|
Archived Transcript for 13 December 2001:
Pages 101 to 150
101
1 Is that how you still feel?
2 MS GRAHAM: Yes, at that early stage.
3 MR GARNHAM: Has what you have learned since changed your
4 view about that?
5 MS GRAHAM: No, at that early stage there were indications
6 of misjudgments.
7 MR GARNHAM: And learning more about the case since, do you
8 remain of the view that there were those misjudgments?
9 MS GRAHAM: Yes.
10 MR GARNHAM: We can read them for ourselves but it is worth
11 noting your first is:
12 "Serious concerns expressed by the hospital and
13 worrying indicators were not followed up or considered
14 within the child protection process ..."
15 MS GRAHAM: That is what I have written, yes.
16 MR GARNHAM: You still agree with that, yes?
17 MS GRAHAM: Yes.
18 MR GARNHAM: "... compounded by the team managers' decision
19 to lower the priority of the case to family support
20 in September."
21 MS GRAHAM: Yes.
22 MR GARNHAM: Number 4, over the page:
23 "File shows no picture of positive management, even
24 as a family support case, practice was poor, unfocused
25 and in drift."
102
1 Agreed?
2 MS GRAHAM: Yes.
3 MR GARNHAM: "5. Grave errors of judgment made regarding
4 Anna's allegations of sexual abuse, inexcuseable
5 inaction in the follow-up."
6 MS GRAHAM: Yes.
7 MR GARNHAM: "11. Policies and procedures are written,
8 up-to-date and in place."
9 Presumably you would qualify that now somewhat.
10 MS GRAHAM: Policies and procedures were written and in
11 place but they were not up-to-date.
12 MR GARNHAM: These were not used, plainly right?
13 MS GRAHAM: They were not used. I suppose they were used in
14 parts but they were not used as well as they should have
15 been used.
16 MR GARNHAM: Number 12:
17 "Involvement and use of the CPA's highlight tension
18 within the role. How far does an adviser push for
19 information when a social worker is not asking for and
20 indicates that she does not want a more in-depth
21 consultation?"
22 Do you stand by that?
23 MS GRAHAM: And the last bit:
24 "These issues should be addressed."
25 MR GARNHAM: These issues should be addressed?
103
1 MS GRAHAM: Yes.
2 MR GARNHAM: In the light of that report and in the light of
3 your audit into casework in Haringey following
4 Victoria's case, do you remain of the view that training
5 for social workers was adequate?
6 MS GRAHAM: We have to move on and from what I have seen
7 obviously there are developments that we have to make
8 and improvements we have to make so that we can prevent
9 a situation like this from happening again.
10 MR GARNHAM: Paragraph 34 of your statement:
11 "It is to be borne in mind that those who were
12 seeking to identify whether children were in need would
13 be trained social workers, fully familiar with the
14 notion of what was a child in need within Part 3, able
15 to place reliance upon their own experience and
16 judgment, assisted where appropriate by their managers."
17 Is that anything like a real picture of the systems
18 and processes in place?
19 MS GRAHAM: In Victoria's case?
20 MR GARNHAM: No, at the time when Victoria's case was being
21 dealt with at Haringey.
22 MS GRAHAM: As Victoria's case was there at the time then it
23 cannot be in every case, no.
24 MR GARNHAM: Managers providing assistance, "assisted where
25 appropriate by their managers". Hardly, was it, as
104
1 Victoria's case and the other results of the audit
2 demonstrate?
3 MS GRAHAM: I think that is right.
4 MR GARNHAM: We have to read your statement, do we not, in
5 the light of acknowledgment by you that although this
6 might be the ideal system that Haringey would like to
7 see in place, in reality it was not working like that?
8 MS GRAHAM: In all cases it was not working like that.
9 MR GARNHAM: But in so many cases was it not working like
10 that as to raise a huge question mark about whether the
11 system in place was adequate at all? I mean look at
12 Hornsey. There is no system worthy of the name, is
13 there?
14 MS GRAHAM: The systems were in place and they were not
15 adhered to at all times.
16 MR GARNHAM: They were not adhered to repeatedly and as
17 a result as you found when you examined Hornsey there
18 are case after case when those procedures are not
19 followed.
20 MS GRAHAM: I was concerned and I was -- about Hornsey.
21 What I understand is that it obviously was very
22 deficient.
23 MR GARNHAM: Was there a system in place worthy of the name
24 in your view, given the number of cases that fell
25 through it?
105
1 MS GRAHAM: There were systems in place and there were those
2 that were managing the systems and certainly the two did
3 not give outcomes that I would have expected.
4 MR GARNHAM: There were no systems operating effectively,
5 were there, because otherwise we would not have all
6 these cases exposed when you look at them?
7 MS GRAHAM: I was not content with the system in Hornsey.
8 MR GARNHAM: Nor in North Tottenham. Victoria's case should
9 not have happened.
10 MS GRAHAM: Victoria's case should not have happened.
11 MR GARNHAM: So the system failed.
12 MS GRAHAM: The system failed Victoria, and as we found in
13 our audit it has failed other children, but I do feel
14 that the system has not failed in all instances.
15 MR GARNHAM: It would be remarkable if it did. But it
16 failed repeatedly and when we talk about the system we
17 are talking about the system in Haringey, not some wider
18 system. We are talking about the system the quality
19 control of which you were responsible for.
20 MS GRAHAM: I had my responsibility for the quality control.
21 MR GARNHAM: Yes. And despite that this system repeatedly
22 failed.
23 MS GRAHAM: I worked in partnership with my colleagues in
24 terms of the quality control role and what we have
25 highlighted is a failure of those systems in these
106
1 cases.
2 MR GARNHAM: Can I make sure I understand what systems and
3 processes you are referring to in paragraph 35, please.
4 Can you look at that. You say:
5 "The systems and processes" --
6 MS GRAHAM: I will just read it.
7 MR GARNHAM: Please do, yes.
8 "The systems and processes supporting Haringey's
9 statutory duties are complex and can expand to the
10 systems and processes of other social care areas."
11 What systems and processes are you talking about
12 please?
13 MS GRAHAM: I was thinking of links with mental health in
14 particular and other social, and other areas.
15 MR GARNHAM: That is the expansion?
16 MS GRAHAM: Yes.
17 MR GARNHAM: What are the systems and processes which you
18 describe as complex?
19 MS GRAHAM: The way that a child can be identified as being
20 in need is not just through the district offices. It
21 can be through a variety of means and I think that they
22 can be complex.
23 MR GARNHAM: Will you identify what those means are then
24 please?
25 MS GRAHAM: For example a child can through the education
107
1 system come to be identified as a child in need, be sent
2 to health resources and slowly that child makes its way
3 through to social services.
4 MR GARNHAM: That presumably is what you were referring to
5 as expanding to include the systems and processes of
6 other social care areas?
7 MS GRAHAM: Yes.
8 MR GARNHAM: I am interested in the first part of that
9 sentence. What are the complex systems that there were
10 in place in Haringey?
11 MS GRAHAM: What I have written is:
12 "The systems and processes supporting Haringey's
13 statutory duties to children and families are complex
14 and can expand."
15 The two are together, they are not separate.
16 MR GARNHAM: Paragraph 39. We not only have those complex
17 and expanding systems, but according to you, by 1999
18 Haringey Child Protection Guidelines used for
19 identifying children in need had been enhanced with
20 additional systems and processes. What is this
21 enhancement?
22 MS GRAHAM: There had been -- we had developed family group
23 conferences and that was an enhancement to the system.
24 We had developed the form -- pre-accommodation meetings.
25 We had developed the child care plan and protection,
108
1 family support agreement, and with those come recording
2 formats that would support the system.
3 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. You have referred us to three
4 audits in the course of your Inquiry, paragraph 25.
5 Have you seen Carol Wilson's latest statement?
6 MS GRAHAM: No, I saw a draft.
7 MR GARNHAM: You saw it in draft?
8 MS GRAHAM: Yes.
9 MR GARNHAM: Perhaps you should have a look at it please.
10 I think it has been added to volume 3 behind 118. It
11 looks like it might not have got into the files yet.
12 I will come back to that. We will deal with that over
13 lunch and I will come back to that after lunch.
14 You refer in paragraph 42 to protocols between
15 Haringey Social Services and the police. Perhaps you
16 should find that first. Can I check that I know what
17 you are talking about? Could you have volume 26A
18 please. Page 136. That is the only protocol I have
19 been able to find for investigations between police and
20 social services. Is that the one you had in mind when
21 you wrote this?
22 MS GRAHAM: This is the one I had in mind, yes.
23 MR GARNHAM: Are there any others? It is only that you say
24 "protocols" plural and I wondered whether we had missed
25 something.
109
1 MS GRAHAM: This was the one in the guidelines. There had
2 been one that had been slightly expanded on this, but
3 no, this was the one that was in the guidelines that
4 I was referring to.
5 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. In the light of this protocol how
6 well do you feel police and social services worked
7 together?
8 MS GRAHAM: I think we had a good relationship. I think
9 that there were instances when we did not work together
10 well or rather the protocol did not work too well, but
11 generally I thought we had a good working relationship.
12 MR GARNHAM: Police Sergeant Hodges told us, Day 25,
13 page 59, that he found Angella Mairs difficult to deal
14 with and that she was very critical of the action police
15 wanted to take. Were you aware of that?
16 MS GRAHAM: Yes, there was an occasion that I remember quite
17 well that I was aware of.
18 MR GARNHAM: Tell us about that occasion.
19 MS GRAHAM: There had been -- I am not sure of the word to
20 describe it. It could be a misunderstanding between --
21 involving Alan and Angella and I think a child
22 protection adviser and I think that is how I got to know
23 about it and we resolved that at a meeting.
24 MR GARNHAM: The picture that we had painted for us by
25 Lisa Arthurworrey was of Ms Mairs not wanting the police
110
1 to come into the Social Services office. And she told
2 us that Constable Jones when she visited during the
3 course of Victoria's case told her it was the first time
4 she had set foot in the offices. Were you aware of
5 that?
6 MS GRAHAM: I was not aware of that.
7 MR GARNHAM: Were you aware of problems with police coming
8 inside your offices?
9 MS GRAHAM: No. I had worked as a child protection adviser
10 in North Tottenham and I always found police officers
11 around. They were familiar, they were very regular
12 visitors, known and recognised by reception once they
13 were no longer new and were in the offices.
14 MR GARNHAM: Police Constable Hodges reported to us how he
15 gained the impression that Ms Mairs wanted the police to
16 back off, to let social services deal with the cases and
17 not treat them like criminal offences even when the
18 police thought there was reason to interfere. Aware of
19 that?
20 MS GRAHAM: Not in all cases.
21 MR GARNHAM: But on occasions?
22 MS GRAHAM: On occasions there could be different views.
23 MR GARNHAM: How were those views resolved?
24 MS GRAHAM: The adviser role was that if people did have
25 something that they were uncertain about they could come
111
1 and check with us. So it was not necessarily seen as
2 contentious, it was just checking things out. That
3 could happen both ways. They do not necessarily stay in
4 my mind. But certainly --
5 MR GARNHAM: What concerns me is the impression left by
6 Lisa Arthurworrey, who told that you say there was
7 a general feeling of hostility towards the police or
8 other agencies based on the fact that social services
9 knew best.
10 MS GRAHAM: No, I was not aware of that.
11 MR GARNHAM: And that impression had never reached you?
12 MS GRAHAM: No, no, certainly not. I would meet with the
13 police regularly, as you know, and we would discuss
14 practice issues, not a general hostility towards them.
15 There would be instances when matters did not work, you
16 know when things were not always very smooth, but not
17 a general hostility towards all police officers at all
18 times.
19 MR GARNHAM: Were the police willing to be involved in
20 strategy meetings, do you know? It may be outside your
21 area except that you chaired them occasionally
22 I suppose.
23 MS GRAHAM: As an adviser I would have. Yes, to a degree,
24 I think it is true the police did think at one point
25 that social services were calling in strategy meetings
112
1 inappropriately and so Dave Howard and I would keep
2 a record of the strategy meetings with a view to
3 raising, to looking at which ones had been called
4 inappropriately and so on. He wanted to use this
5 officer's time well and so we kept those records going.
6 MR GARNHAM: Was your understanding that that motivation
7 also underlined the decision by the police not to attend
8 at all case conferences?
9 MS GRAHAM: Say that again.
10 MR GARNHAM: Was it the same motivation that underlines the
11 decision of the police not to attend at all case
12 conferences?
13 MS GRAHAM: They certainly reported that they were short
14 staffed.
15 MR GARNHAM: I think you had a letter from Detective
16 Superintendent Akers.
17 MS GRAHAM: That is right.
18 MR GARNHAM: Indicating that -- we can go to the letter if
19 you do not recollect the details, and for the note it is
20 26A/154 -- suggesting that the police would not attend
21 every case conference in future.
22 MS GRAHAM: That is right.
23 MR GARNHAM: And did you understand that to be to protect
24 police resources in a sense?
25 MS GRAHAM: I think it was twofold. In part it was police
113
1 resources but in part I think it was that they were
2 saying that in some cases they did not have an
3 involvement and need not be involved.
4 MR GARNHAM: Were you content with that?
5 MS GRAHAM: No I was not.
6 MR GARNHAM: Why not?
7 MS GRAHAM: I was not content for two reasons and I think
8 that if that was the police view they had misjudged in
9 some cases and that left children in difficult
10 positions, and I do feel that the working together
11 arrangements, it is certainly a strong view I hold,
12 I welcome and value, and that police input is certainly
13 welcomed even in cases where they are not involved.
14 MR GARNHAM: How did you sort out that difference of view,
15 you and the police?
16 MS GRAHAM: Dave Howard and I discussed it for some time
17 really, over the course of a few meetings, and it went
18 to the ACPC. I felt it was very serious.
19 MR GARNHAM: With what result?
20 MS GRAHAM: Sue Akers was invited to a meeting to discuss
21 the issue and the resolution. There was a step between
22 that, I will go back, where Dave Howard and his officers
23 devised a format for sending information, it was
24 a report about case conferences, about their involvement
25 at conferences, and I did not accept that either. I did
114
1 not feel again they were making the right judgments
2 about cases or that the forms were being filled in
3 correctly. So Sue Akers was eventually invited to an
4 ACPC where she -- I have not got the minutes in front of
5 me but my memory is that she thought that police
6 officers should be attending more frequently than they
7 were. That is my memory. I do not think it is
8 accurate --
9 MR GARNHAM: What happened?
10 MS GRAHAM: I think attendance did improve.
11 MR GARNHAM: But it still was not total?
12 MS GRAHAM: No. But the reason -- I would not say we had
13 100 per cent attendance from then on.
14 MR GARNHAM: Sir I have not been able to find that ACPC
15 minute and it may be that it is in the bundle and I have
16 missed it. I wonder whether either the police or
17 Haringey could help us with that at some stage.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Very helpful, thank you.
19 MR GARNHAM: In that context is it right Ms Graham that
20 there was an occasion when DI Howard suggested to you
21 that social services and the police establish a joint
22 working together training course?
23 MS GRAHAM: We had had a joint working together training
24 course since the memorandum of good practice and I was
25 the officer that trained it and was regularly inviting
115
1 the police to attend and we had -- we did have at times
2 police attendance in various -- to various degrees but
3 certainly what I wanted was a jointly trained course and
4 not one where police officers had slots. The slots that
5 we did have in those days were very valuable and they
6 were valued by participants but we did not have a joint
7 working together course where a police officer and
8 a social services representative would jointly train the
9 course.
10 MR GARNHAM: The reason I ask that Ms Graham is that
11 WPC Jones told us -- at Day 24 page 225, sir -- that
12 Howard suggested to you that such a training course be
13 established and that you rejected the idea.
14 MS GRAHAM: Certainly not. I very much welcomed that joint
15 training course, where what I remember of Karen Jones,
16 I might have it wrong, was that she was wanting to come
17 to social services -- are these two separates issues?
18 MR GARNHAM: No, we are talking about the same.
19 MS GRAHAM: What I understood Karen Jones to be saying was
20 she wanted to come and sit in Social Services, a sort of
21 induction, and I did think that through and I think what
22 I should have done is passed that on to our training
23 section and I did not do that, but certainly I thought
24 it was a very good idea. In a busy social work office
25 I could not see how I could easily achieve that and
116
1 I did not hand it on to our training section.
2 MR GARNHAM: Could you be given volume 26B please. There
3 are two pages I will ask you to look at in this volume,
4 first page 20.544. Do you have there the minutes of an
5 ACPC executive group of 8th June?
6 MS GRAHAM: Yes.
7 MR GARNHAM: Item 9, "attendance at case conferences", is
8 that the meeting to which you were referring?
9 MS GRAHAM: Yes, I remember this one. There may have been
10 others but I remember this one.
11 MR GARNHAM: I may take you to another in a moment.
12 "Agreed Howard would investigate range of practices
13 in other areas and report back. Success of the service
14 level agreement being reviewed."
15 Those are the principal things for us I think.
16 MS GRAHAM: Yes.
17 MR GARNHAM: And then if you go to page 94.502. If you go
18 back one page you will see that this is another -- this
19 is an ACPC meeting of 9th September 1999 and we see at
20 item 57 on page 502 the following:
21 "Sue Akers commented that several boroughs had
22 expressed concern over police non-attendance at review
23 case conference. She emphasised no intention to dilute
24 police involvement but police would only attend if they
25 had clear contribution to make. There was a need for
117
1 clarity about when police should be expected to attend.
2 Police should never be absent if their presence was
3 necessary."
4 You commented that you had received faxes from
5 police apologising for absence with the comment:
6 "Please see my previous concerns which clearly did
7 not fit in with Miss Akers' definition in cases of
8 police non-attendance when it was clear there was an
9 important contribution to make. Pleased to have
10 Miss Akers' definition. Committee considered whether
11 there was a need for wider discussion of their
12 expectation. Agreed that Ann Graham would produce
13 a note to facilitate further discussion of this issue at
14 a further meeting. Suggested that the discussion might
15 be expanded to include a review of the core attendance
16 requirement."
17 Is that the second meeting you had in mind?
18 MS GRAHAM: I think so.
19 MR GARNHAM: Did you produce that note?
20 MS GRAHAM: I do not remember producing such a note.
21 MR GARNHAM: Thank you very much sir. Is that a convenient
22 moment?
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed. We will adjourn
24 for lunch.
25 Ms Graham I think that you know that you are not
118
1 allowed to discuss your evidence over the lunch period.
2 If we could get back at 1.55 pm. Thank you very much.
3 (1.10 pm)
4 (The short adjournment)
5 (1.55 pm)
6 MR GARNHAM: Miss Graham, I am going to move in a moment to
7 the role of child protection advisers but before I do
8 so, can I ask you a little about something you said this
9 morning.
10 You told us that you and Inspector Howard were
11 reviewing strategy meetings to consider if they were
12 being held appropriately. Do you remember that?
13 MS GRAHAM: I do.
14 MR GARNHAM: When did that process start?
15 MS GRAHAM: I think it was some time after he started.
16 I think I have given all the forms to the Inquiry and
17 I think June 1999 comes to mind. There may be some
18 before then.
19 MR GARNHAM: Could you have a look at volume 2, please.
20 I am simply trying to understand whether we are all
21 looking and thinking about the same thing so would you
22 go to volume 2, page 231, please. Sorry, I have the
23 wrong reference. It would be easier if we start with
24 Carol Wilson's statement. I think this was circulated
25 this morning. It is now in volume 3, page 83. If you
119
1 go on to page 118.104. Do you have that?
2 MS GRAHAM: I do, yes.
3 MR GARNHAM: Top of the paragraph, I think numbered
4 paragraph 15:
5 "The Commissioning Manager, Ann Graham met with DI
6 Howard of the Police Child Protection Unit to review
7 numbers of strategy meetings held and to be available to
8 address any concerns raised by police officers at the
9 meetings."
10 Are you and she talking about the same initiative?
11 MS GRAHAM: Yes, I think so. Do you want me to explain?
12 MR GARNHAM: Yes, please.
13 MS GRAHAM: Historically we had always met regularly with
14 the police and so DI Howard and I would meet on
15 a planned basis at regular intervals to discuss any
16 issues that arose between our agencies and to discuss
17 practice in particular. One of the concerns had been
18 the time police officers had to attend a number of
19 meetings, including the strategy meetings. But also it
20 was about the quality, whether they were called
21 inappropriately. I think I said this earlier. So when
22 he raised this he did not have any specific case and it
23 was agreed that it was a good idea to have a list of all
24 of them so we could refer back.
25 MR GARNHAM: Let us just check -- the next reference I want
120
1 to take you to is also referring to the same piece of
2 work and my previous indication was correct, volume 2,
3 page 231. This is the strategy meeting that followed
4 Victoria's death. What I am interested in is the
5 recommendation at the end of it and in particular
6 recommendation 5:
7 "A Review to be undertaken on communications between
8 the Local Authority and the Police Child Protection
9 Team. Particular reference to communication on outcomes
10 of statutory meetings and supervision of follow-up to be
11 undertaken by the manager of the Child Protection &
12 Planning Service and the Detective Inspector of the
13 Police Child Protection Team".
14 Is that a different piece of work or the same?
15 MS GRAHAM: It is different.
16 MR GARNHAM: Let me ask you about both, then. First of all
17 the one that you and Wilson refer to. Did that come to
18 a conclusion?
19 MS GRAHAM: There were regular meetings, there were ongoing
20 meetings so in that sense there was not a conclusion.
21 MR GARNHAM: So it did not result in a report?
22 MS GRAHAM: No.
23 MR GARNHAM: And what was the net -- is it still continuing?
24 MS GRAHAM: I have been out of my post for most of this year
25 and there is now a new DI and we have not had a chance
121
1 to meet.
2 MR GARNHAM: Up until the time you left your post were those
3 meetings continuing?
4 MS GRAHAM: Yes, I was meeting regularly with the police.
5 MR GARNHAM: They were on a continuing basis, looking at the
6 basis upon which strategy meetings were called, were
7 they?
8 MS GRAHAM: We would discuss a range of matters and one of
9 the things we would discuss is strategy meetings. So
10 Peter Wilcock and Dave Howard would come and Glen Alison
11 before him would come with these sheets of the list of
12 strategy meetings.
13 MR GARNHAM: Past or future?
14 MS GRAHAM: Past. One of the issues that arose was how we
15 could for example support children who were witnesses
16 themselves and Social Services did not always know when
17 a child was going to be a witness and we wanted to
18 further improve that relationship so we could be alerted
19 as to what cases were in the system and whether we knew
20 them or not.
21 MR GARNHAM: Did those series of meetings that you have
22 result in any changes in the way in which strategy
23 meetings were either called or conducted?
24 MS GRAHAM: Nothing springs to mind immediately. That does
25 not mean it did not happen.
122
1 MR GARNHAM: Did you discuss the content of strategy
2 meetings or the way that would be followed up?
3 MS GRAHAM: In going through my notes in preparation for
4 today I caught sight of some of my notes and they were
5 about the dissemination of minutes. Now I cannot tell
6 you when that was.
7 MR GARNHAM: Right. This sounds like it is a regular
8 housekeeping exercise to make sure that the strategy
9 meetings are being properly managed.
10 MS GRAHAM: It is broader than just strategy meetings. So
11 it was not -- so for example what we would not have done
12 was an intention in the early day was to actually sample
13 some ourselves and to get a sense of how they were
14 functioning as to quality and so on, but we
15 unfortunately did not get to that position.
16 MR GARNHAM: So there was never a quality review function in
17 that?
18 MS GRAHAM: There was an element, and I will explain, in
19 that what had been said to me was that Social Services
20 were calling the meetings inappropriately and so
21 therefore we had a list and we did not come to
22 a conclusion that they were inappropriate. It also gave
23 us an opportunity to know how many were being called and
24 so we had -- you could see month on month whether there
25 was a rise or a significant dip. So in that sense we
123
1 were looking at strategy meetings but we did not pull
2 the strategy meeting records and review those.
3 MR GARNHAM: I see. Back to volume 2, page 231. You said
4 this is something different.
5 MS GRAHAM: Yes.
6 MR GARNHAM: Tell us what came of this.
7 MS GRAHAM: You have to bear with me. I have to go back.
8 MR GARNHAM: Yes, do read it. (Pause).
9
10 MS GRAHAM: I am really sorry. Without going through the
11 whole document and jogging my memory I am not able to
12 help. Sorry, unless you can trigger me somewhere else.
13 MR GARNHAM: I do not think I can because the reason I am
14 asking you the question is that I was not able to trace
15 what happened to this.
16 MS GRAHAM: I will tell you what did happen.
17 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
18 MS GRAHAM: I will just check to see which document this is.
19 MR GARNHAM: It is the strategy meeting after Victoria's
20 death, 28th February.
21 MS GRAHAM: Okay. That Phil Wheeler and I we met and we
22 discussed strategy meetings. I think it was that Phil
23 Wheeler had a view as to the strategy meeting document.
24 For example, it was his view that the review date was
25 not prominent enough and so I later moved the review
124
1 date from in the document to the front of the document.
2 MR GARNHAM: Can I ask you to pause there because review
3 dates were something I wanted to understand a little
4 more about. It was not the practice, was it, always to
5 set a review date in a strategy meeting?
6 MS GRAHAM: Not the practice to always set a review date.
7 MR GARNHAM: Yes, but --
8 MS GRAHAM: That may be because it was a judgment that it
9 was not needed, but equally there were times when
10 perhaps it should have been set and it was not.
11 MR GARNHAM: Has that changed?
12 MS GRAHAM: It is my view that the need for review strategy
13 meetings plays a higher prominence.
14 MR GARNHAM: Yes. So is the point this: that certainly in
15 1999 and now a strategy meeting ought to consider
16 whether a review strategy meeting is needed?
17 MS GRAHAM: Yes.
18 MR GARNHAM: That is correct?
19 MS GRAHAM: Yes.
20 MR GARNHAM: In 1999 it was certainly not the practice
21 always to fix a review strategy meeting?
22 MS GRAHAM: Yes, that is correct.
23 MR GARNHAM: Is that still the case, that it is not always
24 the practice to fix a review strategy meeting?
25 MS GRAHAM: I think that the purpose of the review has to be
125
1 discussed and I think this is what happens, that in some
2 cases you actually have to have a sit down review
3 meeting and in other cases you may have a discussion
4 with the officer. Sometimes it is just two agencies
5 present at the strategy meeting and so therefore
6 information is communicated in that way.
7 MR GARNHAM: Sorry, I am not sure I understand that. Are
8 you saying that in every case one or other of those
9 things should follow?
10 MS GRAHAM: Because I am not the manager, I do not manage
11 the social workers and the team manager, I would not
12 want to say in every case.
13 MR GARNHAM: But are you saying that as a matter of policy
14 that ought to happen?
15 MS GRAHAM: The strategy meeting form is designed so that
16 you consider a review strategy meeting at a particular
17 point.
18 MR GARNHAM: That was a always the case in 1999.
19 MS GRAHAM: And it remains the case.
20 MR GARNHAM: And that remains the case.
21 MS GRAHAM: Yes.
22 MR GARNHAM: Are you saying now that the policy is that
23 there should always be either a review strategy meeting
24 or at least an informal meeting between the police
25 officer and the social worker concerned?
126
1 MS GRAHAM: I am trying to see in my mind's eye where that
2 is written. It does not mean it is not written because
3 I cannot see it, but certainly we are very concerned as
4 to the functioning of strategy meetings following
5 Victoria's death, and so a lot of -- Carol set and
6 issued an instruction and I cannot remember if in that
7 instruction was that review strategy meetings must
8 happen in either of those forms.
9 MR GARNHAM: So if we need to know what the current position
10 is we need to ask Carol Wilson do we? There must be
11 someone who can tell us what happens now.
12 MS GRAHAM: Carol Wilson may have a better memory of her
13 memo than myself.
14 MR GARNHAM: But you cannot tell us what is happening on the
15 ground; whether these are always happening?
16 MS GRAHAM: It would be this: that there was great concern
17 about strategy meetings and that information would have
18 been communicated to the district managers and that
19 would be disseminated down. So there is an expectation
20 that strategy meeting reviews take place but what
21 I would not want to say to you Mr Garnham is that in
22 every case that it is happening. But certainly it is an
23 expectation.
24 MR GARNHAM: I understand the expectation that it should
25 happen in a greater number of cases. What I want to
127
1 know is if you are chairing a strategy meeting, what
2 rule applies?
3 MS GRAHAM: You have to consider a review.
4 MR GARNHAM: And is that it?
5 MS GRAHAM: Yes.
6 MR GARNHAM: You have to consider it?
7 MS GRAHAM: Well, no, it would be sitting down to a meeting
8 but you have to review the strategy meeting, yes.
9 Absolutely, yes. You have to review the strategy
10 meeting, the form in which that takes.
11 MR GARNHAM: Is not clear or depends on the circumstances?
12 MS GRAHAM: Depends on the circumstances.
13 MR GARNHAM: I see. Is there any reason why a review
14 strategy meeting should not be fixed in every case?
15 MS GRAHAM: I suppose maybe if I use the phrase "to review
16 the strategy meeting" as opposed to "a review strategy
17 meeting" that perhaps is the distinction. So in every
18 case the review -- the strategy meeting must be
19 reviewed, certainly.
20 MR GARNHAM: The evidence we heard earlier in this Inquiry
21 was that that review function was delegated to
22 supervision of the allocated social worker. So that
23 people like Rose Kozinos were telling us that there was
24 often not set a review strategy meeting, and the
25 assumption was that the matter would be discussed when
128
1 the allocated social worker next had supervision. Is
2 that sufficient, given the new look you have taken at
3 this?
4 MS GRAHAM: The meeting would make that decision to come
5 back in one form or another.
6 MR GARNHAM: That form might be simply supervision of the
7 allocated social worker?
8 MS GRAHAM: No, there has to be communication between the
9 two officers involved. There certainly has to be. It
10 would not be left unended or rather open ended.
11 MR GARNHAM: So that represents a change from the practice
12 that was happening at the time?
13 MS GRAHAM: Yes.
14 MR GARNHAM: You told us also this morning that you chaired
15 a working group on case recording policy.
16 MS GRAHAM: Perhaps I should qualify that, that I chaired
17 one meeting of the group. I think it was just before
18 I acted up and so I did not chair a second one.
19 MR GARNHAM: Did it either under your chairmanship or
20 someone else's report?
21 MS GRAHAM: I will explain that I was asked to chair this
22 group --
23 MR GARNHAM: Before you do explain, are you able to answer
24 the question?
25 MS GRAHAM: Yes, I am about to.
129
1 MR GARNHAM: Whether it reported?
2 MS GRAHAM: It was like this -- I am very sorry. I will not
3 take too long. That I was asked to chair this group and
4 I did for that meeting and shortly after that
5 Carol Wilson left and then shortly after that I acted up
6 and I took a different view, an approach to case
7 recording. And so in that sense there was progress but
8 there was not a report. But I was the chair of one
9 group and did an action to something in another way
10 later on.
11 MR GARNHAM: But it did not report?
12 MS GRAHAM: No.
13 MR GARNHAM: So what was done when you took over the role?
14 MS GRAHAM: Case recording has always been a high priority
15 for me and there was a meeting with me and Anne Bristow
16 and my team at the time, the third tier officers, and we
17 were looking at the improvements that we needed to make
18 to children's services. On top of that list was case
19 recording and from that we have another policy that says
20 that all managers will read files and it says when
21 managers will read files and who they will confirm to
22 that they have read files.
23 MR GARNHAM: What is that document called? I just want to
24 make sure we have read it.
25 MS GRAHAM: It is been proved because it is a document in
130
1 practice, and its name escapes me but it is a pro-forma,
2 the first one was quite thick. It is based on recording
3 with care and such --
4 MR GARNHAM: It is a pro-forma based on recording with care?
5 MS GRAHAM: Yes, the initial one was and we have simplified
6 it since because it was quite thick, the first one.
7 MR GARNHAM: Very well. Two matters I am asked by one of
8 the interested parties to put to you at this stage.
9 Lisa Arthurworrey told us that Angella Mairs did not
10 like immigration checks being done by the police. Were
11 you aware of that?
12 MS GRAHAM: I was not aware of that.
13 MR GARNHAM: Second, were you aware of the process by which
14 the Part 8 report was prepared?
15 MS GRAHAM: I was part of the group, and so, yes.
16 MR GARNHAM: Is it right that Lisa Arthurworrey was asked
17 for her comments on the first draft?
18 MS GRAHAM: As far as I can recall, yes. Everyone -- we had
19 the first draft and all those who were named within it
20 were asked to give their comment. Yes, that is right.
21 MR GARNHAM: And she suggested some 73 corrections to it.
22 MS GRAHAM: She made some corrections and they were quite
23 lengthy. I cannot remember the exact number.
24 MR GARNHAM: In fact, the first Part 8 review was superseded
25 by a second Part 8 review.
131
1 MS GRAHAM: That is correct.
2 MR GARNHAM: What was the reason that the first Part 8
3 review was abandoned?
4 MS GRAHAM: I think there were a number of -- there would be
5 a number of reasons and one of those reasons were that
6 a lot of people had made corrections to it and it was
7 felt that they had not been incorporated sufficiently
8 well.
9 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. I am also asked to ask you this: is
10 it right that Carole Baptiste was offered anonymity and
11 the cost of her fares in coming to give evidence to the
12 Part 8 review?
13 MS GRAHAM: I do not know, I was not her line manager. I do
14 not know about that.
15 MR GARNHAM: Thank you very much. Turning then to the role
16 of child protection advisers if I may. Paragraph 44 of
17 your first statement. You say:
18 "The Haringey Child Protection Guidelines make clear
19 the need to seek the advice and guidance of the Child
20 Protection Advisers."
21 Paragraph 44. CP guidance make clear the need to
22 seek the guidance of CPAs; yes?
23 MS GRAHAM: (Nods).
24 MR GARNHAM: Do they make it clear in your view whether or
25 not that advice should be taken? It is one thing to
132
1 seek it but another to follow it.
2 MS GRAHAM: Yes. Did you say 44? It is not there but I am
3 listening to you and yes I take the point you are
4 making. It is expected that -- and it may be poorly
5 worded -- CP advisers --
6 MR GARNHAM: Last sentence:
7 "The Haringey Child Protection Guidelines make clear
8 the need to seek the advice and guidance of the Child
9 Protection Advisers."
10 MS GRAHAM: I see it, thank you.
11 MR GARNHAM: That I understand. What I want to know is
12 whether it is your understanding that those guidelines
13 require that advice to be acted on, to be followed?
14 MS GRAHAM: It is absolutely my understanding.
15 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. Petra Kitchman told us, at
16 paragraph 12 of her statement, sir, that there were no
17 clear guidelines for giving advice or consultation. Is
18 that right?
19 MS GRAHAM: I understand what Petra means and I would accept
20 that.
21 MR GARNHAM: You say in paragraph 19 of your second
22 statement, please, that "In 1996" -- have you found it?
23 MS GRAHAM: Yes.
24 MR GARNHAM: "In 1996 a direction was given by the ACPC in
25 response to a Part 8 review. The social workers should
133
1 act on the advice of CPAs."
2 MS GRAHAM: That is right.
3 MR GARNHAM: Have you seen that direction amongst our
4 papers?
5 MS GRAHAM: Yes.
6 MR GARNHAM: So we have it here somewhere, do we?
7 MS GRAHAM: Yes.
8 MR GARNHAM: Do you know whether it was followed?
9 MS GRAHAM: Yes, certainly my team put together what you
10 have seen as the service level agreement and it had
11 already been that we would give advice as advisers and
12 it would be followed, but then it was put in writing
13 that this was the position.
14 MR GARNHAM: Lisa Arthurworrey told us that where
15 contradictory advice was given by her manager on the one
16 hand and CPAs on the other she would follow her
17 manager's advice. On the face of it that would appear
18 to conflict with what ought to be the position.
19 MS GRAHAM: That is right.
20 MR GARNHAM: How did it come about that social workers were
21 put in that position?
22 MS GRAHAM: It was expected that when the child protection
23 advisers gave advice that the advice was accepted. If
24 there was any view that that was the wrong advice or
25 that that advice should not be accepted in any way then
134
1 there was to be a discussion back with the advisers so
2 that they knew about it. It could be that someone had
3 different information or more information but certainly
4 there was to be a discussion. It was not the case that
5 it should be put aside and other advice sought. That
6 was not the case.
7 MR GARNHAM: That is the impression left by
8 Lisa Arthurworrey's evidence as to what in fact was
9 happening in 1999.
10 MS GRAHAM: Yes, I understand.
11 MR GARNHAM: She also told us she had first told Monaghan in
12 fact that she would only use a CP adviser on the
13 recommendation of a manager. Is that consistent with
14 your understanding of what ought to be the position?
15 MS GRAHAM: No, I made it very clear that anyone at any time
16 can seek the advice of the advisers.
17 MR GARNHAM: Did you understand that was happening and
18 nonetheless the managers were imposing that rule?
19 MS GRAHAM: No. Nobody ever said to me that this is what
20 I am telling my team.
21 MR GARNHAM: So if Lisa Arthurworrey is telling the truth
22 about that that would be a surprise to you?
23 MS GRAHAM: From time to time, whispers came to me that this
24 was happening and I would also assert the position that
25 we had -- that advisers give advice and it is to be
135
1 taken.
2 MR GARNHAM: You tell us, in paragraph 20 of your second
3 statement, that your team and the districts worked well
4 together but it sounds in these regards at least that
5 that was not always the case.
6 MS GRAHAM: No. It has been noted that there are tensions
7 in that role, and my perception is that we do work well
8 with the districts, although there are tensions within
9 the role. I do not think that --
10 MR GARNHAM: That is a polite way of putting it, is it not;
11 "tensions within the role"?
12 MS GRAHAM: There are tensions within the role.
13 MR GARNHAM: What does that mean?
14 MS GRAHAM: That managers see it and managers do have case
15 responsibilities and advisers can sometimes -- well they
16 do give advice and sometimes that is -- that can cause
17 a tension.
18 MR GARNHAM: I still do not understand what the word tension
19 means. It is a modern phrase used all the time but what
20 does it mean in reality? It sounds to me as if it means
21 the social worker on the receiving end does not know
22 what he or she should do.
23 MS GRAHAM: Not at all. It can be that people receive
24 advice differently. There are many people who work very
25 well with the advisers and see that as part of their --
136
1 a development to their work and for themselves. So in
2 those instances it works very well. There are some
3 times when -- I think I will give you an example. It
4 could be that a manager is well used to doing A, B, C,
5 routinely on a case and a case comes in and the manager
6 wants to do A, B, C. And adviser can look at it and
7 agree in every other instance that A, B C is the correct
8 way, but this time wants to add D. Now that can --
9 MR GARNHAM: Cause tensions?
10 MS GRAHAM: It can cause tensions.
11 MR GARNHAM: Now what does it mean? Take that example.
12 What is the effect on the social worker?
13 MS GRAHAM: It leaves people sometimes with an uncomfortable
14 feeling and it leaves people perhaps wanting to say,
15 "Well, actually, I am the manager and the adviser".
16 That is the tension.
17 MR GARNHAM: So it means there is conflicting advice from
18 two different people?
19 MS GRAHAM: So not so much conflicting. People can feel a
20 way -- I know myself, when people point things out to me
21 that I had not thought of that I think I should have
22 thought of that that does make me feeling uncomfortable
23 and my response can be one of awkwardness or making
24 a situation awkward, and that is a tension.
25 MR GARNHAM: Yes. What does it mean in practice, though?
137
1 Take your example: social worker goes to manager,
2 manager says do ABC. Social worker gets advice from CPA
3 who says do ABCD. Now there is, to use your word,
4 a tension between those two instructions, and I can see
5 that that might make the social worker or the manager
6 feel awkward. But what happens in practice?
7 MS GRAHAM: In practice there tends to be an agreement.
8 There are times when there is not an agreement and that
9 goes up the line of the management. But in practice, it
10 does not collapse. It does not mean that the social
11 workers and the managers go off and do A, B and C.
12 MR GARNHAM: That is precisely what Lisa Arthurworrey said
13 was happening?
14 MS GRAHAM: I did not hear that. If we are involved in
15 a case and we know about it, we will pursue it. If we
16 know that the advice -- and I know you are coming to
17 a weakness in that system -- if we know that the advice
18 is not followed, the advisers bring it to me and so
19 forth. The weakness in the system is we do not always
20 check.
21 MR GARNHAM: Do not always know about it?
22 MS GRAHAM: Yes.
23 MR GARNHAM: You say the child protection conference
24 recommendations were also not carried through
25 consistently.
138
1 MS GRAHAM: Yes, that is true.
2 MR GARNHAM: That must have been even more worrying than
3 failure to follow your advice.
4 MS GRAHAM: Yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: So what were you doing about it?
6 MS GRAHAM: A number of things. Certainly I would speak
7 with the managers. If an adviser were to chair
8 a conference and note that the recommendations had not
9 been followed the reasons for that would be explored.
10 Following that, if it was -- if the reasons are
11 reasonable, such as there had been a shift in workers,
12 as has been explained earlier by Philip Peatfield, then
13 that would be understandable. We may still want to
14 bring that to the attention of the manager. But if it
15 was that for some other reason that was not thought to
16 be reasonable, that will be taken to the team manager;
17 if it is quite serious then I am informed about it and
18 perhaps Dave Duncan would have been informed.
19 MR GARNHAM: You began that sentence, that answer with the
20 word "if," if you chair it. What happens if it is not
21 chaired by you?
22 MS GRAHAM: By me personally?
23 MR GARNHAM: By you CPAs.
24 MS GRAHAM: The independent chairs would respond similarly.
25 MR GARNHAM: Are you describing the situation as it was in
139
1 1999 or the situation as it is now?
2 MS GRAHAM: In 1999 that was certainly the position.
3 MR GARNHAM: So that means that no recommendations from case
4 conferences should go unaddressed long-term?
5 MS GRAHAM: Currently?
6 MR GARNHAM: No. 1999.
7 MS GRAHAM: Sorry, I missed the point.
8 MR GARNHAM: The system you described whereby failures to
9 follow recommendations are picked up either by the CPA
10 or an independent chair, that was a situation described
11 as of 1999. If that is right, that would mean, would it
12 not, that no recommendation ever slipped through the
13 net?
14 MS GRAHAM: It would mean that what was thought -- that the
15 recommendations needed to progress a case had not taken
16 place and so therefore a review can be called earlier
17 but it would be progressed. It would not mean that
18 nothing would happen. That would not be the case. That
19 situation has improved further with the regular
20 monitoring and sheet that goes to the team manager on
21 each occasion now.
22 MR GARNHAM: When you say in paragraph 20 of your second
23 statement:
24 "I attempted to resolve these concerns by
25 (1) attending district team meetings with the
140
1 commissioning manager and the team manager present, at
2 a later stage practice managers present. I insisted
3 that the protocols in place should be followed."
4 Do you see that?
5 MS GRAHAM: Yes.
6 MR GARNHAM: What protocols are they?
7 MS GRAHAM: That if an adviser gives advice it is accepted
8 and it is followed. And if it is not to be accepted
9 that there is a dialogue that takes place, and if there
10 is still disagreement, that the adviser comes to me --
11 MR GARNHAM: You misunderstand me. I was not asking for
12 what the contents of it was, I was trying to identify
13 what the protocol is.
14 MS GRAHAM: The actual document?
15 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
16 MS GRAHAM: The one that was in place in 1997 was the one
17 that you showed to Petra.
18 MR GARNHAM: I see, thank you. This picking up of failures
19 to follow advice or recommendations made in case
20 conferences, it depends, does it not, on there being
21 some sort of formal review process, because absent that
22 it will not be picked up?
23 MS GRAHAM: It is more difficult to pick up.
24 MR GARNHAM: How can it be picked up absent that?
25 MS GRAHAM: It could be that another route is taken, so for
141
1 example if an adviser has given advice on a case and
2 there is no action for whatever reason, it could be that
3 that case comes back into the system and there is
4 a request for a planning meeting and so we will go back
5 and see and so it comes to our attention that way.
6 MR GARNHAM: Well it might but it might not.
7 MS GRAHAM: I accept the point.
8 MR GARNHAM: So the point being that it is possible
9 certainly in 1999 for these failures to follow
10 recommendations or failures to follow advice not to be
11 picked up?
12 MS GRAHAM: That is correct, yes.
13 MR GARNHAM: And what has changed to address that problem?
14 MS GRAHAM: All advice now is written up whether it is
15 telephone advice, whether it is a consultation, and
16 a copy of that is sent to the social worker, the team
17 manager and for the child's file, and that all happens
18 on e-mail so we can review -- so we can ourselves
19 review. We are still in the process of trying to
20 develop a system, because the system works like this:
21 that we work together with our colleagues who are
22 managers and who are supervising that work, and there is
23 an enormous volume of work that comes through and there
24 are still three advisers, although a fourth is hopefully
25 shortly to be appointed. And so currently when we give
142
1 advice, with that protocol, that it is to be followed
2 through supervision --
3 MR GARNHAM: I understand that but what I am trying to
4 understand is how you detect when that does not happen.
5 MS GRAHAM: The development I have got to is -- has not been
6 formed yet, it is in draft -- is getting a sheet
7 together to say we need to know what the outcome of
8 advice is on each case. As I say there is a vast
9 volume, so it is not just each case that comes through,
10 it could be a case comes to us a number of times and so
11 we will have to get a system of follow-up in that way.
12 MR GARNHAM: So what you are saying is now being introduced
13 is a mechanism by which the adviser takes the initiative
14 in requiring a response to the advice given?
15 MS GRAHAM: Yes. We are developing it, we are thinking it
16 through. It has not been introduced, as yet.
17 MR GARNHAM: That is the position, then, as it was, as it is
18 now, with regard to formal advice given by child
19 protection advisers and recommendations made by case
20 conferences. What about informal advice given over the
21 phone by CPA to a social worker?
22 MS GRAHAM: The same would apply. Absolutely everything now
23 is recorded, now no longer in the blue books, on
24 consultation forms, and they go to the social worker.
25 MR GARNHAM: And the same review mechanism is being
143
1 introduced for that?
2 MS GRAHAM: As I say --
3 MR GARNHAM: It will all be the same?
4 MS GRAHAM: Yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: That was not the position in 1999.
6 MS GRAHAM: That was not the position.
7 MR GARNHAM: And that was a further facet of this weakness
8 which you have acknowledged in the system?
9 MS GRAHAM: Yes. Although I would like to say that we
10 worked together with our colleagues and so part of the
11 system is that managers supervise and with the
12 agreement -- and with the protocol in place and this is
13 an enhancement still to that system.
14 MR GARNHAM: In the passage of your statement I just read
15 out you say that you would insist that protocol should
16 be followed and child protection advisers' advice should
17 be taken. You insist. Is that insistence always
18 accepted?
19 MS GRAHAM: Yes. Nobody has told me yet that they will not
20 follow it.
21 MR GARNHAM: Have you ever had occasion to discipline
22 managers who have not taken -- not you personally,
23 Haringey -- had occasion to discipline managers for not
24 taking advice of CPAs?
25 MS GRAHAM: No. I cannot recall a case.
144
1 MR GARNHAM: In the past in 1999, when you acknowledged
2 there were occasions when advice was not taken, was
3 anybody ever disciplined about that?
4 MS GRAHAM: I do not think so.
5 MR GARNHAM: Why not? Is it not regarded as a disciplinary
6 offence?
7 MS GRAHAM: For the disciplinaries -- as I am not the line
8 manager I will not necessarily be aware of
9 disciplinaries that were taking place.
10 MR GARNHAM: So there might have been?
11 MS GRAHAM: It is possible. I would not be informed of
12 disciplinaries that were taking place.
13 MR GARNHAM: If it was in place, the sort of protocol that
14 Petra Kitchman and we looked at and you have referred
15 to, requiring that advice be taken, and if the situation
16 was as Arthurworrey describes, that sometimes managers
17 decline to take that advice, that ought to be something
18 which is met by sanction, ought it not?
19 MS GRAHAM: Yes.
20 MR GARNHAM: Otherwise the system breaks down, it has no
21 teeth.
22 MS GRAHAM: Yes. I see the point you are making.
23 MR GARNHAM: You do not know of any such occurrences of such
24 discipline but it may be that you would not know.
25 MS GRAHAM: I think it is slightly stronger than that, that
145
1 I do not know of any and I do not think there were any.
2 MR GARNHAM: That is another weakness, is it not, if the
3 policy and protocol is not backed up by disciplinary
4 sanction because otherwise people can disregard it with
5 impunity?
6 MS GRAHAM: I think the sanction was there. It may not have
7 been used but certainly the sanction was there.
8 MR GARNHAM: You say that disputes between a manager and
9 a child protection adviser should have been resolved by
10 reference of the matter on the one hand to you and on
11 the other hand to the District Commissioning Manager.
12 Is that right?
13 MS GRAHAM: Yes.
14 MR GARNHAM: How often did that happen, that it got to that
15 level?
16 MS GRAHAM: It did happen that Dave and I would discuss
17 cases.
18 MR GARNHAM: For this reason? Obviously you discussed
19 cases, it would be a little surprising if you did not,
20 but did you discuss it for this reason?
21 MS GRAHAM: Yes, we did discuss it for this reason to my
22 memory.
23 MR GARNHAM: How frequently was that?
24 MS GRAHAM: It was not particularly frequently. I would
25 hazard a guess at maybe once a month, perhaps.
146
1 MR GARNHAM: Did you always agree between you, you and
2 Dave Duncan?
3 MS GRAHAM: In most cases we did agreed.
4 MR GARNHAM: You say that on occasions the assistant
5 director would determine disputes. How often does that
6 happen?
7 MS GRAHAM: Very infrequently.
8 MR GARNHAM: Annually?
9 MS GRAHAM: Perhaps about that.
10 MR GARNHAM: What record is made of each of those two levels
11 of dispute resolution?
12 MS GRAHAM: Under the new system I will be using the
13 consultation form but under the old system I would use
14 my blue book. It could be -- it would have to be to the
15 nature of the dispute. There was one case that comes to
16 mind, and if you want to I will describe that, that
17 I may need to -- I might write a memo to Dave about
18 a case. I certainly did write to him about cases.
19 MR GARNHAM: It seems on the face of it a cumbersome process
20 if a dispute between an adviser and a manager has to be
21 elevated first to Commissioning Manager, your level, and
22 then from your level up to Assistant Director level.
23 How long does this take?
24 MS GRAHAM: Not very long at all. It would depend on the
25 nature of the case. If it was -- the one I have in my
147
1 mind is about resources for International
2 Social Services. I had asked Dave, that I thought it
3 was a good idea in this case that we fund International
4 Social Services, and Dave took a different view. And so
5 the safety of the child was -- the child was secured.
6 If there was a case where that was not the case, and it
7 is rapid.
8 MR GARNHAM: After Victoria's death instructions were issued
9 to try and resolve this question of conflicts between
10 managers and advisers. Is that right? Could we have
11 volume 45B, please, page 234.
12 Do you have that memo, 4th August from you to
13 Angella Mairs, Rose Kozinos and others?
14 MS GRAHAM: Yes.
15 MR GARNHAM: The protocol that you set out there,
16 paragraph 1:
17 "1. Team Managers and Practice Managers will
18 continue to make case management decisions but raise all
19 serious child protection issues/concerns with the
20 CPA/RO's. Advice.
21 "2. The advice given by RO's/CPA's is taken. If
22 there is a dispute about the advice each manager ..."
23 and so on. You set out the protocol.
24 MS GRAHAM: Yes.
25 MR GARNHAM: Why was that necessary, since I think you have
148
1 just told us that was precisely what was in place prior
2 to this?
3 MS GRAHAM: My team was certainly saying to me that they did
4 not feel in all cases that that was being followed.
5 I think we wanted an explicit acceptance of that and so
6 although it was practice, there were bits of it that --
7 there were bits of what we thought should be in place
8 that there was not an explicit agreement -- sorry,
9 I am --
10 MR GARNHAM: Take your time. An explicit agreement to?
11 MS GRAHAM: Yes.
12 MR GARNHAM: Or acceptance of?
13 MS GRAHAM: That is what I mean to say, yes. Thank you.
14 MR GARNHAM: Go back a couple of pages to 231. This is
15 partway through some minutes of a meeting held on
16 14th September. Second paragraph:
17 "We discussed the following issues that CPAs would
18 like to be consulted on.
19 "Angella [Angella Mairs] felt that a decision to
20 involve child protection advisers in a serious child
21 protection case should be dependent on the decisions of
22 the Team Managers. Ann [that is you] advised that this
23 is contradictory to advice and recommendations ..."
24 And so on. Yes?
25 MS GRAHAM: Yes.
149
1 MR GARNHAM: A few paragraphs further below:
2 "Angella did not agree that child protection
3 advisers should automatically be consulted on this
4 issue."
5 Now, it sounds as if we have got even to September
6 2000 and you on the one side and Angella Mairs on the
7 other side were simply disagreeing about this.
8 MS GRAHAM: Yes.
9 MR GARNHAM: Difficult to see how the procedure is working
10 happily if two of the key players are still disagreeing
11 in September 2000, is it not?
12 MS GRAHAM: Yes.
13 MR GARNHAM: You see, you have painted a picture as if this
14 was all sorted out and reduced to a well understood
15 system being in existence through the time of Victoria's
16 contact with your organisation, and yet we here see
17 memos passing between those involved that demonstrate
18 that it is nothing like as clear.
19 MS GRAHAM: I do not think this was necessarily the position
20 of all managers.
21 MR GARNHAM: No, I am sure it is not, but you will
22 understand that our focus has to be principally with
23 North Tottenham office?
24 MS GRAHAM: Yes.
25 MR GARNHAM: Go on to page 263, please. This is an e-mail
150
1 the following month from you to Carol Wilson on the
2 protocol for working with CPAs and ROs, yes?
3 MS GRAHAM: Yes it is.
4 MR GARNHAM: Second paragraph:
5 "On return from leave Angella's team asked for
6 a meeting."
7 Next paragraph:
8 "The meeting was tense ..."
9 Are you talking about the meeting we have just
10 looked at the minute of?
11 MS GRAHAM: Yes I am.
12 MR GARNHAM: "The meeting was tense", that will be the
13 tensions that you have described, I suspect, "and
14 Angella in particular had objections to point 1 of my
15 memo about consulting CPAs in serious/concern injuries.
16 The CPAs and myself had raised examples of serious
17 injuries/concerns."
18 Then you give examples.
19 "There was agreement about less contentious issues."
20 So it appears even after the meeting that disputes
21 between you and Mairs persisted.
22 MS GRAHAM: Yes. I think it is fair to say that I did think
23 we needed to have matters made explicit and although the
24 role worked in part -- or the role worked well in many
25 cases I wanted explicit agreement as to the protocol.
|
