Archived Transcript for 4 October 2001: Pages 51 to 100

51



1 MS MAYER: Could we elaborate on that a little bit, please,

2 Ms Lawrence? People arrive from abroad and their

3 children do not speak English. What arrangements, if

4 any, are made to get these children into school by

5 Social Services, for example?

6 MS LAWRENCE: What we would usually do through the

7 assessment process is to advise parents, give them

8 information about the education services, for them to

9 present to them.

10 MS MAYER: It is clear from the information that perhaps you

11 did not have, but others did, because we have heard

12 about it, that Mrs Kouao said that she was waiting to

13 bring her other children into the country, and decide

14 where she was going to live, and then put them all into

15 school. Assuming you knew about this, assuming you had

16 that information, would that have sounded reasonable?

17 MS LAWRENCE: Yes, it would have.

18 MS MAYER: And the other question is this: you clearly --

19 you and your department -- regarded this as

20 a homelessness case, and there has been talk about

21 returning Ms Kouao to France as early as, I think, late

22 May, and but for the solicitors' letters, this may well

23 have been done.

24 If you were talking about returning her to France,

25 how much concern would you have had about Victoria's

52



1 education in England?

2 MS LAWRENCE: Not very much concern about Victoria's

3 education in England.

4 MS MAYER: Could you explain the procedures which you had in

5 1999 about checking whether a child was with

6 a registered childminder? You were told that she was

7 with a childminder, that is Victoria, and you accept

8 that you never checked who that person was, or whether

9 he or she was registered.

10 MS LAWRENCE: Yes.

11 MS MAYER: Was it feasible at that time to check this sort

12 of thing?

13 MS LAWRENCE: It was not feasible, and I think we accept, as

14 a responsible local authority, that it would be best

15 practice, but I think with the volume of people we have

16 presenting to the Referral and Assessment Team for

17 different reasons, it was not possible, and there was

18 also the fact that parents might perceive that as us

19 questioning their parenting capacity, and a lack of

20 responsibility in terms of arranging childcare for their

21 children.

22 MS MAYER: If you were assessing Victoria or Victoria's

23 needs properly at that time, would you have had a way of

24 interviewing her on her own, for example, if her mother

25 did not agree?

53



1 MS LAWRENCE: If mother did not agree, we would not have

2 been able to, without evidence that she was likely to

3 suffer significant harm, insist on her being seen alone.

4 MS MAYER: And if her mother had not agreed to her being

5 seen alone, would that in itself suggest to you that she

6 is likely to suffer significant harm?

7 MS LAWRENCE: No, it would not have.

8 MS MAYER: Could you have gone to court, do you think, and

9 say, "This mother does not allow us to interview the

10 child on her own, we need to take emergency procedures

11 about it"?

12 MS LAWRENCE: No, I do not believe we would.

13 MS MAYER: Do you have any ways of interviewing children on

14 their own now, in 2001?

15 MS LAWRENCE: Yes, we will always request to interview

16 children on their own, and certainly if a case like this

17 presented now, we would ask for the child to be

18 interviewed alone. If the parents are refusing, we

19 would interview the child in their presence, and

20 perhaps, you know, if we are requesting to interview

21 a child alone in a situation like this, the parents

22 might have some question or concern about that.

23 MS MAYER: Assuming again -- you were asked a lot of

24 hypothetical questions of what you would have done had

25 you known. I suppose it is possible to suggest

54



1 hypothetically what you would have been told, had you

2 asked. Kouao clearly told some people at your

3 department firstly about the question of schooling,

4 which I have already mentioned, namely that she intends

5 to bring her other children over; and secondly, she told

6 people that she left her children with friends in

7 France, because they were in the middle of education

8 which she did not want to interrupt.

9 Had you known of all of that, would that have

10 switched on a red light?

11 MS LAWRENCE: Could you repeat that?

12 MS MAYER: Yes. If she had told you that she left her

13 children behind because they were doing exams and she

14 did not want to interrupt them, and she left them with

15 friends, would that have caused you concern?

16 MS LAWRENCE: No, it would not have caused me concern.

17 I would in fact have thought that she was acting quite

18 responsibly, in terms of not interfering or disrupting

19 their education.

20 MS MAYER: I think another correction perhaps; she did not

21 say she was an airport manager, I think she said she was

22 a manager at the airport, and she said she came to learn

23 English. Did it sound that extraordinary?

24 MS LAWRENCE: No.

25 MS MAYER: The fact is, we now know that she was a liar and

55



1 a forgerer and ultimately a murderer, but as far as you

2 were concerned, at that time, was there a concern about

3 her plausibility, and about the information she was

4 presenting?

5 MS LAWRENCE: No, there was not.

6 MS MAYER: And if there were concerns about the fact that

7 Victoria looked different from her, and you asked her,

8 "Is she your daughter?", and she would have shown you

9 the documents that we know she had, suggesting that she

10 is her daughter, could you and would you have done

11 anything different?

12 MS LAWRENCE: No.

13 MS MAYER: Just very finally, do you have new procedures for

14 assessing children in need? When I say "new", different

15 from the ones you had in 1999.

16 MS LAWRENCE: Yes, we do. We are now using the guidance of

17 the Department of Health assessment framework for

18 children in need, and we are -- any case that I, as the

19 team manager, determine as requiring the social work

20 service would receive an initial child in need

21 assessment, and probably further to that, a core

22 assessment, a more comprehensive assessment, and child

23 in need plan.

24 MS MAYER: Is it a standard procedure now to interview

25 children?

56



1 MS LAWRENCE: It is a standard procedure to interview

2 children, and we also do have some guidance now for

3 dealing specifically with families who have failed the

4 habitual residence test.

5 MS MAYER: And do you just want to say what that is?

6 MS LAWRENCE: We would carry out the initial assessment and

7 we would, if necessary, provide accommodation for us

8 to -- while we carry out the assessment, analyse the

9 assessment, make conclusions and recommendations further

10 to that, but we would certainly be looking at all the

11 children's needs and speaking to them individually.

12 MS MAYER: I said that was the last question; in fact, there

13 is one other matter I should ask you about, and it is

14 this: assuming you knew all the -- assuming you had all

15 the information which was brought to you by Ms Gibson at

16 the time this file was being closed, all the bits and

17 pieces about the fact that she was a manager at the

18 airport, but destitute, she had children in France, that

19 she ripped up the carpets, she had complained to the

20 police; assuming you had all that, do you think you

21 would have dealt with this case in a different way than

22 offering her tickets back to where she had a home and

23 children?

24 MS LAWRENCE: No, I do not.

25 MS MAYER: Were you involved in the decision to send her

57



1 back?

2 MS LAWRENCE: I will have been involved in the process

3 somewhere. Myself, Sarah and the senior managers all

4 were.

5 MS MAYER: And did the decision seem to you at that time to

6 be a reasonable one?

7 MS LAWRENCE: Yes, it did, and in fact I believe it was

8 checked with our legal department, and it did seem to be

9 a reasonable decision at that time.

10 MS MAYER: Yes, thank you very much, sir.

11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms Mayer, that is very helpful.

12 Ms Lawrence, I just have a few questions I would

13 like to ask you, please. First of all, just going to

14 your background, you had worked in an education/social

15 welfare department, and then you worked in two London

16 boroughs. You used the word "generic" earlier on.

17 I was not sure -- I had assumed from your statement you

18 were a specialist childcare worker.

19 MS LAWRENCE: It was childcare experience I was referring

20 to. What I meant by generic was we were dealing with

21 duty, we were dealing with looked after children, we

22 were dealing with a whole range of childcare issues.

23 THE CHAIRMAN: All within the childcare system?

24 MS LAWRENCE: All within the childcare system.

25 THE CHAIRMAN: Your whole experience has been within the

58



1 childcare system?

2 MS LAWRENCE: Yes.

3 THE CHAIRMAN: You are an experienced childcare worker?

4 MS LAWRENCE: Yes.

5 THE CHAIRMAN: When you were appointed to Ealing, what did

6 you think your job was?

7 MS LAWRENCE: I thought it was to be perhaps a deputy to the

8 team manager, and maybe carry some complex cases.

9 I suppose it was not very, very clear to me at that

10 time.

11 THE CHAIRMAN: And did it turn out to be as you expected, or

12 different?

13 MS LAWRENCE: It was more management focused, in that

14 I managed a Referral and Assessment Team, I managed the

15 referral and assessment process, I supervised social

16 workers; I did not have any cases.

17 THE CHAIRMAN: You described earlier on that when you went

18 to Ealing, you observed poor practice, compared with

19 what you had experienced elsewhere.

20 MS LAWRENCE: Yes, that is correct.

21 THE CHAIRMAN: Could you just give me a flavour of what you

22 meant by poor practice, please?

23 MS LAWRENCE: I think the duty system that was in operation

24 is what I can comment on, because that was the team that

25 I was in. There did not seem to be any clear -- well,

59



1 not clear to me at that time, a clear process for

2 referrals and monitoring of referrals, and I actually

3 found the system somewhat chaotic. I reported that to

4 senior managers, and you know some action was taken at

5 that time.

6 THE CHAIRMAN: Could you just tell us which senior managers

7 you reported that to?

8 MS LAWRENCE: Judith Finlay and John Skinner.

9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. You have been described in the

10 course of yesterday and today as senior practitioner and

11 as a deputy team manager, and you have also been

12 described as, in effect, doing one week on and one week

13 off, as being interchangeable with the team manager.

14 MS LAWRENCE: Yes.

15 THE CHAIRMAN: I am not quite sure that I have managed to

16 understand exactly what your role was.

17 MS LAWRENCE: That is what it was, what has been presented

18 is that. I managed duty for a week, I supervised staff

19 and I deputised for the team manager.

20 THE CHAIRMAN: And although you said that Ms Stollard was

21 your team manager, my recollection from yesterday, which

22 I hope is correct, is that she said she did not

23 interfere with your decisions; in other words, she

24 treated you on an equal basis.

25 MS LAWRENCE: Well I certainly did not regard myself on an

60



1 equal basis as the team manager.

2 THE CHAIRMAN: You regarded her as the team manager?

3 MS LAWRENCE: Absolutely.

4 THE CHAIRMAN: You said earlier on that on this week in/week

5 out, there was obviously an arrangement for handover.

6 You actually used the word "should", that there should

7 have been a handover.

8 MS LAWRENCE: It was not always possible to sit down and

9 hand over, and that might have been because there just

10 was not the time, or because Sarah might have gone on

11 leave the day we should hand over, or I might have been

12 on leave the day we should hand over. We did tend to

13 leave notes for each other, if there was any case that

14 was particularly concerning.

15 THE CHAIRMAN: There have been references -- and I know no

16 more than what the references have been -- that you and

17 Ms Stollard did not have a good relationship.

18 MS LAWRENCE: That would be correct, we did have personal

19 difficulties. However, I do not feel that those

20 difficulties impacted on service to our clients.

21 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I am prepared to accept that, but it

22 just seemed to me that this arrangement of a week on and

23 a week off with a handover did require a tremendous

24 amount of mutual understanding and mutual trust.

25 MS LAWRENCE: I think that, you know, if you are concerned,

61



1 if you need to hand over, regardless of your personal

2 difficulties, you will hand over.

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, let me put it in another way. Would

4 you be prepared to accept that it was a less than ideal

5 situation?

6 MS LAWRENCE: The handover?

7 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, the working arrangements.

8 MS LAWRENCE: It was not ideal, no.

9 THE CHAIRMAN: You said earlier on to Ms Gibson that your

10 main contact was with Ms Stollard, but in your second

11 statement -- and if I could just ask you to turn to it,

12 it is page 190. In the middle of paragraph 4, you say:

13 "... I was always able to go to Ms Finlay, then

14 Operations manager, If I needed support or advice, and

15 I did this on occasion."

16 I have to say, I took that to read that you had as

17 easy access to Ms Finlay as you did to Ms Stollard.

18 MS LAWRENCE: I did have easy access to Ms Finlay, I think

19 perhaps because there were personal differences between

20 myself and Sarah. However, I would always endeavour not

21 to undermine her position as the team manager.

22 THE CHAIRMAN: I accept that. Your attention was drawn to

23 the tracking system, we have all just had a chance to

24 look at that this morning. Could I just ask you to look

25 at the first entry, which is the one on 26th April?

62



1 There are some words under "Action Needed" which I do

2 not~ -- I would be glad if you could just explain to me

3 what that is.

4 MS LAWRENCE: "Pend", I cannot understand what that second

5 word is, but "Pend 29/4".

6 THE CHAIRMAN: Just explain what that would mean. In the

7 operation of the system, what did that mean?

8 MS LAWRENCE: There were two filing cabinets in the duty

9 room. One was a diary cabinet, so it would have the

10 dates on, and one was an A to Z. So when a case was

11 pended, my understanding is it would be placed in the

12 diary filing cabinet on the date that it was pended to,

13 so that on that date, you would go into the diary

14 cupboard on the morning and allocate the work to a

15 social worker, not allocate, but hand out for a social

16 worker to process on that day.

17 THE CHAIRMAN: Right. I think there had been a referral

18 from the Emergency Duty Team at that time.

19 MS LAWRENCE: I believe there was around that time.

20 THE CHAIRMAN: You were not aware of that?

21 MS LAWRENCE: Yes, I actually did not deal with the initial

22 referral of this case.

23 THE CHAIRMAN: But as the person responsible, were you aware

24 that both the referral from the Housing Department had

25 asked for an assessment of Mrs Kouao's daughter, and the

63



1 Emergency Duty Team referred to a child in need?

2 MS LAWRENCE: I probably was aware, when I came to be

3 involved with this case. I think my first involvement

4 with the case was in the middle of May.

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Right, okay. You have acknowledged that the

6 referral from the Housing Department was on the basis of

7 the need for an assessment to be made of Mrs Kouao's

8 daughter.

9 MS LAWRENCE: Yes.

10 THE CHAIRMAN: And you said, I think I am right in saying,

11 that you thought you were operating under Section 17?

12 MS LAWRENCE: Yes, but I accept -- I think we provided

13 services under Section 17, but we did not assess the

14 child in need.

15 THE CHAIRMAN: Would you accept that had you assessed, that

16 that would have actually given you an indication of

17 whether or not this was a child protection matter or

18 not?

19 MS LAWRENCE: I think although we did not carry out

20 a structured child in need assessment, I think if there

21 were any indicators or there were any concerns of

22 a child protection nature or of a more complex nature,

23 it would have been brought to our attention, and we

24 would have taken action.

25 THE CHAIRMAN: As an experienced childcare worker though,

64



1 operating in the full knowledge of the Children Act and

2 the duties placed upon the local authority under that

3 legislation, all of the practice guidance that has been

4 issued over the years, does it seem odd to you that you

5 tell us this morning that it was clear that the focus

6 was upon the adult needs and not the needs of the child?

7 MS LAWRENCE: Yes. You asked me if I thought it was odd?

8 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.

9 MS LAWRENCE: Yes.

10 THE CHAIRMAN: And can you explain how that came about?

11 MS LAWRENCE: I suppose what was -- we addressed the

12 presenting issue, which was that of homelessness, and

13 that was probably due to the fact that we had hundreds

14 of other referrals and hundreds of other cases that we

15 were dealing with, and just homed in on the presenting

16 issue, and lost the child in need.

17 THE CHAIRMAN: You said in answer to Ms Mayer that since

18 then, there has been a major change in the way matters

19 are handled in Ealing.

20 MS LAWRENCE: That is correct.

21 THE CHAIRMAN: How is it possible to do things differently

22 now from then?

23 MS LAWRENCE: Because some work has been transferred out of

24 the Referral and Assessment Team. At the time, we were

25 dealing with anything that was related to children.

65



1 Unaccompanied minors have now moved out of the Referral

2 and Assessment Team, and children with disabilities have

3 moved out of the Referral and Assessment Team. Homeless

4 families are given an initial assessment and a child in

5 need plan is put in place, and it is moved out of our

6 team quickly into the longer term team to follow up

7 work, so bits of our work have been taken away from us.

8 THE CHAIRMAN: Was the earlier problem a lack of a system

9 and lack of understanding of what the responsibilities

10 were?

11 MS LAWRENCE: That is my view.

12 THE CHAIRMAN: In the course of your evidence, you referred

13 to the fact that the team devised a new form.

14 MS LAWRENCE: Yes.

15 THE CHAIRMAN: It seems a bit odd to devise a new form; how

16 did that relate to the actual system as a whole?

17 MS LAWRENCE: I think what was recognised was that there was

18 not -- certainly I was not aware of any assessment

19 format or process in operation at the time, and we were

20 having a number of cases like these that were

21 presenting, and I think the assessment format was

22 devised to bring about some consistency, and to have

23 some sort of structured way in gathering information.

24 THE CHAIRMAN: So that would fit in with Mr Victor's

25 evidence that there was no real assessment framework?

66



1 MS LAWRENCE: Yes.

2 THE CHAIRMAN: Who actually closed Victoria's case?

3 MS LAWRENCE: Sarah Stollard did.

4 THE CHAIRMAN: You are sure about that?

5 MS LAWRENCE: Yes.

6 THE CHAIRMAN: Could you tell us why?

7 MS LAWRENCE: I think it is on one of the forms in this

8 file. There is a green form, and the same form on which

9 the allocation would have been done.

10 THE CHAIRMAN: My point is that she may well have discussed

11 it with other people more senior.

12 MS LAWRENCE: She may well have done.

13 THE CHAIRMAN: But you were not aware of that?

14 MS LAWRENCE: No, because the case was allocated on the

15 30th, and Sarah Stollard was the supervisor for

16 Pamela Fortune.

17 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. But referring to closure of the case?

18 MS LAWRENCE: She would have been the person to close it.

19 THE CHAIRMAN: From a specialist childcare background like

20 yours, with a lot of experience, were you perturbed that

21 there were such a large number of cases, if I can put it

22 that way, although they are children, that were not

23 allocated?

24 MS LAWRENCE: Yes, I was. I think that it was impossible,

25 or very difficult to work with the volume of cases that

67



1 there was on the duty system.

2 THE CHAIRMAN: And because they were not allocated and

3 because they were seen by whoever was around at any

4 time, would you agree that it was likely that some of

5 these children would be at risk?

6 MS LAWRENCE: I think that it was difficult to monitor all

7 of the cases on duty. However, if information was

8 received by a manager at the time that a child was

9 likely to suffer significant harm, or was at significant

10 risk, action would have been taken.

11 THE CHAIRMAN: That sounds very reactive; I mean, you just

12 have to wait until something awful happens.

13 MS LAWRENCE: I think it was impossible to allocate the

14 number of cases that there was on the duty system.

15 THE CHAIRMAN: And Ms Mayer asked you about the current

16 arrangements, and about interviewing children. Could

17 you just go through your answer again, please?

18 MS LAWRENCE: The current arrangement is -- I mean, if we

19 were dealing with a case like this, for example, we

20 would see the family, see the children in their home

21 environment, or wherever they were living, and carry out

22 the initial assessment under the DoH framework of

23 assessment guidelines.

24 THE CHAIRMAN: And if you felt it would be helpful, and

25 indeed maybe important, to actually interview the child

68



1 on her own, and the parent did not give consent to that,

2 what would you do?

3 MS LAWRENCE: If the parent did not give consent, we would

4 obviously try to encourage the parent to give consent,

5 and we would perhaps interview the child in the presence

6 of the parent or carer. We are obviously not at liberty

7 to carry out statutory checks if we have not got any --

8 if it is not a child protection investigation, but we

9 would certainly attempt to speak to the child.

10 THE CHAIRMAN: I understand that, but suppose that in the

11 course of this assessment, and this interview with the

12 parent, interviewing the child in the presence of the

13 parent, you came to your professional judgment that it

14 was important for you to interview the child on her own;

15 what would you do?

16 MS LAWRENCE: I mean, if we are not getting consent, we

17 would seek legal advice and perhaps consider our options

18 there. If we felt that it was essential that we

19 interviewed the child alone and we were not being given

20 that, then we would perhaps consider an assessment

21 order, we would speak to our legal team and go for that.

22 THE CHAIRMAN: I think that is all I want to ask. Thank you

23 very much indeed for being so helpful.

24 (The witness withdrew)

25 THE CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, we will break for

69



1 10 minutes until 11.55. Thank you very much indeed.

2 (11.45 am)

3 (A short break)

4 (11.55 am)

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms Gibson?

6 MS GIBSON: Yes, thank you, sir. The next witness is

7 Phillip Joseph.

8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.

9 MR PHILLIP JOSEPH (sworn)

10 MS GIBSON: Good morning. Mr Joseph, can you begin by

11 giving the Inquiry your full name and professional

12 address?

13 MR JOSEPH: My full name is Phillip Joseph and my

14 professional address is London Borough of Ealing Legal

15 Services, Perceval House, 40-60 Uxbridge Road, London

16 W5 2HL.

17 MS GIBSON: Thank you. You have made one statement for the

18 Inquiry, it is found at page 182 of volume 1; I wonder

19 if you could just be shown a copy of that.

20 MR JOSEPH: Yes.

21 MS GIBSON: And the contents of that statement are true to

22 the best of your knowledge and belief?

23 MR JOSEPH: It is, yes.

24 MS GIBSON: Thank you. Can I just ask you: was there any

25 formal arrangement for referring cases to the Legal

70



1 Department?

2 MR JOSEPH: There was a duty system, and I think -- on every

3 day there is a duty system where a solicitor will be on

4 duty and if a matter arose where a social worker would

5 need advice, they would call and ask to speak to the

6 duty solicitor.

7 MS GIBSON: And would you get copies of all solicitors'

8 letters that came into the Social Services Department,

9 and would they stay on the file unless the case became

10 one in which you were involved more extensively?

11 MR JOSEPH: It varied. Sometimes you would get letters and

12 sometimes you would not, until something developed on

13 a case.

14 MS GIBSON: In this case, did you see the correspondence

15 from Youngs Solicitors?

16 MR JOSEPH: Not until it was faxed through to me on

17 2nd July, I think it was.

18 MS GIBSON: We know that in Ealing you had a number of cases

19 of people coming from abroad, both from the EC countries

20 and further afield. Was there a common approach for

21 dealing with those cases?

22 MR JOSEPH: In terms of what, from Social Services' point of

23 view, or legal?

24 MS GIBSON: Yes, in terms of how those would be assessed.

25 MR JOSEPH: As far as I was concerned, there would be a --

71



1 Social Services would carry out a Section 17 assessment.

2 MS GIBSON: And what was your understanding of the local

3 authority's duties pursuant to Section 17?

4 MR JOSEPH: That would be an assessment which would deal

5 with all of the child's needs, and establishing whether

6 or not there were any needs, and providing an

7 appropriate range of services to meet those needs.

8 MS GIBSON: And would that assessment -- I think perhaps you

9 have already answered this, but would it deal with

10 issues beyond housing, looking at the child's needs

11 globally?

12 MR JOSEPH: Yes, it would.

13 MS GIBSON: Were you aware of the use of the form we heard

14 of earlier in the proceedings, to deal with people who

15 had failed the habitual residence test?

16 MR JOSEPH: No, I was not aware of that form.

17 MS GIBSON: Your first involvement with this case was on

18 30th June via a telephone call from Pamela Fortune. You

19 say in your statement that you found the circumstances

20 of this case "slightly bizarre". What did you mean by

21 that?

22 MR JOSEPH: It was just -- it just struck me as peculiar,

23 that a lady would come from France with a child and

24 leave her other children in France, merely to learn

25 English.

72



1 MS GIBSON: Do you recall how long your discussion was with

2 Pamela Fortune about the case?

3 MR JOSEPH: I cannot recall. I cannot recall, I would not

4 like to say.

5 MS GIBSON: And can you help us with what she told you about

6 it, aside from the fact that this was a lady who had

7 come from France, leaving her other children?

8 MR JOSEPH: I think -- I cannot recall, to be honest with

9 you. I know that we discussed the case, and I think

10 that I just reiterated what -- I cannot recall, to be

11 honest with you.

12 MS GIBSON: Did you ask her what assessment of the case had

13 been conducted at that point?

14 MR JOSEPH: I did ask --

15 MS GIBSON: Because at that time, we know that

16 Pamela Fortune explained to you, and you say this in

17 your statement, that an assessment had been undertaken.

18 What did you understand by that?

19 MR JOSEPH: I thought she had undertaken a Section 17

20 assessment.

21 MS GIBSON: So you thought that was a full global assessment

22 of the child's needs?

23 MR JOSEPH: Yes.

24 MS GIBSON: You say that you expressed the view that it was

25 slightly bizarre that this woman had come from France.

73



1 Did you share that concern with Pamela Fortune?

2 MR JOSEPH: I think I must have, yes.

3 MS GIBSON: And do you recall what her response was?

4 MR JOSEPH: No, I do not.

5 MS GIBSON: In the light of that, did you not consider

6 whether there should be any further assessment, in the

7 light of those concerns, that this was perhaps

8 a slightly unusual case?

9 MR JOSEPH: No, I did not consider that.

10 MS GIBSON: You say that Pamela Fortune was then wanting to

11 know whether it would be reasonable to offer return

12 tickets to France, and you advised that that was not

13 unreasonable, that the child could be returned to France

14 where the child's needs could best be met.

15 How were you satisfied that the child's needs could

16 be best met in France?

17 MR JOSEPH: Basically, on the information that I had,

18 Ms Kouao came from France, she had children in France,

19 she had a network of family and friends in France. The

20 needs of her accommodation and essential living needs

21 could be better met in France than in the

22 United Kingdom.

23 MS GIBSON: Was that as a result of Pamela Fortune telling

24 you that there was accommodation in France?

25 MR JOSEPH: Yes.

74



1 MS GIBSON: You say you recall advising the social worker

2 what questions she should ask as part of her assessment

3 in that telephone conversation. I am a little bit

4 perplexed by that, because apparently there had already

5 been an assessment, so what further assessment was there

6 going to be, and what questions did you advise should be

7 asked?

8 MR JOSEPH: To what are you referring, sorry?

9 MS GIBSON: This is the paragraph at the top of the second

10 page of your statement.

11 MR JOSEPH: Yes. What I am saying in this statement is that

12 prior to 30th June 1999, I do seem to recall having

13 discussions about this family, but it was not referred

14 to me by name. I remembered it from just the general

15 circumstances of the case, and what it was, it was in

16 the form of general advice given about what a reasonable

17 authority might do when someone presented as homeless.

18 Someone said that a lady has turned up -- it was

19 probably in a general context. Someone was asking how

20 do we stand legally, somebody has turned up from France,

21 they are homeless. What would a reasonable authority

22 do, or what reasonable enquiries authority would make in

23 those circumstances, and I gave general advice in that

24 respect, and I think that is what I am referring to at

25 the top of that page.

75



1 MS GIBSON: You say you recall advising the social worker

2 what questions she should ask as part of her assessment,

3 and we know by 30th June, your belief is that a full

4 Section 17 assessment has been carried out --

5 MR JOSEPH: Sure.

6 MS GIBSON: -- looking at the child's needs globally.

7 MR JOSEPH: Sure.

8 MS GIBSON: So at that stage prior to 30th June, what

9 questions were you advising Social Services to ask?

10 MR JOSEPH: Basically, the first question I said that she

11 should ask is where the person had stayed the previous

12 evening, and to ascertain the address of that person,

13 where they had been staying, and whether they could

14 remain there temporarily while an assessment was carried

15 out. If they did not have anywhere to stay, then they

16 may have to provide accommodation temporarily while an

17 assessment was carried out. I also advised them to get

18 evidence that she had made an application for income

19 support and a refusal letter from the DSS if she was not

20 entitled to income support. I also suggested that they

21 should find out the reasons why she came to the UK, her

22 future long-term plans, and how and when they came to

23 the United Kingdom, and how they had been sustaining

24 themselves since they had been here.

25 MS GIBSON: Thank you. But by 30th June, when you were

76



1 speaking to Pamela Fortune about the case, what you

2 thought she meant by assessment, as you have already

3 said, is the Section 17 assessment.

4 MR JOSEPH: Sure.

5 MS GIBSON: Would your view of the case, and your advice

6 that it was appropriate to provide air tickets to return

7 to France, have been the same had you been aware that

8 that full assessment had not been carried out, and that

9 all that had been done was an attempt at filling in

10 a form dealing with people who had failed the habitual

11 residence test, which simply focused on the adult's

12 needs?

13 MR JOSEPH: On the information that I had, I do not think it

14 would have changed. It was not an unreasonable decision

15 in the circumstances.

16 MS GIBSON: Was it a common approach to offer tickets,

17 return tickets to a family presenting from abroad who

18 had failed the habitual residence test? Was it

19 something --

20 MR JOSEPH: I do not think it was a matter of course, no.

21 MS GIBSON: What were you told awaited Victoria -- this is

22 what you were told by your Social Services Department --

23 if she returned to France?

24 MR JOSEPH: That her needs would best be met there. She had

25 a network of family, it seemed the best way to promote

77



1 the family remaining together, and also her other

2 physical and direct needs being met.

3 MS GIBSON: Was it your understanding that there had been

4 some detailed investigation of what Ms Kouao's

5 circumstances were in France, for example what her

6 housing was, where the child went to school, what her

7 financial circumstances were?

8 MR JOSEPH: I am not sure of the level of investigation, but

9 I understood that there had been some preliminary

10 enquiries, yes.

11 MS GIBSON: Was there a procedure by which you could obtain

12 information from social services in France, that you

13 were aware of?

14 MR JOSEPH: I was not aware of any procedure at that time,

15 no -- I was not aware of any procedure. I thought they

16 could make enquiries, but I was not aware of any

17 procedure at the time, no.

18 MS GIBSON: Then on 2nd July, you spoke with Pamela Fortune

19 about the threatened judicial review proceedings. Do

20 you make recordings of this advice?

21 MR JOSEPH: Yes, I do.

22 MS GIBSON: So what you say in your statement is taken from

23 recordings that you looked at?

24 MR JOSEPH: No, unfortunately this is taken from memory.

25 MS GIBSON: So there were no recordings in this particular

78



1 case?

2 MR JOSEPH: There may have been a legal file, but I can only

3 conclude it has been lost, because it has not been

4 found. The only thing I suspect that is likely to be on

5 it is basically just my handwritten notes of the

6 conversation on the 30th, and a copy of the letters that

7 were faxed through on 2nd July.

8 MS GIBSON: How do you know that there were conversations on

9 30th June and 2nd July, if the file has been lost?

10 MR JOSEPH: From me going through the Social Services file.

11 MS GIBSON: Thank you. Just looking at what you say at

12 paragraph 7 of your statement:

13 "Ms Kouao did not appear to be fleeing from domestic

14 violence, or any other kind of harm ..."

15 Is that an issue you explored with the social

16 worker?

17 MR JOSEPH: Yes, I think it is.

18 MS GIBSON: And what did she say to you about that?

19 MR JOSEPH: I think I asked her why she -- what were her

20 reasons for coming to the United Kingdom, was she

21 fleeing any sort of harm or risk from France, and she

22 was saying that her sole reason to come to the

23 United Kingdom was the fact that she wanted to learn

24 English.

25 MS GIBSON: So you took it from the responses that you got

79



1 from the social worker that in fact those issues had

2 been explored at some point with Kouao?

3 MR JOSEPH: Yes.

4 MS GIBSON: Just looking finally, you say that you advised

5 Pamela Fortune that it would be appropriate either to

6 offer the tickets to France -- firstly, what provision

7 would those tickets have been offered under, what

8 provision of the statutory provision?

9 MR JOSEPH: Under Section 17.

10 MS GIBSON: And you also say it would not have been

11 unreasonable to offer to accommodate the child at that

12 stage.

13 MR JOSEPH: Yes, that is under Section 20 of the Children

14 Act.

15 MS GIBSON: Voluntary accommodation of the child.

16 MR JOSEPH: That is right.

17 MS GIBSON: Would that have been appropriate, without a full

18 assessment of the child's situation, to offer to

19 accommodate?

20 MR JOSEPH: Without a full assessment?

21 MS GIBSON: Mm.

22 MR JOSEPH: I do not think it would have been inappropriate.

23 MS GIBSON: Thank you very much, Mr Joseph. I have no more

24 questions.

25 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms Gibson. Ms Mayer?

80



1 MS MAYER: Thank you, sir.

2 Mr Joseph, how often is there communication from

3 Social Services ringing Legal to ask questions about the

4 work?

5 MR JOSEPH: Daily, daily communication, constantly.

6 (12.15 pm)

7 MS MAYER: Does your department have a different policy in

8 terms of offering people to return to their countries

9 when dealing with asylum seekers and dealing with people

10 like Kouao, who came here clearly not as an asylum

11 seeker, from Paris?

12 MR JOSEPH: Sorry, can you repeat your question, please?

13 MS MAYER: If a person who came here from, say, Somalia, as

14 an asylum seeker, was in a similar predicament to Kouao,

15 in the sense that they did not have accommodation and

16 did not have money, would you have offered them a ticket

17 to go back to Somalia?

18 MR JOSEPH: No.

19 MS MAYER: What happened if they had better conditions, and

20 better conditions of living in Somalia? Would you have

21 then offered them to go back? I think I am confusing

22 you, I am going to rephrase that.

23 The reason you offered Kouao to go back to Paris is

24 you say that it would have met Victoria's needs better.

25 MR JOSEPH: Yes.

81



1 MS MAYER: Can I deal with it in this way: in terms of the

2 Section 17 assessment, what information would you say

3 was necessary to have completed an assessment of

4 Victoria's needs?

5 MR JOSEPH: I think what you would need was information to

6 be able to ascertain whether Victoria was a child in

7 need, whether she was likely to obtain a reasonable

8 standard for health and development.

9 MS MAYER: Break down the child in need; what sort of

10 aspects of her life would you have looked at in order to

11 ascertain whether she was a child in need? We know

12 accommodation is one of the factors. What else?

13 MR JOSEPH: Education, emotional needs, physical needs.

14 MS MAYER: Social development?

15 MR JOSEPH: Emotional and social development, yes.

16 MS MAYER: You had some information about accommodation,

17 some information about finance and some information

18 about the family.

19 MR JOSEPH: Correct.

20 MS MAYER: Without having regard -- without having looked at

21 her emotional development and physical development, did

22 you think at the time that that was enough, to offer her

23 to go back to the country from where she came?

24 MR JOSEPH: Yes, I felt it was enough.

25 MS MAYER: Are you familiar with a recent case which dealt

82



1 with a similar problem? I think it is known in your

2 department as the Barnet case.

3 MR JOSEPH: Yes.

4 MS MAYER: For the record, sir, it is On The Application of

5 G v Barnet, and it is a 2001 case. I will give the

6 stenographer the reference in a moment.

7 Are you familiar with the facts of that case?

8 MR JOSEPH: Yes, I am familiar with the facts of that case.

9 MS MAYER: To summarise, it was a lady who, I think, came

10 from Somalia to Holland, but from Holland to this

11 country, applied for various benefits, and was not

12 eligible because of the habitual residence test, and

13 applied under Section 17. The local authority did not

14 offer her anything except for tickets to go back to

15 Holland; that is right, is it?

16 MR JOSEPH: That is correct, yes.

17 MS MAYER: And I think it is right that the course of action

18 of that local authority has been approved by the Court

19 of Appeal.

20 MR JOSEPH: That is correct.

21 MS MAYER: Since reading this case, have you had an

22 opportunity to reconsider your action in Victoria's

23 case, your offer to return Kouao to France?

24 MR JOSEPH: Yes, I have had cause to~--

25 MS MAYER: Do you now think you have made an error in law or

83



1 in your judgment in the advice you gave Social Services?

2 MR JOSEPH: No.

3 MS MAYER: Thank you.

4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed.

5 Mr Joseph, just a couple of questions, if I may. If

6 I understood you right, you said that when

7 Pamela Fortune approached you for advice, you thought

8 that a full assessment had been made.

9 MR JOSEPH: That is correct, sir, yes.

10 THE CHAIRMAN: Is it your practice to give legal advice in

11 such circumstances, without having read the assessment?

12 MR JOSEPH: It depends, I would say, sir. Sometimes

13 I have -- when the matters have proceeded perhaps on to

14 judicial review, then we would look at the assessment in

15 those circumstances, yes.

16 THE CHAIRMAN: But there would be many occasions when you

17 would give off the cuff advice?

18 MR JOSEPH: If it was a general -- of a general nature, yes,

19 sir.

20 THE CHAIRMAN: But am I not right in thinking this was

21 specific?

22 MR JOSEPH: Yes. I suppose the point is that the

23 information I had was that an assessment had been

24 completed, and on the basis of that assessment, as far

25 as I was concerned, Social Services had made a decision

84



1 and they were looking at advice in relation to that

2 decision, and I gave the advice on that basis, sir.

3 THE CHAIRMAN: But you said earlier on that your authority

4 was operating under Section 17 of the Children Act.

5 MR JOSEPH: That is correct, sir, yes.

6 THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot quite understand how it is possible

7 to give legal advice under that section of the Act about

8 the welfare of a child if you actually have not read the

9 assessment that has been made.

10 MR JOSEPH: Yes, well -- I do not know what to say. We

11 had -- the assessment was carried out.

12 THE CHAIRMAN: Were you in earlier this morning?

13 MR JOSEPH: Yes, I was.

14 THE CHAIRMAN: I think you now know the assessment was not

15 carried out.

16 MR JOSEPH: Yes.

17 THE CHAIRMAN: So was it not odd to give advice on an

18 assumption?

19 MR JOSEPH: I suppose it was.

20 THE CHAIRMAN: What do you think the role of the solicitor

21 to the authority is in such circumstances?

22 MR JOSEPH: To advise on their duties and powers.

23 THE CHAIRMAN: And what were the duties and powers under

24 Section 17 you advised on?

25 MR JOSEPH: To promote and safeguard the welfare of the

85



1 child.

2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr Joseph.

3 MR JOSEPH: Thank you.

4 (The witness withdrew)

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms Gibson?

6 MS GIBSON: Yes, thank you, if Mr Joseph could be released.

7 Thank you very much.

8 MR GARNHAM: Sir, our next witness is Judith Finlay.

9 MS JUDITH FINLAY (sworn)

10 MR GARNHAM: Ms Finlay, good morning.

11 MS FINLAY: Good morning.

12 MR GARNHAM: Sir, Ms Finlay has made two statements for the

13 Inquiry, both in volume 1, the first at page 100 and the

14 second at page 153. Copies of those are now being put

15 in front of you, Ms Finlay.

16 You are currently employed as Director of Children's

17 Services for Ealing.

18 MS FINLAY: That is correct.

19 MR GARNHAM: Between September of 1998 and July of 2000 you

20 were Senior Commissioning Manager.

21 MS FINLAY: That is correct, although my title is

22 interchanged as Operations Manager, at some point it

23 changed.

24 MR GARNHAM: Does much turn on the nomenclature?

25 MS FINLAY: No, not at all.

86



1 MR GARNHAM: In the period with which we are concerned, you

2 were the manager responsible for social work services

3 provided for children.

4 MS FINLAY: That is correct.

5 MR GARNHAM: Ealing have been helpfully frank in

6 acknowledging the way in which some of the matters went

7 wrong in the way Ealing handled this, but I would like

8 to get your personal approach to that. What do you

9 think Ealing did wrong in the way Victoria's case was

10 handled?

11 MS FINLAY: We failed to undertake an adequate assessment of

12 need. We failed to assess Victoria's individual

13 circumstances and needs and focused on the presenting

14 problem, which was an issue of housing.

15 I think it is important to put that in the context

16 of where we were at that point. You will recall from

17 our evidence that in December 1997, we had a poor SSI

18 inspection, that was a very critical inspection, that

19 I think pointed out up to 45 per cent of social workers

20 being agency, 50 per cent of childcare cases being

21 unallocated, 50 per cent of those being child protection

22 cases unallocated, a further 26 per cent looked after

23 children unallocated; I think they talked about

24 a culture of hopelessness, and that immediate and urgent

25 action was required to remedy that situation.

87



1 The subsequent SSI inspection I think acknowledged

2 that not much happened in the department between

3 December 1997 and the appointment of the new Director,

4 Norman Tutt, and John Skinner and myself in

5 September 1998.

6 Between September 1998 and April 1999, we undertook

7 a restructuring of field services, creating the

8 specialist structure that I have outlined in my

9 statement. We interviewed all of the team managers for

10 their posts, we appointed new senior practitioners, we

11 audited children looked after and child protection

12 cases, because we had to make sure that the first thing

13 was to protect those children that we had statutory

14 responsibilities for, so we took first things first.

15 It was not possible to look at the quality of the

16 work being undertaken, and that is, I think, where we

17 failed, because we needed to ensure that the basic

18 statutory position was undertaken. That, in summary, is

19 the position.

20 MR GARNHAM: Thank you, that is very helpful. I am going to

21 come back and ask you a little more about some of those

22 inspection reports, but thank you for setting that

23 scene.

24 Can I ask you about a number of particular matters,

25 looking back now on the way in which Victoria's case was

88



1 handled? Do you see any deficiency in the approach that

2 was taken by your authority to the Nicoll Road premises

3 and the investigation of its adequacy?

4 MS FINLAY: Again, to place that in the context of the fact

5 that in London, there are 49,000 people, possibly

6 more --

7 MR GARNHAM: Could you answer the question first, and then

8 we will come on to look at the context.

9 MS FINLAY: Sure. I think the context is important.

10 MR GARNHAM: I agree.

11 MS FINLAY: I will be brief.

12 MR GARNHAM: Could you answer the question first and then we

13 will come back to look at the context, please.

14 MS FINLAY: I think we struggled to find accommodation.

15 There are 49,000 people in temporary accommodation in

16 London, 34,000 asylum seekers in temporary accommodation

17 in London, so we were grateful to be able to find a bed

18 and breakfast accommodation to take our service users.

19 MR GARNHAM: Now answer the question, please.

20 MS FINLAY: In that situation, we recognise that we

21 struggled with that, we recognise that we did not see

22 the accommodation before placing people in it. We

23 assumed that it was satisfactory, because we had used it

24 previously, and I am responsible in that part too.

25 I mean, that is partly why we decided to create a new

89



1 Housing and Social Services Team, to remedy that gap in

2 knowledge base between Social Services and Housing, and

3 that would be one of the key factors that this new team

4 will address.

5 MR GARNHAM: Do you accept that your authority's approach to

6 determining the adequacy of Nicoll Road was adequate?

7 MS FINLAY: No, I accept it was not adequate.

8 MR GARNHAM: Do you regard the way in which your authority

9 dealt with the suggestion that Victoria and her alleged

10 carer should be returned to France was acceptable?

11 MS FINLAY: I think that was a reasonable decision. What we

12 failed to do, which we have already stated, I think

13 everyone has accepted that responsibility, is we did not

14 undertake an assessment of Victoria's needs to ensure

15 that that was the right course of action, but as

16 a proposed remedy for somebody whose child is not

17 otherwise in need and who has access to benefits, and

18 family support in France, that was a reasonable course

19 of action. It is no different than returning somebody

20 to the ubiquitous Manchester.

21 MR GARNHAM: Do you see, in the history of this case,

22 a failure on the part of your authority to ensure that

23 there were in place proper management systems for

24 supervising and monitoring the handling of referrals?

25 MS FINLAY: I think that the basic -- by April 1999, the

90



1 basic systems were in place, staff were being

2 supervised. The tracking system was basic and had

3 flaws, but nonetheless, you can see evidence that we

4 knew where Victoria's case was and we had a range of

5 other cases, so it was basic but it was in place. We

6 have since improved that system.

7 MR GARNHAM: So the answer to my question is no, you do not

8 see that as a failure?

9 MS FINLAY: I see it again in context, that it was not

10 ideal, but I think we had adequate systems; I think the

11 point that we failed on is the quality of the

12 assessment, not the tracking of it.

13 MR GARNHAM: So you would say in answer to my question,

14 "Yes, the system was adequate"?

15 MS FINLAY: If I can give an example of a piece of work in

16 Acton Referral and Assessment Team that I saw on

17 Friday --

18 MR GARNHAM: I promise I will let you come on to that, but

19 firstly, would you answer the question? Are you saying

20 that in your view, the system was adequate?

21 MS FINLAY: I think the system was, on a basic level,

22 adequate. I think we failed on implementing quality.

23 We had a basic tracking system in place.

24 MR GARNHAM: You wanted to explain; please do.

25 MS FINLAY: I was in Acton Referral and Assessment Team on

91



1 Friday, and a social worker approached me to discuss

2 a case. It was a housing case; a man had come from

3 Ireland with two children, overnight the day before. He

4 had arrived, he had £5 in the office, he wanted to

5 return to Ireland and he wanted Social Services'

6 assistance to do so. The social worker approached me

7 for my advice on that case, but by that time she had

8 already contacted the mother in Ireland, who had five

9 children living with her, she contacted the school in

10 Ireland, she had contacted Social Services in Ireland

11 and she was making steps to see those two children

12 either with the father, if he would not allow her to see

13 the children on her own, or by themselves.

14 We were undertaking a proper assessment, and that

15 was all done on the first day of this family presenting

16 to the office, so I do feel that our systems are

17 different now. They were not adequate at the time, they

18 were basic, but we are much improved.

19 MR GARNHAM: So you are much improved now, but at the time

20 I was directing your attention to in that question, do

21 you say those monitoring systems were adequate or not?

22 MS FINLAY: I think I have answered that question to the

23 best of my ability.

24 MR GARNHAM: You have, in fact, given me two contradictory

25 answers; you said yes initially, that they were

92



1 adequate, and now in that immediate answer, you said no.

2 MS FINLAY: They were basic and in place, and they did not

3 address quality issues.

4 MR GARNHAM: Were they adequate, in April 1999 --

5 MS FINLAY: They were barely adequate.

6 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. The first reference in your first

7 statement to your involvement with Victoria's case is in

8 paragraph 4, when you referred to events you put on

9 1st July 1998. I presume that is a typo for 1999.

10 MS FINLAY: Yes, that would be right.

11 MR GARNHAM: Were you involved with this case before then?

12 MS FINLAY: There is some suggestion that people wished to

13 discuss the case with me. I have no recollection

14 whether they did so or not. It is quite possible that

15 they did. I obviously signed some agreements to

16 subsistence, and I think I would have agreed with

17 Godfrey Victor's decision to place the family in

18 Nicoll Road.

19 MR GARNHAM: Those were two of the instances I wanted to put

20 to you, so thank you for that. The third was that

21 according to the notes, there is some suggestion that

22 the case was discussed with you on 11th May. I wonder

23 if you could have volume 5, you will need it in the

24 future in any event. Page 171, please. You can see the

25 passage in the middle of the page with the headline

93



1 "Speak to Judith/John Skinner re what their view is on

2 this case", and I think Ms Lawrence said this morning

3 that her recollection was that she did discuss it with

4 each of you.

5 Are you in a position to say yea or nay?

6 MS FINLAY: I have no recollection of whether that happened

7 or not. It is quite possible that it did. In the

8 context of this file, you can see that I was asked --

9 people either intended to speak to me or did speak to me

10 on at least three occasions, plus having to sign a

11 number of invoices, and that multiplied by 700 children

12 in need cases, difficult to comment on.

13 MR GARNHAM: Yes. I do not think anybody would be surprised

14 that you do not have an individual recollection of this.

15 My point was, have you any reason to disagree with

16 Ms Lawrence's recollection?

17 MS FINLAY: I have no reason to disagree at all.

18 MR GARNHAM: The involvement you recall in your first

19 statement on 1st July is when you were asked by the

20 senior practitioner, who was Ms Lawrence --

21 MS FINLAY: That is correct.

22 MR GARNHAM: -- to ratify a decision regarding continued

23 financial support; is that right?

24 MS FINLAY: That is correct.

25 MR GARNHAM: You do have a recollection of that?

94



1 MS FINLAY: Sorry, could you repeat the continued

2 financial -- could you repeat the question?

3 MR GARNHAM: Do you recall now your involvement in the case

4 on 1st July?

5 MS FINLAY: That was when Sharmain told me that the case had

6 been comprehensively assessed.

7 MR GARNHAM: Let us turn if we may to your statement;

8 paragraph 4 of your first statement:

9 "On 1st July 1998, I was asked by [Lawrence] to

10 ratify a decision regarding the continued financial

11 support ..."

12 That is what I am referring to.

13 MS FINLAY: I think, having read the file in more detail

14 since the time I wrote that statement, it is clear that

15 Sharmain was saying that the case had been

16 comprehensively assessed, and she outlined the

17 circumstances of the case, and I agreed with the

18 decision-making, that the financial -- the support she

19 was asking for was return tickets to France.

20 MR GARNHAM: So how do we need to amend paragraph 4 of your

21 statement then?

22 MS FINLAY: "I was asked by the Senior Practitioner for the

23 Referral and Assessment Team to comment on the decision

24 regarding the case planning."

25 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. So if we look at the file note on

95



1 that, it is page 150 in volume 5, the date is not in

2 fact terribly clear. It is not obvious to me whether it

3 is the 7th or the 1st. do you know?

4 MS FINLAY: No, I have no idea.

5 MR GARNHAM: So either 7th or 1st July, telephone call

6 between Ms Lawrence and you; yes?

7 MS FINLAY: I believe so from the records.

8 MR GARNHAM: Do you recall how that came about? Did she

9 telephone you, or you her?

10 MS FINLAY: I imagine that she would have telephoned me.

11 I would have had no occasion to telephone her about this

12 case.

13 MR GARNHAM: Can I, before looking at that in a little more

14 detail, ensure that I understand whether you are saying

15 now that what we find in paragraph 4 of the statement

16 was not something that you addressed at all, in other

17 words you did not ratify a decision regarding continued

18 financial support?

19 MS FINLAY: If I had done so, it would appear at different

20 points on the file, because I would had been asked to

21 sign different invoices.

22 MR GARNHAM: I see. You used in your statement the word

23 "ratify"; what did you intend by that word?

24 MS FINLAY: To confirm the decision-making of the

25 management, the senior practitioner, as Sharmain --

96



1 MR GARNHAM: A decision that had already been taken, or was

2 still in the offing?

3 MS FINLAY: Financial decision-making should not be agreed

4 by a senior practitioner. They only have a delegated

5 authority for up to £50.

6 MR GARNHAM: I see. Because it seems from the file as if,

7 by 1st July certainly, the decision had not only been

8 taken but had also been communicated, and I cannot quite

9 understand therefore what it is you are ratifying.

10 MS FINLAY: That would appear to me that they were just

11 perhaps double-checking their decision-making. It may

12 be that that corresponds with the fact that Sharmain

13 believes she had discussed the case with either

14 John Skinner or myself previously, and we had indicated

15 the course of direction being return tickets to France.

16 MR GARNHAM: Yes. Would you have a look at page 156 in that

17 volume, please? This is a note of Ms Lawrence's, from

18 what looks like 23rd June. Item 3 is:

19 "Withdraw Social Services funding once the outcome

20 of the appeal is known."

21 That presumably is the appeal against the result of

22 the application of the habitual residence test.

23 MS FINLAY: I would imagine that is correct, yes.

24 MR GARNHAM: So it appears as if Ms Lawrence has decided on

25 that occasion that funding should be withdrawn, but only

97



1 when the outcome of the appeal is known.

2 MS FINLAY: It is clear we struggled with this case. At the

3 time we were struggling with knowing how to deal with

4 housing cases, and this case highlights those

5 difficulties. We did not really have a clear direction

6 about what to do.

7 MR GARNHAM: I am trying to understand what your part was in

8 that lack of clarity. We have at the moment an apparent

9 decision that funding will continue until the outcome of

10 the appeal, is that right? That is what it looks like.

11 MS FINLAY: By Sharmain Lawrence, are you suggesting?

12 MR GARNHAM: Yes.

13 MS FINLAY: That would appear to be the case.

14 MR GARNHAM: Then on 30th June, so seven days later, Kouao

15 is told when she visits the department that they would

16 continue to pay for Nicoll Road until 7th June; page 152

17 is that entry.

18 I think I phrased that observation incorrectly. On

19 30th June, according to this note, the social worker --

20 and it is about halfway down the page, midway between

21 the two hole punches:

22 "On 30th June, the social worker informed Mrs Kouao

23 that Social Services would continue to pay for the

24 accommodation at Nicoll Road until 7th July."

25 Yes?

98



1 MS FINLAY: That is correct.

2 MR GARNHAM: So we have first of all a decision that funding

3 will continue until the outcome of the appeal; then we

4 have a decision communicated to one of the two

5 applicants that it will continue until 7th July, and

6 then we read in your statement that on 1st July, the day

7 after that meeting with Kouao, you ratified the decision

8 concerning continued financial support. What decision

9 were you ratifying?

10 MS FINLAY: I was ratifying the decision to return Kouao to

11 France, and to pay for the airline -- or the cheapest

12 tickets to return her to France.

13 MR GARNHAM: So you were not ratifying the decision to

14 continue funding until the outcome of the appeal?

15 MS FINLAY: No.

16 MR GARNHAM: Nor were you ratifying -- or perhaps you were,

17 tell us -- the decision to continue funding until

18 7th July?

19 MS FINLAY: It would be reasonable, if families cannot

20 afford to do that, to give them proper notice, and we

21 may have allowed a week's grace period to do that.

22 I would have raised the issue of the fact she was

23 working, and whether she could afford to do that

24 herself. We are, obviously, as you will be aware, not

25 an income maintenance service. Section 17 is only to be

99



1 used in cash terms in exceptional circumstances. So

2 although it is difficult, we do have to limit our

3 expenditure, and to think about the best possible way of

4 discharging our duties.

5 MR GARNHAM: My concern at the moment is only to understand

6 your involvement, and you say you were not ratifying the

7 decision of the 23rd June, but rather a decision to

8 extend funding no longer than 7th July.

9 MS FINLAY: From my recollection, that would be correct,

10 that I was ratifying the decision to return Victoria and

11 Kouao to France.

12 MR GARNHAM: We do not find any record of that in these

13 notes, do we?

14 MS FINLAY: Could you take me back to the page of 1st June?

15 Could you identify which page that is on, and then that

16 might help me respond.

17 MR GARNHAM: 1st June?

18 MS FINLAY: 1st July.

19 MR GARNHAM: I have lost it for the moment -- page 150, I am

20 grateful.

21 MS FINLAY: I believe the conclusions that Sharmain Lawrence

22 conveyed to me were those conclusions that she had

23 recorded on the management decisions on page 154 of

24 bundle 5. I believe that is the information that

25 Ms Lawrence gave to me at the time, and that is what

100



1 I based my decision-making on.

2 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. You go on in your statement, in

3 paragraphs 5 and 6 of the first statement, to explain

4 your response to the request, explain your decision of

5 1st July. You say that you were aware that the

6 department had provided funding while staff undertook an

7 assessment of need; yes?

8 MS FINLAY: That is correct.

9 MR GARNHAM: And that the case had been thoroughly assessed;

10 that being what you were advised.

11 MS FINLAY: That being what I was advised, yes.

12 MR GARNHAM: Can I ask you first what you understand or what

13 you understood at the time by the expression "assessment

14 of need"?

15 MS FINLAY: I would expect an assessment of need to take

16 into account the parenting capacity of the parent, the

17 environmental context and housing situation of the

18 family, and obviously the needs of the child, which

19 would include her health development, cultural

20 background, friendship networks, whatever else was

21 relevant for a child of that age.

22 MR GARNHAM: Who did you understand had carried out that

23 assessment?

24 MS FINLAY: The social worker at the time. I may or may not

25 have been told it was Pamela Fortune. It may have been