Archived Transcript for 31 May 2001

Preliminary Meeting

Thursday 31st May 2001

THE CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this, the preliminary hearing of the Victoria Climbié Inquiry. I should begin by reminding you that on 25th February 2000, Victoria Climbié died in the intensive care unit at St Mary's Hospital, Paddington. She died as a result of months of the most appalling ill treatment at the hands of those who were supposed to be caring for her.

On 12th January, 2001, at the Central Criminal Court, Marie Therese Kouao and Carl John Manning were convicted of her murder. Both were sentenced to life imprisonment. Soon afterwards, the Secretary of State for Health and the Home Secretary made clear their intention of establishing a statutory inquiry into the circumstances of Victoria's death.

It is my view, and I am sure that you will agree, that we should at least accord to this little girl the name that she was given by her parents, rather than that used by those who murdered her. Accordingly, she will be known in this inquiry as "Victoria Climbié". On 20th April 2001, I was appointed by the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for the Home Department to conduct three statutory inquiries, together to be known as the Victoria Climbié Inquiry. The first inquiry is established under Section 81 of the Children Act 1989 and is concerned with the functions of the Local Authority Social Services Committees in so far as they relate to children.

The second is established under Section 84 of the National Health Service Act 1977 and is concerned with matters arising under that Act.

The third inquiry is established under Section 49 of the Police Act 1996 and is concerned with policing. The terms of reference of the inquiry require me in summary to establish the circumstances leading to and surrounding the death of Victoria Climbié, to consider the services sought or provided for her and for those in whose care she found herself, from Social Services, the health services, and the police, and to reach conclusions and make recommendations as to how, as far as humanly possible, such events can be avoided in the future. Finally, I am directed to deliver a report to the two Secretaries of State who will then arrange for its publication.

Many of you will already have obtained copies of the terms of reference of the inquiry. Further copies are available from the secretariat and a copy has also been posted on the inquiry's website. You will realise that this is an inquiry of some complexity. We understand it to be the first to be established under three separate statutory provisions. It will consider the actions of staff employed by a large number of public authorities and the way in which those authorities managed and coordinated their activities. Its work is important because we are charged with making recommendations that may affect the way in which these agencies carry out their functions in future.

Now, I am sure that you will agree with me that today our first act must be to express the very deep sympathy of myself and of all those involved with the inquiry to the family of Victoria. No one could have been other than appalled by the terrible details which emerged at the criminal trial of the ordeal which this little defenceless girl experienced after she left her family in the Ivory Coast for a better life in this part of the world.

In remembrance of Victoria, I ask us all now to stand for a minute's silence and remember her. (Silence)

Thank you very much. So, let me begin by saying something about the purpose of today's meeting. The purpose of today's meeting is fourfold: first, to introduce myself and the assessors I have appointed and the other members of the inquiry team; secondly, to set out in brief the procedures I propose to adopt; thirdly, to enable those with an interest in the proceedings to introduce themselves and to indicate the nature of their involvement; and, fourthly, to provide an opportunity for any representations or submissions that anyone wishes to make, relevant to our terms of reference. Copies of the opening statement that I am making will be available later this morning.

Let me begin by introducing members of the inquiry team; first, the four people I have chosen to be the assessors to the inquiry.

On my far right is Mr John Fox, who is a Detective Superintendent and the head of the Specialist Investigations Department in the Hampshire Constabulary.

To my immediate right is Dr Nellie Adjaye, a Fellow of the Royal College of Paediatricians and Child Health and a consultant paediatrician with special interest in community child health, currently working in the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells National Health Service Trust.

To my immediate left is Mrs Donna Kinnair who is a nurse and a health visitor, and currently the Strategic Commissioner for Children's Services for the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham Health Authority.

To my far left is Mr Nigel Richardson who is the Assistant Director for Children and Families, North Lincolnshire Council Social and Housing Services Directorate.

Copies of the CVs of all four assessors are available from the secretariat and have been posted on the website. The assessors will advise the inquiry team and me on matters within their areas of expertise. They may in addition help draft parts of the report which I am directed to produce. Clearly, I am indebted to their employers for releasing them and to them for their willingness to be involved in this very important and challenging task.

I will add to the panel of assessors if the need for further specialist assistance arises in due course. I make it clear that although I will have the benefit of this considerable expertise to assist me, however I am responsible and solely responsible for the conduct of this inquiry and for producing the report. I have appointed Miss Mandy Jacklin to be secretary to the inquiry. The solicitor to the inquiry is Mr Graham Tuttle. The assistant solicitor is Ms Fiona Loveridge. Unfortunately Mr Tuttle is not able to be with us and Mr Sandal is standing in his stead today. With the consent of the Attorney-General, I have appointed Mr Neil Garnham QC to be counsel to the inquiry and Ms Caroline Gibson and Mr Neil Sheldon to be junior counsel to the inquiry.

Counsel to the inquiry are strictly impartial. Their role is to assist the investigation, to advise me on matters of law and evidence and to present the evidence to the inquiry.

Now, the two Secretaries of State delegated to me the task of deciding whether or not this inquiry should be conducted in public or in private. After careful consideration, I have decided that it will be a public inquiry. However, I reserve to myself the right to hear evidence in private in exceptional circumstances, although I should say at once that I cannot at present foresee circumstances which will justify that course of action.

Given the range of services involved, and the nature of the matters to be investigated, it seems to me of paramount importance that the inquiry is an open one, and is seen to be open.

The inquiry has been established by the two Secretaries of State. However, it is independent of both of them and independent of their departments and of every other public or private body. That independence is central to our work and will be jealously protected. The inquiry will take place here in Hannibal House. This is a government building but the floors to be used for the inquiry purposes are secure and are self-contained and will be kept entirely separate from the other occupants of the premises. Room here is, however, limited but we may be able to make available small interview rooms for the use of the interested parties during the course of the inquiry. Requests for such rooms should be made in writing to the secretariat and they will be allocated as fairly and as sensibly as possible.

Now, a word about the format of the inquiry. I have decided that the inquiry will be divided into two phases. Phase one will be primarily backward-looking and will be concerned with discovering what happened to Victoria Climbié and why it happened, whilst she was in this country. During that phase I will consider paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of our terms of reference and the conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence on those topics.

Phase two will then be concerned with wider questions. Phase two will be forward-looking and will be directed to the question as to what recommendations might properly be made which may help avoid, as far as humanly possible, a tragedy of this sort happening again.

The first phase of the inquiry will be conducted by the calling of witnesses to give evidence and the examination of the documents identified for the purpose. No final decision has yet been taken as to the format for phase two but it is likely to be less formal than phase one. I have in mind arranging seminars, calling for written submissions and commissioning reports from specialists. Witnesses may be called to give evidence. It may be necessary for some of those who gave evidence in phase one to be recalled. However, all contributions to and material used in phase two will be made public and will become evidence to the inquiry. This meeting this morning should be regarded as the preliminary business meeting for phase one. It may not be necessary to hold a preliminary meeting of this kind for phase two, but that question will be considered nearer the time. So, let me now turn to how phase one of the inquiry, the nature and the conduct of this inquiry is to be handled.

I intend that this inquiry will be thorough and rigorous. Subject to those overriding objectives, it will be conducted as speedily and economically as possible. I have decided that the inquiry will be inquisitorial and not adversarial in nature. It is not litigation or prosecution. It is not concerned with questions of civil or criminal liability. It is an investigation. There are no, in legal terms, parties entitled to advance cases. There are no statutory entitlements for any other person to call witnesses, cross-examine or make submissions.

A number of bodies and individuals have expressed an interest in the work of the inquiry and it may be that they will wish to be present for the whole or part of the inquiry's public hearings. They may wish to be represented before the inquiry by lawyers or others, and I shall in a moment invite such persons to indicate the nature of their interest. It is likely to be convenient for the inquiry to recognise such people as interested parties those who have a legitimate interest in either phase one or phase two of the inquiry.

The three statutes to which I have referred give me power to require the production of documents. The secretariat has already written to the relevant public bodies asking that documents be produced. Other requests may be made. Over the coming weeks, these documents will be read and assessed by the inquiry team and then bundles of relevant material produced. So, I would ask for the full cooperation of all those who have received these requests for documents so that this work can be completed speedily and efficiently. Copies of the bundles will be made available to the interested parties upon their written undertaking to keep that material confidential and to use it for the purposes of this inquiry only. An undertaking to address this is being prepared by the inquiry team. Inquiry material will be made available only to those who have signed the undertaking and returned it to the secretariat. The material will be made available in hard copy form. We envisage, in addition, preparing a searchable, electronic index on disc to accompany the inquiry bundle.

I am also empowered under the statutes to require witnesses to attend the inquiry and to give evidence. Statements will be required from all witnesses setting out their involvement with Victoria in relation to our terms of reference. The secretariat has already written to many of those from whom we need to hear, setting out the form those statements should take. Others may well be approached in the future.

All are to be invited in the first instance to prepare their own witness statements and are encouraged to seek the assistance of a solicitor in doing so. It may on occasions be necessary for the legal staff engaged by the inquiry to take statements but witnesses will always be invited to prepare their own statements first if they wish to do so.

The timetable for service of witness statements is a tight one. That is necessary if our objective of a speedy inquiry is to be achieved. I will of course consider any request for an extension of time but I will only grant such an extension of time where the reasons are compelling and the extensions will be short. Counsel to the inquiry will decide in the first instance which witnesses will be called to give oral evidence. It may well be that the inquiry will decide to treat the statements of such witnesses as their primary evidence; what the lawyers call evidence-in-chief. The written statements of others may be put into evidence without the witness being required to attend the inquiry where, for example, their evidence is relevant but not controversial.

A bundle of witness statements will be prepared by the secretariat and made available to the interested parties on the same undertaking. It may well be that there are other people than those whom we have approached who believe that they have information or documentation that would assist the work of the inquiry. If so, we would urge them to contact the secretariat as soon as possible.

I am empowered to take evidence on oath or affirmation and I will do so in respect of all witnesses. The questioning of the witnesses will primarily be conducted by counsel to the inquiry, although I, or the assessors through me, may wish to ask additional questions. Interested parties will not ordinarily be permitted to call witnesses or to cross-examine. However, counsel to the inquiry will be happy to consider any requests for them to call additional witnesses. If such a request is declined, I will adjudicate on whether it is necessary for that witness to be called.

Counsel to the inquiry will also consider any request from interested parties for particular lines of questioning to be put to a witness. Arrangements will be made whereby interested parties can submit suggestions to counsel to the inquiry in advance, so that they can consider incorporating such questions. Again, if counsel to the inquiry decline or omit to put questions which interested parties believe to be important, I will consider and rule on submissions as to whether those questions ought to be put.

I am content for interested parties to attend the hearing with their lawyers. However, witnesses will be required to give their evidence direct to the inquiry and the role of such lawyers will be limited. I will permit interested parties to make opening statements, if they wish, although those statements will be limited to 30 minutes.

Those representing interested parties will be permitted to re-examine witnesses who they represent. I will allow that re-examination to cover any matter to which the witness can speak and which has not previously been dealt with in the evidence. Such re-examination however will also be time-limited. Interested parties will be able to make final submissions, again subject to strict time limits.

A detailed chronology of events will be prepared in draft, based upon the documentary material we collect. This will be circulated to interested parties with a view to it being an agreed document. It is hoped that this will reduce the length of some of the oral evidence.

Arrangements will be made for the simultaneous transcription of all oral evidence by the means of a system called LiveNote. Any interested party that wishes to take advantage of this service is invited to contact the secretariat. Smith Bernal, the company who provide the LiveNote service, will make a charge for this facility which will be based on the Inquiry meeting a proportion of the total bill and the balance being divided amongst the interested parties who subscribe. As I have said, this is to be a public inquiry. It follows from that that my conclusions will be based on what has been put before me in public during the course of the inquiry. As I have already indicated, a website for the inquiry has been established. The website address is in the folders and it is www.victoria-Climbie-inquiry.org.UK.

It is envisaged that all statements provided to the inquiry and the transcripts of each day's evidence will be placed on the website. If, however, any witness does not wish that to occur in respect of their evidence, they are asked to write to the secretariat promptly and I will consider their position, but this public dissemination of the evidence will help ensure that the inquiry's procedures are open and transparent. That being so, it may also mean that some interested parties will not feel it necessary to attend the hearings every day. That, of course, is a matter for them.

We of course attach great importance to the contribution that the parents of Victoria can make to the inquiry and also to their understandable distress about what happened to their daughter. As a result, and with the considerable help of the British Embassy, we have written to them in the Ivory Coast and we are now considering with them how their evidence might best be received. We hope to finalise those arrangements shortly.

Finally on this subject of evidence, I turn to the contribution to this inquiry that might be made by Kouao and Manning. There has in recent weeks been media speculation as to whether or not Victoria's killers will give evidence in person. The truth of the matter is this: the inquiry has written to both Kouao and Manning requiring them to give a statement detailing what services they sought while Victoria was supposedly in their care. How their evidence will be used and whether or not they are called to give evidence here in person will, in the first instance, be a matter for counsel to the inquiry.

Now, let me say a word about the scope of this inquiry. As regards the scope of the investigation in this phase of the inquiry, we have produced a list of issues for phase one. This list is the product of very careful thought on the part of the inquiry team. It is designed fairly to reflect our terms of reference and to give a structure to our work. Copies have been circulated, they are in the pack, and further copies can be obtained from the secretariat. A copy can also be viewed on the website.

It is at present marked "provisional" and I will be happy to consider amendments to that list. I will require however to be satisfied that whatever topic is proposed has some direct connection to the matters set out in my terms of reference. It will be apparent to you from both the terms of reference and the list of issues that the period of time with which we are primarily concerned is clearly defined. The relevant period for the purpose of this inquiry is from the arrival of Victoria in this country until her death in February 2000.

I shall only consider events outside that timeframe if I am satisfied that they are directly relevant to the events with which we are primarily concerned. However, it appears that there may be some doubt as to the precise date of Victoria's arrival here. That will be a matter for the inquiry to investigate. I will read the terms of reference as requiring me to consider events from whatever date turns out to be the correct one.

Now, I should make it clear that the inquiry is not a vehicle for reconsidering the criminal charges brought against Kouao and Manning. We take as our starting point the verdict of the jury, that those two individuals were guilty of the murder of Victoria. It may well be that some individuals or organisations will be subject to criticism. I cannot say whether this is likely or possible at this stage because the investigation has not yet begun but if grounds for such criticism become apparent, fairness will dictate that I adopt a procedure that enables those concerned properly to address the proposed criticism. The procedures I have just set out seem to me in large measure to meet those requirements but I propose to take the following additional step to ensure that these proceedings are conducted fairly.

I will make no findings significantly adverse to an individual without ensuring that that individual has first had a proper opportunity to answer the criticism. Where it is possible to do so, the witness will be informed privately by the inquiry team of the nature of the potential criticism before he or she is called to give evidence. Where that is not possible, whether because of the time at which the grounds for the potential criticism emerge, or otherwise, arrangements will be made either for the witness to respond in writing or for the witness to be recalled, so that they can answer the criticism. Individuals who are notified of potential criticism will be given every chance to identify other witnesses who may be able to speak to the matters in issue.

I particularly welcome representations in a few moments on the procedures that I have outlined but let me first, before I do that, say something about timing. It may be helpful if I set out something of what we have been doing since the Secretaries of State announced their intention to establish the inquiry. Those present will also be interested to know the timetable that we propose adopting for the future.

As you realise, it is inevitable that an inquiry of this type must begin its work from scratch. Since the intention to hold the inquiry was announced, staff have had to be recruited and office accommodation acquired. The assessors and the legal team have been appointed. These premises have been acquired for the inquiry's purposes, and arrangements are being made to equip this room for the public hearings that will take place in due course. The list of issues has been drawn up. Many witnesses have been traced and letters have been sent to them setting out the questions which at this stage we need answered. Those likely to hold relevant documents have been identified and asked to supply that material. Many have now done so and we now begin planning for the opening of the public hearings.

It will be apparent from what I have said that there is an enormous amount of work to be done by the inquiry and by the interested parties if the public hearings in phase one are to be conducted effectively and efficiently. The secretariat will aim to distribute bundles of documents and bundles of witness statements by the end of July so as to give the interested parties adequate time to prepare for the start of the hearings. Compliance with that timetable by the inquiry team will be dependent, however, on the assistance of those we approach and I look forward strongly to their cooperation.

It is our current intention to begin the public hearings of phase one on 26th September. At this stage, it is not possible accurately to predict the range or volume of evidence we will have to consider in phase one but our best guess is that the hearings will be completed by mid-December. We intend to allow a short break midway through the period. In due course, the secretariat will publish on the website and circulate to interested parties a more detailed timetable setting out the proposed dates of the public hearings and the hours of sitting.

Now, let me say something about phase two. Although this preliminary meeting is primarily concerned with phase one, it may also assist if I outline how we envisage the work of phase two to mesh together. Phase two will be based on and informed by the evidence we receive in phase one but there seems to us no need for the work on the two phases to proceed sequentially. On the contrary, consistent with our aim of a speedy but thorough inquiry, we will maintain the two streams of work side by side and we will look to all interested parties to do likewise.

We envisage preparing a provisional framework for phase two by about the time we start on the public hearings of phase one; in other words, 26th September. That framework will be based upon our reading of the documents and our study of the witness statements gathered for phase one and it will identify broad issues, aspects which we believe may be worthy of consideration in phase two.

I emphasise however that the publication of that list should not be taken as offering any indication of a concluded view about any recommendation we might make. It will simply set out potential areas of interest to enable interested parties to begin their work on phase two. A list of subjects for phase two will be produced immediately after the conclusion of the evidence of phase one.

I make it clear that our deliberations in phase two will be limited strictly by our terms of reference. We will look to the interested parties to provide the inquiry with written responses to the list of subjects for phase two, one month later. We will then give further consideration of how best to ventilate and analyse the issues identified by the inquiry or raised by those responses.

Now, I should say a word about the media. The written press has been invited to this meeting and we are glad to see them. I provided a briefing to all the other media earlier today so as to avoid distraction from the primary purpose of this meeting. It might assist if I set out the approach I propose to adopt with regard to the media in the future.

I am minded to permit television, radio and written media to be present if they wish on the opening day of the inquiry, when counsel to the inquiry and the representatives of the interested parties will make their opening statements, and on the last day, when final submissions will be made. But, those occasions aside, I am not minded to permit broadcasting of our proceedings by either television or radio.

Whilst on this subject, I would ask the media to respect the privacy of all those involved in the inquiry, both inside and outside the inquiry room. In accordance with the usual procedure, the media should not seek to interview any witness who has started to give evidence until that evidence is completed, even if it goes over to another day.

Now, a word about representation and costs. I set out now the approach I propose to adopt to the question of legal representation. I propose permitting interested parties to be represented before the inquiry by counsel, solicitor or any other appropriate person. Where two or more persons have a similar interest, duplication of representation must be avoided.

There is no statutory power in this inquiry to order payment of legal costs from public funds, or by any other party. However, the Department of Health has indicated to me that if I make a recommendation that an interested party's costs should be met out of the public funds, that will be sympathetically considered. I should make it clear, however, that I cannot at present foresee any circumstances in which I would make such a recommendation in respect of any public body, any commercial concern or any substantial trade union or staff association. I expect to do so in the case of individuals where I consider legal representation be necessary and where there is no other means by which such representation can be funded.

Shortly, I will adjourn this meeting for 15 minutes in order to enable those present to consider what I have said and to formulate any representations they wish to make in the light of my remarks. Copies of my statement are now being distributed in case this assists. But before doing so, I hope it will help if I indicate the particular topics on which representation may be relevant at this stage in the inquiry.

Firstly, applications to be recognised as an interested party indicating the role the party wishes to play at the inquiry and whether or not they wish to be an interested party in phase one or phase two or both.

Secondly, applications in respect of legal costs; if it is not possible to formulate a detailed application in this regard now, it will suffice if you indicate the nature of the application that you wish to make and provide the details in a letter addressed to the secretariat by 7th June.

Thirdly, submissions as to the procedure for dealing with witnesses and documents. Fourthly, submissions as to procedure I have set out for dealing with possible criticisms. Suggestions for amendments to the list of issues and request for the LiveNote facilities should be made in writing to the secretariat by 7th June.

I should add that I will inform parties of my decisions on each of these matters in writing during the course of the next week or so. So, ladies and gentlemen, I will now adjourn for 15 minutes. I will be back here, according to my watch, which is a little ahead of time, just before 11.25 and I will then listen to submissions that anyone wishes to make. Thank you very much indeed.

(11.07 am) (A short break)

(11.23 am) THE CHAIRMAN: It may help, ladies and gentlemen, if I invite those who wish to be recognised as interested parties to the inquiry, or to represent such parties, to make themselves known and I would be grateful if each of you, when you do that, would please state your name and position and indicate on whose behalf you act and what representations you wish to make.

Then I think that it would be better if I hear all of the representations and submissions that want to be made and I will decide at that stage whether or not I can deal with them immediately or need to retire or indeed write to you in seven days' time. I will certainly indicate which it will be before the end of the proceedings.

Q. Sir, may I introduce myself? My name is Ronald Thwaites, QC. I appear together with my learned friend, Mr Vincent Williams, who sits next to me, on behalf of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. May I say at the outset on behalf of the Commissioner that it is a matter of very great regret to him that Victoria should have died after she had once been admitted to hospital in circumstances that brought her to the attention of social workers and police, as well as doctors and nurses. It is clear that there must be the most robust examination of the reasons for the apparent multi-agency failings in this case and that this inquiry will inevitably expect hard questions to be answered, fully and frankly, by everyone concerned. I am instructed to say that it is the intention of the Commissioner to offer maximum cooperation and the fullest assistance to this inquiry. It is the primary aim of the Metropolitan Police Service to provide effective policing at all levels to the people of London. If the police service falls below the high standard which it sets itself, it is the policy of the police to learn lessons from past experience and to adopt best available practice in the diverse areas in which it is daily involved.

Since this tragedy occurred, the police have made significant structural and organisational changes to child protection procedures to ensure, so far as humanly possible, that the risk of such cases occurring again are minimised if they cannot be completely eliminated. In addition, reports have been commissioned and draft manuals and other proposals prepared both for immediate use and for the consideration of the inquiry in the expectation that when the recommendations are made they can be incorporated into the draft documentation and implemented without delay.

Sir, I have heard your proposals and procedures and so far as the police are concerned, they are unobjectionable.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, I am most grateful. Next?

Q. Sir, my name is Gerald Lloyd. I am a principal Social Services solicitor from the London Borough of Haringey. Sir, I do not wish to make any representations this morning, save to say that the London Borough of Haringey will be represented through counsel at the commencement of the inquiry in September.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed. Thank you. Yes, please?

Q. May it please you, sir, I am instructed on behalf of the London Borough of Brent. My name is Joy Okoye. Sitting beside me is Ms Akidi Ocan, the principal lawyer for the London Borough of Brent. The London Borough does not intend to make any submissions at this present moment in time and reserve the submissions at a later date. The Borough is interested in phase one and phase two of the inquiry.

THE CHAIRMAN: That is very helpful. Thank you very much indeed.

Q. Chief Inspector Steve Ash from Her Majesty's Inspectorate Constabulary that, with the Home Department, has responsibility for inspecting all police forces in England and Wales, and in Northern Ireland as well. Obviously we have a vested interest in the inquiry's findings, both in phase one and in phase two. It will affect our work both in the way that we conduct our routine inspections of all forces. Also, the work of the inquiry will identify if there is a need for us to focus on more specific inspection nationally on any of the issues that are raised in the inquiry's findings.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed. That is very helpful.

Q. Sir, my name is Vera Mayor. I am counsel representing the London Borough of Ealing, where Victoria appears to have lived in her first phase in this country, between April and July. I wish to make no representations today and the London Borough of Ealing certainly is an interested party in the first phase of this inquiry. We shall reserve our views as to the second phase and express them in due course.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. That is very helpful.

Q. My name is Patrick Gibbs. I represent four of the police officers who have been asked to prepare witness statements to the inquiry. They are Detective Inspector Howard, Detective Constable Dewar, Detective Sergeant Anderson and Detective Inspector Smith. Three of those officers were in the Child Protection Team who had a responsibility for Brent and Mr Howard, on the Child Protection Team, had a responsibility for Haringey. The applications which you have invited from us today, we are in some difficulty at present in determining whether we would wish jointly or individually to be recognised as interested parties because that must, to some extent, depend upon whether or not one or any of these officers is a subject of potential criticism. If he or she were so, then he or she would wish to be recognised as an interested party in phase one, if not in phase two. As to legal costs, I have not a precisely formulated application today. It is not possible at this stage to formulate such an application. We will address that matter, if we may, as invited, by letter to the Secretariat in due course. We would wish to consider the coincident of interests in order to avoid duplication of representation and the length and intensity of the representation which will be required. As for your procedure, I have this request, if I may, and I know that it has been prefaced in writing to the Secretariat: in the case of each of these officers, there is a difficulty in complying with the timetable, which we recognise must be a strict one, for the preparation of witness statements by 5th June. An unfortunate coincidence by combination of holidays has meant -- and I will not go into the details unless you ask me to -- that it will be impossible, we think, to comply with the 5th June deadline. My application is for a further ten days, to 15th June. I know that my instructing solicitor will be meeting with Mr Howard on 5th June and it may well be that the witness statement in his case can be prepared that day and faxed immediately. Instructions have been received in respect of the other three officers only two days ago by my instructing solicitor and the timetable is very difficult; may I put it as low as that? My request is, please, for your indulgence for a further ten days.

MR GARNHAM: I wonder if the sensible procedure is for you to consider that, and any other applications with regard to time, at the end of all the submissions you hear at this stage and perhaps retire and consider them at that stage?

THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. I just wonder if you could just say one thing to help me, which is that I was not quite sure of the significance of the ten days and if I heard you right, it will be possible for the necessary meetings to take place on 5th June.

Q. The necessary meeting in respect of Detective Inspector Howard is scheduled to take place on 5th June. Instructions have been received in respect of the other three officers only two days ago and those meetings with those three officers, all of whom must prepare a statement independently, will take place in the days thereafter. I take 15th June as being the Friday of the following week.

THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. I was wondering if you could say a little bit about the significance of the ten days. Why that length?

Q. I could have said nine; I could have said eleven.

THE CHAIRMAN: Could you have said five?

Q. Five I think, with respect, might set my instructing solicitor -- in realistic terms, because we understand the need for these statements to be full and to address properly all of the matters raised in the terms of reference -- an impossible timetable.

THE CHAIRMAN: I am grateful for that and I take seriously the point you have made. I follow the suggestion made by counsel to the inquiry. If there are any others like that, then I will consider them. Yes?

Q. Ian Johnson, Director of the British Association of Social Workers. We have an interest in both phases. In terms of phase one, we will be supporting and representing some of the witnesses that we envisage you wishing to see, and I share some of the concerns expressed by my colleague over here about timings but we would expect to make individual representations to you. We have made a commitment to those members of ours who we anticipate appearing before the inquiry to take legal advice on the content of their statements, and at this stage I think I can say no more than that. But we may need to make some more representations in due course. As the professional association for social work throughout the UK, we would wish to give evidence about the range of issues facing the inquiry and we share the inquiry's concern to leave no stone unturned in seeking to avoid any other child experiencing the experience that Victoria had.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. The gentleman right at the back? Could you wait for the microphone?

Q. I am Peter Lewington from Haringey UNISON. Our organisation will be supporting or representing members at phase one, which is not the area that I am specifically interested in. We would wish to give evidence probably as part of phase two, which would relate to the conditions and management of social work in Haringey and conditions which we believe to be replicated elsewhere in the country. Again, I would echo what my colleague from BASW said, that we welcome the openness of this inquiry, which we were concerned about initially, and believe and hope that it will leave every stone unturned. Thank you.

THE CHAIRMAN: That is very helpful. Thank you. There is a lady behind you.

Q. My name is Rachel Larmer, I am a legal officer of UNISON and I am a representative for the Haringey allocated social worker. I have an application that was filed yesterday for an extension of time. That application set out full reasons for that extension. I can expand on that towards the end of this inquiry if you need me to do so. I would like to have the allocated social worker recognised as an interested party. At present, she has not received full disclosure of all relevant documentation that would enable her to take legal advice and to prepare a full and thorough witness statement on these very serious circumstances. However, we anticipate that she may be subject to some potential criticism. There is also a concern that her evidence may result in a conflict with those of Haringey Social Services who have made an application to be an interested party here today. It is for those reasons I make that application to be an interested party to phase one of the inquiry.

THE CHAIRMAN: Sorry, there was a slight difficulty hearing you. Did you say that you were making an application for longer time?

Q. Yes, there has been an application filed with the inquiry.

THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. We have that already. I will come to that later on. That is fine. Thank you. There was a lady in front? Q. My name is Lesley Moore. I am the Assistant Director for the children and families in the London Borough of Enfield. I really wish to say that we will be interested parties specifically in relation to phase one of the inquiry.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed. Yes?

Q. Sir, my name is Ben Brandon. I am a partner with Russell Jones and Walker. My firm represents Police Constable Karen Jones and Police Sergeants Cooper-Bland(?), Bird and Hodges. I have a single application to make before you this morning, sir, and that is that those officers be represented by my firm as interested parties before your inquiry. I have considered carefully what you have said in your opening remarks this morning about the issue of representation of costs generally and in the circumstances, I will be writing further to the inquiry team about the issue of costs in due course. That is my application this morning.

THE CHAIRMAN: That is very helpful. Thank you very much indeed.

There is a gentleman over here.

Q. I am Geoff Altimes, representing the Association of Directors of Social Services. I am advised by the Secretariat to confirm our interest in submitting evidence in relation to both phase one and phase two.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed. There is a lady in the back row. Yes?

Q. My name is Nana Ama Amamoo. I am the Director of the African Families Foundation. We are a network of grass roots African community groups here. I am speaking on behalf of the community as well as the extended family of Victoria Climbié, who have asked me to extend their deepest gratitude that this inquiry is taking place. We are particularly interested in phase one of the inquiry, because we would like to put across the facts that the community plays a very key role in the care and support of our children here and that we also want the inquiry team to take note of that, that we are willing to bring forward witnesses and other things to help the inquiry.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed. There is a gentleman in the middle there. Then I will come to the front row.

Q. My name is David Spicer. I am the Honorary Secretary of the British Association for the Study and Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, which is a charitable professional association. Our membership is drawn from all those professionals who are involved in child protection work, drawn from across the country, so our interest is in the application of law and procedures professionally in these matters and I am interested in phase two of your inquiries.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed. That is very helpful.

MR GARNHAM: Sir, I apologise for interrupting. I wonder whether I could ask the last two speakers to indicate whether they are asking to become interested parties in phase one or phase two or both?

THE CHAIRMAN: The lady at the back first. I missed her name.

Q. Actually I meant to say both phases one and two.

THE CHAIRMAN: You would like to be an interested party?

Q. Yes.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. And the gentleman -- please wait for the microphone.

Q. You may be able to hear me. We are interested in phase two.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed. Now the gentleman in the front row and then the lady in the back row, in the green.

Q. Thank you. I am John Ransford, Head of Social Policy for the Local Government Association, which represents all local authorities and some police authorities in England and Wales. At the moment we would not see ourselves as being an interested party in phase one, but would expect to be an interested party and maybe give evidence in phase two.

THE CHAIRMAN: That is extremely helpful. I would welcome that. There is a lady behind?

Q. I am Bridget Robb. I am from the National Training Organisation for Personal Social Services, TOPPS --

THE CHAIRMAN: I wonder if I could ask you to begin again? The microphone had not been activated.

Q. My name is Bridget Robb and I chair the Child Care Committee for the National Training Organisation for the Personal Social Services known as TOPPS. Our interest is in phase two and we would be pleased to give evidence then.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, that is extremely helpful. There is a lady in front, yes, and then I will come to the gentleman in the middle and then the gentleman in the front.

Q. My name is June Thoburn. I am speaking on behalf of a group of universities called Making Research Count. Our interest is that the nature of the research evidence relevant to the case should be properly presented to you. Mainly we will be interested in talking at the second stage about the run of the mill practice on the grounds that sometimes hard cases make bad laws but also it may be that we have something to contribute in the first stage, if the inquiry thought so, in terms of what is the nature of best practice, as defined by the evidence against which some of the parties are likely to have their practice viewed.

THE CHAIRMAN: That is very helpful, thank you. Moving across here, there are a number of hands up. We will deal with this section here, if we may.

Q. My name is Colin Pritchard. I am the Research Professor in Psychiatric Social Work in the School of Medicine of the University of Southampton. My interest will be in phase two, providing research-based evidence of international comparisons of children's homicides. Our particular research evidence is based upon a decade of child homicide in two British counties and we are concerned with the education, child protection and psychiatric interface.

THE CHAIRMAN: That is extremely helpful, thank you very much. The gentleman behind you, and then the gentleman behind him.

Q. My name is David Pearson. I am director of the Churches Child Protection Advisory Service. My interest is probably in relation to phase two and the role of churches in child protection.

THE CHAIRMAN: That is extremely helpful. There is a gentleman behind you, with the white shirt.

Q. My name is Mark Sturge. I am the general director for the African and Caribbean Evangelical Alliance. My interest is in being able to offer clarification and representation in terms of the role of churches both in this situation and any sort of information that it might add to help in the inquiry.

THE CHAIRMAN: I appreciate that very much. Thank you very much. If we go to that end, there is a lady in purple.

Q. I am Ruth Sinclair, the Director of Research for the National Children's Bureau and, together with Professor Roger Bullet from Dartington Social Research Unit, we have been commissioned by the Department of Health to undertake an overview of the case reviews into child deaths that happened in 1999 and the year 2000. We shall be reporting on that at the end of this year and will be interested in part two of your inquiry.

THE CHAIRMAN: That is very helpful. The gentleman beside you and the lady in front.

Q. My name is Dr Victor Larcher. I am representing the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. Our specific interest would be in areas of training and support for practitioners and we would be interested in assisting with phase two.

THE CHAIRMAN: That is very helpful. There is a lady in front of you.

Q. I am Jane Tunstill from Royal Holloway London University. I am the director of the London childcare programme, which is a post-qualifying award which we run in partnership with 26 London boroughs, I should point out excluding the London Borough of Haringey. We have 90 candidates currently undertaking the DH-required post-qualifying award and we would be happy to assist in phase two with providing the views and experiences of a cross-representative group of senior social workers in London boroughs in childcare matters.

THE CHAIRMAN: That is very helpful. Thank you very much. The two ladies here.

Q. My name is Miss Jeyarajah-Dent. I am the Chief Executive of the Bridge Childcare Development Service. We are an independent organisation with lots of experience in conducting critical case reviews, commonly called Part 8 case reviews under Working Together, and we have a special interest in phase two.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. There is a lady behind you.

Q. My name is Anne Van Meeuwen and I am principal policy officer with Barnado's with particular responsibility for child protection. We would have an interest in phase, particularly contributing from our practice experience over 300 projects and looking at the role of voluntary sector in the child protection system.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, that is very helpful. The gentleman at the back.

Q. I am Ilan Katz. I am Head of the Practice Development Unit at NSPCC. We have an interest in phase one, having been part of the Part 8 inquiry, the original inquiry, and also in phase two.

THE CHAIRMAN: That is very helpful. There is a lady beside you.

Q. My name is Alison Murphy, Director of Children's Services at Childline. We would be interested in being an interested party in phase two. Particularly we are interested in how we might develop more child centred, child protection systems that listen to children.

THE CHAIRMAN: That is very helpful. Thank you very much for that. The gentleman here.

Q. My name is Percy Ungate, I am a retired police officer and for the last ten years of my service I was the care officer in the London Borough of Greenwich dealing with something in the region of 2,000 cases of childcare and non-accidental injury. Over the past 14-15 years I have been very concerned about the diminishing role of the police in these matters. This is the third time, through my MP, I have made representations and I would like to address the inquiry possibly in the second stage.

THE CHAIRMAN: That would be very helpful. I appreciate that very much indeed. Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, would anyone else like to make any kind of submission?

MR GARNHAM: Sir, before you conclude this part of the morning, I am anxious to ensure that we have a record of those who are asking to made interested parties in phase one because that will be our immediate concern. I think I have an accurate note in respect of everybody expect the gentleman from the NSPCC, who did not indicate whether the NSPCC were asking to become interested parties in phase one.

Q. Both phases.

MR GARNHAM: I am grateful for that. There is one further gentleman who you have missed. I will ask you to deal with him in a moment. There is just one further matter: I am also anxious to ensure that we know which of the witnesses to whom the inquiry has written asking for witness statements is asking for an extension. My note is that it is only the clients of Mr Gibbs and Ms Larmer who are asking for witness extensions beyond 5th June and we will assume that all others who have been asked to give witness statements will supply them by 5th June unless they indicate now, sir, otherwise.

THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Just a minute, there is a gentleman who wants to come back.

Q. The issue of witness statements has already been dealt with on behalf of PC Karen Jones with the inquiry team. I hope that you are aware of that.

MR GARNHAM: I am aware of that, sir and that is why I did not include you. There may be others and I would be anxious to make sure that we know those applications at this stage.

Q. Sir, on behalf of the London Borough of Brent, there have been communications between the Secretariat and the legal department about extension of time. Brent has quite a few witnesses who now reside abroad -- two witnesses who reside abroad, and that has already been flagged up with the panel. I had anticipated that would be dealt with after this particular tranche, but I raise the fact that Brent also has that issue of extension of time for statements.

MR GARNHAM: I am grateful for that indication. My concern is this: we know precisely in respect of which witnesses applications for extension are being made. I wonder if the representative of Brent could give us the name of the two in respect of whom the applications are being made and, while she is looking, I wonder whether I could ask her to confirm that in respect of the other witnesses we will have the statements as requested by 5th June.

Q. It is Yolanda Hurta(?) and Laurie Hobbs(?). One is in South Africa and one is in Australia.

MR GARNHAM: How long does Brent require for those two witnesses?

Q. It seems that Laurie Hobbs(?) only recently contacted those instructing me yesterday from Australia by e-mail and therefore one would require 14 days and best endeavours on the other witnesses.

MR GARNHAM: That is very helpful, sir.

THE CHAIRMAN: I appear to have missed several people.

Q. Sir, may I indicate that there are two Assistant Commissioners from whom you have asked for statements and it appears unlikely that we can produce them in final form by 5th June because of distance and place away from London that one of them is currently employed in. So may I ask for a further week in relation to those two witnesses?

MR GARNHAM: You will be able to consider that application. Again, I wonder whether Mr Thwaites can give us the name of the two.

Q. Kendrick and Craig.

MR GARNHAM: Thank you very much.

Q. Sir, my name is Peter Forrest. I am a councillor on Haringey Council and leader of the conservative opposition group on the council. The nature of my contribution this morning is a wish to pose three questions to the inquiry about the way in which it intends to go about its business. Would you like me to put all three questions at once or one at a time?

THE CHAIRMAN: All at once.

Q. Fine. Firstly, sir, we know from Haringey Council that five children in the period 1990 to 1995, whilst on its child protection register, met unnatural deaths. We also know that at least two of those were murdered. Clearly it is a matter of public interest as to whether or not Victoria Climbié's death was an isolated tragic incident or whether it was the latest in a sequence of what one might call institutionalised neglect. Will the inquiry be considering the circumstances surrounding those five deaths in the period 1990 to 1995 and, if not, why not?

Secondly, you touched on the question of the public nature of this inquiry and also the very limited exceptional circumstances that I think you referred to for the opportunity of giving evidence in camera. Can I put it to you that particularly in the context of Haringey Council, which has been under the same party control for more than 30 years, that there is reasonable cause to believe there are a number of whistle blowers, either current other ex-employees of Haringey Council, who would be encouraged to come forward and give evidence to this particular inquiry, if they could do so in camera because they have a not unreasonable fear that their employment prospects will be blighted and they will be victimised if they give public evidence. The nature of my third question inevitably has a slight political context. That is that the councillors who had the ultimate responsibility for safeguarding Victoria's well-being come up for re-election in May 2002. According to the inquiry's website, publication of the inquiry's findings are due in spring 2002. My question is what, if any, cognisance is being taken of the local government elections in May 2002 in determining the reporting timetable, not least so that member of the public can vote from a position of informed knowledge rather than ignorance?

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed, Mr Forrest. I will try and deal with each of those questions in turn.

First of all, so far as previous child deaths in Haringey, this inquiry has very clear terms of reference which deals with the time that Victoria Climbié was in this country up until the time of her death and that is the remit of the inquiry. If there was any wish to change the remit, that cannot be addressed to this inquiry; it needs to be addressed to the Secretaries of State for Health and the Home Department. Of course, if anyone wants to give evidence to the inquiry on matters that are relevant to Victoria Climbié, that evidence is most welcome. All I would say is that the evidence must be related to the terms of reference.

With regard to whistle blowers, I think that that may be one of the exceptional circumstances to which I referred in my opening address, but what I would need to have is the grounds for making a decision to make an exception of it. I did say it would be an exception, so what I would need to have would be a submission, if I can put it that way, as to why some evidence to the inquiry should be treated exceptionally. It is for those individuals to make that submission to me. The third question you raised was the timing of the report. I have to say that no cognisance has been taken of the local government elections in spring 2002. As far as I am concerned, it is an irrelevancy to the work of the inquiry. We will do our inquiry without fear or favour, independent of central and local government, and we will reach the conclusions that we reach irrespective of the timing of elections, local or general.

Q. Could I just make a supplementary point, sir? That is concerning the first point about the five deaths in the period 1990 to 1995. I accept that the terms of reference are as they are. Indeed, I had a very protracted correspondence with Minister John Hutton, putting the very point to him, and it is a matter not only of personal regret but I think of wider regret that the horizon of this particular inquiry had been so limited so that it cannot be seen whether or not Victoria's death was part of a pattern of institutionalised neglect by the council in particular.

THE CHAIRMAN: I am grateful for your observation, Mr Forrest.

Q. I can help the inquiry by giving the gentleman over there a fact. For every child that had an unnatural death in Great Britain in the last five years, we have lost five on our road deaths.

THE CHAIRMAN: We will have to deal with those matters when we get to the relevant stage of the inquiry. I did see some hands. Is there anybody else who wants to make any submission of any kind to me this morning? I do apologise.

Q. On behalf of Haringey, for the extension of time. My instructions are to seek a ten days' extension of time. We have 20 witnesses in all and we have one that is returning to the UK on 12th June.

THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Are you saying that 19 will make it and there is one --

Q. I am saying at the moment the majority of the 19 will make it by next week, but we have written to the Secretariat.

THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, you have. I wonder whether or not -- perhaps I could look to counsel for an order or an indication. We have received a number of requests for extensions which are related to individuals. They are personal requests, if you like, because of personal circumstances, like people being abroad and the like. I wonder whether or not, bearing in mind what I said earlier on about the need for us to proceed with phase one with the proper timetable in mind, I wonder whether or not, and I look to the counsel, would it be reasonable if we operated on the basis that we will, if you like, negotiate with you individually on that basis?

MR GARNHAM: Sir, it is entirely a matter for you and your colleagues how you deal with this. It may be that it would be sensible now we have all the applications in that you consider that matter together and then come back and give a ruling.

THE CHAIRMAN: What I think I would like to do, if everybody is content, please tell me if you are not content, is that many of you have referred to the fact you have already submitted letters to the inquiry, which we have seen. I think that what I would like to do is to consider those letters more carefully and perhaps have a word with you when I have had a chance to think through the implications of any delays which I hope we can keep to a minimum. I think we will deal with this on an individual basis rather than me deal with it in a collective way. You are obviously all in different positions, if I can put it that way, with different circumstances, so I think that I will deal with it on that basis.

Is everybody content that I actually approach you individually and try and reach an amicable agreement? I would ask, and it relates to some of my earlier questions, if before we come back to you, you could look again to see whether there are any ways in which you could reduce the amount of time that you are asking for an extension because we must do the thing properly, we must be thorough. We are determined to be thorough and we are determined to do a good job with this but, on the other hand, I think we owe it to everybody that we move forward on these matters as quickly as we possibly can. Are there any other submissions that anyone wants to make this morning?

Ladies and gentlemen, I am extremely grateful to you for coming along this morning. I am extremely grateful for the very constructive contribution that everybody has made. I attach a great deal of importance to that and I very much appreciate the willingness of people to contribute as best they can, both in phase one and phase two of the inquiry.

We will be in touch with all of the people who have indicated being an interested party in phase one very shortly and we will be putting on our website information as soon as we can on other matters. I hope very much that we will have a spirit of open communication between all of you with an interest in the inquiry and those of us who have the responsibility to conduct this important task.

As I said right at the beginning, I hope the one thing that we all agree is that something will come out of this which, in respect of at least the memory of Victoria, will ensure that the safeguards for children in this country will be strengthened so that tragedies of this kind do not occur again. Thank you very much. (12 noon) (Preliminary hearing concluded)