|
Archived Transcript for 10 December 2001:
Pages 1 to 50
1
1 Monday, 10th December 2001
2 (10.00 am)
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Good morning ladies and gentlemen.
4 Mr Garnham.
5 MR GARNHAM: May I begin by apologising. We need to return
6 to the question of Haringey documentation again. You
7 recall on Friday 30th November you issued and we served
8 a summons on Ms Anne Bristow requiring Haringey to make
9 good their provision of relevant documents to the
10 Inquiry. You will also recall that as a result, over
11 the weekend before Monday 3rd December Haringey supplied
12 us with 630-odd new documents. We had hoped that that
13 meant we then had all of their documents. Not so it
14 seems.
15 First, on Thursday evening or Friday morning we
16 received a supplementary statement from Mr Kousoulou,
17 a witness we are calling later today we hope. That
18 statement exhibits yet more documentation from Haringey.
19 Service of those documents by Mr Kousoulou appears in
20 itself to establish a breach of the order you made in
21 respect of Ms Bristow requiring her to produce
22 documents, and at least at an initial level amount to
23 evidence of a criminal offence.
24 Second, on 29th November the Inquiry Solicitor
25 Mr Fitzgerald wrote to the Haringey solicitor indicating
2
1 that we had noticed in the Monaghan report a reference
2 to a competency assessment conducted by Carole Baptiste
3 on Lisa Arthurworrey in July 1999. Mr Fitzgerald
4 indicated we did not seem to have received that
5 document. We had no reply to that letter and as a
6 result Mr Fitzgerald chased the Haringey solicitor by
7 letter of 5th December.
8 The following day Haringey disclosed a document
9 entitled "Social Worker Level of Competence" relating to
10 Miss Arthurworrey. The only explanation we have been
11 offered so far for the failure to disclose that document
12 earlier is administrative error. The document seems to
13 us to be of considerable importance. It provides
14 a detailed assessment of Miss Arthurworrey's competence
15 across a range of social work skills. It is relevant
16 both to Miss Arthurworrey's evidence and also in as far
17 as it relates both to training and to abilities, and
18 also it is relevant to the evidence of her managers. It
19 is plainly of central relevance if for no other reason
20 than it relates to Miss Arthurworrey, is dated July
21 1999, the very month when this case was referred to
22 Miss Arthurworrey, and deals with her competence, the
23 issue which is close to the heart of this Inquiry.
24 Sir, the failure to disclose it months ago but
25 certainly in the batch of new material we received last
3
1 Monday seems to us with great respect to Haringey to be
2 evidence either of gross incompetence or a deliberate
3 attempt to frustrate the efforts of this Inquiry to
4 arrive at the truth. In either case it seems to us that
5 it is wholly unacceptable.
6 In my submission in those circumstances you have
7 three choices. First, you could allow Haringey to
8 continue to disclose documents to us as when and if it
9 suits them. Secondly, you could now direct the
10 Solicitor to the Inquiry to lay an information before
11 magistrates against Ms Bristow alleging a failure by her
12 to comply with your summons. Thirdly, you could invite
13 either Ms Bristow or if you thought it more appropriate
14 the Chief Executive of Haringey Council to attend this
15 Inquiry later this week to explain how what has occurred
16 has come about and how Haringey intend to avoid it
17 happening again in the future.
18 I would counsel against your following course one
19 because to do nothing risks this Inquiry failing to
20 uncover all that is relevant. There was one newspaper
21 article over the weekend that suggested that Haringey's
22 disclosure of documents was causing this Inquiry to
23 stall. The Inquiry has not stalled thus far but it is
24 important if we are to do our job properly that we have
25 the relevant material.
4
1 I would also with respect counsel against the second
2 of the two options, namely to begin now criminal
3 proceedings against Ms Bristow, because our primary
4 concern is to obtain the documents rather than to put
5 yet further pressure on the Director of Social Services,
6 although the day may yet come when that proves
7 necessary.
8 I would invite you to consider my third option,
9 which is to invite either -- and this would be a matter
10 for you -- either Ms Bristow or alternatively the Chief
11 Executive of Haringey Council to attend this Inquiry and
12 to explain how it comes about that these documents have
13 not been disclosed earlier and to give us some sort of
14 assurance that we will be provided forthwith with
15 everything that is relevant to the subject matter of
16 this Inquiry.
17 It does not seem to me it could possibly be argued
18 on behalf of Haringey that a competency assessment upon
19 the social worker at the heart of this case was not
20 relevant and need not have been disclosed.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Yes, Miss Lawson.
22 MISS LAWSON: As far as that particular document is
23 concerned, I do not seek to make any such suggestion.
24 It was plainly relevant and I do not pretend otherwise.
25 What I understand has happened -- and I have taken
5
1 further instructions since I spoke to Mr Garnham earlier
2 this morning -- is this. Haringey's personnel files are
3 not maintained as a single file. There are different
4 files dealing with a wide range of topics. Those
5 responsible for dealing with the documentation at
6 Haringey had searched Miss Arthurworrey's supervision
7 file attempting to produce anything that related to that
8 topic to the Inquiry. This document was not in it.
9 Following the issue of the summons and the letters
10 from the Inquiry following the disclosure of the
11 Monaghan report we had a further hunt and it emerges
12 that that particular document had been extracted from
13 the personnel file and given to the Monaghan Inquiry,
14 and that was where it was and we did not know that that
15 was where it was and that is why you have not had it
16 before.
17 So that is the explanation of why it was and I am
18 anxious to resist any suggestion that there has been
19 a deliberate withholding of that sort of material.
20 As far as the other aspects of this matter are
21 concerned, Mr Kousoulou you may recall gave a statement
22 to the Inquiry in relation to the matters that the
23 Inquiry spoke to him about. He gave that statement
24 directly. When he was served with the notice of
25 criticism it related to matters which were not covered
6
1 by that statement at all and which indeed had barely
2 been mentioned in this Inquiry.
3 We therefore wrote asking for urgent clarification
4 of precisely what the nature of this criticism was and
5 what was being alleged against Mr Kousoulou. We wrote
6 that letter on 7th November asking for urgent
7 clarification which we received on 15th November. We
8 indicated in that letter that since the matter being
9 dealt with related to the failure to introduce an
10 integrated database, it was likely there would be
11 considerable documentation in the Council on this topic,
12 since it is in the nature of these things, and explained
13 that we would need to produce these documents.
14 When Mr Kousoulou was we would say reasonably
15 anxious to produce a second statement which dealt with
16 those matters which had not been raised before, he asked
17 to see certain specific documents. I confess that in
18 the -- they were handed over to him and accordingly were
19 no longer in the files that we were looking at last
20 weekend. So the failure to produce those is a genuine
21 oversight.
22 We also needed to check with him when he had looked
23 at them precisely which ones needed to go in front of
24 the enquiry attached to his statement. That is the
25 explanation for that. The overarching problem is the
7
1 one that we refer the Inquiry to in the letter of
2 2nd December, which you I know have seen because you
3 referred to it a week ago, and the problem is that an
4 organisation like Haringey generates an enormous volume
5 of paper. It employs large numbers of individuals and
6 carries out its work from different sites. So we cannot
7 ever been certain that there is not somewhere another
8 document which the Inquiry might want to look at.
9 We have also in that same letter summarised a number
10 of documents which we have. We took a decision about
11 how we were going to put forward those further documents
12 in a way that remained manageable. We have had no
13 response yet as to whether or not the Inquiry wishes to
14 see any further documents.
15 You may also recall that indicated in that letter
16 was the fact that Ms Bristow had on the Sunday evening
17 issued an instruction that anybody who had any other
18 documents that they thought the Inquiry might need
19 should let the designated officer know. There was
20 a response to that, which has meant that we have in fact
21 been sifting through a considerable volume of other
22 documents. I am not sure some of them did not use it as
23 an opportunity to clear out any old files that they had
24 because we managed to find only a handful of documents
25 which again we supplied at the earliest opportunity once
8
1 we found them. They are probably best described as
2 tangentally relevant but as we said after last weekend
3 we were opting to put things in rather than risk leaving
4 them out. We can only say that we have been trying to
5 do our best in the time available.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
7 MR GARNHAM: May I respond to that. I am quite prepared to
8 accept that the error in disclosing the more important
9 of the recent documents namely the competency assessment
10 does not lie with Haringey's lawyers but it does lie
11 with Haringey. The obligation is imposed on Haringey
12 Council, not on their lawyers, and if their lawyers are
13 not provided with the relevant material as a result of
14 errors in the administration procession in Haringey it
15 is difficult for their lawyers to do anything about it
16 but does not excuse Haringey.
17 As to the point about Mr Kousoulou, it is right to
18 say that the notice of criticism was sent to Haringey at
19 the beginning of November. Nonetheless it seems to us
20 that all this material should have been disclosed at the
21 latest with the rest of the material last Monday. One
22 sympathises with the position that Miss Lawson find
23 herself in having repeatedly to explain these matters,
24 and it is for that reason amongst others that I suggest
25 to you that the appropriate course may be to seek the
9
1 explanation from the horse's mouth.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr Garnham and thank you
3 Miss Lawson. May I say I have no doubt at all that you
4 have done your very best to get these documents to the
5 Inquiry. I think that we need to view my position in
6 the context of the Inquiry which is that when the trial
7 ended in January the Secretary of State for Health
8 announced that there would be an Inquiry and it seemed
9 clear to everyone from the publicity in the trial that
10 Haringey was going to be a very important part of that
11 Inquiry. So it did not come as a surprise that Haringey
12 would need to prepare over the succeeding months for
13 their contribution to this Inquiry.
14 The letters requesting witness statements and
15 documentation to the best of my memory went out in May
16 and now I find myself in a situation where having
17 summoned the Director of Social Services for what
18 I expected to be three documents or perhaps four at the
19 most, it turned out to be 630 and this Inquiry had to
20 appoint additional staff last week at additional cost in
21 order to process those documents, and now this week we
22 have a witness that is coming before us today who has
23 produced a second statement that I have not seen and
24 I suspect I am not alone in this room, I suspect that
25 not one of the interested parties has seen this second
10
1 statement, which I think puts everyone at a considerable
2 disadvantage.
3 I was deeply concerned last week when Mr Garnham
4 quite rightly said that in the light of additional
5 information that has come to the Inquiry it may be
6 necessary to recall some of the witnesses. That would
7 not only add to the expense of the Inquiry but it would
8 delay an Inquiry which is in everybody's interest and is
9 the wish of the Government to complete its task as
10 efficiently as possible.
11 The Inquiry is not stalled and I do not intend to
12 allow it to be stalled and I do not accept that Haringey
13 is a big authority. I actually do not know the
14 geography of Haringey but it is a few miles across one
15 way and a few miles the other way. Compared with
16 organisations that are national and multinational
17 Haringey is actually quite a small player. If I may be
18 personal, it is a smaller organisation than the
19 organisations that I have been responsible for in the
20 past, and so I am not prepared to accept that it is
21 a big organisation that cannot be expected to know where
22 its papers are that are needed for this Inquiry.
23 I think that the person who is ultimately
24 accountable for the efficiency of Haringey is the Chief
25 Executive and I will invite the Chief Executive to come
11
1 here at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning to explain why
2 I find myself in this situation, and if he chooses not
3 to accept my invitation then I will have to use other
4 powers to make sure that he comes here and gives that
5 explanation.
6 MR GARNHAM: Thank you sir. May we then move on and I will
7 call our first witness for this morning who is
8 Ms~Petra Kitchman.
9 MS PETRA KITCHMAN (affirmed)
10 MR GARNHAM: Good morning.
11 MS KITCHMAN: Good morning.
12 MR GARNHAM: I see you are taking some papers out of your
13 case.
14 MS KITCHMAN: Sorry.
15 MR GARNHAM: Can you tell us what they are first.
16 MS KITCHMAN: They are all papers that I understand are
17 actually in the bundles and I have actually had the
18 opportunity to read through them and because there are
19 so many documents I was not able to remember them so
20 I have had to highlight them and I will be looking to
21 refer to them during my evidence.
22 MR GARNHAM: Would you put them aside for the moment. If
23 you do find you need to refer to them can you tell us
24 and we will then provide you with a chance do so. For
25 the time being I would like you to work without them but
12
1 have them ready in case you need them.
2 MS KITCHMAN: Okay.
3 MR GARNHAM: Put them to the edge of the table please.
4 MS KITCHMAN: I think I will need to refer to this
5 straightaway.
6 MR GARNHAM: Leave them aside for the moment nonetheless.
7 Thank you. I think you can probably answer this
8 question without reference to that, your full name
9 please.
10 MS KITCHMAN: My name is Petra Kitchman.
11 MR GARNHAM: And your professional address.
12 MS KITCHMAN: My professional -- actually, sorry, my address
13 has actually changed over the last week and I am not
14 sure. I know it is The Power House. I will have to ask
15 my Haringey colleagues. It was Duke House.
16 MR GARNHAM: Give us the Duke House address for now.
17 MS KITCHMAN: Duke House, Crouch Hall Road, Hornsey N8, but
18 I have not been at work the last few weeks. I am not
19 sure what the new address is.
20 MR GARNHAM: You have made one statement for the Inquiry,
21 a copy of which is now being placed in front of you.
22 Sir it is volume 2 of our witness bundle, page 187.
23 Could you please look through that and confirm that you
24 have signed it.
25 MS KITCHMAN: Yes, I have signed it.
13
1 MR GARNHAM: Are there any amendments you wish to make to it
2 or are you content with it?
3 MS KITCHMAN: There are two amendments I need to make to it.
4 I do apologise, this is very much a last minute thing.
5 I think I can explain why that is.
6 MR GARNHAM: Let us make the amendments first. Where do you
7 wish to make them?
8 MS KITCHMAN: The first is in relation to the letter that
9 arrived to me from Dr Rossiter dated 20th August 1999.
10 MR GARNHAM: Which paragraph please?
11 MS KITCHMAN: Paragraph 16.
12 MR GARNHAM: What is the amendment you want to make?
13 MS KITCHMAN: The amendment is, if I could just explain that
14 when I wrote my statement I was actually off work on
15 maternity leave. I did actually -- in writing my
16 statement I did not have my notebook here and I had not
17 referred to it actually until recently when I was asked
18 to present -- by my solicitor to present my notebook to
19 the Inquiry. Although I had informed the Part 8 Inquiry
20 of what I am just about to say I had forgotten to put it
21 in my statement and that was because I wrote my first
22 statement with Mr Monaghan while I was at home and my
23 baby was 10 weeks old and I actually genuinely forgot
24 this. Then when I came to write my witness statement
25 I used the Bernard Monaghan statements in order to
14
1 prepare this and I must have both times omitted this
2 because I was at home and I did not have my book with
3 me.
4 MR GARNHAM: Let us take you through that. Before you look
5 at that what is it that you have in your hand?
6 MS KITCHMAN: This is my blue notebook which I used to
7 record telephone calls from professionals.
8 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. Now, what are you going to use it
9 for?
10 MS KITCHMAN: I am just going to explain that when
11 I received the first letter from Dr Rossiter I did
12 actually make two calls to Dr Rossiter. One was when
13 I first got the letter asking me, saying she had some
14 concerns, and I think I phoned her to find out what the
15 concerns were, and it is of poor standard what I have
16 written in my book but I did make a note of what she
17 said to me at the time and I then phoned, as in my
18 statement, I then telephoned Lisa Arthurworrey and then
19 as I have said I phoned Dr Rossiter back.
20 MR GARNHAM: Before you look at your book could you tell us
21 what it is you want to change in paragraph 16. How
22 would you like to express yourself now?
23 MS KITCHMAN: Right. Without looking at my book I would
24 just like to say that I did have a conversation with
25 Dr Rossiter when I received the first letter from her on
15
1 20th August and I phoned her to find out what her
2 concerns were and she did --
3 MR GARNHAM: Should we be amending paragraph 19? Should we
4 now read it to say:
5 "In response to the letter first I telephoned
6 Dr Rossiter ..."
7 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
8 MR GARNHAM: "... to ask her what her concerns were"?
9 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
10 MR GARNHAM: We will make that amendment then. Then she
11 told you what her concerns were, did she?
12 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
13 MR GARNHAM: So the amendment can continue:
14 "She told me ..." and then you are going to refer to
15 your blue book to tell us what she told you, are you?
16 MS KITCHMAN: Yes, I am. I do apologise, it is just rough
17 notes, but this is what I believe that she told me.
18 MR GARNHAM: Read it out as it appears in your book.
19 MS KITCHMAN: I have "Kovao" and then "Mary Rossiter".
20 I also wrote down "Lisa" and crossed it out. Then
21 I have put:
22 "Poured boiling water over her head due to scabies
23 [forward slash] inappropriate lesions made" -- sorry,
24 "more than scratch marks. Mum turned up to the ward in
25 the middle of the night, 10 am. Jumped out of bed and
16
1 stood to attention. Said if she has another social
2 worker she would leave. Behaviour on the ward: anxious
3 attachment, clinging to mum. Poured boiling water on
4 herself due to itching."
5 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. Now, you tell us that your
6 solicitor provided us with a copy of that.
7 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
8 MR GARNHAM: I am not sure that that has yet been circulated
9 and it clearly needs to be. What I suggest we do is to
10 take steps to ensure that happens during the course of
11 this morning and when we get to that part of
12 Ms Kitchman's evidence we will have that to hand.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
14 MR GARNHAM: We should read paragraph 19 as being amended in
15 that way to incorporate your reference to your blue book
16 and to those notes, is that right?
17 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
18 MR GARNHAM: Do we then continue paragraph 19 by simply
19 saying:
20 "Second, I telephoned North Tottenham District"?
21 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
22 MR GARNHAM: That will then be complete, will it?
23 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
24 MR GARNHAM: Thank you for that. Any other amendments you
25 need to make to this statement?
17
1 MS KITCHMAN: The only other amendment is that I do not know
2 how relevant it is but actually I actually had nine
3 supervision sessions in the time, not 13 sessions as
4 I have put in my statement. I have actually had to sign
5 a declaration saying that I would not use my supervision
6 notes for any other purpose other than my disciplinary
7 hearing but I realised over the weekend that they were
8 part of the documents that have now been given to the
9 Inquiry.
10 MR GARNHAM: Do we need to make that amendment at
11 paragraph 5?
12 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
13 MR GARNHAM: That is where you say you were supervised
14 approximately six times per year?
15 MS KITCHMAN: Yes, it was actually nine times from the
16 period of 1998 to 1999.
17 MR GARNHAM: So nine times between what dates?
18 MS KITCHMAN: Sorry, I am not fully prepared.
19 MR GARNHAM: Approximately?
20 MS KITCHMAN: Approximately from the time that I started at
21 Haringey to when Victoria died.
22 MR GARNHAM: So that is April 1998 --
23 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
24 MR GARNHAM: -- to February 2000?
25 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
18
1 MR GARNHAM: A period of 22 months.
2 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
3 MR GARNHAM: And you had nine supervisions in that period?
4 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: Any other amendments?
6 MS KITCHMAN: No.
7 MR GARNHAM: With those changes are you content with this
8 statement?
9 MS KITCHMAN: I am.
10 MR GARNHAM: Are the contents of the statement thus amended
11 true?
12 MS KITCHMAN: Yes, they are.
13 MR GARNHAM: I think it is right that you qualified as
14 a social worker in 1990?
15 MS KITCHMAN: Yes, that is correct.
16 MR GARNHAM: You worked in Newham between 1990 and 1995?
17 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
18 MR GARNHAM: And you ended up there as a senior practitioner
19 in child protection work?
20 MS KITCHMAN: That is correct.
21 MR GARNHAM: Then you moved to Southwark as a senior
22 practitioner?
23 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
24 MR GARNHAM: And you were there between September 1995 and
25 May 1997?
19
1 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
2 MR GARNHAM: Then to Tower Hamlets.?
3 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
4 MR GARNHAM: Where you worked for three months?
5 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
6 MR GARNHAM: And the following month after leaving
7 Tower Hamlets you began employment with Haringey, that
8 is April 1998?
9 MS KITCHMAN: That is correct.
10 MR GARNHAM: You left Haringey on maternity leave on
11 3rd September 2000?
12 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
13 MR GARNHAM: When did you return?
14 MS KITCHMAN: Actually I think it was October, sorry,
15 30th October 2000.
16 MR GARNHAM: When did you return?
17 MS KITCHMAN: I returned on 4th July this year.
18 MR GARNHAM: 2001?
19 MS KITCHMAN: 2001.
20 MR GARNHAM: In what post? Same post?
21 MS KITCHMAN: Child protection adviser post but I am now
22 actually doing a job share. I work part-time now.
23 MR GARNHAM: But still as a child protection adviser?
24 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
25 MR GARNHAM: When you first arrived at Haringey what
20
1 induction did you receive? What was the process?
2 MS KITCHMAN: Sorry, can I have a few minutes just to
3 remember? I met with my manager Ann Graham from
4 recollection. I would have had a look at the Child
5 Protection Guidelines. I know I went on an induction
6 day, I think it was half a day induction where I went on
7 a guided tour of Haringey on a bus and I think it was
8 the Chief Executive Gurbux Singh who introduced himself.
9 That was quite useful. I know I did that.
10 MR GARNHAM: What handbooks or textbooks were you given?
11 MS KITCHMAN: Definitely the Child Protection Guidelines.
12 MR GARNHAM: That is Haringey's Purple Book?
13 MS KITCHMAN: Yes, Haringey's Purple Book.
14 MR GARNHAM: Do you remember whether you had the ACPC
15 handbook?
16 MS KITCHMAN: I do not remember whether I had it but it was
17 certainly available in our office. I would have had
18 a look at it. Whether it was directly given to me or
19 whether I went and found it I do not know. I certainly
20 was aware of it.
21 MR GARNHAM: Was that a document much used by you child
22 protection advisers?
23 MS KITCHMAN: We tended to refer more to the Purple Book
24 than to the ACPC Guidelines because that was the one
25 that was more relevant for social services.
21
1 MR GARNHAM: Did you refer to the ACPC book at all?
2 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
3 MR GARNHAM: Do you know how much the Duty teams used the
4 ACPC guidelines?
5 MS KITCHMAN: I do not know. I know they had the Purple
6 Book. I am not sure.
7 MR GARNHAM: I am trying to get a picture of how much use
8 was made of the ACPC handbook.
9 MS KITCHMAN: I do not know about the ACPC. I know when
10 other agencies rang up for guidelines I would often
11 sends them a copy of that one out.
12 MR GARNHAM: Of the ACPC?
13 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
14 MR GARNHAM: You are not able to tell us how much that was
15 used inside Haringey?
16 MS KITCHMAN: No.
17 MR GARNHAM: Your c.v sets out a long list of training
18 courses that you have attended.
19 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
20 MR GARNHAM: We have those at page 198 in the witness
21 statement volume 2. It might be useful if you have that
22 in front of you.
23 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
24 MR GARNHAM: From 1990 onwards, from the start of your
25 career, there appears to have been considerable emphasis
22
1 on child protection in your training.
2 MS KITCHMAN: That is correct.
3 MR GARNHAM: The bulk of your experience since qualification
4 appears to have been in child protection, is that right?
5 MS KITCHMAN: Yes, that is correct.
6 MR GARNHAM: That emerges from the c.v that is attached to
7 that document.
8 MS KITCHMAN: That is true.
9 MR GARNHAM: As a result you were able to conclude your c.v
10 on the last page by saying your particular expertise is
11 in child protection and child casework.
12 MS KITCHMAN: That is correct. Childcare work actually.
13 MR GARNHAM: Thank you for the correction. And that has
14 remained the position, that is where your expertise
15 lies?
16 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
17 MR GARNHAM: How was your work in child protection monitored
18 in Haringey? What was the process by which your
19 managers Ann Graham and others, if there be others, were
20 able to assure themselves that you were doing your
21 stuff?
22 MS KITCHMAN: Through supervision and I mean Ann was always
23 available if there was a problem on a case where
24 I needed urgent advice, she was always available.
25 MR GARNHAM: That is not quite the same thing as monitoring
23
1 your work. Supervision I can see might be a way in
2 which work is monitored. Did your supervisor look at
3 your cases, read the files you had and come to a view
4 about how well you were doing your job?
5 MS KITCHMAN: When -- I will have to think about this a bit
6 more. When I first started in Haringey I do remember
7 that Ann Graham came to observe me chairing a case
8 conference, and so she was able to see how I did that.
9 In terms of when we complete staff -- investigations
10 into allegations against professionals, she always has
11 a look at the reports that I had written afterwards and
12 makes sure that they are okay and she would obviously
13 approve and read any documents that I had written or
14 other types of reports.
15 MR GARNHAM: Generally?
16 MS KITCHMAN: Generally.
17 MR GARNHAM: So all documents you write pass across her
18 desk?
19 MS KITCHMAN: When you say documents what I mean are reports
20 or audits or anything particularly contentious. She
21 would not have read every letter for example that
22 I would have written.
23 MR GARNHAM: Would she have occasion to go through your blue
24 book to see how comprehensively you were recording the
25 transactions you were involved in and how you were using
24
1 that material?
2 MS KITCHMAN: Yes, sometimes she did actually look at the
3 blue book.
4 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. Before I move on I am told that,
5 and it may well be the error is ours, that we do not
6 appear to have the photocopy of that extract from your
7 blue book that you refer to. It may be it has been lost
8 amongst the many documents we have received of late.
9 May I take the blue book from you now and we will have
10 that photocopied and distributed to the Panel and the
11 interested parties during the course of the morning.
12 Could you pass it to the witness manager. Perhaps you
13 could open it at the page that you refer to. Is there
14 anything else in that book you are going to need to
15 refer to this morning?
16 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
17 MR GARNHAM: Could I ask our witness manager to arrange for
18 us to have photocopies of everything between the
19 beginning of August and the end of the year 1999.
20 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
21 MR GARNHAM: We will have that done during the course of the
22 morning so everybody has it.
23 MS KITCHMAN: Okay.
24 MR GARNHAM: We have heard a good deal of evidence about the
25 restructuring that went on in Haringey Social Services
25
1 in 1999. You know about that?
2 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
3 MR GARNHAM: How did it affect you personally? What effect
4 did it have on you personally?
5 MS KITCHMAN: There was a child protection adviser post in
6 our team that was cut but, however, since I worked in
7 Haringey that post was vacant anyway or there was
8 somebody on long-term sick and then they actually left
9 the department, so there had never been four child
10 protection advisers in post.
11 MR GARNHAM: We have heard already there were normally three
12 in post and that there continued to be three after that
13 post was cut because of the fact that it had been vacant
14 in the past, is that right?
15 MS KITCHMAN: That is correct.
16 MR GARNHAM: Did the restructuring have any other effect on
17 your work?
18 MS KITCHMAN: I think what happened was because there was
19 such a cut in team managers that the requests for child
20 protection advice and consultation did increase and
21 often I felt like I was giving supervision rather than
22 advice and consultation.
23 MR GARNHAM: So the absence of the fourth member of the
24 team, as it would have been had she been up fully to
25 complement, had that effect on you that the work of four
26
1 people was being done by three?
2 MS KITCHMAN: Yes, but as I said I do not think that that --
3 the actual restructuring had made such a difference to
4 that because we had always had three advisers since
5 I started my work in Haringey.
6 MR GARNHAM: The restructuring we have been told was first
7 mooted at the beginning of 1999. There were then some
8 discussions about it during the first half of 1999.
9 There were then interviews principally in September of
10 that year and the new posts were taken up at the end of
11 the year. Does that fit with your understanding?
12 MS KITCHMAN: I think so, yes.
13 MR GARNHAM: When did you first get to know that there was
14 restructuring in the offing?
15 MS KITCHMAN: I cannot answer that question. I am not sure
16 of the dates.
17 MR GARNHAM: Would it have been early in 1999?
18 MS KITCHMAN: I am sorry, I really do not know the answer to
19 that.
20 MR GARNHAM: Do you remember how you first learned that
21 restructuring was happening?
22 MS KITCHMAN: I think that Ann Graham would have informed us
23 through the team meeting, I would imagine.
24 MR GARNHAM: But you cannot help with when that would have
25 been?
27
1 MS KITCHMAN: It would have been -- I can refer to the team
2 meeting minutes of when that was. Would that be
3 helpful?
4 MR GARNHAM: Please.
5 MS KITCHMAN: It would have been on 26th May 1999 at the
6 team meeting there was a discussion about due to future
7 reorganisation of team managers. There was a discussion
8 around that, so at least by then I would have had some
9 idea.
10 MR GARNHAM: Does that page you are looking at have an
11 Inquiry reference number on the bottom right-hand?
12 MS KITCHMAN: It is actually my own copy but I have found
13 the Inquiry reference number. It is 26B/020.55.
14 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. Looking back on your involvement
15 with Victoria's case and in the light of the information
16 that was available to you at the time rather than what
17 you have learned since, is there any respect in which
18 you think you ought to have acted differently?
19 MS KITCHMAN: It is a difficult question because so much
20 time has passed, and with hindsight and everything else
21 there are obviously things that I wish that I had done,
22 but it is difficult. In response to your question
23 directly, I am very clear, the one thing I am very clear
24 I should have done was responded quicker to
25 Dr Rossiter's second letter when, after I had seen
28
1 Lisa Arthurworrey, I should have responded more quickly
2 rather than letting it delay. I am very clear about
3 that.
4 MR GARNHAM: But otherwise, apart from the delay, you are
5 content with what you did, are you?
6 MS KITCHMAN: I always wish I had done more but I think and
7 I hope that as I give evidence that some of the reasons
8 why I did not do more I believe are down to some of the
9 systems that I was working within and I hope that that
10 will come across.
11 MR GARNHAM: We will come on to that. I will return to ask
12 you questions about your direct involvement with
13 Victoria in a little while but there are three
14 preliminary matters that I want your help with first
15 please. So that you know where we are going, let me
16 tell you what those are. Firstly the role of child
17 protection adviser in Haringey, secondly the audits that
18 were conducted on Haringey Social Services and thirdly
19 the quality of management at the North Tottenham
20 District Office. I will ask you about each of those now
21 and we will come on to deal with your involvement in
22 Victoria's case.
23 Let me begin by asking you about the role of child
24 protection advisers. You list your main duties and
25 responsibilities in paragraph 3 of your statement.
29
1 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
2 MR GARNHAM: I wonder if we could also have volume 16,
3 please, page 504. This is the job description for
4 a child protection adviser. Your list, the one in your
5 statement, paragraph 3, includes investigating
6 allegations against professionals.
7 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
8 MR GARNHAM: Liaising with the NMH in respect of child
9 protection.
10 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
11 MR GARNHAM: The fact that you are lead officer for domestic
12 violence and child protection.
13 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
14 MR GARNHAM: And you have the task of devising and
15 completing audits in respect of child protection and
16 childcare.
17 MS KITCHMAN: That is correct.
18 MR GARNHAM: I am interested to know how you come to take on
19 those roles. Were they seen as duties consistent with
20 the basic objectives so as to fall within paragraph 19
21 of your -- you will have to go over the page I think.
22 MS KITCHMAN: Of the job description?
23 MR GARNHAM: Yes, 16055, the last entry.
24 MS KITCHMAN: I see what you are saying.
25 MR GARNHAM: To undertake other jobs consistent with basic
30
1 objectives, because the ones I have listed do not appear
2 directly in your list, and I am wondering if that is how
3 they come to be assigned to you.
4 MS KITCHMAN: There is number 13, to liaise with other
5 agencies. That covers the --
6 MR GARNHAM: NMH.
7 MS KITCHMAN: That is right.
8 MR GARNHAM: Investigating allegations against
9 professionals, lead officer for domestic violence.
10 MS KITCHMAN: Is the investigating -- no, that is not in
11 that.
12 MR GARNHAM: You are said to be lead officer in respect to
13 projects related to childcare in paragraph 9 and it may
14 be it comes within that.
15 MS KITCHMAN: I think it does.
16 MR GARNHAM: And devising and completing audits.
17 MS KITCHMAN: Yes, is that under -- I think that might be
18 supposed to be number 6, to monitor and evaluate
19 childcare work using quality assurance methods and
20 systems.
21 MR GARNHAM: That is the means by which that is done, is it?
22 MS KITCHMAN: I mean, I did not devise this job description,
23 I am just saying that I assume that is where that comes
24 from.
25 MR GARNHAM: I am interested to know how you come in your
31
1 statement to compile your list which is different from
2 this. Other witnesses for example have simply copied
3 into their witness statement their job description taken
4 from the Haringey documents, but you have done more than
5 that or something different from that, you have
6 attempted to list your own understanding of your job.
7 MS KITCHMAN: Yes. Well, these are the key -- I suppose
8 because my job description is quite vague I suppose,
9 these are more specific things which I am doing.
10 MR GARNHAM: You anticipate my question almost precisely.
11 The job description does appear to be quite vague and
12 your description contained in your statement is much
13 more precise. Are we to take it that what is contained
14 in your own statement is a more accurate distillation of
15 what your job was actually about than we find in the job
16 description document?
17 MS KITCHMAN: I am not sure whether it is more accurate
18 because there are obviously things in the job
19 description that I do as well so I think perhaps
20 marrying the two together is perhaps more accurate.
21 MR GARNHAM: Okay, thank you. As far as you were concerned
22 doing this job, the tasks you have identified in your
23 statement fit satisfactorily, do they, with the job
24 description you have been given when you took up the
25 post?
32
1 MS KITCHMAN: When I took up the post I was told that the
2 job description was being revised. Now, I note that
3 this job description is June 1999 which was a different
4 one, I mean it is more or less basically the same as the
5 one that I had when I first started.
6 MR GARNHAM: Yes, you have been in post 15 months or so by
7 then?
8 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
9 MR GARNHAM: So you had some other job description?
10 MS KITCHMAN: Yes, but it was more or less the same as this.
11 MR GARNHAM: So back to my question, how do we get a full
12 picture of what your job is really about? We cannot
13 just use your description in your statement because you
14 tell us that there were other things you did.
15 MS KITCHMAN: That is correct.
16 MR GARNHAM: But you also tell us that the job description
17 is rather vague, and I want to make sure we have
18 understood accurately what your job involved, so if we
19 start from your statement I assume you tell us that what
20 you list there are jobs you had.
21 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
22 MR GARNHAM: What ought we to add to that list?
23 MS KITCHMAN: From the -- sorry, there is my statement and
24 then the things that are in the job description. Do you
25 want me to go through?
33
1 MR GARNHAM: No, if it is not all of them, yes, please go
2 through it.
3 MS KITCHMAN: It is difficult. I suppose generally this is
4 what I did that is in my statement actually having
5 looked at it.
6 MR GARNHAM: I rather thought that might be the position.
7 So we are right, are we, if we want to get an
8 understanding of what your job was like, to look at your
9 statement rather than the job description?
10 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
11 MR GARNHAM: Can I ask you about your job of liaising with
12 the NMH. You say, I think paragraph 13 of your
13 statement, that you were the link worker with the NMH
14 although you tell us that was a role that was never
15 clearly defined.
16 MS KITCHMAN: Yes, but I have -- there was a meeting
17 I attended at the NMH which I can refer to in the
18 minutes which did more clearly set out the purpose of
19 those particular meetings.
20 MR GARNHAM: I am going to take you to a couple of meetings
21 in a moment and see if that is amongst the ones you want
22 to refer to. If not you can tell us what else we should
23 be looking at, but let me understand first of all, did
24 you believe that Haringey had given you a satisfactory
25 definition of what your role as link worker would
34
1 involve?
2 MS KITCHMAN: Now I do not believe I did have, looking back
3 at it now, but at the time.
4 MR GARNHAM: What did you think you were to do when you were
5 first given this job?
6 MS KITCHMAN: I thought that I had to attend the meeting at
7 the North Middlesex Hospital with Dr Rossiter.
8 MR GARNHAM: These are the liaison meetings?
9 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
10 MR GARNHAM: Which took place once every two months?
11 MS KITCHMAN: That is correct, although they did not always
12 happen, and that should any matters -- the other thing
13 was that I had to be a kind of person that the North
14 Middlesex Hospital Social Work Team could ring up if
15 they wanted some child protection advice related to
16 a Haringey case, which they did sometimes do that.
17 MR GARNHAM: So, so far your job is to attend a bi-monthly
18 meeting and to be available to give advice to NMH social
19 workers who wanted advice on Haringey cases?
20 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
21 MR GARNHAM: That is two functions. Anything else?
22 MS KITCHMAN: And also to Dr Rossiter as well but she also
23 used my colleague, so it was not just me that she would
24 contact kind of thing.
25 MR GARNHAM: What did you understand was to be your role in
35
1 relation to Rossiter?
2 MS KITCHMAN: It was really to, also if there were any
3 difficulties between Social Services and the North
4 Middlesex Hospital to try and be able to iron them out
5 although they also would do that through the ACPC as
6 well.
7 MR GARNHAM: I will come to the fourth function in a moment
8 but the third one you mentioned was your relationship
9 with Dr Rossiter and what did you understand you were to
10 do in relation to Dr Rossiter? What were you told was
11 to be your job?
12 MS KITCHMAN: I was not really told anything was to be my
13 job, I just went along with what I -- if Dr Rossiter
14 requested advice then I would obviously give advice or
15 discuss with her a particular case. It was not actually
16 clearly defined.
17 MR GARNHAM: Dr Rossiter told us, Day 21, page 53, that she
18 saw you as the relevant person or the appropriate person
19 in Social Services with whom she should liaise and to
20 whom she should report concerns, and did you understand
21 that to be your role?
22 MS KITCHMAN: To some extent, yes.
23 MR GARNHAM: First of all, did you understand that your role
24 was to liaise with her?
25 MS KITCHMAN: To liaise with her, yes.
36
1 MR GARNHAM: What does liaise mean?
2 MS KITCHMAN: You see, liaise would be, as I said, to talk
3 to her over the phone I suppose or to meet with her face
4 to face if there was -- if she wanted to discuss
5 a particular case or something like that. It would be
6 a planning meeting. When I say face to face I mean at
7 a planning meeting or something like that really.
8 MR GARNHAM: Did you understand that she was to see you as
9 her point of contact in Haringey Social Services?
10 MS KITCHMAN: Well she could see me as her point of contact
11 but she would also contact my colleagues as well.
12 MR GARNHAM: In the Child Protection Advisers Department?
13 MS KITCHMAN: That is correct, yes, so we all had --
14 although I was the key person, if I was not around she
15 could --
16 MR GARNHAM: This sound extraordinarily vague and a recipe
17 for people not knowing how to go about making contact.
18 Do you agree? If you are the link person why are you
19 not the sole point of contact for Dr Rossiter?
20 MS KITCHMAN: Because as you can see by my job I am doing
21 many different things and I am not always in that
22 particular office, would not always be around to be
23 contacted. I might be doing something else.
24 MR GARNHAM: Plainly that is right but you could have been
25 designated as the appropriate channel.
37
1 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
2 MR GARNHAM: So that whenever Rossiter had concerns about an
3 individual case she would come either directly to you or
4 through you leaving a message to contact her.
5 MS KITCHMAN: That is right and I think that is generally
6 what happened.
7 MR GARNHAM: So Dr Rossiter is right to say you were the
8 relevant or appropriate person for her to contact?
9 MS KITCHMAN: I was, but there were also other channels she
10 would use as well. It was not always me she would
11 contact.
12 MR GARNHAM: The other channels were?
13 MS KITCHMAN: The ACPC, senior management, my colleagues and
14 obviously there was a social work team at North
15 Middlesex Hospital and also the Duty Team at Haringey
16 where she would make -- she was able to contact somebody
17 directly if she needed to make an urgent referral or
18 something like that.
19 MR GARNHAM: What exactly then do you add to that pattern of
20 routes available to Dr Rossiter?
21 MS KITCHMAN: I am really there in case the other channels
22 I suppose are not working. You know, or if she
23 wanted -- sometimes she might just want to discuss
24 a case and want to run it by me or something like that.
25 There were about three cases of Munchausen syndrome by
38
1 proxy that were running which can be quite complex and
2 I think we did have some discussions about them.
3 MR GARNHAM: Was there any established procedure or written
4 documentation setting out what your role in relation to
5 the NMH was to be?
6 MS KITCHMAN: The only thing I can find is in the child
7 protection -- in my job description which says to liaise
8 with other agencies on childcare issues.
9 MR GARNHAM: That does not take us much further forward.
10 MS KITCHMAN: No, and the other one is in the Child
11 Protection Guidelines, the Purple Book which says
12 a similar type of thing.
13 MR GARNHAM: And therefore takes us equally no further
14 forward?
15 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
16 MR GARNHAM: My concern, to be frank with you, is that there
17 seems to have been a lack of clarity about precisely
18 what job you were to perform in relation to the NMH. Is
19 that fair?
20 MS KITCHMAN: I think that is fair.
21 MR GARNHAM: What did you do about that lack of clarity?
22 MS KITCHMAN: Well, as I said to you at the time it did not
23 seem so much of a problem but obviously now that this
24 has happened it does seem that it was a great -- you
25 know, it has been a big gap in the system.
39
1 MR GARNHAM: The danger is that you on the one hand and
2 Dr Rossiter on the other may be unsure as to what each
3 of you will do in response to a conversation between
4 you.
5 MS KITCHMAN: Yes, I think that is true. That is true.
6 MR GARNHAM: How were staff at the NMH supposed to know what
7 you were doing? Was it written anywhere?
8 MS KITCHMAN: I did used to -- they had their child
9 protection training course of which I gave a talk on,
10 I think it was on case conferences and the role of
11 advisers, so I did a little talk at the child protection
12 training where there would have been about 90 health
13 professionals present.
14 MR GARNHAM: Were you able to bring to that discussion any
15 greater clarity than you can bring to us now?
16 MS KITCHMAN: The only thing I can say is you know, no,
17 actually, sorry.
18 MR GARNHAM: How good were relations between Haringey Social
19 Work Department and the North Middlesex Hospital in
20 general? Did you rub along well?
21 MS KITCHMAN: Personally speaking I find that I personally
22 I felt I had a good relationship with Dr Rossiter and if
23 there were specific issues, and I really could not say
24 what they are now, I cannot really remember, but if
25 there was a particular difficulty with a particular
40
1 social worker or something like that then I could
2 normally help her to get it sorted out and that was how
3 I saw my liaison role really.
4 MR GARNHAM: In paragraph 7 of your statement you tell us
5 that you had raised concerns in the past about social
6 work services provided at NMH.
7 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
8 MR GARNHAM: Is this a reference to the fact that there was
9 no Haringey employed hospital social worker?
10 MS KITCHMAN: That is correct.
11 MR GARNHAM: The only one was an Enfield employed social
12 work team?
13 MS KITCHMAN: That is correct, which was in comparison to
14 the other local authorities I have worked in. For
15 example, I mean there were hospital social work teams
16 and for example when I worked in Southwark part of --
17 when the Hospital Team Manager for the Social Work
18 Service was on holiday, part of my job, we would take it
19 in turns to go and cover their document system, and it
20 would be very clear about what I was actually doing.
21 The other point I wanted to make is the other local
22 authorities I have worked in the hospital social work
23 teams actually did the assessments for, even though for
24 example Southwark Social Services, the Guys Hospital
25 team employed by Southwark, they get a lot of shaken
41
1 babies from all over the country and they will actually
2 do the initial assessments on them and I have been
3 working in other local authorities and going to
4 Haringey. I personally found that problematic, that the
5 initial assessment was not done by a hospital social
6 worker who was actually in the hospital at the time.
7 MR GARNHAM: So your concerns are twofold. One, that there
8 was no Haringey employed hospital social worker and two,
9 that the practice at the NMH was that the hospital
10 social worker would not do the initial assessment.
11 MS KITCHMAN: That is correct.
12 MR GARNHAM: Any other concerns that you had about this
13 relationship?
14 MS KITCHMAN: No, I think they are the main ones.
15 MR GARNHAM: How were these raised by you? What did you do
16 about bringing these up?
17 MS KITCHMAN: It was a well-known issue. My manager
18 certainly knew about it, Carol Wilson knew about it and
19 my understanding was that Carol's understanding was that
20 under I think Section 17 -- I may be wrong, but about
21 the local authority's -- I cannot remember -- to provide
22 for children in need I think, in the area of which the
23 situation arose, and because the particular incidents or
24 whatever would have arisen in Enfield, because the
25 hospital was based in Enfield then it was actually
42
1 Enfield Social Services' responsibility to do the
2 Haringey assessment.
3 MR GARNHAM: So, as understood it there was a dispute at
4 a high level as to whose responsibility it was as
5 a matter of law to provide social work cover at the
6 hospital?
7 MS KITCHMAN: Yes, and indeed certainly as I said my
8 experience was that the local authority who employed the
9 hospital social workers would generally do the work in
10 the hospital but that was not the case in Haringey.
11 MR GARNHAM: You tell us in paragraph 7 that you raised
12 concerns.
13 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
14 MR GARNHAM: I wanted to know with whom you raised them.
15 MS KITCHMAN: I raised them with my manager.
16 MR GARNHAM: Ann Graham?
17 MS KITCHMAN: Ann Graham. I think she informed Carol Wilson
18 of those concerns.
19 MR GARNHAM: Was this ever put in writing or was it all done
20 orally?
21 MS KITCHMAN: I cannot remember. What has happened is since
22 I returned to work from maternity leave some of my
23 documents have gone missing from my desk. I think
24 things went, you know, people were looking for things
25 for the Inquiry and one of them was a file I had on
43
1 North Middlesex Hospital and I do not know where that is
2 to this day. So whether there was anything, whether
3 there was something in there I wrote, I do not remember
4 putting anything in writing but then I have lost my file
5 so I cannot really explain that.
6 MR GARNHAM: Do you know whether anything came of your
7 raising of these concerns, whether it be orally or in
8 writing?
9 MS KITCHMAN: I think Carol Wilson had a meeting with the
10 senior management from Enfield, I think.
11 MR GARNHAM: Do you know when?
12 MS KITCHMAN: I do not know when it was.
13 MR GARNHAM: Before or after Victoria's death?
14 MS KITCHMAN: I think maybe both. You would have to
15 speak -- to ask Carol in her evidence about that but
16 I certainly raised it again after Victoria's death with
17 Carol who was well aware of it when she came to our team
18 meeting, so it was before and after.
19 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. Would you be given please 26B,
20 page 239. These are the minutes of a meeting of
21 Paediatric Social Work Team and paediatric consultants
22 in February 1998. I know you were not present there.
23 MS KITCHMAN: Right, I had not started working in Haringey
24 then.
25 MR GARNHAM: I am interested in whether -- would you look at
44
1 the penultimate paragraph:
2 "There are a lot of problems with North Tottenham
3 District Office and referring to them, which is done by
4 the clinical staff in some circumstances. This causes
5 negative feelings about Social Services in general which
6 can be unjustified. It was felt that there was need for
7 paediatric social work input from Haringey which stated
8 that Enfield Social Services do work with Haringey
9 clients, carry out checks et cetera and do not always
10 refuse to liaise on behalf of ward staff."
11 I appreciate that you were not then employed and
12 that you were therefore not at this meeting but does any
13 of that accord with your understanding of the position
14 when you first took up your post?
15 MS KITCHMAN: Not really. I do agree that when I say that
16 Enfield Social Services did not carry out initial
17 assessments, they did do the initial checks and, you
18 know, made reference to Haringey. It was not as if they
19 did nothing. But in terms of the problems they had with
20 North Tottenham District I do not actually recall any of
21 that.
22 MR GARNHAM: What about the last sentence:
23 "... stated that Enfield Social Services do work
24 with Haringey clients, carry out checks et cetera" and
25 then the words "and do not always refuse to liaise on
45
1 behalf of ward staff."
2 That sounds as if that is an observation about the
3 way the ward staff deal with Haringey cases.
4 MS KITCHMAN: Yes, I do not know whether it means the
5 Enfield Social Services. Does that mean Enfield social
6 workers would not liaise?
7 MR GARNHAM: That seems to be the import of it.
8 MS KITCHMAN: I do not know. I think Mary Rossiter had some
9 issues around this.
10 MR GARNHAM: You cannot help us with this anyway?
11 MS KITCHMAN: No, all I can say is towards the end of --
12 before Victoria's death, that those meetings I used to
13 attend were not attended by Enfield Social Work
14 Department in the end and I think that that was
15 Mary Rossiter found that quite difficult and I think
16 I did as well but that was because they were having
17 a restructuring.
18 MR GARNHAM: Can you go in the same volume to 020.521.
19 These are the minutes of a child protection liaison
20 meeting in April.
21 MS KITCHMAN: Yes, this was the one I was going to refer to
22 but could not find it in the bundle, the number of it.
23 MR GARNHAM: Some of our documents have come a little late
24 in time. Maybe this was one of them. Meeting on
25 7th April at the North Middlesex which you and Rossiter
46
1 attended.
2 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
3 MR GARNHAM: There is a description on the second page of
4 those minutes of the restructuring within Enfield. No
5 mention of the restructuring at Haringey.
6 MS KITCHMAN: Right. There might have been because I did
7 not know about the restructuring at Haringey at that
8 point.
9 MR GARNHAM: That would appear to fit with what you told us
10 at the beginning of your evidence to the effect that you
11 first became aware of that at a meeting in May 1999, so
12 a month after this meeting.
13 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
14 MR GARNHAM: But that does mean, does it not, or the only
15 sensible conclusion we can draw from this is that you in
16 the post you were holding as link person with North
17 Middlesex were unaware of Haringey's restructuring
18 by April 1999, because otherwise it would have been
19 quite extraordinary if Enfield had started discussing
20 their restructuring and you had kept quiet about yours?
21 MS KITCHMAN: That is right, people who know me, I am quite
22 vocal so I am sure I would have said something, I cannot
23 have known about it then.
24 MR GARNHAM: On that same page, go to item 6 please. The
25 NAI forum, which I think is non-accidental injury forum.
47
1 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
2 MR GARNHAM: Tuesdays from 1 to 2pm.
3 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
4 MR GARNHAM: "Petra Kitchman told the meeting that
5 Sharon Johnson from North Tottenham Social Services will
6 be attending the NAI forum with Petra. Petra will write
7 formally to Dr Rossiter regarding the role of both
8 Sharon and herself at the NAI forum and the
9 understanding that neither Sharon nor Petra will be
10 taking referrals from the meeting but it will be an
11 opportunity to discuss specific cases amongst
12 professionals and to work out together the most
13 appropriate action to be taken. This may result in
14 a referral being made to a social work team outside the
15 meeting".
16 Does that accurately represent what was said at the
17 meeting?
18 MS KITCHMAN: It does but that did not actually happen.
19 MR GARNHAM: It represents what was said at the meeting?
20 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
21 MR GARNHAM: And it represents, did it, the current
22 intention at the time of the meeting?
23 MS KITCHMAN: That is correct.
24 MR GARNHAM: You have answered my next question: did it
25 happen? No, it did not.
48
1 MS KITCHMAN: No, it did not and the reason for that, I did
2 actually meet with Angella Mairs and we both agreed that
3 Sharon could be the nominated person, but what happened
4 was that I think I myself managed to attend one of those
5 meetings but Sharon was just so busy on Duty and she
6 just did not have the time to do it and so it did not
7 work out. I did discuss that with Mary Rossiter at the
8 time and it seemed that I had kind of tried to initiate
9 something which there just was not the time for Sharon
10 to take that on.
11 MR GARNHAM: What about your attendance? Did you attend the
12 NAI forums?
13 MS KITCHMAN: I think I did attend once or twice maybe but
14 again it was on a Tuesday which was my day at North
15 Tottenham and what I planned to do was to try, because
16 North Middlesex Hospital is actually quite near to North
17 Tottenham I had planned to try and go there myself
18 between 1 and 2, but again I became quite busy myself
19 and was not able to attend.
20 MR GARNHAM: What was done to replace that attendance of you
21 and Sharon Johnson at the NAI meeting?
22 MS KITCHMAN: I explained -- this was a new idea that I had
23 tried to implement because I was aware of the problems
24 but obviously there was not really the staff available
25 to do it.
49
1 MR GARNHAM: So I am interested to know what happened.
2 There you are, you have recognised the problem, you have
3 suggested a solution namely the attendance of you two at
4 this meeting; that does not happen, which means the
5 problem persists.
6 MS KITCHMAN: I did inform, I remember I talked to my
7 manager about this and that this was not happening and
8 I had arranged this and it was not working out but
9 I think it was seen that it was not possible for me to
10 be going there on a weekly basis because of the time
11 factor.
12 MR GARNHAM: I understand that that was your answer as to
13 why you were not involved in it and one can perhaps
14 understand that, but my question remains. You have
15 identified a problem which is effective communication
16 between North Tottenham District Office Social Services
17 and the North Middlesex Hospital. You come up with
18 a suggested solution which is the attendance of two of
19 you at these regular weekly NAI meetings at which such
20 communication could have taken place.
21 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
22 MR GARNHAM: Then for reasons of resources neither you nor
23 the other social worker are able to attend, which means
24 we are left with the problem and no solution.
25 MS KITCHMAN: Basically I informed my manager of it who I am
50
1 sure had discussions, I am sure she would have had
2 discussions with Carol Wilson around this problem, and
3 also I spoke to Mary Rossiter about it who in some --
4 because she had not had this service for so long and
5 they had managed without it, continued to go along
6 without that social work input which I agree was not
7 satisfactory.
8 MR GARNHAM: Plainly it was not satisfactory particularly as
9 you had been at pains to identify the lack of
10 communication.
11 MS KITCHMAN: Yes.
12 MR GARNHAM: We have repeatedly heard during the course of
13 this Inquiry people identifying problems, reporting
14 their concerns to managers and then nothing happens and
15 this appears to be another instance of that, does it
16 not?
17 MS KITCHMAN: It does but I think that there was the issue
18 around lack of hospital social workers in the Haringey
19 work. I think it was a sort of political issue as well,
20 around working on cases, as I said before, about working
21 on cases where the situation arose in the borough of
22 Enfield. I think that was the senior management sort of
23 line on it.
24 MR GARNHAM: It probably does not much matter what
25 adjective, whether we call it political or anything
|
