|
Archived Transcript for 4 October 2001: Pages
151 to 214
151
1 to. Currently, we have got two referral and assessment
2 teams, we are implementing the housing and social
3 services team I think 29th October. We are also using
4 a call centre which will split out some of the work. So
5 there will be effectively three points of -- one point
6 of contact, and then they will refer work on to the
7 referral and assessment teams or divert to universal
8 services. We are also doing a joint project with the
9 Family Welfare Association, in terms of them providing
10 better family support, and helping families to access
11 non-social work services, so we are making a range of
12 efforts to improve the quality of early intervention
13 because that is key. If we get it right at the first
14 point, then obviously we deliver better services
15 throughout.
16 MR GARNHAM: Over the page, 7.8:
17 "The duty system would benefit from increased
18 management oversight."
19 Does that refer again to the Greenford office?
20 Page 95, paragraph 7.8.
21 MS FINLAY: Yes.
22 MR GARNHAM: "... increased management oversight".
23 MS FINLAY: That related to the operations manager, who was
24 my equivalent at the time, I believe, rather than the
25 team manager, although there had been the gap in the
152
1 appointment of a team manager. One had left since
2 I started, but I think that related to my equivalent
3 post.
4 MR GARNHAM: 7.10:
5 "Initial assessments carried out by the referral and
6 assessment teams were of more variable quality ..."
7 That is variable from the 'good' that it has
8 attracted in the previous paragraph:
9 "... particularly for lower priority cases."
10 MS FINLAY: I think that is again a fair comment.
11 MR GARNHAM: But it means, does it not, that by
12 December 1999 you are still not getting the referral --
13 I am sorry, the initial assessment by referral and
14 assessment teams right.
15 MS FINLAY: I would estimate that the situation in which
16 Ealing was when I joined in September 1998, it really
17 takes three years to improve the solid foundation of
18 services where you can reliably say that work is
19 conducted to an appropriate standard, and I think we are
20 just about at that point, but as I say, I am not
21 complacent, because this work is of a very serious
22 nature.
23 MR GARNHAM: Can I go on, please, to the "Quality Protects"
24 management action plan which you produced, which is in
25 volume 12, which has probably been taken away from you
153
1 now.
2 MS FINLAY: It has, yes.
3 MR GARNHAM: It is volume 12, page 95. The purpose of this
4 document was to help the authority transform its
5 children's services.
6 MS FINLAY: That is correct, it is a national programme, as
7 I am sure you are aware.
8 MR GARNHAM: And you see it presumably as being relevant to
9 cases like Victoria's?
10 MS FINLAY: It is relevant to the whole implementation of
11 our service, yes.
12 MR GARNHAM: Page 105 in volume 12, by the first bullet
13 hole:
14 "Ealing's strategy to translate the vision and aims
15 into action has begun, based around recommendations
16 arising from the recent SSI report and the action plan
17 recently revised."
18 Paragraph 1 of these principles is:
19 "To ensure effective mechanisms are in place that
20 enable the department to fulfil its responsibilities to
21 children in need in the borough through effective
22 initial and ongoing assessment and care planning
23 services."
24 That in many ways addresses the concern you have
25 recognised as being exposed by Victoria's case.
154
1 MS FINLAY: That is correct, and it is a weakness we are
2 working very hard to address.
3 MR GARNHAM: This action plan, this document, was published
4 I think in January 1999?
5 MS FINLAY: If that is the first management action plan,
6 then yes, that would be the case.
7 MR GARNHAM: So when Victoria's case came to be dealt with,
8 that imperative had already been established, but
9 presumably, your answer to that would be the same to the
10 previous one, it takes time to put these into effect.
11 MS FINLAY: That is correct.
12 MR GARNHAM: Page 115, in part 7, the national objective is
13 said to be:
14 "Referral and assessment processes discriminate
15 effectively between different types and levels of need
16 and produce a timely service response and provided at
17 levels which represent best value for money allow for
18 choice and different.
19 "Local objective: to have in place an efficient and
20 reliable assessment and referral process which provides
21 a responsive and prompt service to the public.
22 "Target outcome March 1999: set up systems and
23 identify improved performance targets."
24 Did you make those targets?
25 MS FINLAY: It is difficult to say, given that that was two,
155
1 three years ago nearly, what we were relating to at that
2 point. I have not looked at this management action plan
3 for some time.
4 MR GARNHAM: It would appear that Victoria's case
5 demonstrates that it certainly had not been
6 comprehensively achieved.
7 MS FINLAY: As I have said, it takes time to develop these
8 systems.
9 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. To pick up just a few minor final
10 points, Ms Finlay, first of all, Sarah Stollard said on
11 Tuesday that she felt that the office was turning into
12 something between a benefits agency and an estate
13 agency. Were you aware that that was the feeling of
14 your staff?
15 MS FINLAY: Yes, I was, and that is why I undertook to set
16 up the Housing and Social Services Team, because it was
17 a level of need that was not being most effectively met
18 by that structure.
19 MR GARNHAM: And the danger was that approaching the cases
20 you had in that manner diverted you from the substance
21 of the work you should be doing.
22 MS FINLAY: Yes, that is correct. It diverted us beyond the
23 presenting problem of those housing cases and also from
24 other business that is core business.
25 MR GARNHAM: And Victoria's case was a classic example of
156
1 that?
2 MS FINLAY: That is correct.
3 MR GARNHAM: Can I just ask about your response to the
4 staff's reaction to the difficulties in your office?
5 Ms Lawrence said this morning that she reported to you
6 that the duty system was chaotic, and that there were no
7 clear processes for referrals or monitoring. Now first
8 of all, do you recall her reporting that to you?
9 MS FINLAY: I do not particularly, although we had a number
10 of conversations and certainly it may not have come
11 across in quite that vein. At the time, I would have
12 shared concerns that we needed to do much to remedy
13 those initial processes, so the fact that I do not
14 remember it does not mean to say that it did not happen,
15 because it would have been a common concern of mine. As
16 it is now, the frontline services are essential.
17 MR GARNHAM: And was your response to it the sort of
18 structural changes that you have outlined to us during
19 the course of your evidence?
20 MS FINLAY: That is correct.
21 MR GARNHAM: Was there nothing more immediate, more
22 practical, that you could do to address her concerns if
23 she now accurately recollects them?
24 MS FINLAY: There were many things we did at the time that
25 obviously I will not be able to fully recollect, because
157
1 it does seem like a long time ago.
2 MR GARNHAM: Can you recollect anything that is material to
3 the circumstances of a case like Victoria's?
4 MS FINLAY: I would have ensured that they had as many staff
5 as they needed to progress the business. I would not
6 have let finance interfere with the fact that they had
7 work that they could not progress, so they would have
8 had as many staff as they needed at that point. I have
9 spent a lot of time on duty myself, ensuring that -- and
10 was available and accessible to staff to consult on. As
11 I say, by December 1999, we had the tracking system in
12 place that was a computerised system. I cannot recall
13 what else I did, but I was certainly busy, because it is
14 a cause for concern, or was a cause for concern,
15 certainly.
16 MR GARNHAM: What sort of training was available to staff in
17 April 1999 to deal with recognition of children in need
18 and child protection concerns?
19 MS FINLAY: The training programme -- we had a five day
20 initial child protection training that we implemented,
21 certainly after John Skinner started, because he brought
22 that process with him, and that was part of the
23 induction of the child protection procedures --
24 MR GARNHAM: Can I interrupt you there to ask whether your
25 staff had gone on that course by the time of April 1999?
158
1 MS FINLAY: Yes, because in looking at Pamela Fortune's
2 diary yesterday, I saw that she had been on that course,
3 she had been on memorandum training.
4 MR GARNHAM: I noticed too that she had, and that was what
5 prompted me to ask whether others had.
6 MS FINLAY: Yes, the whole team would have. It was
7 compulsory, including for managers.
8 MR GARNHAM: Is such training, do you know, available to
9 other people like Julie Winter in other departments?
10 MS FINLAY: I was going to raise that actually as
11 a concluding part, because I was there when Julie gave
12 her evidence. Since my inception as Director of
13 Children's Services, I have got a housing representative
14 on the ACPC, and they have been included in the
15 development of child protection training, so they have
16 some specific courses set up for November 2001. They
17 are also involved in a professional practice forum,
18 which we started in the summer, which allows
19 a multi-agency approach to looking at common cases and
20 thinking about how each agency would respond. Last year
21 we ran a neglect course which was open to all agencies
22 and this year we are doing the same thing with the
23 domestic violence issue, so housing is now -- and all of
24 the other partner agencies are fully involved in our
25 training.
159
1 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. Almost invariably fatal words for
2 an advocate to say, but I think this is my last
3 question.
4 If a mother and child came into your office tomorrow
5 morning and said that they were destitute and homeless,
6 what would you now expect your office to do?
7 MS FINLAY: I think I described that when I described the
8 homeless family who came in on Friday. I would expect
9 staff to see the mother and child properly, to consult
10 properly with the child, according to their age and
11 circumstances, to think about what information they
12 needed to access, whether they might want to consult
13 with the school, the father of that child, the other
14 relatives, to ascertain the support networks of that
15 child, to look at why they had become homeless, to look
16 at the wider environmental practice, which includes
17 money and accommodation that other family members might
18 have, and to look at the parenting capacity and the
19 strengths of the parent. So I would expect
20 a comprehensive assessment to be done and I would expect
21 it to be done quickly.
22 MR GARNHAM: Thank you very much, sir. Thank you.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Garnham. Ms Mayer, please?
24 MS MAYER: Ms Finlay, I only have one matter to qualify, you
25 may be relieved to know, and that is this: I may have
160
1 inadvertently when I was asking Phillip Joseph questions
2 suggested that Kouao had accommodation back in France.
3 In fact it was clear, even at the very outset of your
4 department's involvement with her, that she lost her
5 flat because of rent arrears.
6 MS FINLAY: That is correct.
7 MS MAYER: Did you, however, know whether she had access to
8 benefits, under the French system?
9 MS FINLAY: She was a French citizen, and therefore, of
10 course, she had access to benefits in that country.
11 That was our assumption, but I think Mr Garnham covered
12 that, and I could not be confident about that, because
13 none of the staff had explored that directly with her.
14 MS MAYER: In the document of, I think, William Martin,
15 there is a National Insurance number.
16 MS FINLAY: That is correct. That would further lead us to
17 believe that she was eligible for services and
18 assistance in that country.
19 MS MAYER: You knew she was a French national?
20 MS FINLAY: Yes.
21 MS MAYER: As far as you were concerned, you had no reason
22 to think that she was not entitled to benefits?
23 MS FINLAY: No, she had appropriate documentation.
24 MS MAYER: Yes, thank you. I have no other matters.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Ms Mayer.
161
1 Just a few questions if I may, Ms Finlay. There has
2 been a number of changes in Ealing that I have not
3 caught up with, so you will have to help me on these.
4 Who was the Director of Social Services when you joined
5 Ealing?
6 MS FINLAY: Norman Tutt. Norman joined in June 1998. He
7 replaced the predecessor, Roy George.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Could you say where you came
9 from?
10 MS FINLAY: I came from Tower Hamlets, where I had worked
11 for five years as a team manager. Prior to that
12 I worked in Islington and prior to that I worked in
13 Redbridge, all in children's services.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: So you had had a long number of years in
15 children's services?
16 MS FINLAY: That is correct.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: I was taken with your very helpful
18 illustration of the family from Ireland, and I wonder if
19 you could just take me through that again, please, to
20 make sure I have got it right.
21 MS FINLAY: Certainly. As I said, the family presented to
22 the social worker at the area office the day after he
23 had arrived in the country. He brought with him two of
24 his seven children. He told us he had slept overnight
25 in a car. The children and he looked dishevelled, like
162
1 that might have been the truth, so the social worker had
2 already before I spoke to her undertaken to speak with
3 the mother of the family. She had consulted with the
4 education -- via the school in Ireland. She had
5 consulted with social services in Ireland, to ensure
6 that the information being given by the father was
7 congruent with what else we might know about him.
8 The social worker also undertook to speak to the
9 children directly, as they were eight and ten, and
10 therefore were of an age where they could present
11 information, to make sure there was nothing strange in
12 the dynamic, because it was to us an odd situation, but
13 it was all dealt with on the same day as the man
14 presented, and the outcome of it was he went home to his
15 family in Ireland.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: You regarded that as good practice?
17 MS FINLAY: I do regard that as good practice.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: And is it fair to say that is done under
19 exactly the same legislation and procedures as Victoria?
20 MS FINLAY: Yes, Section 17.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: In other words, exactly the same could have
22 been done with Victoria?
23 MS FINLAY: That is correct. And, of course, we wish it had
24 been.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: And there was no reason why it should not
163
1 have been done?
2 MS FINLAY: No, that is correct, save for the context we
3 were in at the time.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: And the context that you were in at the time,
5 just so that I get it absolutely right, your
6 professional assessment was the difficulties were not
7 about resources, they were about systems.
8 MS FINLAY: That is partly correct. I would never want to
9 say that there is not a resource issue in social work,
10 because, of course, I am not sure that SSA adequately
11 meets what we would want for children's service, and
12 there is that staffing crisis, but in terms of
13 delivering that service to Victoria, I cannot say that
14 resources were an issue, because we paid more than
15 probably we would have if we had done a proper
16 assessment and we certainly took longer about it.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, you fairly said earlier on that
18 actually, if resources had been properly used, you would
19 have probably spent less.
20 MS FINLAY: Yes.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: When the case got to you, it was primarily,
22 if I understand it, about authorising expenditure.
23 MS FINLAY: That is correct.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Would it be fair to say that you were in
25 a position, because no assessment was made, that you
164
1 were authorising expenditure without any plan of any
2 kind?
3 MS FINLAY: That is correct. Unfortunately, I had been told
4 that an assessment had been done, and therefore had no
5 reason to disbelieve that that was the case.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Why would you not have asked whether this
7 expenditure was related to a proper care plan?
8 MS FINLAY: I do now, of course, but at the time I was
9 assured that a comprehensive assessment had been
10 undertaken and I took that at face value. You will be
11 aware that at any time, I could be asked about 500
12 children either looked after or on the Child Protection
13 Register, and another 700 children in need, and I can be
14 asked that whether I am here or anywhere, and that is
15 difficult, of course, to follow through consistently.
16 One has to take some things at face value.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, I have an understanding of that
18 situation. But -- I do not want to be unfair about
19 this, because I do understand the reality of life, and
20 I still remember it, people in your situation, but there
21 are some fundamentals that you would expect to see in
22 place, are there not? One was the assessment and one
23 was a plan of action for this child.
24 MS FINLAY: That is correct.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Were you not required, in accounting for the
165
1 expenditure, to be able to indicate that this was
2 related to some outcome?
3 MS FINLAY: I think that we struggled with those cases, and
4 it is true to say that I would do it differently now.
5 At the time, we had probably seven housing assessments
6 at least in the Acton office a week, and we did not do
7 them as well as we should, and obviously I take
8 responsibility for my part in that.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether you were here this
10 morning, I did not see you.
11 MS FINLAY: I was.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: It was fairly said this morning that although
13 initially Victoria was referred with a request for an
14 assessment to be made of Mrs Kouao's daughter, in fact
15 the agenda was an adult agenda.
16 MS FINLAY: Yes.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Were you aware at the time that a lot of
18 children may have been lost, if you like, in the system?
19 MS FINLAY: I do not believe they were -- I think we did not
20 look at their individual needs. We actually did not
21 lose cases. That is what I was referring to when I said
22 we had reached a basic standard of safeguarding, that we
23 were not actually losing information, which I think,
24 when I started, there were such cases happening. So
25 I accept that we did not assess Victoria's needs and in
166
1 that way she was lost to us, but not that we actually
2 physically lost those records.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: But you perhaps heard this morning that if
4 you actually had put together -- if the system had put
5 together all of the different strands of information
6 that was available, actually quite a significant picture
7 was beginning to emerge. Would it be fair to say that
8 the system did not enable all of those strands to be
9 brought together?
10 MS FINLAY: That is correct, and that is different now.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: And would it be your professional assessment
12 that looking back at this time, the department, in its
13 response to homeless families, had been drawn into
14 something that was described this morning as
15 a substitute income benefit service?
16 MS FINLAY: It certainly felt like that to staff and to
17 myself at times, that we were not contemplating what our
18 responsibilities were under the Children Act, we were
19 responding to people's presenting needs and not thinking
20 about how else we might achieve the promotion of the
21 child's health and development.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: What would you say is the main lesson to be
23 learnt from that?
24 MS FINLAY: I think for us, for myself, that we undertake
25 proper assessments of need of children, based on
167
1 gathering proper evidence and information and analysing
2 that information correctly.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Like Mr Garnham, I do not want to get into
4 the issues at all of the differences that existed
5 between Ms Stollard and Ms Lawrence, other than the way
6 in which they may have a bearing upon Victoria. But it
7 does seem to me that the system that existed, which was
8 not a sophisticated managerial system, did place an
9 awful lot of responsibility on individuals to actually
10 communicate effectively and work together, and I cannot
11 really think that when people had a disagreement that
12 that had no bearing upon the work; not necessarily about
13 Victoria, but generally.
14 MS FINLAY: I genuinely do not believe it had a bearing on
15 the work. I think they both conducted themselves
16 professionally. I think it did have an impact on them
17 as individuals and the team at a later point, probably
18 not during the time that Victoria was in the borough,
19 but at a later date. It was not something I was happy
20 with, and it was something I was working hard to remedy.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Did it have an impact on you?
22 MS FINLAY: Oh yes, it made me work very hard to try and
23 remedy it. It was not always easy.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: You had to work very hard to do what?
25 MS FINLAY: Well, not particularly during this period, but
168
1 I was very mindful of the fact that I needed to support
2 both managers, to try and reconcile their differences,
3 and to ensure that that was not spilling out into the
4 team, and I worked to do that, and, of course, you will
5 appreciate that those things need to be done with
6 sensitivity and proper thought and attention, and they
7 take often more time than dealing with case work.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: You accepted responsibility for both members
9 of staff, as I understand it.
10 MS FINLAY: In terms of supporting them, managing them, yes,
11 it was my responsibility to try and resolve the
12 difficulties.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: The fact that you had to do that was an
14 indication that you did not feel that Ms Stollard was
15 doing day by day management of Ms Lawrence, you were
16 having to intervene?
17 MS FINLAY: Ms Lawrence I think has explained that things
18 were not straightforward to start off with, in terms of
19 the supervisory arrangements. I think they improved
20 after that, but I was very mindful that I needed to keep
21 a close eye on it.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: You mentioned earlier on that there is
23 a difference between specialist skills and generic
24 skills, and I just want to be clear exactly what you are
25 saying, because I thought you were saying something
169
1 significant about your professional view about
2 specialism.
3 MS FINLAY: Probably not. What I was trying to say is
4 I think that if people are dealing with every type of
5 case, that that can impede the planning on children, and
6 I think that the structure, although every structure in
7 social work has weaknesses, the structure which allows
8 children looked after to have a service which is geared
9 towards them, which includes the planning for adoption
10 and those sort of issues, is different to the role of
11 a Referral and Assessment Team where they have to get
12 out on an emergency, and they will sometimes be occupied
13 and their time will be thrown out for two or three days
14 dealing with a child protection matter, and that will
15 necessary impede with the proper planning for a child
16 with an adoption plan, so splitting that work
17 effectively ensures both parties receive a fairer
18 service.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: So is it your professional view that the best
20 service is provided when there are specialisms within
21 a specialism, if I can put it that way, specialisms
22 within childcare?
23 MS FINLAY: I think that is right. There are obviously
24 issues in terms of that, but overall, I think it is
25 a better service.
170
1 THE CHAIRMAN: You may have heard this morning a reference
2 to the fact that sometimes Victoria was with
3 a childminder.
4 MS FINLAY: That is correct.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Garnham asked whether or not enquiries
6 were made by your department about the childminder. Do
7 you have any view on that matter?
8 MS FINLAY: We should, of course, have made enquiries of the
9 childminder, about the childminder, to make sure it was
10 regulated -- registered, rather. I accept that as
11 a fair criticism of the department. I think in the
12 context of how people bring up their children, though,
13 Ms Lawrence's comments were valid, in that many people
14 use family and friends who are not registered but act in
15 that capacity, so I think Ms Lawrence was trying to
16 tease out the fact that there are difficulties sometimes
17 in us enforcing the registered childminder issue.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms Lawrence went on to give me the
19 impression -- and I cannot recall the exact words now,
20 because they are not directly in front of me -- to say
21 that it is difficult to enquire about the child minding
22 arrangements, because it implies criticism of the
23 parent's ability to make these arrangements for
24 themselves. Is that a view that you share?
25 MS FINLAY: I can see what she meant, but I think because we
171
1 are a statutory body, we have a responsibility to ensure
2 that things are done properly, and that would be the
3 case therefore, that we should ensure that childminders
4 are checked, to make sure that they are registered.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: The concluding plan, as it were, for Ms Kouao
6 and Victoria, such as there was a plan, was that
7 payments should cease and that Ms Kouao should be given
8 tickets -- not money, but tickets to finance her return
9 to Paris.
10 MS FINLAY: Yes.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: What would you have done when Ms Kouao
12 carried out what was her determined intention not to
13 return to Paris?
14 MS FINLAY: We are in the position sometimes -- and it is an
15 unfortunate expression, but I cannot think of a better
16 one -- of calling people's bluff, because we have
17 a responsibility to ensure we use Section 17
18 appropriately, that we only use it in exceptional
19 circumstances, and we do not use it as income
20 maintenance. So we will sometimes have to say, "We are
21 giving you two or three weeks to sort yourself out;
22 after that we will withdraw funding". If people then
23 fail to do that, and that puts the child in need or at
24 risk, then, of course, we will resume funding and take
25 off where we left off, perhaps looking in a different
172
1 way, depending on what the individual circumstances
2 were.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: So this was just an empty threat?
4 MS FINLAY: No, it was not an empty threat per se, because
5 it seemed like a reasonable offer at the time, but that
6 has to be taken in the context if actually the child
7 becomes homeless, then she very clearly would have been
8 a child in need and we would have to resume funding or
9 take other steps.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Other steps being?
11 MS FINLAY: Possibly accommodation of the child, depending
12 on the individual circumstances. That is not a route
13 I have ever gone down in these situations. It is more
14 likely we keep the parent and child together.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: So this could have been a long-term funding
16 arrangement?
17 MS FINLAY: That is true, although I did note that actually
18 she was eligible under the HRT -- that was reviewed and
19 she became eligible in July, so it would not have been.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: My point was it could have been.
21 MS FINLAY: But it could have been, and we have to try and
22 manage that.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Just one final question, which is that this
24 form which is at 177, which has already been referred
25 to, the form which the team devised -- you are familiar
173
1 with that form?
2 MS FINLAY: I am familiar with it, yes. I was not involved
3 in implementing it. I think it was something the team
4 did to deal with what they felt was a crisis at the
5 time. It is not adequate, clearly.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Did you think that it was a fairly
7 extraordinary step for the team to take, to devise
8 a form to fill what was a wide gap?
9 MS FINLAY: It acknowledges that we were all struggling at
10 the time in dealing with housing issues.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Unless Mr Garnham has anything?
12 MR GARNHAM: Sir, only one matter. With her usual
13 commendable speed, my learned friend Ms Mayer has
14 produced the document I called for earlier on. I will
15 just get the witness to confirm that it is the one to
16 which she referred, and then we will have it copied.
17 I wonder if our witness manager could pass this for
18 me.
19 Ms Finlay, is that the document to which you were
20 referring, the e-mail message that you sent or received
21 from the SSI?
22 MS FINLAY: Yes, it looks like it. Obviously, if you ignore
23 the first paragraph which relates to another matter.
24 MR GARNHAM: We can black that out, but otherwise we will
25 circulate it. Thank you for your help. Thank you, sir.
174
1 (The witness withdrew)
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms Finlay, for your help, indeed.
3 Ladies and gentlemen, could we resume at 3.45, please?
4 Thank you very much indeed.
5 (3.30 pm)
6 (A short break)
7 (3.45 pm)
8 THE CHAIRMAN: I~see we have arrived a little early.
9 (Pause).
10 MR GARNHAM: Sorry, sir. Twice in one day; I shall be
11 losing the job.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I would prefer not to comment on that,
13 Mr Garnham.
14 MR GARNHAM: Sir, my learned friend Ms Lawson does not share
15 your reticence. She was very fast with the positive
16 response to that suggestion.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, we are in different circumstances.
18 MR GARNHAM: Sir, the last witness for today is
19 Mr John Skinner.
20 MR JOHN SKINNER (AFFIRMED)
21 MR GARNHAM: Mr Skinner, good afternoon.
22 MR SKINNER: Good afternoon.
23 MR GARNHAM: Your full name, please?
24 MR SKINNER: John Francis Skinner.
25 MR GARNHAM: And your professional address?
175
1 MR SKINNER: At the present time I am employed by the London
2 Borough of Merton, which is situated at the Civic Centre
3 in Morden.
4 MR GARNHAM: Mr Skinner, you have provided one statement to
5 the Inquiry which is in volume 1 of our green files at
6 page 197, and as if by magic, a copy of that appears in
7 front of you.
8 MR SKINNER: Thank you.
9 MR GARNHAM: Would you glance through it and confirm that
10 you have signed it?
11 MR SKINNER: Yes.
12 MR GARNHAM: And that the contents of it are true?
13 MR SKINNER: Absolutely, yes.
14 MR GARNHAM: Between September of 1998, Mr Skinner, and
15 March of 2000 you were both Assistant Director of
16 Children's Services and the Chair of the ACPC.
17 MR SKINNER: That is correct.
18 MR GARNHAM: We have learned over the course of the last
19 couple of days, but particularly helpfully this
20 afternoon, that Ealing Social Services Department were
21 placed on special measures in December of 1997, after
22 a critical SSI report; is that right?
23 MR SKINNER: That is correct.
24 MR GARNHAM: That prompted Ealing to set up a taskforce,
25 I think under Councillor Liz Brooks.
176
1 MR SKINNER: Members Task Group actually I think it was
2 described.
3 MR GARNHAM: Thank you, and then a Corporate Parenting Panel
4 chaired by Councillor Thompson.
5 MR SKINNER: That was some time later
6 MR GARNHAM: The result I think of the first of those is the
7 action plan which we find in volume 12 at page 252. Is
8 that right?
9 MR SKINNER: Yes, I have it in front of me.
10 MR GARNHAM: You describe that action plan in your statement
11 as the driver for a fundamental review of services.
12 MR SKINNER: That is correct, a review and a reorganisation
13 of Children's Services took place in December 1998.
14 MR GARNHAM: So within three months of your arrival, you had
15 got in your hand that blueprint for change which you
16 were to enforce in order to meet the criticisms levelled
17 at your authority in the December 1997 report.
18 MR SKINNER: That is absolutely correct. In fact, although
19 the inspection report was in 1997, nothing had really
20 changed in my view until that period of time in and
21 around September to December 1998, and in fact, that was
22 confirmed in the inspection report of --
23 MR GARNHAM: 1999?
24 MR SKINNER: Yes.
25 MR GARNHAM: So the impression one gets is that until there
177
1 was some new blood in Ealing Social Services, precious
2 little had happened.
3 MR SKINNER: Well, I think it is not unusual for authorities
4 who have been through a very critical inspection process
5 to become almost disabled, paralysed by the inspection
6 process, and again, if local authorities do not have the
7 capacity or the resources to get through the inspection
8 itself, then it is unrealistic to expect them to find
9 the resources and the energy to implement change.
10 MR GARNHAM: The energy came from the employment of you and
11 Ms Findley. Anyone else? Mr Tutt was quite new as
12 well, was he not?
13 MR SKINNER: Mr Tutt was relatively new as well. The three
14 of us started almost at the same time, and clearly it
15 was the view of the Social Services Inspection Team that
16 that made a significant difference in terms of the
17 change process.
18 MR GARNHAM: Yes. The reorganisation and remedial work
19 began, I think, in September of 1998, or at least began
20 with some enthusiasm in September 1998.
21 MR SKINNER: Yes, the reorganisation of the service took two
22 or three months, which is a very, very condensed period
23 of time, and was completed by December.
24 MR GARNHAM: But the remedial work was still continuing by
25 the time that Victoria came to the attention of your
178
1 services.
2 MR SKINNER: Well, absolutely, but, you know, you have to
3 remember the enormity of the problem. You have to
4 basically dismantle the social work process and put it
5 back together again, and that takes a considerable
6 amount of time, particularly in terms of translating
7 strategy into practice that makes a difference for both
8 service users and for staff.
9 MR GARNHAM: There are two ways in which one might go about
10 that task, I imagine. The first is to address, as
11 a matter of priority, the statutory obligations and the
12 criticisms that were the focus of the SSI report, and
13 then to look at the other services thereafter. That is
14 one way.
15 MR SKINNER: Well, in terms of priority, that is probably in
16 my view the only way, but not in isolation. If you go
17 back to the 1997 report, they clearly stated that no
18 child or young person, either looked after or on the
19 Child Protection Register, could be regarded as being
20 adequately safeguarded, and that was a very powerful
21 statement to make, and clearly that was our priority, to
22 address that particular issue.
23 MR GARNHAM: You say the same then as Ms Finlay, that that
24 was your first priority.
25 MR SKINNER: Absolutely. I make no apology for that.
179
1 MR GARNHAM: The alternative -- perhaps not an alternative,
2 perhaps something that could have been done in tandem --
3 was to look at those items which could most quickly be
4 corrected, whether they fell within that priority area
5 or some other. In other words, doing first what can be
6 done immediately.
7 MR SKINNER: I am not sure if I understand the point,
8 because clearly if we are talking about the safety,
9 welfare and protection of individual children or young
10 people, then that has to be seen as a priority, no
11 matter how complicated that process might be.
12 MR GARNHAM: Let us test the proposition I put to you by
13 looking at the following question: it would have been
14 open to you, would it not, to have decided early on,
15 upon your arrival in the office and reading of the SSI
16 report, that one thing that needed to be addressed
17 quickly was the allocation of cases to social workers,
18 and not letting them just sit in the duty files?
19 MR SKINNER: Well, absolutely, but that was done on the same
20 basis. There was a clear expectation, almost
21 immediately, that all statutory work had to be
22 allocated.
23 MR GARNHAM: Yes, but is the process -- I can well see that
24 some of the structural changes to which you refer in
25 your statement take time, but is a task like that not
180
1 something that can be done relatively quickly across the
2 board, not just in the statutory cases?
3 MR SKINNER: Well, it is a very simplistic view, because
4 clearly there is a huge issue about not only resources
5 but about core compatible skills of staff, so making
6 wholesale statements about allocation may well, in many
7 ways, increase the risk to individual children or young
8 people.
9 MR GARNHAM: We will come back to that in a moment, if we
10 may. In any event, the position is, is it not, that the
11 structural changes were in place by April of 1999, in
12 the main, but that the systems changes were still being
13 done?
14 MR SKINNER: Well, absolutely. There was little in the way
15 of policy, procedures, systems, structure in place prior
16 to that reorganisation of service in 1998.
17 MR GARNHAM: By April of 1999, what procedural deficiencies
18 were there still to correct?
19 MR SKINNER: Well, we did as you have already highlighted
20 bring in and implement new child protection procedures
21 in February of that year. It was always part of our
22 development plan to put together practice guidelines and
23 a handbook for all individual members of staff. That
24 could only be done on an incremental basis, had to be
25 done in-house, and that process was continuing at that
181
1 particular time.
2 MR GARNHAM: When was that finished?
3 MR SKINNER: It was certainly not completed before I left
4 Ealing.
5 MR GARNHAM: Which was in March of last year?
6 MR SKINNER: Most of it had been put together, but there
7 were still bits of it missing.
8 MR GARNHAM: While we are on that topic, it is right to say,
9 is it not, that in February 1999, an interim child
10 protection procedures guide was produced by Ealing?
11 MR SKINNER: Yes, February 1999. They were interim, but
12 they certainly became full procedures very shortly
13 afterwards.
14 MR GARNHAM: The reason I ask is despite the fact that it is
15 now two and a half years after that, we still have only
16 got interim. Is that because there still are only
17 interim --
18 MR SKINNER: I cannot comment on that. I am not sure.
19 MR GARNHAM: By the time you left then, there was still
20 nothing else other than that interim, February 1999 --
21 MR SKINNER: They were interim, but they were extensive and
22 very comprehensive, and not just a policy handbook.
23 They actually contained specific guidelines for staff in
24 terms of the child protection process.
25 MR GARNHAM: Do you agree with Ms Finlay that by April 1999,
182
1 practice in the assessment and referral teams was not up
2 to scratch?
3 MR SKINNER: Well, it certainly had improved considerably.
4 MR GARNHAM: That was not quite my question.
5 MR SKINNER: I am going on to answer it, but I think the
6 context is important. A lot of work had to be done with
7 individual members of staff around core basic skills,
8 and clearly there were some deficiencies within all of
9 the teams at that particular stage.
10 MR GARNHAM: By the time Victoria arrived, it was 15/16
11 months since the critical SSI report. But for the
12 absence of your employment and your new colleagues'
13 employment, would you regard that as an acceptable time
14 for an authority to take to respond to a critical SSI
15 report? It does seem an extraordinarily long time to
16 drift on.
17 MR SKINNER: It does, but I have already pointed out the
18 whole issue about what I describe as being post
19 inspection paralysis. Nothing did happen, in my view,
20 fundamentally, which, as I have already said, was
21 endorsed by the SSI inspection team, for over a year
22 following the inspection in 1997, so in fact you are
23 only talking about a very short period of time, a very
24 condensed period of time, and a lot of change happened
25 very, very quickly.
183
1 MR GARNHAM: The systems and processes as you describe in
2 paragraph 7 of your statement -- can you be helped with
3 that, please?
4 Paragraph 8 of your statement; there you describe
5 the monitoring arrangements which were in place.
6 MR SKINNER: Yes.
7 MR GARNHAM: Were they in place by April 1999?
8 MR SKINNER: Well, I think I need to correct that particular
9 paragraph. As I understand it, now there was not
10 a computerised system in place at that particular time.
11 MR GARNHAM: No.
12 MR SKINNER: It was introduced some time later.
13 (4.00 pm)
14 MR GARNHAM: How did that error occur in your statement,
15 Mr Skinner?
16 MR SKINNER: Purely in terms of thinking back some
17 considerable time ago. We had already talked about
18 putting the tracking and monitoring system on computer,
19 and it happened months after that particular time in any
20 case.
21 MR GARNHAM: Because what was in place in the second quarter
22 of that year was, to put it kindly, as Ms Finlay did,
23 a pretty basic monitoring system.
24 MR SKINNER: It was basic, but I believe adequate in the
25 circumstances.
184
1 MR GARNHAM: Really? You regard the system described by
2 Ms Stollard yesterday as adequate?
3 MR SKINNER: Basically, tracking and monitoring systems are
4 very similar. I would suggest that the system that is
5 now electronic is probably no different, in terms of
6 structure, to that particular manual system that was
7 introduced at that particular time.
8 MR GARNHAM: So why did you introduce it?
9 MR SKINNER: Well, you have to remember that prior to that
10 particular system being introduced, there was a distinct
11 lack of structure and systems within the duty system in
12 Ealing; there was a backlog of probably 500 cases, when
13 you add the Greenford and the Acton offices together.
14 All those cases had to be audited, and we needed some
15 simple basic system to make sure that they were entered
16 into a log and their progress was monitored through the
17 process of action and allocation.
18 MR GARNHAM: That sounds like a very good description of the
19 inadequacies of the existing system, that it could not
20 do those.
21 MR SKINNER: Well, I think, in theory, it could do those.
22 MR GARNHAM: But in practice it did not.
23 MR SKINNER: No, I have no argument with that statement.
24 MR GARNHAM: You talk in your statement about duty work
25 being reviewed on a daily basis. Ms Stollard told us on
185
1 Tuesday that she and the other manager, Ms Lawrence,
2 would try to review cases as often as they could, and
3 one got the impression that a daily review was an aim
4 not always achieved.
5 MR SKINNER: I think that is true. I think they were
6 overwhelmed with conflicting expectations and pressures.
7 MR GARNHAM: And in particular, that what had been assessed
8 as low priority cases like Victoria's did not get the
9 benefit of that daily review or anything like it.
10 MR SKINNER: It appears not.
11 MR GARNHAM: Is the different picture painted in her
12 evidence, and in paragraph 8 of your statement, as to
13 the procedures that were in place, the result of the
14 fact that you drafted this statement when you were no
15 longer working and so could not check dates?
16 MR SKINNER: Possibly.
17 MR GARNHAM: Because it is a very different picture, and
18 hers is the one we had better work with, is it not?
19 MR SKINNER: I do not quite understand the --
20 MR GARNHAM: Well, paragraph 8 you have said is not
21 something we can rely on as being an accurate picture of
22 the position as at April 1999.
23 MR SKINNER: Sorry, only in terms of the system not being
24 electronic, and being a manual system.
25 MR GARNHAM: I see.
186
1 MR SKINNER: In essence, the structure is the same.
2 MR GARNHAM: But you would qualify what you have said about
3 daily reviews in the light of what Ms Stollard told us?
4 MR SKINNER: Yes, I have to take that into consideration,
5 and, of course, the system was dependent upon individual
6 managers revisiting work on a day-to-day basis.
7 MR GARNHAM: You say in paragraph 9 that the new child
8 protection procedures and the practice guidelines became
9 operational in February 1999.
10 MR SKINNER: Yes.
11 MR GARNHAM: That is the Interim Ealing Child Protection
12 Procedures manual that we have got in our bundle.
13 MR SKINNER: Yes, that is correct.
14 MR GARNHAM: Sir, for your reference, it is the first page
15 in volume 20.
16 When I was asking Ms Finlay questions, I recollected
17 that somewhere or other there was reference to the fact
18 that the child in need forms were only introduced in
19 Ealing in October of 1999, and I could not put my finger
20 on it. The reason I could not was because it was in the
21 statement in front of me, namely Ms Finlay's statement.
22 Do you recollect whether that is right, that the new
23 child in need forms were only introduced in Ealing in
24 October of 1999?
25 MR SKINNER: I mean, I could not in any way be definite --
187
1 MR GARNHAM: But there was a time lag between the new
2 procedures and the new forms?
3 MR SKINNER: There certainly was in terms of how we
4 prioritised the development plan.
5 MR GARNHAM: We also have in our bundle -- and I do not need
6 to take you to it for the moment, I just want you to
7 confirm its existence -- a care management procedure
8 document.
9 MR SKINNER: Yes.
10 MR GARNHAM: Was there, in addition, at any time during the
11 currency of your employment at Ealing, a child
12 protection manual dealing with child protection
13 fieldwork? Do we look to that interim document for
14 that?
15 MR SKINNER: You do. As I have already stated, it was more
16 than a policy document, it was guidelines for staff.
17 MR GARNHAM: Were you aware of the difficulties that existed
18 between Sharmain Lawrence and Sarah Stollard?
19 MR SKINNER: Yes, I was aware.
20 MR GARNHAM: What strategy did you or those who reported to
21 you adopt for dealing with that difficulty?
22 MR SKINNER: Well, Judith Finlay and myself spent some
23 considerable time talking through these difficulties,
24 and trying to adopt a strategy that might resolve them.
25 We both agreed that she should see them individually and
188
1 collectively in order to seek a resolution. My role at
2 that time, as I remember it, was to support Judith, as
3 well as the other two members of staff.
4 MR GARNHAM: And were you confident that the net effect of
5 that support was that despite their differences, the
6 office continued to function as best it could?
7 MR SKINNER: Well, I mean, our overriding primary concern --
8 and, to be honest, the concern of the two individuals
9 you have identified -- was to make absolutely sure it
10 did not have a negative impact on the work of the
11 office, and on other members of staff, I have to add.
12 MR GARNHAM: Ms Finlay and others before her have been frank
13 about the defects in Ealing's system in dealing with
14 Victoria, and I do not understand your statement to
15 suggest that they are wrong in those acknowledgments.
16 MR SKINNER: I did not think I did suggest that.
17 MR GARNHAM: I am not suggesting you did; I am merely
18 seeking your confirmation that your position is the
19 same.
20 MR SKINNER: Absolutely.
21 MR GARNHAM: Do you think the differences between Lawrence
22 and Stollard played any part in the appearance of those
23 deficiencies in practice with regard to Victoria?
24 MR SKINNER: No, I do not, to be honest.
25 MR GARNHAM: You say in paragraph 7 of your statement that
189
1 the most critical part of the process was to determine
2 the level of need, and to make a judgment about
3 significant harm. I think it will be obvious to all
4 here why determining the level of need is critical. Can
5 I put to you the same question I put to Ms Finlay: what
6 do you see as the trigger for an assessment in
7 a properly operating referral team?
8 MR SKINNER: Well, I mean, I think there are a number of
9 triggers, but to condense it really, you need to have
10 some identified concern expressed either by the family
11 themselves or by other constituent agencies. Clearly
12 that judgment about the need to interfere, or to respond
13 in terms of a referral, has to be based on the
14 information that you gather as part of that process.
15 MR GARNHAM: So it is something of a continuum then between
16 first meeting a case and the realisation that it is
17 necessary to intervene.
18 MR SKINNER: Well, absolutely, and it does not necessarily
19 have to be at the first point of contact.
20 MR GARNHAM: But what must happen in a properly managed
21 referral team is that following that first point of
22 contact, the procedures are in place that enable those
23 looking at the child to gather the information that will
24 lead them to conclude that a formal assessment is
25 necessary.
190
1 MR SKINNER: Absolutely. But you still have to make the
2 right judgment.
3 MR GARNHAM: Would you agree that an assessment is triggered
4 either if a concern is identified, the instance you have
5 just described, or alternatively, if a service is
6 requested?
7 MR SKINNER: Well, absolutely. And again, as other people
8 have stated, in order to do that adequately, you do need
9 eligibility criteria in terms of service, and that was
10 not in place at the time.
11 MR GARNHAM: Can I ask you how much of the early SSI report
12 had been taken on board by April 1999, and for this
13 I would like you to look at the March 1999 report, which
14 is in volume 14, please.
15 So we can just identify the document, can you go to
16 293 in that volume? That is the cover page of the
17 March 1999 inspection report by the SSI. Go forward, if
18 you would, to 311; that is chapter 5, which is dealing
19 with assessment and care planning. Then go on to 314,
20 the substantive part of that report:
21 "5.1. The previous inspection report highlighted
22 that these areas ... [assessment and care planning] were
23 seriously deficient.
24 "5.2. The summary of this report has highlighted
25 that it was only following the arrival of the current
191
1 Director and Assistant Director that most significant
2 and potentially sustainable progress had been made."
3 Just remind us who those two office holders are,
4 please.
5 MR SKINNER: Norman Tutt and myself.
6 MR GARNHAM: "5.4. It had been recognised that an important
7 element in managing the demand for services effectively
8 and to good quality standards required sound systems and
9 best practice in dealing with referrals and initial
10 assessments. It had therefore been decided to dedicate
11 two established teams to deal with this area of work ...
12 "5.5. Not surprisingly we found these teams to be
13 still 'bedding down' and at a relatively early stage of
14 development."
15 Then over the page at 5.7:
16 "We also saw details of a case which required
17 immediate transfer to a specialist team but which was
18 retained in the Referral and Assessment Team awaiting
19 initial assessment. In our opinion, this was an example
20 where the desire to operate within a system
21 inappropriately caused a delay in services reaching
22 a high priority family."
23 It appears then that in March 1999, it was being
24 pointed out to you that there were still cases which
25 were being retained in the Referral and Assessment Team
192
1 for too long, awaiting an initial assessment.
2 MR SKINNER: Well, absolutely. Quite rightly, the standard
3 that the inspection team adopted was that all work
4 coming into the Referral and Assessment Team should be
5 allocated as soon as possible. In practical terms, that
6 was just virtually impossible. We had a backlog of
7 work, and also we were overwhelmed with new referrals,
8 so the possibility of allocating all that work
9 immediately was unrealistic, and that is why some cases
10 remained in the system, albeit monitored and tracked
11 through the system.
12 MR GARNHAM: Go on to 366 in that volume, please, under
13 "Assessment" at paragraph 7.10:
14 "Initial assessments carried out by the Referral and
15 Assessment Teams were of more variable quality,
16 particularly for low priority cases."
17 The same again, really; it has been pointed out to
18 you that despite the progress that had been made, there
19 was still a problem with getting in early assessments.
20 MR SKINNER: I mean, I would not argue with that. I think
21 the quality of assessments across the organisation were
22 often poor and variable.
23 MR GARNHAM: So it appears to be the position that a month
24 or so before Victoria's arrival and first contact with
25 your authority, your department was being reminded that
193
1 cases should not be left in the holding system without
2 a named social worker; yes?
3 MR SKINNER: Absolutely.
4 MR GARNHAM: That cases needing specialist work were being
5 retained in referral and assessment awaiting an initial
6 assessment?
7 MR SKINNER: Absolutely.
8 MR GARNHAM: That initial assessments were of variable
9 quality?
10 MR SKINNER: Yes, and that comes back to my previous point,
11 I think, about basic core skills, and the need for
12 extensive training and development programmes.
13 MR GARNHAM: You see, what I want to suggest to you is that
14 this report should have come as the second in a series
15 of two wake-up calls to your department, in respect of
16 cases like Victoria's.
17 MR SKINNER: Well, we obviously took it very seriously, but
18 it was clearly a massive detailed improvement in terms
19 of the situation in 1997. In 1997, the culture in
20 Ealing was described as a culture of hopelessness,
21 which, if not addressed, would have catastrophic
22 consequences for children and young people.
23 When we get to the March 1998 inspection, they start
24 to talk about a culture of expectation, and a lot of
25 positive significant improvements, so from my point of
194
1 view, yes, there were still deficiencies, but there had
2 been a massive turn-around in the culture and the
3 organisation of services.
4 MR GARNHAM: I for one, Mr Skinner, am not suggesting
5 otherwise. It is apparent from reading these two
6 reports that you and your other two senior colleagues
7 had gone some way into turning Ealing Social Services
8 around, but the point I am putting to you is that there
9 had been, only a month or two before Victoria's arrival,
10 another report landing on your desk that was pointing
11 out the sort of defects in the system that were to
12 manifest themselves in Victoria's case and result in her
13 passing through your department without being properly
14 dealt with.
15 MR SKINNER: Well, that is true, and I think to be brutally
16 honest we were aware of those deficiencies and were
17 desperately trying to resolve those difficulties, and
18 set up a safer, more effective and efficient process.
19 MR GARNHAM: In any event, I think you will agree that in
20 Victoria's case, there never was a proper assessment,
21 Victoria's views were never sought.
22 MR SKINNER: No, sadly it was parent focused and not child
23 focused, and clearly the quality of assessment was not
24 good enough, and I would not disagree from what other
25 Ealing staff have said consistently all the way through
195
1 this Inquiry.
2 MR GARNHAM: And finally the case was closed without any
3 plan for Victoria's future being put into place.
4 MR SKINNER: As I understand it, that is the case, yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: What are your views about the circumstances of
6 the closure of her case?
7 MR SKINNER: In what sense?
8 MR GARNHAM: Do you agree that it was inadequate, the way in
9 which closure was effected?
10 MR SKINNER: Well, you know, in hindsight, and without
11 a proper detailed assessment, that was an extremely
12 difficult decision to make.
13 MR GARNHAM: I am sorry, I do not entirely understand that.
14 It was a difficult decision to make to close?
15 MR SKINNER: Well, as I understand it, there were no other
16 considerations or concerns available to staff who made
17 that decision. There were no child protection issues,
18 and no overriding concerns about the welfare or safety
19 of this particular child.
20 MR GARNHAM: And the reason for that was because of the
21 inadequacy of the assessment process?
22 MR SKINNER: That may be so.
23 MR GARNHAM: Would you have expected the borough in which
24 Victoria was living, Brent, on the day of the
25 referral -- although she moved very soon thereafter to
196
1 live with Manning -- would you have expected Brent to
2 have been informed of the circumstances of your
3 involvement with somebody who was living in their
4 territory?
5 MR SKINNER: Not necessarily.
6 MR GARNHAM: You were in the room, I think, when I put to
7 Ms Finlay the agreement between London boroughs.
8 MR SKINNER: Yes, and I would not disagree with her
9 response, which was really about how difficult a process
10 it would be to manage, given the huge numbers of
11 children, individuals, families that we are talking
12 about. In principle, I would not disagree that there is
13 a need.
14 MR GARNHAM: Nor would you disagree, would you, with her
15 acceptance that given that that agreement was in
16 existence at the time, that Ealing ought to have
17 complied with the terms of it?
18 MR SKINNER: Just impossible to implement.
19 MR GARNHAM: That is not my question.
20 MR SKINNER: I think unless you have got individual concerns
21 about the welfare of the child or the family, then it is
22 difficult to implement --
23 MR GARNHAM: But surely --
24 MR SKINNER: -- on a day-to-day basis.
25 MR GARNHAM: But surely if you are not content with an
197
1 agreement that has been reached between the London
2 Directors of Social Services, the correct course is to
3 get it changed or to register that you are not going to
4 comply with it, not to simply ignore it.
5 MR SKINNER: I think that is true, and I think what
6 Judith Finlay has already indicated and confirmed in
7 terms of an e-mail is that she has taken it up with the
8 Department of Health.
9 MR GARNHAM: If a mother and child, destitute and homeless,
10 walked into your office tomorrow, what would you now
11 expect to happen to them?
12 MR SKINNER: Well again, just to confirm what other people
13 have said, clearly what is necessary is a detailed
14 assessment of need.
15 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. Can I ask you one or two questions
16 about your own involvement in Victoria's case, which
17 I think was relatively slight? You say, in paragraph 6
18 that you had no direct involvement with -- paragraph 6
19 of your statement, I wonder if you could be helped with
20 that, please.
21 MR SKINNER: Well, I can answer that without looking at the
22 statement. I did not have any direct involvement in
23 this particular case.
24 MR GARNHAM: Did you have any indirect involvement?
25 MR SKINNER: Not that I am aware of. The only possible
198
1 indirect involvement might have been around the process
2 of returning mother and daughter -- sorry, the family to
3 France.
4 MR GARNHAM: Do you have any recollection of any discussion
5 of this case with Brent Social Services?
6 MR SKINNER: None whatsoever.
7 MR GARNHAM: Because it was such a badly framed question,
8 your answer is capable of two meanings. Do you mean you
9 have no recollection of it or you can say positively you
10 did not have any discussion with Brent?
11 MR SKINNER: I can say very positively I had no discussion
12 or contact with Brent about this particular case.
13 MR GARNHAM: Do you know Mr Eddie Armstrong of Brent Social
14 Services?
15 MR SKINNER: I do.
16 MR GARNHAM: How do you know him?
17 MR SKINNER: I did some work in Brent some considerable time
18 ago, and he was a manager in Brent at the time.
19 MR GARNHAM: Did you ever discuss this case with him?
20 MR SKINNER: No, never.
21 MR GARNHAM: Finally -- final topic, Mr Skinner, you were
22 Chair of the ACPC; were you, either in that capacity or
23 in your capacity as Children's Services Director,
24 concerned to ensure that local authority staff had the
25 necessary child protection training?
199
1 MR SKINNER: Absolutely, and I brought with me into Ealing
2 a seven-day intensive child protection training course
3 that I had been associated with for some considerable
4 time.
5 MR GARNHAM: Would you expect staff working as a homeless
6 persons officer to have such training?
7 MR SKINNER: Not such intensive training.
8 MR GARNHAM: But something?
9 MR SKINNER: Absolutely, and I think that is a role for the
10 ACPC. I think they are charged with that
11 responsibility, to make absolutely sure that other
12 constituent statutory agencies and voluntary agencies do
13 have appropriate child protection training.
14 MR GARNHAM: If for no other purpose than to give them the
15 ability to recognise potential child protection
16 concerns?
17 MR SKINNER: Absolutely, recognition; also the process of
18 referral, but not least of all, the ability to work in
19 a joined up, integrated, inter-agency way.
20 MR GARNHAM: Julie Winter told us that she had no such
21 training; sir, for your note, it is page 119, line 13 of
22 1st October. Does that surprise you?
23 MR SKINNER: No, I have to say that it is not unusual for
24 housing particularly to be left out of the loop in terms
25 of training, and it was reassuring to hear that
200
1 Judith Finlay, as Chair of the ACPC, has now actively
2 included them in terms of membership.
3 MR GARNHAM: Had the ACPC done any work to broker
4 a consensus about what assessment means?
5 MR SKINNER: I do not follow the question.
6 MR GARNHAM: Have you done anything to ensure that all the
7 agencies who are potentially concerned with children in
8 need have a common approach to what assessment of
9 children involves?
10 MR SKINNER: We are talking about Ealing?
11 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
12 MR SKINNER: Well, clearly the ACPC, as with Children's
13 Services, went through a fundamental systematic
14 reorganisation, and part of that process was to address
15 the issue about membership and participation in ACPC
16 business, including housing.
17 MR GARNHAM: Through the ACPC, has any work been done to put
18 in place an agreement that is workable between London
19 Directors of Social Services about the placing of
20 families/children in need in one London borough by
21 another?
22 MR SKINNER: I am probably not best placed to answer that
23 particular question, because I am not actively involved
24 in those discussions at the moment.
25 MR GARNHAM: Was there anything of that sort while you were
201
1 still ACPC Chair?
2 MR SKINNER: There were London-wide discussions, both within
3 the Child Protection Co-ordinators Group, which still
4 exists as I understand it, and also the Assistant
5 Directors Group, which meets regularly with the
6 Department of Health.
7 MR GARNHAM: Two final matters, Mr Skinner. Do you think
8 the systems and working practices at Ealing were
9 adequate to ensure an adequate assessment of Victoria's
10 needs was undertaken before the file was closed?
11 MR SKINNER: Certainly not in terms of the assessment
12 process.
13 MR GARNHAM: Do you agree that there was a failure to
14 maintain an adequate system of supervision and an
15 adequate monitoring of cases, to ensure consistent
16 standards being maintained in the handling of referrals?
17 MR SKINNER: Not entirely. Again, just highlighting
18 a finding in the March 1998 SSI inspection report, they
19 made a very positive statement about our introduction of
20 a supervision policy, and actually commended that
21 progress, not least of all for the fact that discussions
22 regarding cases made within supervision were regularly
23 recorded on files, and that was a major step forward.
24 MR GARNHAM: And monitoring?
25 MR SKINNER: Well, it was expected that the monitoring of
202
1 individual cases would take place as part of the
2 supervisory process.
3 MR GARNHAM: Expected, but did not occur?
4 MR SKINNER: Not in its entirety, obviously.
5 MR GARNHAM: Thank you very much, sir.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Garnham. Ms Mayer?
7 MS MAYER: Mr Skinner, there is only one very short matter
8 I want to examine with you, if I may, and that is your
9 alleged conversations with Eddie Armstrong. You said
10 you know him?
11 MR SKINNER: Yes, I do know Mr Armstrong, and reasonably
12 well.
13 MS MAYER: What sort of relationship did you have with him,
14 firstly when you worked at Brent? Was it a professional
15 relationship only or were you socialising together?
16 MR SKINNER: Rarely socialised, but I was instrumental in
17 setting up a specialist Child Protection Team in Brent,
18 and Eddie Armstrong was one of the managers within the
19 duty system.
20 MS MAYER: When you joined Ealing, did you continue your
21 social relationship with Eddie Armstrong?
22 MR SKINNER: No, I cannot actually recall a conversation
23 with Eddie Armstrong after actually I left.
24 MS MAYER: I assume you know what he says about his dealings
25 with you, in connection with Victoria's case, do you?
203
1 MR SKINNER: As I understand it, he has stated in his
2 witness statement that he had a conversation with me
3 about the transfer of this particular case between those
4 two respective boroughs.
5 MS MAYER: Can we just have a look at that, please? That is
6 volume 1/014.515. It is a statement dated
7 26th July 2000.
8 MR SKINNER: Yes, I have it.
9 MS MAYER: Mr Armstrong refers to various conversations he
10 had with Godfrey Victor; I am not going to trouble you
11 with that because we have heard from Mr Victor about
12 this, but if you look at paragraph 38, please,
13 Mr Skinner:
14 "Between one and two weeks after the initial
15 referral" -- so that you know, he is referring there to
16 between 25th June and 2nd July~-- "I contacted
17 Mr John Skinner and discussed the case with him as a
18 'Child in Need case' and which borough had
19 responsibility."
20 You have already said you do not remember any
21 conversations with Eddie Armstrong, is that right?
22 MR SKINNER: Yes, and also it makes no professional sense to
23 me whatsoever. In a situation like that, I would have
24 automatically referred it into the duty system and to an
25 appropriate manager.
204
1 MS MAYER: That is what I was going to ask you about. Had
2 Mr Armstrong rung you, you would have done that which
3 you just have said?
4 MR SKINNER: I would have referred him or whoever to the
5 appropriate manager in the appropriate district office.
6 MS MAYER: It would not have been done on the basis of,
7 "I will ring my old mate John and transfer the case to
8 him", would it? Would he have done something like that?
9 MR SKINNER: Absolutely not, no, and even if the call had
10 taken place, I would still have referred Mr Armstrong
11 back in the system and to the appropriate manager and
12 workplace.
13 MS MAYER: "He agreed that case responsibility rested with
14 Ealing because the family was only temporarily
|
