Archived Transcript for 18 January 2002: Pages 1 to 50

1



1 Friday, 18th January 2002

2 (9.30 am)

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Morning ladies and gentlemen, Mr Garnham.

4 Last week I said that I would set time aside this

5 morning to hear an application from some broadcasting

6 organisations that they be given access to the videotape

7 recording of the evidence of Carl Manning after it has

8 been presented to this Inquiry. At the conclusion of

9 Mr Manning's evidence I took the opportunity to seek any

10 views that he had on this subject. He told me that he

11 was opposed to the tape being released. I indicated to

12 him that I would take his views into account when

13 deciding the application before me today. I have been

14 advised that the quality of the tape is not up to the

15 standard of previous videotapes of evidence we have

16 watched during the course of this Inquiry. However, my

17 determination of this application will be based solely

18 upon the representations I hear this morning, the

19 written representations that have been submitted and the

20 views of Mr Manning as I have indicated.

21 MR GARNHAM: Sir, I think Mr Hudson appears for the

22 broadcasters.

23 THE CHAIRMAN: Good morning Mr Hudson.

24 MR HUDSON: Good morning sir. I appear on behalf of ITN,

25 Carlton and London News Network. Sir, I hope you have

2



1 had the written submissions we sent down yesterday.

2 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, indeed I have, thank you very much, they

3 were most helpful. I cannot say that I have had the

4 chance to do justice to them yet but you will understand

5 I hope.

6 MR HUDSON: Yes. We also sent down two bundles of

7 authorities.

8 THE CHAIRMAN: Indeed.

9 MR HUDSON: I do not for a moment imagine you have had

10 a chance to read them.

11 THE CHAIRMAN: I have done even less justice to that.

12 MR HUDSON: Because only 10 minutes have been allocated to

13 this application, what I propose to do this morning is

14 not really address the skeleton argument nor the

15 authorities in the skeleton arguments. We would invite

16 you, sir, if you have time to consider those in greater

17 detail and particularly once you have heard the views of

18 Counsel to the Inquiry on the legal principles contained

19 in the skeleton argument. What I propose to do instead

20 is make some general observations on the importance of

21 the Inquiry and the importance of allowing Mr Manning's

22 evidence to be broadcast.

23 Sir, we submit that the importance of the Inquiry

24 cannot be overstated. It is not only the findings and

25 the conclusions of the Inquiry that are important but

3



1 also the gathering of evidence and the hearing of

2 witnesses.

3 The significance of the Inquiry means that there is

4 inevitably considerable public and media interest in the

5 Inquiry and its proceedings. Such an interest is not

6 only understandable but also appropriate. The media,

7 both newspapers and broadcasters, have an obligation to

8 report fully, fairly and accurately the Inquiry's

9 proceedings and the evidence heard by the Inquiry.

10 Sir, it has been recognised by you that it is of

11 paramount importance that the Inquiry is an open one and

12 seen to be such. You have stated that a public Inquiry

13 would be both more effective and fair and it would

14 ensure that matters are dealt with in an open and honest

15 manner. Further, that that would serve the interests of

16 vulnerable children best and would ensure that the

17 general public can have confidence that tragedies of

18 this kind can be avoided.

19 It is therefore right, we say, that the Inquiry's

20 proceedings are accessible to as many people as

21 possible. The most effective way of achieving that aim,

22 we say, would be to broadcast, to televise the Inquiry's

23 proceedings. We recognise and accept, sir, that you

24 have decided that the evidence heard by the Inquiry will

25 at this stage not be broadcast. What the Inquiry has

4



1 sought to ensure, however, is that the public can know

2 as much as possible of what is happening at the

3 proceedings and at the Inquiry. Transcripts of the

4 evidence given by witnesses are put on the Inquiry

5 website. The declared reason for that is that public

6 dissemination of the evidence will help ensure that the

7 Inquiry's procedures are open and transparent.

8 Unfortunately not everyone who wishes to attend this

9 Inquiry can see and hear the witnesses give their

10 evidence. There is obviously only a limited amount of

11 space in the Inquiry room and also many people who might

12 want to attend would be unable to do so because of work

13 or other commitments.

14 If they have a connection to the Internet they can

15 read the transcripts of evidence on the Inquiry website.

16 What they cannot do however is see and hear the witness

17 giving evidence. Being able to see and hear a witness

18 give evidence makes that witness's evidence meaningful

19 in a way that is not achieved by reading a transcript.

20 The tone of voice of the witness, hesitations, emphasis,

21 and the body language of the witness are all important

22 parts of fully understanding and appreciating the

23 witness's evidence.

24 The importance of the sound and vision of a witness

25 is reflected in the way in which Mr Manning's evidence

5



1 is to be given to the Inquiry. As we understand it, he

2 has already been questioned by way of video link in

3 a closed session. His evidence was videotaped and that

4 tape is to be played to the Inquiry at a future date.

5 It would inevitably deprive the Inquiry and the public

6 of an important element in assessing Mr Manning's

7 evidence if rather than playing the video, a transcript

8 of his evidence was simply read out to the Inquiry or

9 was simply placed on the Inquiry website. There would

10 be a qualitative difference in the way in which his

11 evidence was understood and appreciated.

12 The value of seeing and hearing a witness extends to

13 those members of the public the vast majority we say who

14 are unable to attend the Inquiry's proceedings. We make

15 a primary submission that where it is possible to enable

16 the non-attending public to see and hear a witness give

17 evidence, they should in principle be allowed to do so.

18 This can only be achieved by allowing evidence to be

19 broadcast.

20 The written submissions that we have made go into

21 considerable detail as to the applicable legal

22 principles, whether or not the Human Rights Act and

23 freedom of expression principles apply. What I can say

24 in shorthand however is that essentially this comes down

25 to your discretion but that the starting point ought to

6



1 be that if possible broadcasting should be allowed and

2 it should only be restricted or prohibited if there are

3 countervailing factors.

4 We suggest that because of that, where the purpose

5 of the Inquiry is not jeopardised or in any way

6 inhibited by granting permission to broadcast the

7 evidence of a witness then it would be appropriate and

8 right to allow that evidence to be broadcast. We submit

9 that the broadcasting of Carl Manning's evidence after

10 it has been played to the Inquiry can in no way inhibit

11 or prejudice the Inquiry. Rather, it will help ensure

12 that the Inquiry's proceedings are open and transparent

13 and importantly it will allow those people who cannot

14 attend the Inquiry to see what they would have seen and

15 no more, simply what they would have seen had they be

16 able to attend. It will give them a complete rather

17 than a partial picture of the witness's evidence. The

18 importance of that has recently been recognised by the

19 Lord Justice General Lord Cullen in allowing the

20 Lockerbie appeal to be broadcast live later this month.

21 Sir, if you were deciding whether or not to allow

22 broadcasting of the proceedings as a whole, it would be

23 necessary to consider whether or not broadcasting would

24 affect the evidence given by a witness. It may well be

25 that that was why you determined that the evidence as

7



1 a whole would not be broadcast. It is sometimes

2 suggested that a witness can be inhibited or be less

3 frank in their evidence if they know they are being

4 televised live whilst they give their evidence.

5 Those considerations do not however apply to

6 Carl Manning's evidence. His evidence has already been

7 recorded. The fact that it may be broadcast at some

8 stage in the future can in no way affect the content or

9 the quality of his evidence. It obviously cannot affect

10 his frankness. We suggest therefore that his position

11 is quite different from that of a witness who knew the

12 proceedings were being televised whilst they gave their

13 evidence. That is why sir we say you would be justified

14 in treating Carl Manning's evidence differently from

15 that of other witnesses who have given evidence and of

16 those witnesses who are still to give evidence.

17 Broadcasting the tape of Mr Manning's evidence will

18 in no way affect the fairness of the Inquiry nor the

19 outcome. Sir, you are solely responsible for the

20 conduct of the Inquiry and for the Inquiry's report. It

21 obviously cannot be said that the broadcasting of

22 Mr Manning's evidence would in any way affect the

23 conclusions and the findings you reach.

24 The only remaining factor is possibly the effect on

25 Mr Manning of having his evidence broadcast. We say

8



1 that although he is opposed to it and possibly for

2 understandable reasons, broadcasting the video footage

3 of his evidence will have little or no impact on him

4 additional to any impact which would inevitably occur as

5 a result of his evidence being fully reported in the

6 media. The content of his evidence will inevitably be

7 reported both in the newspapers and on television, even

8 if his evidence is not broadcast. His photograph will

9 again be published. Footage of him will again be

10 broadcast by television companies. His identity and his

11 crime and his notoriety are already well known.

12 What will be different, however, if his evidence is

13 not broadcast, is that the public will learn about his

14 evidence second-hand through the eyes for good or ill of

15 the journalists attending the Inquiry. We submit that

16 it is much more honest, open, accurate and transparent

17 for the non-attending public to see and hear

18 Mr Manning's evidence firsthand. That can only be

19 achieved if the videotape of his evidence is broadcast.

20 Sir, in the skeleton argument we set out the legal

21 principles which we invite you to consider in reaching

22 your decision. Essentially we submit that the important

23 principles of open justice and freedom of expression do

24 apply in this case and they should form the basis of any

25 decision you reach with the result that the starting

9



1 point ought to be that Mr Manning's evidence should be

2 broadcast, and only if there are powerful and legitimate

3 reasons to prohibit the broadcasting should it be

4 denied.

5 Sir, unless I can be of any further assistance those

6 are our submissions.

7 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Hudson thank you very much. You have been

8 of great assistance in the material that you have

9 already submitted to the Inquiry, which justice will be

10 done to, and thank you for the very clear way in which

11 you have set out your application. I am most grateful

12 to you. Is there anyone else that would like to --

13 Mr Garnham please.

14 MR GARNHAM: You have now heard the oral submissions in

15 support of the application from Mr Hudson. In addition,

16 you have received lengthy and detailed written

17 submissions from Mr Hudson and shorter written

18 submissions from Mr David Mason on behalf of the NHS.

19 Sir, we propose making available copies of those written

20 submissions to the interested parties and to the public

21 at the end of this application.

22 Sir, as you mentioned on 10th January at the time of

23 the videoing of Mr Manning's evidence, you sought and

24 obtained his views on the broadcasters' application and

25 it is right to point out that Mr Manning was told of the

10



1 existence of the application as he began to give his

2 evidence. Sir, I do not seek today to make submissions

3 on the merits of the application. Our stance sir is

4 neutral. I make submissions only on the manner in which

5 you should approach the application. I do not seek to

6 summarise what Mr Hudson has said. Frankly I do not

7 think I could do justice to it. He advanced important

8 and powerful arguments that you will need to consider

9 carefully.

10 But it is right that I point out that there are

11 arguments going the other way and in particular

12 arguments that might be advanced on the basis of what

13 Mr Manning said to you, and since he is not represented

14 it is right that you have those expanded so that you can

15 consider them.

16 Sir, I make these submissions solely for the purpose

17 of ensuring that you take all relevant matters into

18 account, although since you have already heard from

19 Mr Hudson, much of what I say will point out arguments

20 going the other way. I do not do so in an attempt to

21 persuade you one way or the other, simply to make sure

22 that you have all the relevant material at the forefront

23 of your mind.

24 Sir I make eight points. Firstly, this is a matter

25 for you to decide as an exercise of discretion.

11



1 Although Mr Hudson puts forward powerful arguments in

2 support of his case, he accepts, as you heard, that the

3 law is not such as to deprive you of discretion. The

4 decision is one for you weighing up the relevant

5 factors.

6 Second, that discretion must in our submission be

7 exercised in accordance with both domestic and European

8 Convention law. Although it would be my submission,

9 sir, that these proceedings are not caught by Article 6

10 of the fair trial provisions of the Convention,

11 primarily because there is no civil right being

12 determined, the other Articles are potentially relevant

13 and applicable.

14 My third point, sir, Article 10 is relevant and you

15 will need to consider its application with some care.

16 In that context you will need to consider not just the

17 points that Mr Hudson has just made to you, you will

18 also need to have regard to the fact that firstly this

19 Inquiry is open to the public and the written media and

20 that the video recording will be played in public.

21 Second, that the transcript of that evidence, like all

22 the rest of the evidence, will be published on the

23 Inquiry's website, making it available to a much wider

24 public than those who turn up and hear it here. Third,

25 that what the broadcasters are seeking is not simply the

12



1 right to see, hear and report on the evidence, which

2 they will have in any event, but to obtain a copy of the

3 video itself which was of course made primarily for the

4 Inquiry's own purposes.

5 Sir, my fourth submission of general application is

6 this. Article 10 is not the only relevant Article from

7 the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 2

8 protects the right to life, Article 3 prohibits inhuman

9 and degrading treatment and punishment and Article 8

10 protects the right to private life. Manning is serving

11 a life sentence in prison. As a result of publicity

12 earlier in these proceedings he was assaulted, beaten up

13 by other prisoners. There may be a risk, and sir it is

14 a matter for you to assess that risk, of further such

15 ill treatment in any event when the nature of his

16 evidence is reported. You will have to consider sir and

17 take into account whether the risks of such treatment

18 would be increased were his evidence to be broadcast.

19 Sir that, like all of these points, is a matter for you.

20 Fifth general submission sir, Article 14 of the

21 Convention prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of

22 the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention. You

23 will have to consider whether the difference in

24 treatment, in particular of Kouao on the one hand and

25 Manning on the other in the way their evidence is

13



1 publicised, is justified.

2 Sixth, more generally, Mr Manning relied when he

3 answered your questions on the 10th January, sir, on the

4 fact that the evidence of no other witness has been

5 broadcast. It seems to us that that is a matter that

6 you should take into account. The evidence of a number

7 of other witnesses has been received via recorded

8 videolink and there has been no application by

9 broadcasters in respect of that material. So that there

10 would be a degree of difference of treatment.

11 Seventh, sir, when asked by you Mr Manning made

12 clear that were he at liberty and were he to attend this

13 Inquiry in the way that most witnesses have attended it,

14 he would decline any invitation to speak to the media.

15 He will accordingly be put in a worse position as

16 regards the broadcasting of his evidence simply because

17 he is in prison and the Inquiry decided to receive his

18 evidence in this particular way.

19 Finally, sir, at the preliminary meeting in May 2000

20 you announced that you would permit the broadcast media

21 to attend for our opening statements but not for the

22 rest of Phase I. The argument which the broadcasters

23 now advance would have applied equally to that decision

24 and no challenge was made to that at the time. You will

25 have to consider carefully, sir, whether the arguments

14



1 that Mr Hudson advances justify a departure from that

2 earlier stance. Sir, unless I can help you further.

3 THE CHAIRMAN: I am most grateful to you Mr Garnham, that

4 was extremely helpful.

5 Mr Garnham, Mr Hudson, ladies and gentlemen, I think

6 that the way in which both presentations have been made

7 will I think make everyone I hope accept that there are

8 strong arguments on both sides of this question which

9 I will need to give a lot of thought to, and certainly

10 to do justice to the material that Mr Hudson has

11 submitted and Mr Mason has submitted. It is perhaps

12 fortunate that we are only sitting three days next week

13 and that will give me at least an opportunity to spend

14 some time on it and I will let the Inquiry have my

15 decision just as soon as I am able to do so.

16 MR GARNHAM: Thank you very much.

17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr Hudson, I appreciate that very

18 much indeed.

19 MR HUDSON: Thank you sir.

20 THE CHAIRMAN: With that in mind I perhaps ought to for the

21 sake of clarity for colleagues -- I am sure they have

22 all got it but we are sitting on Tuesday, Wednesday and

23 Thursday next week, a bit of a departure from our normal

24 arrangements.

25 MR GARNHAM: We will resume our evidence and I will ask

15



1 Mr Sheldon to call the next witness.

2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr Sheldon.

3 MR SHELDON: Could we have Gina Adamou back please.

4 MRS GINA ADAMOU (continued)

5 MRS ADAMOU: Good morning.

6 MR SHELDON: As I am sure you are aware you are still under

7 the oath that you took when you began your evidence the

8 day before yesterday.

9 MRS ADAMOU: Yes.

10 MR SHELDON: I would like to start this morning by asking

11 you about the Joint Review that was carried out of

12 Haringey Social Services in 1999 and if it assists, the

13 section of your statement in which you deal with that

14 starts at paragraph 24. The Joint Review Team inspected

15 Haringey Social Services in February and March 1999, is

16 that right?

17 MRS ADAMOU: Yes, it is.

18 MR SHELDON: It was a document I take it that when it came

19 out, and I believe the report came out in November 1999,

20 you looked at in some detail, would that be right?

21 MRS ADAMOU: Yes, at the time, yes.

22 MR SHELDON: We have looked at it on a number of occasions

23 as you can imagine already, and I am not proposing to go

24 through it with you in detail now, particularly as you

25 helpfully list some of the more important conclusions in

16



1 paragraph 26 of your statement, but would you agree with

2 me that broadly speaking it was a fairly positive

3 assessment of Haringey Social Services?

4 MRS ADAMOU: Yes.

5 MR SHELDON: And that given the background also which you

6 discuss in your statement of budgetary cuts and pressure

7 on services, it must have been, one might imagine, as

8 good as you could have hoped for?

9 MRS ADAMOU: Yes.

10 MR SHELDON: What was your reaction when you read it?

11 MRS ADAMOU: I felt obviously that it was a positive report.

12 Already as well we did very well in areas where they

13 were identifying as weakness, but it also said that, you

14 know, we had a good Management Team and they were quite

15 able to overcome the difficulties we had.

16 MR SHELDON: I realise that the team, the Inspection Team

17 was doing its work before you took over as Lead Member,

18 but after you took over and, as you told us on

19 Wednesday, went round the various offices within Social

20 Services, did it reflect what you felt to be the case on

21 the ground?

22 MRS ADAMOU: The difficulties when -- as a member I had to

23 visit the area offices as well as other areas where we

24 have provision, you know, day care and so on. The

25 difficulty is that you cannot always get a full picture

17



1 because the staff are sometimes -- some are somewhat

2 reluctant to complain. I like to think I am very

3 approachable person and I am well known because I live

4 in Haringey for many years. Nevertheless, there is some

5 reluctance for some staff to complain or to speak up,

6 yes.

7 MR SHELDON: As a result of that reluctance, does it follow

8 that you are particularly reliant upon objective

9 assessments such as the Joint Review?

10 MRS ADAMOU: Yes.

11 MR SHELDON: Because it is difficult for you firstly, one

12 would assume, to get round all the staff and ask their

13 views, and secondly some of the staff that you do speak

14 to may not give you an accurate picture for the reasons

15 that you have discussed; is that right?

16 MRS ADAMOU: That is correct.

17 MR SHELDON: Now, the inspection that led to the review as

18 you have said was carried out in February and March, but

19 the report as I understand it was not with you

20 until November, is that right?

21 MRS ADAMOU: Yes.

22 MR SHELDON: Did you receive any advance notice of the

23 findings of the Joint Review Team before the report came

24 out in November or was that the first you heard of it?

25 MRS ADAMOU: No, we had an Officer Member Working Group

18



1 which we established a year or even maybe longer before

2 the Joint Review came in because we were very determined

3 to look at our own services and do some -- find if there

4 are any problems, trying to address them and so on. So

5 the inspectors did come to the working group and they

6 gave us an initial -- you know, so we had an idea of the

7 outcome, not in great detail but we had an idea that it

8 was quite positive, yes.

9 MR SHELDON: The report eventually arrived, as you say,

10 in November and one of the sections that you quote in

11 your statement at paragraph 26 is one of the team

12 managers who was spoken to by the review team saying "it

13 certainly allows us to sleep at night".

14 MRS ADAMOU: It did not actually, the manager did not

15 actually say that to me. He said it --

16 MR SHELDON: To the Joint Review Team?

17 MRS ADAMOU: Yes.

18 MR SHELDON: Applying that turn of phrase, when you got the

19 Joint Review report in November 1999 did it allow you to

20 sleep at night?

21 MRS ADAMOU: That is a very difficult question to answer, as

22 I am not on the ground sort of thing. I am not a social

23 worker myself and I obviously -- overall we have

24 responsibility as members and I as a member, you know,

25 but it is a very difficult thing to answer really. You

19



1 know, I do hope that and I always think that our social

2 workers and our staff did the best they can and the

3 children were safe in Haringey. That is the only thing

4 I could say on that.

5 MR SHELDON: But your position as Lead Member as we

6 discussed on Wednesday is to satisfy yourself on

7 a regular basis of the standards of service provision

8 within Social Services in accordance with the

9 requirements of the Dobson letter that we looked at. As

10 you say, you cannot speak to every social worker and it

11 is difficult to get an accurate picture on the ground,

12 so does it follow from that that in satisfying yourself

13 about service provision you were reliant upon objective

14 assessments such as the Joint Review?

15 MRS ADAMOU: Absolutely, yes.

16 MR SHELDON: So when you got that Joint Review you must have

17 been satisfied that the service provision was as they

18 said it was, because you had no other way of suggesting

19 they were wrong.

20 MRS ADAMOU: Well, of course I was satisfied but I also knew

21 there were areas where they did identify weakness and

22 I knew there were areas in fact we put in an action plan

23 you know after the review to address those areas where

24 there were concerns raised at the time.

25 MR SHELDON: Were you hearing anything from your senior

20



1 officers, and particularly Carol Wilson and

2 Mary Richardson, that would have indicated a different

3 picture within Social Services to the one painted by the

4 Joint Review?

5 MRS ADAMOU: No.

6 MR SHELDON: It was consistent, was it?

7 MRS ADAMOU: Yes.

8 MR SHELDON: After Victoria's death you commissioned an

9 audit, as you tell us in paragraph 56 of your statement.

10 MRS ADAMOU: Yes.

11 MR SHELDON: That audit you say was given to you in

12 April 2000.

13 MRS ADAMOU: As soon as we knew this had, what happened you

14 know, very sad what happened to Victoria, we had

15 a meeting, the Leader, myself, with officers and other

16 interested members, my deputy at the time and another

17 councillor which has always been in Children's Services,

18 and yes, we did ask for an audit. We were concerned, we

19 wanted to make sure if anything went wrong on the ground

20 that there were not any other children put at risk, yes.

21 MR SHELDON: I wonder if you could have volume 15 page 106

22 put in front of you. That is the audit that you

23 received in April 2000, is it not?

24 MRS ADAMOU: Yes, it is.

25 MR SHELDON: And we can see as we turn over the page that

21



1 after dealing with the North Tottenham District Office

2 and arriving at the conclusion about halfway down the

3 page that there were pockets of good analysis, clear

4 objectives, but occasionally there was a lack of focus

5 and minor drift, the auditors turned their attention to

6 the Hornsey District Office and if you turn over a page

7 again to page 108, you will see at the very bottom of

8 that page the conclusion that the auditors were

9 "concerned and surprised by the quality of work we found

10 at Hornsey District Office. We cannot be sure that the

11 practice is safe".

12 Now, various people have given evidence in relation

13 to that audit and they have said in varying terms that

14 the findings in Hornsey office were frightening,

15 appalling, words to that effect. Now, were you

16 surprised and worried when you received this audit?

17 MRS ADAMOU: Absolutely, there is no doubt about that.

18 MR SHELDON: Because it did not reflect, did it, the picture

19 that you had received of the standards of service

20 provision, at least as far as that office was concerned,

21 from the Joint Review?

22 MRS ADAMOU: Absolutely and I could not understand why it

23 was almost a year later since the Inspector, you know

24 the Joint Review came in and I could not understand

25 about the deterioration.

22



1 MR SHELDON: Did you regard the Joint Review Team as having

2 done a good and thorough job?

3 MRS ADAMOU: Well, they are the professionals, I hope they

4 did.

5 MR SHELDON: Because one might have thought that there are

6 two possible explanations for the apparent deterioration

7 in picture displayed by this audit compared with the

8 Joint Review. Either things have got worse over the

9 course of the year or they stayed the same and the Joint

10 Review Team simply missed it whenever they looked at

11 service provision in Hornsey at least. Which do you

12 think it is?

13 MRS ADAMOU: Well, to be honest I think there were some

14 problems. We lost some of the staff by then, you know,

15 in the autumn of 1999. There was some problems by then.

16 So obviously that did not help the situation.

17 MR SHELDON: Yes. So your initial view or your initial

18 analysis is that there was deterioration caused by for

19 example staffing difficulties which meant that the

20 picture had got worse by April 2000 to how it had been

21 in early 1999?

22 MRS ADAMOU: I understand why some deterioration may happen

23 because of loss of staff but what was found in Hornsey,

24 it should not -- it is there is not an excuse for that

25 quite frankly and that is completely wrong and yes it is

23



1 surprising.

2 MR SHELDON: You mentioned staffing difficulties. Are you

3 able to help us with any other opinion as to what went

4 wrong?

5 MRS ADAMOU: Well, I think it was a number of issues because

6 you had the positive Joint Review, I know for instance

7 a couple of our staff, they were head hunted by other

8 local authorities and offered a lot more money, so they

9 move on. There were things, I mean Haringey is not

10 a rich local authority. The salaries we paid our staff,

11 I think it was second from the bottom in London boroughs

12 if I remember correctly, so the salaries were low.

13 There were some people you could say that were pressure

14 of work, not happy with the restructuring. There were

15 other issues. There were quality protect monies and,

16 you know.

17 MR SHELDON: What is the point about Quality Protects money?

18 MRS ADAMOU: Local authorities had Quality Protects money so

19 they were able to pay better salaries to attract staff.

20 As for the Youth Service, again another area where you

21 see they are all after the same qualified staff and

22 there are not a lot about. It is a London-wide problem,

23 not having enough qualified social workers, and that is

24 the situation we are in, still we are in you know. We

25 are all competing with each other if you like for

24



1 qualified staff.

2 MR SHELDON: It sound like all the four matters you have

3 listed, head hunting, low salaries, pressures of work

4 and Quality Protects funding luring staff away, all come

5 to the same thing which is staffing problems, not having

6 the right number or the right quality of staff in post.

7 MRS ADAMOU: Yes.

8 MR SHELDON: We will come to deal with that in just a moment

9 but let me ask you this specific question. When you

10 said that important staff were head hunted possibly

11 because of the positive Joint Review and offered lots

12 more money elsewhere, is one of the people that you had

13 in mind Mary Richardson?

14 MRS ADAMOU: Well, she was one of them but no, I understood

15 we had, you know -- I cannot remember what tier manager

16 they were but there are other staff. I was not thinking

17 of Mary, no, but she was one among them, yes.

18 MR SHELDON: Were you sorry to see her leave in early 2000?

19 MRS ADAMOU: It is a difficult question because I only

20 worked with her for a year and I did not have the same

21 relationship that I would have with officers that were

22 there a long time.

23 MR SHELDON: Yes, when did you first hear talk of her going?

24 MRS ADAMOU: There were rumours about her going and I did

25 ask her and whether she intended to go. She said no,

25



1 she was not, and --

2 MR SHELDON: When did you ask her that?

3 MRS ADAMOU: Goodness me, I cannot remember the precise

4 time, I am sorry.

5 MR SHELDON: David Duncan told us -- Day 33 page 43 for your

6 note sir -- that by August or September 1999 the fact

7 that she was negotiating to leave the department as he

8 put it was fairly common knowledge. Were you aware of

9 it by then?

10 MRS ADAMOU: As I said, I heard, you know, rumours from the

11 staff and a couple of members asked me, that is why

12 I asked. I am a straightforward person. I said, "Mary

13 are you leaving because this is the rumour that is going

14 around".

15 MR SHELDON: What did she say?

16 MRS ADAMOU: She said, "No, I am not. I am not actively

17 looking for a new job either".

18 MR SHELDON: How long after that did she go?

19 MRS ADAMOU: At a later date she did say she was approached

20 by another local authority. She did not go looking for

21 a job. They went to her, and she was thinking about it,

22 yes.

23 MR SHELDON: Clearly people move jobs all the time and

24 senior staff just as much as anybody else, and clearly

25 it is up to Ms Richardson where she worked, but I wonder

26



1 what your view of her departure was in light of the fact

2 that the redirecting the work of the department project

3 was still underway and had not yet been finished? Did

4 you think she should have stayed to see it through?

5 MRS ADAMOU: I do agree that it was a difficult time, you

6 know, as far as I was concerned for her to leave. But

7 at the end of the day she left for personal reasons.

8 I think she was offered a lot more money than we were

9 paying her and she made a decision to leave.

10 MR SHELDON: Were any efforts made by members to persuade

11 her to stay?

12 MRS ADAMOU: Not to my knowledge.

13 MR SHELDON: Why not?

14 MRS ADAMOU: It is difficult to say. If somebody decides to

15 leave I think it is best if they do leave. That is

16 personal, you know, my personal opinion.

17 MR SHELDON: Let us deal with the staffing problems that you

18 have started to tell us about. You say in your

19 statement that there came a point when Carol Wilson

20 indicated to you that the restructuring that was going

21 to be caused by the redirecting the work of the

22 department project might have an impact on staff. Is

23 that right?

24 MRS ADAMOU: We used to have regular meetings with

25 Carol Wilson. When I say we, it was because it was

27



1 myself, my deputy and another councillor. We used to

2 have regular meetings with Carol Wilson and we had

3 officers around Children's Services and she raised it in

4 one of those meetings that she had some concerns about

5 some of our staff leaving and I did say -- and she said

6 the concerns were that we may lose staff but it is about

7 recruitment of new staff, and I did say, I did ask her

8 to give serious concerns to make sure that it goes into

9 a report and I will speak to the Leader and organise

10 a meeting, which eventually that is what happened.

11 MR SHELDON: Yes. When did you have the meeting?

12 MRS ADAMOU: She -- I spoke to Carol Wilson a couple of

13 times over this and as I understand it, they were doing

14 some exit interviews of staff as well because officers

15 wanted to know the reasons for leaving and as soon as

16 the report was ready, which I think it was some time

17 in January, I have arranged the meeting with the Leader,

18 and again this was the Leader, the Chief Executive, my

19 deputy and other councillors to discuss this.

20 I knew there would be resources implications so

21 I wanted to make sure I brought it to the attention, you

22 know, to the right people's attention.

23 MR SHELDON: Absolutely. Before we go on to the detail of

24 those meetings and what may or may not have been

25 discussed, I want to try to understand the timing. You

28



1 say in paragraph 28 of your statement that you were

2 first or that you were told by Carol Wilson that there

3 were likely to be staffing problems, third line, in the

4 autumn of 1999. Is that when she first came to you and

5 said that there might be difficulties?

6 MRS ADAMOU: Yes.

7 MR SHELDON: Does it follow from the first sentence of that

8 paragraph that she was saying that those difficulties

9 might be caused, traced back to the restructuring, the

10 redirecting the work of the department?

11 MRS ADAMOU: I think it was not as simple as that. I think

12 the restructuring may have been the last straw if you

13 like for some staff. It was a number of issues and the

14 outcome of the exiting interview at the time did

15 identify a number of reasons why staff were leaving.

16 MR SHELDON: So would it be fair to say that Carol Wilson

17 said something along these lines to you: "Staff are not

18 particularly happy or there may be potential problems on

19 the horizon of staff leaving. It is not going to be

20 made any better by the restructuring and I am warning

21 you that this is potentially going to be a problem"?

22 MRS ADAMOU: She said she was concerned that we were losing

23 staff and, you know, we did discuss the salary, we knew

24 that our salaries were lower and we did discuss. It was

25 as I said earlier a number of reasons why it was

29



1 happening but we were not clear you see at that point

2 all the reasons. That is why we hold some exit

3 interviews may help us to --

4 MR SHELDON: When she told you this in autumn 1999 did you

5 pass that warning or that information on to anybody?

6 MRS ADAMOU: I certainly have spoken to -- first of all it

7 was another two councillors presents when Carol Wilson

8 said that, my deputy and another councillor.

9 MR SHELDON: Your deputy's name?

10 MRS ADAMOU: It is the Lead Member now Taki Sulaiman.

11 MR SHELDON: And the other member?

12 MRS ADAMOU: Chintzy Brown. So yes, the Leader became aware

13 of it as I said, waiting for the report.

14 MR SHELDON: By the Leader became aware of it, do you mean?

15 MRS ADAMOU: Yes, George Meehan.

16 MR SHELDON: So you told him?

17 MRS ADAMOU: I have a good relationship with George, he is

18 very approachable, yes.

19 MR SHELDON: Gurbux Singh when he gave evidence, Day 40

20 page 64, said he was not aware of any possible staffing

21 problems or difficulties of that nature until December

22 1999 whereas it seems from your evidence that you and at

23 least Carol Wilson thought that this might be in the air

24 back in the autumn.

25 MRS ADAMOU: Well, I do not know what whether the Chief

30



1 Executive knew or not but I am sure Carol Wilson would

2 have spoken to her Director about this and the lines of

3 management.

4 MR SHELDON: Regardless of who knew what and precisely when

5 you found this out or when Carol Wilson informed you in

6 autumn 1999, was anything done or any plans put in place

7 at that stage to try and head off this difficulty before

8 it arose?

9 MRS ADAMOU: Well, we knew there would be implications, that

10 is why I wanted a written report, and so the plans were

11 to have some exit interviews, have the written report as

12 soon as possible, make arrangements for a meeting with

13 the Leader and other, and the Chief Executive and so on,

14 and that is what happened you know, as soon as those

15 things happened we had the meeting.

16 MR SHELDON: You say in paragraph 28 of your statement that

17 after you received the warning from Carol Wilson you

18 asked her to put her views in writing. Is that right?

19 MRS ADAMOU: Absolutely.

20 MR SHELDON: Did she?

21 MRS ADAMOU: She did.

22 MR SHELDON: When?

23 MRS ADAMOU: As I said, it took a few weeks because they

24 were doing the exit interviews and there was Christmas

25 in between as well, so as soon as I was told the report

31



1 was ready you know --

2 MR SHELDON: When the original discussion took place or the

3 original plans for redirecting the work of the

4 department were being formulated, was there discussion

5 about the impact that it may have on staff morale and

6 whether or not it might induce staff to leave?

7 MRS ADAMOU: Well, the discussions around it took place

8 around the redirecting the work of social services and

9 the restructuring took place the year before. That

10 would have been 1998/1999. I was not part of those

11 discussions, I have to say. Another member was the Lead

12 Member and she took the lead of the Director

13 Mary Richardson, and I was not part of those

14 discussions.

15 MR SHELDON: You were deputy at that stage?

16 MRS ADAMOU: I was.

17 MR SHELDON: But you were not involved?

18 MRS ADAMOU: No, obviously I was on the Social Services

19 Committee but I took no part in any private discussions

20 that the Lead Member and the Director had at the time.

21 MR SHELDON: Were you aware that one of the effects of the

22 redirecting or the restructuring was that it was going

23 to make team managers in the districts compete against

24 each other for a reduced number of posts?

25 MRS ADAMOU: Well I knew that what usually happens with

32



1 restructuring that unfortunately people have to be

2 interviewed for their own jobs and that is always very

3 difficult thing to do. But that is all I would like to

4 say on that. I was not specifically -- I mean I was not

5 sure they were competing against each other, they are

6 not.

7 MR SHELDON: We have looked at a number of documents being

8 written in the summer of 1999, to Mary Richardson in

9 particular, in which the staff of the district offices

10 express, in their words, their "extreme dismay and

11 distress" that this was happening. Was that being fed

12 back to you? Were you aware that there was extreme

13 dismay and distress in the districts?

14 MRS ADAMOU: I have to say no. When -- according to the

15 Director at the time you know, she had full briefing

16 meetings with staff, she went around offices, you know.

17 There were obviously always there would be people that

18 are not very happy about restructuring, there is no

19 doubt about that, but overall the picture I was given

20 was that staff, they were happy, the unions were happy

21 because we were protecting front line services and it

22 was the management structure, you know.

23 MR SHELDON: Did you get any impression that the senior

24 management within Social Services were handling that

25 restructuring or redirecting process anything other than

33



1 sensitively and competently?

2 MRS ADAMOU: Well, no. I mean I thought, yes, I thought

3 they were doing a good job at the time, I have to say,

4 yes.

5 MR SHELDON: So if for example we heard from a Commissioning

6 Manager for example, Dave Duncan, Day 33 page 32, to the

7 effect that he took a dim view of the way in which that

8 process was being handled by senior management, that is

9 news to you? You did not know that at the time?

10 MRS ADAMOU: No, I did not.

11 MR SHELDON: Do you think that there is an obligation on you

12 as Lead Member for that year to find out the views of

13 your staff at what is inevitably going to be a difficult

14 time for them because it is unlikely, is it not, that

15 Carol Wilson or Mary Richardson are going to come to you

16 and say, "I think we are handling this situation badly"?

17 If you are going to find out how the people on the

18 ground feel you should be going out and talking to them,

19 should you not?

20 MRS ADAMOU: There is a clear responsibility between member

21 and officer level, I have to say. And as I said before,

22 I always -- I am an active councillor. I visit when

23 I can and I can give you a whole list of things I do and

24 I am always approachable but there is a line between me

25 actually as a councillor going to staff behind the

34



1 Director's or the Assistant Director's back. You know,

2 scrutinise them whether they are happy or not. Saying

3 that, it does not stop staff themselves either because

4 I have -- I say we sometimes because I am sorry --

5 I have, I hold a Council surgery and you know on

6 Saturday, two Saturday every month.

7 MR SHELDON: What is the purpose of that? Who comes along

8 to those surgeries?

9 MRS ADAMOU: People come about concerns they have about

10 issues with the Council. Sometimes staff come or, so

11 they are open, you know, we are open to whoever wants to

12 come through the door basically and I am always

13 approachable. I mean in the past the unions did get in

14 touch with me, in the past staff, if they have something

15 to say they will write to me or come and see me even at

16 surgery, but I did not have that during that year.

17 MR SHELDON: Regardless of whether or not you have had an

18 opportunity to read much of the evidence on these

19 matters that has been given to the Inquiry, even what

20 you knew then must have indicated to you that the

21 picture that you had in November 1999 of a decently

22 running service, in light of the Joint Review, of a few

23 staff with grumbles about the restructuring but

24 generally reasonably content to let it proceed, was

25 wrong because by early 2000 you have got the audit that

35



1 we have just looked at saying that Hornsey is unsafe and

2 you have got a large number of staff leaving to go and

3 work elsewhere. So all of a sudden the wheels have

4 fallen off, have they not?

5 MRS ADAMOU: I do not disagree with that analysis at all,

6 I mean yes.

7 MR SHELDON: But that should not have come as a sudden

8 surprise to you, should it?

9 MRS ADAMOU: Well, as I said it was not a surprise about

10 staff leaving because I was advised that it was

11 happening, but it is a surprise, it is about the

12 deterioration, and when I read about the concerns around

13 the area offices, yes, I do not disagree with you at

14 all.

15 MR SHELDON: It would be difficult for the Inquiry to accept

16 the analysis that these were problems that simply popped

17 up overnight because the sort of explanations that you

18 are giving, namely discrepancies in terms and conditions

19 in various parts of London, the availability of Quality

20 Protects money, these did not suddenly arise, they had

21 been there for some time. And so should we not view the

22 sort of information that we seem to be getting from

23 early 2000 as the culmination of a longer term

24 deterioration than simply a month or two?

25 MRS ADAMOU: You have to understand as members how we work.

36



1 We are not there all day in the offices and we are not

2 in a position to monitor. We are not the managers. We

3 have meetings in the evening and we read and discuss

4 reports which are written by our officers. We obviously

5 ask questions, we amend the reports and so on on their

6 advice. So if I am not told that there is a problem,

7 then I have no way of knowing, quite frankly, you know.

8 MR SHELDON: Well that might be an analysis I would suggest

9 if it was not for the very clear requirements to

10 councillors that were set out in the Dobson letter that

11 we have looked at, because the whole point one might say

12 of the Dobson letter is to avoid councillors being

13 surprised when suddenly a service in some measure of

14 crisis is revealed to them when before they thought that

15 everything was fine. The point of that letter is you

16 are constantly checking, you are constantly asking the

17 right questions.

18 MRS ADAMOU: As I said, because there were changes in 1999

19 and we moved from committee structure to an advisory

20 group, it came after the executive Cabinet system, you

21 know, because of concerns, that is why the Children's

22 Officer Member Group used to meet quite often and we

23 used to ask these questions: How many children are on

24 the Child Protection Register? How many looked after

25 children do we have? How long children are on the Child

37



1 Protection Register. Do they have social workers? If

2 not, you know, asking officers to see to it, and we did

3 ask all these questions, you know.

4 I used to visit children's homes for instance and

5 speak to staff at the homes and if children were there

6 I would speak to the children themselves.

7 I sit on adoption fostering panel. I served there

8 for many years. I see at first hand you know and I know

9 I have some experience about children taken in care.

10 I do ask the right questions but I can only go by and

11 believe the answers I get from officers.

12 MR SHELDON: Regardless of how much of a surprise it was to

13 you, by the time you get to early 2000 you find yourself

14 at least in Children's Services with something of

15 a staffing crisis on your hands, do you not?

16 MRS ADAMOU: I agree, yes.

17 MR SHELDON: You say in paragraph 28 of your statement,

18 three lines up from the bottom of that page, that you

19 would have expected to be told if there was a feared

20 problem with staffing numbers or vacancies, yes?

21 MRS ADAMOU: Yes.

22 MR SHELDON: Who would you have expected to inform you if

23 that was the position?

24 MRS ADAMOU: Well either the Assistant Director or the

25 Director.

38



1 MR SHELDON: And that is what the Assistant Director did,

2 was it not, in the autumn of 1999?

3 MRS ADAMOU: Yes.

4 MR SHELDON: There is only a point in her telling you if you

5 are going to do something about it, is there not?

6 MRS ADAMOU: May I give you an example so you have some

7 understanding of the way I work?

8 MR SHELDON: Yes.

9 MRS ADAMOU: When I first became a Lead -- it was then

10 called Children's Social Services Committee 1993/1994,

11 one of the first things I became aware of at the time,

12 and then the Assistant Director for Children's Services

13 said to me there are problems, we have a large number of

14 children without an allocated social worker and those

15 children were on the Child Protection Register, and

16 I became aware that we had at the time almost 100

17 children. She said at the time, "We do not have the

18 resources Gina to overturn this."

19 So what I did at the time I went to the Leader which

20 was Toby Harris and I explained the situation, we

21 organised a meeting with the Assistant Director and the

22 Director at the time and the outcome of that is that we

23 put half a million pounds at the time in the Children's

24 Services.

25 In fact one of the things I am most proud of my work

39



1 with Social Services is that by the time I left office,

2 if you like, I stop in the Children's Social Services,

3 we overturn the service and we -- every child on the

4 Child Protection Register had a social worker, in fact

5 from almost 100 it went down to zero. So when the

6 Assistant Director came to me in 1999 and said there

7 were problems with staff leaving, I was not going to sit

8 on my hands, believe me.

9 MR SHELDON: So what did you do?

10 MRS ADAMOU: As I said, I asked her to write a report. When

11 she said that, and identifying how much resources, how

12 much money in simple language you would need to put in

13 the service.

14 MR SHELDON: What did she say? How much money did you need?

15 MRS ADAMOU: That is exactly what she did, you know, it was

16 difficult to identify all the resources but it was

17 a provisional report that we discussed in January with

18 a follow-up report in May and then in August that year.

19 The group put a package together.

20 MR SHELDON: We have seen those, I think it was Mr Kousoulou

21 whose name is on those two reports and they were as you

22 say in early and late summer 2000, but you were being

23 warned of the impending crisis you say by Carol Wilson

24 in autumn 1999.

25 MRS ADAMOU: Yes.

40



1 MR SHELDON: So are you saying it took her from autumn 1999

2 to May 2000 to get the report done?

3 MRS ADAMOU: The reason I said autumn because I was not

4 hundred per cent sure whether it was November

5 or December and I did not want to make a mistake, but it

6 was near end of November, if it was November it would

7 have been end of November/December that I was told that

8 and by January, which is not a long time --

9 MR SHELDON: Let me make sure I have got this right because

10 it is important in light of the other evidence we have

11 heard. Despite the fact that you agreed with me during

12 the course of my questions earlier this morning that it

13 was autumn 1999 that you received this early warning,

14 you are in fact now saying it was some time either

15 late November or early December?

16 MRS ADAMOU: I said autumn because I was not 100 per cent

17 sure the actual time you know, I could not pinpoint and

18 say 15th November or you know, and when I said autumn

19 I did mean late autumn and I did mean that.

20 MR SHELDON: So when you refer to a written report being

21 produced by Carol Wilson in response to that perceived

22 problem, then those are the reports that Mr Kousoulou

23 produced in May and I think August 2000?

24 MRS ADAMOU: It was not, no, those followed up. It was

25 first the report you know, not -- it was a report

41



1 identifying the issues that we discussed with the Leader

2 of the Chief Executive. After that it followed the

3 reports that went to Policy Strategy Committee in May

4 and later in the year. I would imagine the reasons

5 Mr Kousoulou's name is there is because he was the

6 Assistant Director there responsible for finances.

7 MR SHELDON: Let us try and make sure we are clear about

8 this. Could you have volumes 45A and 42, please. 45A

9 page 142 first please. I am sorry, could we start with

10 volume 42, page 410. The document that you have in

11 front of you, volume 42, page 410, is a report

12 authorised it says on the second page by

13 Dinos Kousoulou, the contact officer is Carol Wilson and

14 it sets out a number of proposed strategies for dealing

15 with the recruitment crisis. We went through it in some

16 detail with Mr Kousoulou. It may be that you recognise

17 it.

18 There were going to be some performance enhancement

19 payments, some extra payments for particularly difficult

20 or stressful work and that would appear to contain the

21 proposals that were eventually implemented in an effort

22 to retain staff. Is that right?

23 MRS ADAMOU: Yes.

24 MR SHELDON: There is also something produced by

25 Carol Wilson in January 2000 which is in volume 28 at

42



1 page 188.

2 MRS ADAMOU: May I say that even that I was not a Lead

3 Member by August 2000 I did attend that meeting because

4 I was -- I wanted to make sure that -- in fact I spoke

5 on this issue at the time because I wanted to make sure

6 that colleagues and other people realised how serious it

7 was in our programme.

8 MR SHELDON: Can you have a look at that document in

9 volume 28, that is something called a Leader's Briefing

10 about social work vacancies and recruitment problems.

11 Is that a document that you saw at the time?

12 MRS ADAMOU: Yes, I think this is the document that went to,

13 yes.

14 MR SHELDON: To you? You are the second person on the list

15 of addressees.

16 MRS ADAMOU: Yes, this is a document that we discussed in

17 our meeting with the Leader --

18 MR SHELDON: It says if you look at the second page,

19 paragraph 3.1, that 23 staff have left since the

20 beginning of December, so about seven weeks or so

21 previously, more resignations are expected and then

22 there is some assessment of the findings of the exit

23 interviews that were carried out. Do you see that?

24 MRS ADAMOU: Yes.

25 MR SHELDON: Would it be right to say then that the basic

43



1 chronology is this: Carol Wilson came to you either

2 late November or early December to say that it looks

3 like there may be a problem with staffing. You told her

4 to put something in writing and she produced that, that

5 is the document that we see in volume 28 dated

6 20th January 2000. There is then a period of research

7 and consultation which results in the document produced

8 by Mr Kousoulou and presented to the meeting at which

9 you were present in August 2000 which sets out a package

10 for how you are going to treat your staff better. Is

11 that right?

12 MRS ADAMOU: Yes, but if I remember correct I think before

13 it was another report that was in May.

14 MR SHELDON: There was?

15 MRS ADAMOU: Yes.

16 MR SHELDON: I do not have the reference to that.

17 MRS ADAMOU: That is fine.

18 MR SHELDON: But we have seen it. The reason I took you to

19 the later one in particular is because the proposals

20 that were in the earlier May report were updated and we

21 were told by Mr Kousoulou that it was not both and

22 the August report was the one which contained the

23 proposals which were eventually implemented. Is that

24 right?

25 MRS ADAMOU: That is correct.

44



1 MR SHELDON: So problem identified very late 1999, some

2 analysis done in January 2000, package put in place to

3 try and sort things out August 2000.

4 MRS ADAMOU: Yes.

5 MR SHELDON: Do you think that you acted quickly enough?

6 MRS ADAMOU: The reason it took longer was because there was

7 a concern -- you could not find resources and look at

8 the salaries of social workers working with Families and

9 Children's Group only. We have a number of social

10 workers and we had to look at the rest of the social

11 workers working with elders, mental health disabilities,

12 their salaries as well, otherwise you end up having

13 a two tier system and you may create problems.

14 What I would like to say is that we told the

15 staff -- the Assistant Director told the staff that

16 members were discussing it, there will be a bonus

17 pay-back pay from April, so staff knew that that was

18 going to happen, so it was not as if they waited

19 until August to know what was happening. They knew

20 because the information, you know, the Assistant

21 Director made sure the information went to staff, saying

22 members are looking at it, members are doing this, this

23 and explaining the situation.

24 MR SHELDON: So you would say, would you, that it would have

25 been nice to do things quicker but (i) there are various

45



1 processes and procedures you have to go through and (ii)

2 we were keeping staff informed in any event?

3 MRS ADAMOU: Absolutely, and we also had to take account of

4 the rest of the social workers and find the resources,

5 you know, to address that.

6 MR SHELDON: Part of the background to the staffing problem

7 that you do not mention in your statement but which we

8 have heard evidence about is the industrial action which

9 took place in December 1999. Do you remember that?

10 MRS ADAMOU: Yes, I do.

11 MR SHELDON: It consisted of, we have heard, slightly

12 different accounts but either two or three one day

13 strikes, yes?

14 MRS ADAMOU: As I understand, it, yes, it was about three

15 days.

16 MR SHELDON: What did you understand the cause of that

17 action to be?

18 MRS ADAMOU: The Council was looking at the terms and

19 conditions of staff. What they were trying to do really

20 was to negotiate with the unions about the terms and

21 conditions of staff. At no time did we as members make

22 any decision. All we are seeking to do is have

23 discussions.

24 MR SHELDON: But you were talking about terms and conditions

25 in the context of efficiency savings, were you not?

46



1 MRS ADAMOU: We were talking about, yes, I suppose, yes.

2 MR SHELDON: So whatever outcome of the discussion, whatever

3 the outcome of the discussion was going to be, terms and

4 conditions were not going to get any better, were they?

5 MRS ADAMOU: Well, I have to say Haringey terms and

6 conditions have always been very generous and all over

7 the --

8 MR SHELDON: Pause there. I thought you said part of the

9 problem was you said they were less generous than other

10 boroughs for whom you were competing for staff.

11 MRS ADAMOU: That is salaries. I am not talking about

12 salaries.

13 MR SHELDON: That is one of the main ingredients of terms

14 and conditions.

15 MRS ADAMOU: No, it is talking about other areas you know.

16 MR SHELDON: The basic point is this, is it not: you were

17 looking at terms and conditions in an effort to try and

18 save some money so staff would have been right to think,

19 would they not, that either you were going to do nothing

20 in which case it was going to stay the same, or you were

21 going to do something in which case it was going to get

22 worse?

23 MRS ADAMOU: It is quite correct. Every employer has

24 a right to look at their terms and conditions. All the

25 Council is trying to do is have discussions,

47



1 negotiations with the unions. At no time did we as

2 members going to go down the line where we make

3 decisions without making any kind of discussions with

4 the unions.

5 MR SHELDON: I am sure employers are entitled to look at it,

6 but they have to have some regard, do they not, for the

7 likely effect that it is going to have on their

8 workforce?

9 MRS ADAMOU: I agree.

10 MR SHELDON: And the effect that it had on your workforce on

11 this occasion was a fairly drastic one, was it not?

12 MRS ADAMOU: Well, I would not say that. At the end of the

13 day it was not only for social workers, it was for the

14 whole Council, the Council is looking at the terms and

15 conditions for all staff and it had every right to seek

16 discussions with the unions, and I have to say that is

17 all we were looking at at the time for discussions and

18 nothing more. No decisions were made.

19 MR SHELDON: Let us look though at the practical effect of

20 that. Do you still have volume 28 page 188 open? If

21 you look there under paragraph 3.2, the analysis of the

22 exit interviews, you see that seven social workers who

23 had left -- that is I do not know out of how many, it

24 may be the 23 that is indicated at the top of the page,

25 it may be less, maybe they did not all want to do exit

48



1 interviews -- but seven of them, the largest single

2 number in fact in those exit interviews, expressed

3 resentment of potential terms and conditions changes,

4 fear further financial insecurity in the borough and

5 moving to more stable boroughs.

6 Whether or not you have the right to look at it, and

7 I am sure that you have, the fact is it is a major

8 factor if not the major factor in this staffing crisis

9 that you are facing in early 2000.

10 MRS ADAMOU: I would not say it was a major factor but there

11 was no doubt that you know it did, it had as I said --

12 MR SHELDON: Consider the timing of it as well. You are

13 embarking upon or you are midway through the redirecting

14 the work of the department project, the restructuring.

15 Now, you are aware and indeed have been told at least by

16 the end of 1999 by Carol Wilson that that is likely to

17 have a negative impact on staff. In that context, you

18 are then adding to the pressure on staff and adding to

19 the discontentment by looking at their terms and

20 conditions with a view to worsening them. That is bound

21 to have a cumulative effect, is it not?

22 MRS ADAMOU: May I say that it was not the department's

23 decision to do that. It was a Council-wide decision to

24 look at the terms and conditions. It was not something

25 that --

49



1 MR SHELDON: Which is why I am directing --

2 MRS ADAMOU: It is not what Social Services decided to do.

3 MR SHELDON: That is why I am directing it to you, you are

4 a member of the Council, rather than Carol Wilson who

5 just had to live with it.

6 MRS ADAMOU: It certainly did not help, I agree.

7 MR SHELDON: Why look at terms and conditions then?

8 Eventually you end up having to improve them to stop all

9 your staff leaving.

10 MRS ADAMOU: Because Council have to look at the budgets,

11 they have to find savings and one way of finding savings

12 is to do that and surely it is much better than having

13 to cut direct services to the public. It is much better

14 to find savings in different ways than cutting services

15 quite frankly, or sack front line staff.

16 MR SHELDON: Do you accept, looking back on it, and even in

17 light of the position as you realised it was in

18 mid-2000, that to look at terms and conditions in

19 relation to Social Services staff at that time was

20 a very poor decision because what it meant was that you

21 faced a staffing crisis or your staffing crisis was

22 worse, which you then have to try and bail yourself out

23 of by providing more money to try and retain staff, so

24 it ends up being a false economy, does it not?

25 MRS ADAMOU: I do agree with you that it did not help Social

50



1 Services, no. It did not help and I do not disagree

2 with that.

3 MR SHELDON: Was it a decision you supported at the time?

4 Did you think they should have been looking at terms and

5 conditions changes in late 1999?

6 MRS ADAMOU: I am trying to remember. I do not think

7 I agreed with it or disagreed with it but I am trying to

8 remember very hard, you know, if I spoke on it but

9 I certainly did not have very strong views disagreeing

10 with it, I have to be honest, because when it is being

11 put to you that there is a possibility of finding

12 savings that way instead of having to reduce let us say

13 the budget of Social Services, then you say well let us

14 look at it, let us have discussions.

15 It was not a decision as I said, we did not make

16 a decision. All we said is let us have discussions with

17 the unions, let us look at it. That is all we decided

18 at the time.

19 MR SHELDON: Yes and hindsight is a wonderful thing, but

20 looking back on it now, that looks to be a crushingly

21 poor decision, does it not, because what happened is you

22 have got your staff who are already poorly paid in terms

23 of salary compared to staff in competing boroughs who

24 are suffering a level of discontentment as a result of

25 the restructuring process which you have embarked upon