Archived Transcript for 4 October 2001: Pages 101 to 150

101



1 dealt with as a duty case.

2 MR GARNHAM: Did you have their report?

3 MS FINLAY: No, I did not. If you will recall, it was

4 a telephone conversation to myself. I would assume that

5 that would mean I was not in the office at the time.

6 MR GARNHAM: I see. I had obviously wrongly assumed it was

7 between officers in the office, but you think you were

8 not in the office at all?

9 MS FINLAY: I was at the time based in the same building as

10 the Referral and Assessment Team, so had Sharmain wanted

11 to speak to me, she would have walked up the stairs

12 rather than ring me.

13 (12.45 pm)

14 MR GARNHAM: You did not see any report when you gave this

15 ratification?

16 MS FINLAY: That is correct. In these situations I delegate

17 authority to the team manager or senior practitioner for

18 ensuring that the work that they tell me has been done

19 has been done. Obviously, separately from that,

20 I ensure that we do quality checks, and we ordered files

21 to make sure they were all structured, but it is not

22 possible for me to look personally at every one of 500

23 looked after or child protection cases.

24 MR GARNHAM: Did you ask the social worker who was

25 telephoning you anything about the assessment that had

102



1 been carried out?

2 MS FINLAY: That would have been Sharmain Lawrence, and

3 I have no recollection of the discussion at the time.

4 It may have been that I was otherwise engaged. I get

5 calls all the time, as you can imagine, on a range of

6 different topics of varying degrees of complexity.

7 MR GARNHAM: What arrangements were in place at the time to

8 ensure that assessments were first of all done and

9 secondly adequate?

10 MS FINLAY: We relied on the team managers and senior

11 practitioners to undertake the assessments, to undertake

12 the supervision of social workers and to make sure that

13 the assessments were completed. We audited case files

14 at the time. I think in my statement I suggest that we

15 were firstly focusing on looked after children and

16 children on the Child Protection Register because we

17 have to start with the basis of a solid foundation with

18 those cases.

19 MR GARNHAM: That is your explanation of the order in which

20 you addressed the concerns that were raised by the

21 December 1997 inspection report.

22 MS FINLAY: It is the same principle.

23 MR GARNHAM: Absolutely, but nevertheless, as at April or

24 July 1999, there was an obligation, was there not, on

25 your authority to ensure that all assessments were

103



1 carried out properly?

2 MS FINLAY: That is correct, and I would imagine, and

3 I think Sharmain Lawrence and Sarah Stollard have

4 accepted that they have delegated authority for ensuring

5 that their staff undertake these assessments.

6 MR GARNHAM: But it brings me back to my question which was,

7 what arrangements did you have in place at the time to

8 ensure that that happened?

9 MS FINLAY: As I said, we were at a stage of auditing other

10 files, we had not got to the stage of auditing the

11 Referral and Assessment Team.

12 MR GARNHAM: So the answer is that you had none in place at

13 that time?

14 MS FINLAY: Correct.

15 MR GARNHAM: What sanctions were there in respect of staff

16 who did not carry out assessments as they were supposed

17 to do under that delegated authority?

18 MS FINLAY: There is a work review procedure, which is

19 sometimes known as the capability procedure in other

20 authorities. That involves setting staff a baseline

21 position of what standards are expected of them, giving

22 them targets to achieve, reviewing that in regular

23 meetings. If they fail to achieve reasonable targets,

24 then obviously a disciplinary process is in place.

25 I would say at the time that we were working with

104



1 a reasonably low skills base. You will be aware of the

2 national picture in social work, but we had struggled

3 with the quality of staff, and that is reflected in the

4 poor structure of the department at the time indicated

5 by the 1997 inspection staff, so at the time, although

6 children's safeguards would have been my paramount

7 concern, staff needed assistance to build up their

8 skills.

9 MR GARNHAM: Your view today first; what should be the

10 trigger for an assessment of a child's needs?

11 MS FINLAY: The family present to us obviously -- either the

12 family themselves or other agencies refer. We need, on

13 that basis, to see whether the family have the coping

14 mechanism, because many families have difficulties in

15 their lives. There are 3 million children probably in

16 poverty in this country. Social services do not respond

17 to all of those families, so we need firstly to see if

18 there are coping mechanisms within the family, either

19 internal resources in terms of parenting capacity or the

20 external ability of family friends/finances to support

21 them.

22 MR GARNHAM: Is that part of the assessment?

23 MS FINLAY: That is part of the initial decision about

24 whether we pursue the assessment, if there are obvious

25 indicators that a family have those mechanisms, then we

105



1 would not need to undertake that assessment.

2 MR GARNHAM: So the first trigger you would identify is

3 obvious indications that families are not coping?

4 MS FINLAY: Yes, that they have a presenting need. Then

5 follows the fact that families often have complex needs.

6 There are a range of different issues, spreading over

7 many years.

8 MR GARNHAM: Self-evidently. I am interested at the moment

9 in trying to isolate what you see as the triggers. The

10 first one is the one you have just identified, is it?

11 MS FINLAY: Yes. I think that is the key, for the child and

12 family, that the family have an identified difficulty,

13 and then whether they have got the mechanisms either

14 internally or externally to deal with that. If they do,

15 then we do not undertake an assessment of them as

16 a family in need or a child in need.

17 MR GARNHAM: I am interested in what you mean by

18 "identified" in that sentence.

19 MS FINLAY: You will have to remind me of what I said in my

20 sentence.

21 MR GARNHAM: I will try and do it properly by going to the

22 note:

23 "I think that is the key, for the child and family,

24 that the family have an identified difficulty ..."

25 By whom is the difficulty identified?

106



1 MS FINLAY: I am sure you will be aware that family's

2 difficulties are identified from a range of sources,

3 some from the family or from the child, some from

4 external agencies.

5 MR GARNHAM: Do you regard social services as having

6 a function in making that identification, or are you

7 simply reacting to what is identified by others?

8 MS FINLAY: I am suggesting that this is the first point of

9 contact with our agency, because that is the answer

10 I was giving. Obviously if the family is already in our

11 system, we have identified that that family is in need

12 of an assessment and may be in need of services, and

13 that may change our definition, but I was referring to

14 a family coming to our services at the first port of

15 call.

16 MR GARNHAM: Yes, I am looking for a more comprehensive

17 understanding of what the triggers are, to cover, so far

18 as you can, all those who subsequently turn out to be in

19 need of an assessment. Would it be fair to say that if

20 any service is requested, or any concern identified by

21 you or any other agency, that it is necessary for you to

22 assess the child?

23 MS FINLAY: If the family -- it depends on the individual

24 circumstances. The definition of Section 17, as you are

25 aware, is a very broad one. Our statutory basis for

107



1 delivering services is relatively small in terms of our

2 abilities, so if we can more appropriately refer

3 a family on to universal services to support them, then

4 that is what we will do.

5 MR GARNHAM: You see why this matters, Ms Finlay, to

6 understand what it is that first prompts you to

7 undertake the assessment which in turn will lead to

8 an understanding of what the child's needs are.

9 MS FINLAY: I think we are probably going over the same

10 ground and agreeing in principle. We do undertake most

11 assessments of people who present with difficulties, but

12 that is not to say that there are not many families who

13 do not really differentiate between social services and

14 the DSS or other benefits agencies, and therefore they

15 come to us in the hope that we might offer them

16 something like an ordinary benefits agency, and we have

17 to then return to our principle that we assess families

18 whose children may be in need.

19 MR GARNHAM: Can I ask you to look at your authority's own

20 care management procedures? It is in volume 26A -- sir,

21 it is page 000.505.

22 MS FINLAY: You will be aware that these are no longer

23 current procedures, I believe.

24 MR GARNHAM: Yes, I was, but I understood they were current

25 at the time we are concerned with.

108



1 MS FINLAY: That is correct.

2 MR GARNHAM: Then these are the ones I want you to look at,

3 please. Perhaps before I deal with that, can you tell

4 us when they ceased to be extant?

5 MS FINLAY: Following the implementation of the assessment

6 framework.

7 MR GARNHAM: Yes. Date?

8 MS FINLAY: April 2001.

9 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. These were the ones in place at the

10 time?

11 MS FINLAY: That is correct.

12 MR GARNHAM: 1.2 on page 505:

13 "The Department of Health publication 'Care

14 Management and Assessment -- a Manager's Guide' states

15 that care management 'constitutes one integrated process

16 for identifying and addressing the needs of individuals

17 within available resources ...'"

18 Yes?

19 MS FINLAY: Yes.

20 MR GARNHAM: "1.3: The Department of Health defines need as

21 'the requirements of individuals to enable them to

22 achieve, maintain or restore an acceptable level of

23 social independence or quality of life ...'"

24 MS FINLAY: Yes.

25 MR GARNHAM: Pretty unobjectionable stuff so far.

109



1 MS FINLAY: Quite.

2 MR GARNHAM: "1.4: The Department of Health defines

3 assessment as 'the process of objectively defining needs

4 and determining eligibility of assistance against stated

5 policy criteria. It is a participative process

6 involving the applicant ...'"

7 MS FINLAY: That is correct.

8 MR GARNHAM: All of this is the approach that Ealing were

9 adopting at the time, is it?

10 MS FINLAY: That was the procedure at the time, yes.

11 MR GARNHAM: "1.5: Within Ealing Social Services

12 Department, a set of overall principles for care

13 management have been established which are consistent

14 across all service user groups ...

15 "1.6: The main elements of care management are as

16 follows:

17 1. Consistent practice and quality of service.

18 2. All cases have a needs assessment which

19 identifies risks to the assessed person and others."

20 What does "all cases" in that context mean?

21 MS FINLAY: I think we have tried to go over this already,

22 and any family who presents with difficulties, and they

23 do not appear to be able to resolve it either within

24 themselves or with the assistance of other universal

25 agencies, we will do an initial child in need

110



1 assessment.

2 MR GARNHAM: So that would apply, would it, to Victoria?

3 MS FINLAY: That would certainly have applied to Victoria.

4 MR GARNHAM: Presenting, as she did, in April 1999.

5 MS FINLAY: That is correct.

6 MR GARNHAM: So that presentation to your Housing Department

7 should have triggered the application of these

8 principles and the resulting assessment?

9 MS FINLAY: Yes.

10 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. Over the page, 4:

11 "Assessment ... seen as separate, but connected, to

12 the process of service delivery.

13 "5. Each case has a service and action plan.

14 "6. The service and action plan is regularly

15 reviewed.

16 "9. All assessments must include information from

17 other agencies who have information about the

18 child/family. In particular, GP/health agencies,

19 education provisions, police..."

20 All current at the time we are concerned with.

21 MS FINLAY: Quite.

22 MR GARNHAM: But not followed here.

23 MS FINLAY: That is correct.

24 MR GARNHAM: Where was the breakdown between admirable

25 statements of policy like that and their being put into

111



1 force?

2 MS FINLAY: I would say that staff did not see beyond the

3 presenting problem in Victoria's case. I think, as they

4 have already outlined themselves individually, they

5 struggled with the issue of assessing a case of

6 homelessness, and they treated it only as a presenting

7 problem. That is the breakdown.

8 MR GARNHAM: That plainly is the case. I am interested to

9 know how it happens. This document comes into force in

10 November 1998, 11 months after the critical SSI report;

11 it sets out what you now recognise, what you recognised

12 at the time, no doubt, as being a proper approach. Why

13 is it not followed?

14 MS FINLAY: I cannot say why it was not followed.

15 MR GARNHAM: You were managing at the time; were you aware

16 that it was not being followed?

17 MS FINLAY: No, I was not aware that the assessments -- that

18 that assessment was as poor as it was. I would not have

19 deemed that to be a satisfactory assessment.

20 MR GARNHAM: Was Victoria's case an isolated incident of

21 poor or nonexistent assessment at that time?

22 MS FINLAY: I would doubt it, but it is not possible for me

23 to comment.

24 MR GARNHAM: Even now, your auditing does not reveal whether

25 that at the time was commonplace.

112



1 MS FINLAY: The auditing now suggests that we undertake

2 better assessments. We did not do a comprehensive

3 assessment in Victoria's case; that is undoubted.

4 MR GARNHAM: Have you ever done auditing of the way you were

5 dealing with cases at this time?

6 MS FINLAY: In terms of the child protection cases and

7 looked after children cases, yes, but not of referral

8 and assessment, although I did spend some time on the

9 referral and assessment teams, particularly in Greenford

10 in that year, probably.

11 MR GARNHAM: So can you tell us whether, in referral and

12 assessment cases, Victoria's was an isolated incident of

13 the system breaking down or not?

14 MS FINLAY: I would say that the work was of a poor

15 standard. I have tried to outline the fact that we had

16 to set a foundation, and we were starting from a very

17 low baseline, and I think in the context of the six

18 months in which I was employed before Victoria came to

19 the borough, we had done as much as possible to sustain

20 a basic level of service delivery, but no more than

21 a basic level of service. I do not think it was

22 possible for us to have achieved any more than that at

23 that point.

24 MR GARNHAM: The last question before I invite the Chairman

25 to break for lunch: are you now able to say

113



1 quantitively, rather than qualitatively, the number of

2 instances of cases like Victoria in that quarter year

3 from April through to July, where assessments were

4 either not carried out or not carried out properly?

5 MS FINLAY: You mean April to July 1999?

6 MR GARNHAM: Yes.

7 MS FINLAY: No, I could not do that.

8 MR GARNHAM: Because it has never been looked at?

9 MS FINLAY: Because it has never been looked at.

10 MR GARNHAM: Sir, would that be a convenient moment?

11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed, Mr Garnham.

12 Ms Finlay, you are clearly entitled to have lunch and

13 not in isolation, but you are not to discuss your

14 evidence with any other people.

15 Would it be possible to resume at 1.55? Thank you

16 very much indeed, ladies and gentlemen.

17 (1.00 pm)

18 (Adjourned until 1.55 pm)

19 (2.05 pm)

20 THE CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, I do apologise for the

21 delay, for reasons which will become apparent in a few

22 moments, so if you could just be patient, please?

23 (Pause).

24 MR GARNHAM: Sir, I am sorry to keep you waiting. Sir,

25 before I resume my questioning of Ms Finlay, there are

114



1 two matters I want to draw to your attention, and they

2 are the reason we are starting late this afternoon, and

3 the reason I was even later.

4 It has come to our attention, sir, that a document

5 emanating from this Inquiry has been leaked to the

6 press. It is apparent that it has been leaked in breach

7 of the undertaking given by one of the interested

8 parties, or one of those to whom they have shown the

9 document.

10 The result is that a witness statement of a witness

11 we have not yet reached is now in the hands of this

12 particular newspaper. We do not know from where it

13 leaked, but, sir, we for our part take a dim view and

14 anticipate that you might take a dim view of that sort

15 of breach of this undertaking.

16 We have been considering our options in the short

17 time that has been available to us thus far. One option

18 would be to go before a High Court judge this afternoon

19 to seek an injunction to restrain the publication of any

20 material originating in that statement.

21 A second alternative would be for us to read that

22 statement into the evidence now, so that it could be

23 released to all journalists at the same time.

24 At about 2.00 this afternoon, I had the chance to

25 speak to the editor of the newspaper, and he told me

115



1 what it was that is in the story that is being based on

2 this leaked statement. Although it was a rapid

3 conversation, it appears to be the case that the burden

4 of the article in the newspaper is based on my opening

5 rather than on this particular witness's statement.

6 There are, it seems, quotations from the statement, but

7 those appear to be identical or similar quotations to

8 those that I, in effect, put into the public domain in

9 the course of my opening.

10 That being so, firstly the damage done by the

11 publication of that material is much reduced, and

12 frankly is modest; and secondly, the prospect of us

13 persuading a High Court judge to grant an injunction

14 becomes infinitesimally small. In those circumstances,

15 sir, I have not suggested that injunctive relief is

16 sought, and suggest instead we proceed in disregard of

17 what appears to have happened.

18 But it does perhaps, sir, give me the opportunity of

19 saying how important we regard the observance of that

20 undertaking by all interested parties, and all those to

21 whom, on receipt of similar undertakings, they show

22 these documents. There is a real danger of harm being

23 done to the process of this Inquiry if material that we

24 obtained on the basis of undertakings being given is

25 then leaked.

116



1 So that is the first matter; it may be you want to

2 say something about that before I turn to the second.

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Garnham, I am grateful to you for setting

4 out the reason for the delay which I hope that

5 interested parties will agree is something that we have

6 not hitherto experienced, and I try hard to ensure that

7 we keep to the timetable.

8 Mr Garnham thought that I might take a dim view of

9 this occurrence; I have to say, I take a very grave view

10 of it, and I hope that this will be the one and only

11 experience that we have during the whole of this

12 Inquiry, and therefore I would ask those people here

13 today, in the interested parties, to actually take

14 whatever steps they can to ensure that this does remain

15 the one and only experience of this kind.

16 MR GARNHAM: Sir, thank you. The second matter is not

17 entirely unrelated, in that both one of the

18 representatives for an interested party and indeed

19 a member of the public who has been attending our

20 proceedings, sir, drew to my attention certain matters

21 relating to the evidence we heard as to the breakdown of

22 good relations between Ms Stollard and Ms Lawrence at

23 Ealing. Sir, I want to make this public, because there

24 is no mystery about it, and therefore it is right that

25 people know what the position is.

117



1 As we learned in evidence, there were difficulties

2 between those two officers of Ealing Council. Entirely

3 properly, Ealing disclosed to us all the documentation

4 relating to those differences. We then had to reach

5 a judgment as to the extent to which they were relevant

6 to the matters that you have to address, sir.

7 Our conclusion was that the fact of a disagreement

8 and a difference of opinion between these two women was

9 material to your Inquiry, and accordingly, we have

10 pursued questioning to ascertain the extent to which

11 that affected the way in which they handled Victoria's

12 case.

13 But we also decided that the particular facts, the

14 internal facts of the disagreement, which, were they to

15 be ventilated in public, would probably add a fortnight

16 at least to these proceedings, were irrelevant. We read

17 the material with some care to see whether there was any

18 possibility that the particular allegations in their

19 substance might affect the way in which Victoria's case

20 was handled, and we came to the conclusion that it did

21 not.

22 Since, sir, this is an investigation and not

23 a trial, it would be my submission to you that that is

24 a proper exercise of counsel to the Inquiry's function,

25 and accordingly, we do not intend to go beyond exposing

118



1 the fact that this disagreement existed.

2 THE CHAIRMAN: I am grateful to you, Mr Garnham. References

3 have been made to this disagreement, the details of

4 which, as you indicated, I am not familiar with. My

5 position is simply this, that anything that is relevant

6 to meeting and fulfilling our terms of reference is

7 relevant to the Inquiry. Stuff which bears no relation

8 to our terms of reference and is irrelevant is to be

9 dealt with elsewhere and not here, and on the basis of

10 what has been put before the Inquiry so far, I am

11 satisfied with the way this has been handled.

12 If that changes, we will make a decision then.

13 MR GARNHAM: Thank you, sir. Sir then may I resume

14 questioning of Ms Finlay?

15 Ms Finlay, I am sorry you have been delayed sitting

16 in the spotlight while we have dealt with those matters.

17 Could I just have one moment, sir? (Pause).

18 Yes, Ms Finlay; I was asking you before lunch

19 whether Victoria's case was an isolated instance of

20 a failure properly to conduct assessments, or whether it

21 was part of a pattern, and you, very frankly, said that

22 you were not able to give me figures as to the number of

23 occasions on which an assessment had been done in this

24 way, but that it was not a single incident; that is

25 right, is it not?

119



1 MS FINLAY: That is correct.

2 MR GARNHAM: Can you tell me how, on your reading of the

3 file, Victoria was perceived by the members of your

4 team? Was she seen as being potentially a child in

5 need?

6 MS FINLAY: No, it is quite clear from reading the file that

7 we focused on the need of the adult and not the needs of

8 the child.

9 MR GARNHAM: So if we look at, say, the document at page 216

10 in volume 5 -- and I wonder if you could have that,

11 please -- that, you will recall, is the document

12 produced, I think, by Mr Martin.

13 MS FINLAY: Correct.

14 MR GARNHAM: And ends with the words, inside the "Reasons

15 for referral" box, "Child in need".

16 MS FINLAY: Correct.

17 MR GARNHAM: We find a similar expression, if you turn over

18 four pages to page 220, in Ms Winter's -- this is the

19 form completed by Ms Fortune, following the conversation

20 with Ms Winter.

21 MS FINLAY: Correct.

22 MR GARNHAM: And again we see on page 220 reference to the

23 expression "child in need". But your understanding of

24 this case is that despite the use of that word on those

25 two occasions, that was not how this case was perceived

120



1 by Ealing.

2 MS FINLAY: That is correct, we failed to undertake an

3 assessment of her as a child in need. We dealt with the

4 presenting problem. Of course, the presenting problem

5 is relevant to her assessment as a child in need.

6 MR GARNHAM: Yes. Does it concern you even more that that

7 is the way in which the case was dealt with when you see

8 that the magic phrase is used on two of the referring

9 documents?

10 MS FINLAY: It concerns me greatly that we did not do an

11 assessment, regardless of those two documents.

12 MR GARNHAM: Does their existence, and their use of that

13 phrase in them, make the position worse or does it not

14 change it?

15 MS FINLAY: In my mind, it does not change it.

16 MR GARNHAM: Because in any event, they should have looked

17 below the surface?

18 MS FINLAY: Yes.

19 MR GARNHAM: What is your view now of the decision to offer

20 to pay for the removal of Kouao and Manning to France?

21 MS FINLAY: Kouao and Victoria?

22 MR GARNHAM: I am sorry, Kouao and Victoria.

23 MS FINLAY: If we had done a proper assessment, and we had

24 assessed that Victoria was not a child in need except by

25 virtue of her need for housing -- and we failed to do

121



1 that, but if we had done so and accepted that position,

2 I believe that would have been a reasonable position to

3 take. As I said earlier, I think it is no different to

4 returning a child to Manchester or Ireland.

5 MR GARNHAM: And on the basis of the material that was

6 available on the file, in other words absent any

7 assessment, was it a reasonable decision?

8 MS FINLAY: As I have said, we did not do the assessment,

9 and therefore it could not be decided whether it was

10 a reasonable decision or not.

11 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. Whose decision was it that your

12 department obligations could be met by arranging the

13 return of Kouao and Victoria to France?

14 MS FINLAY: It could have been any one of the managers'

15 decisions, including myself, John Skinner, Sarah or

16 Sharmain. It appears possibly that it was a combination

17 of managers, but it is difficult, on the file, to say.

18 MR GARNHAM: You had the benefit of legal advice when you

19 made that decision.

20 MS FINLAY: We did, yes.

21 MR GARNHAM: As we learnt this morning, the solicitor did

22 not have available, as was inevitable, a copy of the

23 assessment.

24 MS FINLAY: That is correct.

25 MR GARNHAM: Is that a practice that still continues at

122



1 Ealing?

2 MS FINLAY: The solicitor's role is to offer advice on the

3 basis of his understanding that the Social Services

4 Department undertakes its duties effectively, and that

5 would mean that he effectively delegates responsibility

6 to us for undertaking the assessments properly and

7 seeking his advice on the basis of having done a proper

8 assessment.

9 MR GARNHAM: Yes. Would you now normally supply the

10 solicitor with a copy of the assessment at the time of

11 requesting his advice?

12 MS FINLAY: I do not believe we would do, except in

13 complicated situations, and as was suggested previously,

14 I think, these cases come in at a rate of -- probably

15 a rate of one a day, presenting housing cases.

16 MR GARNHAM: You say in your statement that staff in your

17 department had been informed that Kouao had access to

18 accommodation and public funds in France. Do you know

19 by whom they had been informed of that?

20 MS FINLAY: No, I could not say that.

21 MR GARNHAM: Do you know whether that is recorded anywhere

22 in Ealing's files?

23 MS FINLAY: It is recorded in the management decisions,

24 I think, but I am not sure that it is recorded in

25 evidence direct from the social worker from Kouao.

123



1 MR GARNHAM: Were any checks made that that was accurate?

2 MS FINLAY: I cannot comment on that.

3 MR GARNHAM: Not that you know of?

4 MS FINLAY: Not that I know of.

5 MR GARNHAM: Did you check at the time of giving the nod for

6 this decision whether Victoria had been seen or spoken

7 to before that decision was taken?

8 MS FINLAY: No, I did not. As I said earlier, I was told

9 that a comprehensive assessment was undertaken, and my

10 understanding of a comprehensive assessment is that

11 a child is seen and spoken to.

12 MR GARNHAM: So had you learned that Victoria had not been

13 seen or spoken to, you would not have ratified that

14 decision?

15 MS FINLAY: I would have expected staff to have undertaken

16 a conversation with Victoria.

17 MR GARNHAM: And if you discovered that it had not happened

18 you would not have ratified that decision?

19 MS FINLAY: That is correct.

20 MR GARNHAM: You say in paragraph 5 of your statement that

21 you had been involved in regular case discussions in

22 a number of similar cases during this period; that is

23 right, is it?

24 MS FINLAY: That is correct.

25 MR GARNHAM: How many similar cases?

124



1 MS FINLAY: It is impossible for me to say at the time, but

2 currently, I probably get asked on one housing case a

3 week and that is from my position as Director of

4 Children's Services, rather than an area manager.

5 MR GARNHAM: In what way are you saying they are similar

6 cases?

7 MS FINLAY: The presenting issue being the type of case that

8 I described that we received on Friday, that somebody

9 presents as homeless, in need of resources, because they

10 have got no income to provide accommodation for

11 themselves.

12 MR GARNHAM: So that is the similarity, rather than the

13 availability as a possibility of return to another

14 country?

15 MS FINLAY: That is correct.

16 MR GARNHAM: That is the similarity, not the existence of

17 another country involved, it is merely their

18 presentation --

19 MS FINLAY: Their presentation as homeless.

20 MR GARNHAM: And that happens once a week?

21 MS FINLAY: No, I get consulted on those issues probably

22 once a week in my position. I assume therefore it

23 happens much more frequently.

24 MR GARNHAM: There must be occasions on which the situation

25 is even closer to Victoria's, in that there is available

125



1 apparently a home in another country.

2 MS FINLAY: Correct.

3 MR GARNHAM: What is your approach when that presents

4 itself?

5 MS FINLAY: The same as the situation I described earlier,

6 which I am sure you will not wish me to repeat. We do

7 an assessment of the child's needs, see whether we can

8 discharge our duties properly to that family by

9 assisting them to return to the place where they have

10 accommodation and benefits. As I said earlier, we do so

11 making checks as appropriate with that country of

12 origin. Obviously if there is war or famine, or the

13 family are asylum seekers, we do not progress down that

14 route.

15 MR GARNHAM: You say you had no further involvement in the

16 case until after Victoria's death.

17 MS FINLAY: I believe that is correct.

18 MR GARNHAM: Would you not have expected to be involved in

19 a case such as this after contact of the sort that

20 occurred on 14th/15th July?

21 MS FINLAY: No, I would not. You will recall from staff's

22 evidence and our statements that we were told there was

23 a child protection investigation that was being

24 investigated by Brent. We were subsequently told that

25 the investigation had found that it was not a child

126



1 protection matter, that Victoria had scabies, and there

2 was no further involvement on our part, so it would be

3 of no consequence to managers to inform me of that

4 situation.

5 MR GARNHAM: Are you content with the circumstances in which

6 the case was closed? I know immediately your answer is

7 going to be no, because of the lack of an assessment.

8 That point aside, were you content with the

9 circumstances of the closure?

10 MS FINLAY: Well, you have answered my question --

11 MR GARNHAM: Because the only respect in which you were not

12 content is the absence of an assessment?

13 MS FINLAY: Yes. The assessment might have shown that we

14 had a duty to provide different sorts of services for

15 Victoria.

16 MR GARNHAM: My concern -- let me be less opaque about it --

17 is as to the relationship between you and Brent. At the

18 time, Victoria and her carer were living in Brent,

19 because you had put them there.

20 MS FINLAY: Correct.

21 MR GARNHAM: We know that at about that time, or very soon

22 afterwards, she moved to live with Manning, although you

23 did not know that.

24 MS FINLAY: No.

25 MR GARNHAM: At the time, therefore, you were dealing with

127



1 somebody who you had placed in another London borough,

2 and you were closing the file, and there was, I think

3 you are saying, no contact with Brent about that.

4 MS FINLAY: That is correct. I think it is an established

5 principle that we refer cases of a child protection and

6 children looked after nature to the receiving authority,

7 but not children in need. I draw you back to the fact

8 that there are 49,000 people in temporary accommodation

9 placed by housing departments and 34,000 people who are

10 asylum seekers in London. To manage logistically the

11 referral across borders of those people is impossible,

12 but obviously it will be a question for the Inquiry to

13 consider.

14 MR GARNHAM: So the arrangements that exist as a result of

15 agreement between the London directors of social service

16 for informing neighbouring boroughs' social services

17 departments you say do not apply absent a child

18 protection concern?

19 MS FINLAY: As I understand it, that refers to children on

20 the Child Protection Register, not children in need.

21 MR GARNHAM: I am not attempting to dissuade you of that,

22 but I wonder if we could, for the sake of completeness,

23 look at that document. It is volume 20, please,

24 page 181.

25 MS FINLAY: This is Ealing child protection procedures that

128



1 you have drawn me to.

2 MR GARNHAM: Correct. But it refers, I think, to an

3 agreement that exists outside those procedures, because

4 it is found in other documents as well. I am just

5 taking you to it here, because it happens to be

6 a convenient place to find it. We see there, under

7 15.1:

8 "Social services responsibilities for homeless

9 families placed across borough boundaries.

10 "The London Directors of Social Services, the London

11 Boroughs Association and Association of London

12 Authorities confirmed their support to the five

13 principles below."

14 You are familiar with these?

15 MS FINLAY: Yes.

16 MR GARNHAM: The fourth of those is:

17 "With families placed in bed and breakfast, it is

18 considered good practice for the placing borough to

19 provide social services support immediately following

20 the placement, until and unless such support is

21 specifically assumed by the receiving borough."

22 MS FINLAY: I think that that is an admirable principle.

23 I consulted with the SSI on this point. They did not

24 believe it to be something that was being implemented in

25 London. They did not believe -- they had questions

129



1 about what the family in the receiving boroughs would do

2 with that information, and that it would merely add to

3 what is already a complex problem. So I accept if it is

4 here, and the directors of social services recommend we

5 should do it, we should have been doing it, but I did

6 refer to the SSI and they raised concerns about it, were

7 not aware of it happening, and as I say, I think

8 logistically it would be difficult to do. However, if

9 the Inquiry recommends and the Government take it on,

10 then we will, of course, implement it.

11 MR GARNHAM: When did you raise it with the SSI?

12 MS FINLAY: Recently, in respect of this Inquiry.

13 MR GARNHAM: By letter or by telephone?

14 MS FINLAY: By e-mail.

15 MR GARNHAM: I wonder if I could trouble you, after today is

16 over, if you could let us have copies of that e-mail and

17 the reply.

18 MS FINLAY: Certainly.

19 MR GARNHAM: On the face of it, that principle is not

20 limited to child protection cases, is it? It is found

21 in the manual, but it is not limited to them.

22 MS FINLAY: No, that is correct.

23 MR GARNHAM: And that presumably is why you raised it with

24 the SSI?

25 MS FINLAY: Yes.

130



1 MR GARNHAM: But if it is a principle intended to be of

2 general application, then it is a second respect in

3 which the circumstances of your closure of this file

4 fall short, is it not?

5 MS FINLAY: I think that is a valid point. As I say,

6 operationally, I think it presents difficulties.

7 MR GARNHAM: Yes. Even if it did present operational

8 difficulties, if it is a principle that is agreed

9 between directors of social services, the aim ought to

10 be to comply with it unless it is amended or changed,

11 ought it not?

12 MS FINLAY: That is correct. I have no defence for us not

13 implementing it if it was agreed.

14 (2.30 pm)

15 MR GARNHAM: Can I turn now to something you raised at the

16 beginning of your evidence, namely the SSI report of

17 December 1997, which as you fairly say is critical.

18 I suppose it is relatively easy for you to say that,

19 because that was before you arrived.

20 MS FINLAY: Yes.

21 MR GARNHAM: Sir, for your note, it is the first document in

22 volume 15, but I do not think we need to look at it for

23 the moment, because I gather from your earlier comments,

24 Ms Finlay, that you are pretty familiar with it.

25 MS FINLAY: Reasonably.

131



1 MR GARNHAM: It is all right, this is not going to be a

2 memory test.

3 MS FINLAY: Good.

4 MR GARNHAM: It related primarily to the safety of children

5 looked after, I think.

6 MS FINLAY: Yes, that is correct.

7 MR GARNHAM: And it resulted in your department being placed

8 on special measures.

9 MS FINLAY: Correct.

10 MR GARNHAM: The criticism was framed rather wider than

11 children looked after, was it not?

12 MS FINLAY: Yes, it was a fairly fundamental criticism of

13 the department at the time.

14 MR GARNHAM: You explain in your statement how a taskforce

15 was created, and I think that was then replaced by

16 another mechanism.

17 MS FINLAY: Yes.

18 MR GARNHAM: Called?

19 MS FINLAY: There are two bodies now overseeing the changes

20 in the department, led by members, and one of them is

21 the Corporate Parent Panel, which obviously relates to

22 children looked after, and the other is the Children's

23 Policy Development Group, and that relates to children

24 in need, including children at risk of social inclusion

25 so it goes slightly wider into vulnerable children

132



1 rather than just children in need.

2 MR GARNHAM: I wonder if you could have volume 12 available

3 to you, please, page 252. That, I think and hope, is an

4 action plan that was generated as a result of the work

5 of the two bodies you have referred to.

6 MS FINLAY: That would have been the taskforce and

7 John Skinner, who was the Assistant Director of

8 Childrens at the time, plus obviously Norman Tutt, the

9 Director, and the other managers like myself.

10 MR GARNHAM: But it was intended, was it not, to address the

11 criticisms levelled against your department in the SSI

12 report?

13 MS FINLAY: Correct.

14 MR GARNHAM: Action number 7, if you flick through it --

15 I am sorry, I ought to have first of all drawn your

16 attention to the date at the top of 12/252. It is

17 March 1999.

18 MS FINLAY: Yes.

19 MR GARNHAM: Item number 7 reads:

20 "As part of the drive to ensure that Referral and

21 Assessment Teams are staffed with experienced and

22 qualified social workers, opportunities should be taken

23 to review the deployment of the existing workforce."

24 We see that that is to be done by September 30th

25 1999. How far had you got in that task by April 1999?

133



1 MS FINLAY: It is difficult to -- it is an easy thing to

2 say, to say that we should review the deployment of the

3 existing workforce.

4 MR GARNHAM: It involves work and takes time.

5 MS FINLAY: Staff have to want to be redeployed. The

6 assessment teams are quite particular teams, in that

7 people have to want to be involved in crisis situations.

8 Some people prefer longer term work. So actually

9 I think by September 1999, we probably were not in

10 a position with many different staff.

11 MR GARNHAM: And certainly that was the position between

12 April and July of that year.

13 MS FINLAY: That certainly was.

14 MR GARNHAM: Do you think you had started that work at all

15 by the time Victoria's case was closed in July?

16 MS FINLAY: We had certainly audited all of the work, as is

17 shown here, to see what the workloads were like in the

18 respective teams. It showed in fact that the Referral

19 and Assessment Team in Acton had 11.25 average cases,

20 42 cases, short-term cases, and duty. The issue of

21 quality of staff is a different matter. It is

22 a national concern. So I think that in terms of volume

23 of work and ability to manage it, that team were

24 functioning, in terms of volume of work, reasonably

25 effectively, but there was an issue of quality.

134



1 MR GARNHAM: Have you got a very different team make-up now,

2 in terms of individuals, to what you had in April 1999?

3 MS FINLAY: We have a number of the same staff. We have --

4 Sharmain Lawrence is now the team manager, there is

5 a senior practitioner who is experienced in childcare.

6 MR GARNHAM: Is your team in better shape now?

7 MS FINLAY: I hope it is in better shape. They are

8 certainly undertaking better work. It is not possible

9 to be complacent in children's social work, because it

10 is a constant struggle to maintain standards, and we

11 believe in high standards. It is why I certainly came

12 into the business.

13 MR GARNHAM: Over the page, point 12:

14 "All cases being held on duty should have a named

15 worker to progress the work within identified

16 timescales."

17 A recommendation with which I imagine you would not

18 quarrel.

19 MS FINLAY: No.

20 MR GARNHAM: A recommendation which had not been implemented

21 by the time Victoria came to the attention of Ealing.

22 MS FINLAY: We were working on it, and certainly we have it

23 in place now, and that, to my mind, is the best way of

24 progressing work in referral and assessment teams,

25 because otherwise, children with perceived lesser

135



1 degrees of need will fall through the cracks.

2 MR GARNHAM: Yes, as happened here.

3 MS FINLAY: Possibly.

4 MR GARNHAM: There was a substantial delay, was there not,

5 in Victoria's case being allocated to a social worker?

6 MS FINLAY: That is correct.

7 MR GARNHAM: From the end of April to, it now looks like,

8 30th July, although it could have been the 23rd.

9 MS FINLAY: It would appear to be the 30th, from evidence

10 given.

11 MR GARNHAM: That would now be regarded as unacceptable?

12 MS FINLAY: It is unacceptable.

13 MR GARNHAM: And should have been regarded as unacceptable

14 in April, given that this report came out in March.

15 MS FINLAY: Yes, it is unacceptable. There is no excuses

16 for it, save to put it in the context of where we were

17 at the point, which was at a low base point.

18 MR GARNHAM: Absolutely, but whilst you make a perfectly

19 fair point about the difficulty of recruiting staff so

20 as to comply with action point number 7, the same cannot

21 be said, can it, about action point number 12? That

22 could have been dealt with and direction issued

23 immediately you received this report.

24 MS FINLAY: As I recall, we did issue a direction

25 immediately, and it took time to bed in.

136



1 MR GARNHAM: I do not understand what that means.

2 MS FINLAY: My recollection of that -- we were working

3 intensively with managers to ensure that cases were

4 allocated quickly. That involved a change in culture

5 and a change in understanding of the work, and we did

6 not get there straight away, so I accept it is a fair

7 criticism. We should have had work allocated

8 immediately but we did not.

9 MR GARNHAM: It is a perfectly fair thing to say, in respect

10 of some structural changes, that they take time to bed

11 in.

12 MS FINLAY: They do.

13 MR GARNHAM: But I do not understand why something that

14 requires a simple decision, namely that cases will be

15 allocated, needs time to bed in. Can you explain that?

16 MS FINLAY: I think if you look at the case load working

17 figures which showed the average case load of 11.25, and

18 42 short-term pieces of work on duty, that represents

19 our position at the time; 42 short-term pieces of work

20 on duty to my mind was not bad, because those can

21 involve one single phone call. The majority of cases

22 had been allocated and processed.

23 MR GARNHAM: I would not quarrel with that. The point I am

24 quarrelling with is the instance like Victoria's, that

25 stays unallocated for nine weeks.

137



1 MS FINLAY: As I have said, that is unacceptable.

2 MR GARNHAM: And could have been dealt with even in the

3 short time between the receipt of this report in March

4 and her arrival in April.

5 MS FINLAY: It is a fair comment. I accept full

6 responsibility for the fact that we did not progress the

7 work properly.

8 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. You describe the restructuring work

9 that occurred in December 1998, soon after your arrival.

10 Did those changes result in improvements in the quality

11 of work in the department? Did the structural changes

12 improve the work?

13 MS FINLAY: I believe the structural changes do improve the

14 quality of the work, so they did at the time. They

15 particularly improve focus on children looked after and

16 children in need of child protection, because they have

17 a specialist approach to their planning of their

18 childcare plans. In terms of the referral and

19 assessment, although there were difficulties at the

20 time, that is the best structure for delivering the

21 timescales of the assessment framework, so we have

22 dedicated teams and not rotating duty services as used

23 to happen.

24 MR GARNHAM: You say in paragraph 10 of your second

25 statement that sufficient financial resources were made

138



1 available at the time to ensure that additional staff

2 could be recruited to undertake the work required. Were

3 the additional staff recruited for which that financial

4 provision had been made?

5 MS FINLAY: Yes, there were. There was one extra worker in

6 the Referral and Assessment Team in Acton and a number

7 of extra workers in different parts of the organisation.

8 MR GARNHAM: When was the one in Acton taken on?

9 MS FINLAY: Probably immediately, immediately after the

10 December 1998 inspection, but I cannot recall.

11 MR GARNHAM: So in place by the time of Victoria's contact?

12 MS FINLAY: Certainly, yes.

13 MR GARNHAM: You say, quite fairly, that the further

14 inspection undertaken in March 1999 noted significant

15 improvement in the services you provided.

16 MS FINLAY: Correct.

17 MR GARNHAM: But you say, in paragraph 14 of your statement,

18 that as a consequence of the structure of the duty

19 system prior to the new structure, there was a backlog

20 of work.

21 MS FINLAY: Yes, there were about 200 cases when we

22 restructured into the new referral and assessment

23 processes.

24 MR GARNHAM: What had gone wrong to lead to that backlog?

25 MS FINLAY: There is a generic duty structure, which is

139



1 probably familiar to Lord Laming, that different areas'

2 social work teams would rotate duty on a weekly basis,

3 so that a social worker may be allocated a duty day, but

4 then have no responsibility for following up the work.

5 By creating dedicated teams, we create responsibility

6 for ensuring that the work is completed, which is one

7 step beneath the principle of allocating work, to make

8 sure everything is completed.

9 MR GARNHAM: So it was the absence of that structural device

10 which meant this backlog had built up?

11 MS FINLAY: Correct, and perhaps staffing levels were low.

12 I cannot comment on that. I suspect it is more to do

13 with the generic structure.

14 MR GARNHAM: Was the backlog of work still affecting the way

15 social workers went about their work in April 1999?

16 MS FINLAY: I think it is fair to say that particularly with

17 housing cases, they were mindful of progressing the work

18 as quickly as possible, and that is why we did not

19 assess Victoria in her own right. I think with child

20 protection and children in need of accommodation cases,

21 we were clearer and more defined in the principles of

22 our involvement, but with cases like homelessness, we

23 failed to undertake the proper work.

24 MR GARNHAM: Do you think that there was also a failure to

25 recognise the potential significance of homeless cases

140



1 because of financial constraints?

2 MS FINLAY: No, I think if you look at Victoria's case, you

3 will see that we would probably have -- if we had dealt

4 with it now, we would have dealt with it and it would

5 have been more cost effective in staff time and

6 financial resources, because actually we would have

7 processed it quickly; we would have done an assessment

8 quickly. As it was, we had 20 contacts with her and

9 paid out money over a three-month period, so I do not

10 think resources was an issue, I think it was

11 a management issue.

12 MR GARNHAM: In fact, money was being wasted, was it not?

13 It could have been better directed.

14 MS FINLAY: It could have been better directed.

15 MR GARNHAM: You were here, I think, were you not, on

16 Tuesday when Sarah Stollard gave her evidence?

17 MS FINLAY: Yes, I was.

18 MR GARNHAM: What was your reaction to her description of

19 the systems in place, in the time with which we are

20 concerned?

21 MS FINLAY: As I said before lunch, I think the systems were

22 basic in construct and very much an attempt by us to

23 make sure we did not lose cases in the 400 cases that

24 would come through in a duty month. There are less

25 cases coming through now for whatever reason, but there

141



1 were at the time 400 cases and the manual tracking

2 system was essential in making sure that we did not miss

3 things and did not lose bits of paper, because

4 individual referrals can be a very small piece of paper,

5 as you will appreciate, they are not necessarily a full

6 case file, so the tracking system was in place to do

7 that.

8 MR GARNHAM: To the outsider, the description Ms Stollard

9 gave yesterday of the manual tracking system suggested

10 a rather unimpressive system, self-evidently capable of

11 missing important cases or important events in

12 particular cases; do you agree?

13 MS FINLAY: As I have said, it was a basic system designed

14 to remedy an immediate position; crisis, if you will,

15 and by allocating the cases as we do now, we have

16 remedied that situation.

17 MR GARNHAM: Yes. It was designed, or rather not designed;

18 it was dependent on the memory and hard work of the

19 particular managers who were operating it, was it not?

20 MS FINLAY: Not the memory, because they were recording

21 cases as they came in, but certainly the hard work. We

22 replaced that with a computerised system not long after

23 the March 1999 inspection. Possibly -- I am not sure

24 exactly when, because it was two and a half years.

25 MR GARNHAM: That was going to be my next question, when was

142



1 the computerised system introduced?

2 MS FINLAY: We had a computerised system and certainly it

3 was in place by the December 1999 inspection, but

4 I cannot comment on exactly when.

5 MR GARNHAM: Was it not the obvious way to deal with this

6 problem, as number of cases grew, not to depend on

7 people scribbling notes on sheets of paper, but to

8 computerise it? This is not 1970, this is 1998/1999.

9 MS FINLAY: You obviously have not experienced local

10 authority infrastructures. We have difficulties in

11 management information and management processes. Our

12 basic databases at the time were not producing the

13 information that we needed, and therefore this was an

14 additional safeguard. Not satisfactory, I agree, but it

15 was thought necessary at the time.

16 MR GARNHAM: The system of putting files into cabinets when

17 there was nothing urgent pending seems equally

18 guaranteed to result in mistakes.

19 MS FINLAY: I think Ms Stollard may not have conveyed

20 accurately what the A to Z cabinet was for. Merely it

21 was for storing the work when cases were not being

22 actioned. Therefore, I would have expected the managers

23 on each duty day to deal with what was in the pending

24 file, which is the cases brought forward for that day,

25 and then to allocate the remainder of the cases in the A

143



1 to Z cabinet according to priorities.

2 (2.45 pm)

3 MR GARNHAM: Even more worrying then that the manager does

4 not know what the cabinet is for.

5 MS FINLAY: Ms Stollard left the department over a year ago,

6 and I think it is sometimes difficult to recollect,

7 because she will be operating a different system now.

8 MR GARNHAM: Yes. The system as she described it depended

9 on a verbal handover from one manager, her, to another,

10 Lawrence, at the end of each duty week.

11 MS FINLAY: That is correct.

12 MR GARNHAM: She explained to us and explains in her

13 statement how on occasions, perfectly understandably,

14 one or other of them might be out of the office,

15 attending case conferences or meetings or whatever.

16 The impression that I was left with, but correct me

17 if this is inaccurate, is that what happened in the case

18 of those absences was that the handover did not take

19 place.

20 MS FINLAY: I think Ms Stollard, perhaps in evidence or

21 perhaps in her statement, made clear that she or

22 Ms Lawrence would have recorded it --

23 MR GARNHAM: Leaving a note?

24 MS FINLAY: One could say leaving a note, or one could say

25 leaving a list of advice and instructions, but that

144



1 certainly would have taken place. Had anything urgent

2 been in place, either of them would have drawn that to

3 my attention and made sure the information was passed

4 across.

5 MR GARNHAM: But it does demonstrate the total inadequacy of

6 the system that was in place does it not, that it was

7 dependent on somebody leaving a note for somebody else

8 when they are off at a meeting?

9 MS FINLAY: It is an imperfect science, social work.

10 MR GARNHAM: Yes, but come on, that is not a fair answer, is

11 it? Of course, social work is an imperfect science, but

12 the science of passing information from one manager to

13 another is perfectly capable of a scientific solution.

14 MS FINLAY: As I said, they would either have met

15 face-to-face; they would have done a handover note or

16 they would have passed information via me.

17 MR GARNHAM: And you regard that as adequate?

18 MS FINLAY: I do regard that as adequate.

19 MR GARNHAM: You describe in paragraph 15 of your statement

20 the fact that there were some difficulties in the

21 working relationship between Sharmain Lawrence and

22 Sarah Stollard.

23 MS FINLAY: That is correct.

24 MR GARNHAM: My concern in asking questions about that is

25 not to explore the rights and wrongs of that difference,

145



1 except insofar as it affects Victoria, but I am

2 interested in the way in which the difficulties between

3 two critical members of your staff were managed. Was

4 there a problem because they were not getting on, for

5 whatever reason, in ensuring that the handovers, first

6 of all, were properly carried out?

7 MS FINLAY: No, they were both professional staff and they

8 will have put aside any personal difficulties to ensure

9 that the well-being of children was maintained.

10 I cannot believe they will have allowed that to

11 interfere with their business.

12 MR GARNHAM: Were there occasions on which Sharmain Lawrence

13 would bypass Sarah Stollard and come to you because of

14 the difficulties she felt with Sarah Stollard?

15 MS FINLAY: No.

16 MR GARNHAM: Were there occasions on which staff would

17 bypass Sharmain Lawrence because of these difficulties

18 in the office?

19 MS FINLAY: Not that I am aware of.

20 MR GARNHAM: Were you confident at the time that there was

21 a proper degree of consultation between them, despite

22 the fact that they were so spectacularly falling out?

23 MS FINLAY: Of course that worried me, and I monitored it

24 closely, as you will probably be aware.

25 MR GARNHAM: I am interested to know how you went about

146



1 managing the differences between these two managers, who

2 are themselves having differences of view.

3 MS FINLAY: I think in relation to Victoria's case, both

4 Ms Stollard and Ms Lawrence have confirmed that they did

5 not believe it to be relevant to the Inquiry. I do not

6 know whether you want me to continue further down --

7 MR GARNHAM: No, I would be grateful if you would answer it

8 in the way I indicated, not by going into the nature of

9 the disagreement between them, but describing how you

10 went about ensuring that the case work was properly

11 dealt with, despite the fact that they were not getting

12 on.

13 MS FINLAY: I organised meetings with them, together and

14 separately, and spent a lot of time on duty. As you can

15 see from Victoria's case, that people expected a high

16 level of discussion with me, and that was the role

17 I took in the Referral and Assessment Teams.

18 MR GARNHAM: Sarah Stollard described on Tuesday the

19 supervisory arrangements that were in place, and I think

20 supervision in this sense is used in two different

21 senses, is it not: both supervision of workers in the

22 way they went about their work and supervision of the

23 work they were doing?

24 MS FINLAY: Yes.

25 MR GARNHAM: Given the differences between Lawrence and

147



1 Stollard, was each of those types of supervision

2 properly dealt with?

3 MS FINLAY: I undertook some three-way meetings with them to

4 establish the principle of supervision.

5 MR GARNHAM: That is the supervision of them as workers, or

6 supervision of their work?

7 MS FINLAY: Supervision of Sarah with Sharmain; is that what

8 you were referring to?

9 MR GARNHAM: I am referring to -- let us take it in turns.

10 Let us first of all take the supervision of these as

11 working members of your team.

12 MS FINLAY: Certainly. I supervised Sarah obviously. Sarah

13 supervised Sharmain, and they outlined their supervisory

14 responsibilities yesterday, I believe.

15 MR GARNHAM: And did you have any involvement in the

16 supervision of Sharmain by Sarah?

17 MS FINLAY: No.

18 MR GARNHAM: So it was left --

19 MS FINLAY: Save for some three-way meetings that we had.

20 MR GARNHAM: And the supervision of their work?

21 MS FINLAY: Would be done in the context of supervision.

22 I was actively involved in trying to address that

23 situation, because I had concerns about the impact on

24 the morale of the staff, the individuals concerned and,

25 of course, the services to service users.

148



1 MR GARNHAM: You describe in paragraph 18 of your statement

2 how new referrals were inputted on to the client

3 database.

4 MS FINLAY: Yes.

5 MR GARNHAM: Was Victoria's amongst those?

6 MS FINLAY: Yes.

7 MR GARNHAM: So this is a database that did exist at the

8 time of her contact with you?

9 MS FINLAY: Yes.

10 MR GARNHAM: But that same database could not be used for

11 the tracking function.

12 MS FINLAY: It did not have the -- it could release

13 information at the time on individual cases, so that you

14 could interrogate on the basis of the individual cases.

15 It could not easily provide a record that was accessible

16 for managers. It can now, and as I say, it was in place

17 before the December 1999 inspection.

18 MR GARNHAM: So it was a matter of the absence of a piece of

19 software, was it?

20 MS FINLAY: You would have to ask someone else about that.

21 MR GARNHAM: You explain in paragraph 20 that Victoria's

22 case was recorded on a client index.

23 MS FINLAY: Same thing.

24 MR GARNHAM: You describe the implementation of the new

25 child protection procedures in paragraph 21 of your

149



1 statement; they were implemented, you say, in

2 February 1999?

3 MS FINLAY: That is correct.

4 MR GARNHAM: I think it is right however that the new child

5 in need forms were only introduced in October 1999.

6 MS FINLAY: I cannot recall.

7 MR GARNHAM: Was there a delay between those two?

8 MS FINLAY: I am surprised that the children in need forms

9 were as late as October 1999. They obviously were not

10 in place when Victoria's case was being handled, in

11 April and July.

12 MR GARNHAM: I confess my notes are defective and I do not

13 recall where I got that from, but I think it was

14 Sarah Stollard's statement.

15 MS FINLAY: I would be surprised about that, but perhaps

16 that is the case.

17 MR GARNHAM: The follow-up inspection by the SSI in

18 December 1999; the inspectors made a number of

19 complimentary remarks about the work that had been done,

20 but it is right to say, is it not, that there were also

21 areas of criticism and areas where it was said standards

22 still had to improve?

23 MS FINLAY: Of course.

24 MR GARNHAM: I wonder if I could ask you to look at the

25 chapter in that report dealing with referral and

150



1 assessment; it is in volume 15. If you go to page 94,

2 please, at 7.4:

3 "We noted that considerable effort had been made to

4 clear the backlog, which had only recently been

5 achieved."

6 So it took you some time to do it.

7 MS FINLAY: I think that was particularly the case in the

8 Greenford area office.

9 MR GARNHAM: "We spent time in both Referral and Assessment

10 Teams and noted that emergency responses were generally

11 good. However, in some cases that we examined, we

12 thought greater consideration could have been given to

13 alternative supportive responses ..."

14 At the end of that paragraph:

15 "As duty becomes more manageable a move to a more

16 balanced assessment of the best response will be

17 appropriate and achievable."

18 Is that something that you have addressed since?

19 MS FINLAY: I think that is a fair assessment of where we

20 were at the time. I believe it is something we have

21 assessed since.

22 MR GARNHAM: Assessed since?

23 MS FINLAY: Implemented. It is a constant -- resources are

24 always an issue in children's services, in terms of

25 staffing, and that national crisis that I have alluded