
49
1 MS MAIRS: The procedure is in the Investigation and
2 Assessment Team that when you are on Duty, the whole
3 idea behind it is that if you were on Duty a week at
4 a time, an investigation came up, that investigation
5 nine out of 10 times will be allocated to you and you
6 will be the allocated workers because you were trying to
7 maintain that consistency for users. So you would take
8 it away with you, it would be logged, signed off in the
9 Investigation and Assessment. When not on Duty you were
10 expected to do your investigation at the case
11 conference.
12 After case conference the case would be transferred
13 to Long Term Team. If you had a case which consisted of
14 care proceeding, statutory childcare reviews and case
15 conference, all those would be done before it was
16 transferred to the Long Term Team.
17 MR GARNHAM: Just as you were anxious to maintain
18 a throughput on Duty, so you would be anxious, would
19 you, once those steps had been taken on an I&A case that
20 the matter was then transferred?
21 MS MAIRS: That it was transferred and that it was allocated
22 to a long-term social worker.
23 MR GARNHAM: Or alternatively closed if that was
24 appropriate?
25 MS MAIRS: Not in those situations. The cases that we would
50
1 tend to close in the Duty Team was the family support
2 cases.
3 MR GARNHAM: Miss Bradley told us that she had reported to
4 her -- so this is second-hand material and we recognise
5 it as that -- she had reported to her when she was
6 Acting Shop Steward that social workers were being asked
7 to close cases before they really wanted to. Were you
8 aware of any such complaints?
9 MS MAIRS: I think Pauline Bradley is talking about when
10 I was based at Hornsey District and I was seconded to --
11 MR GARNHAM: That is after July 2000?
12 MS MAIRS: Yes.
13 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. Were you aware of any such
14 complaints during your time at North Tottenham?
15 MS MAIRS: No.
16 MR GARNHAM: She says that at whatever time you are
17 referring to and you may well be right as to when, those
18 social workers were getting into arguments with you
19 because you were telling them to close cases early.
20 Were there arguments about that?
21 MS MAIRS: No. What was happening, when I went to Hornsey
22 social workers had cases up to two years, they had --
23 and the Duty investigation procedures said cases should
24 be transferred within two to three months. So one of my
25 roles was to actually go through all the cases, identify
|
