|
Archived Transcript for 15 October 2001: Pages
151 to 200
151
1 much more promptly, there would be no work involved, it
2 would just mean that a rather faster service was
3 provided.
4 MS ANDERSON: I agree.
5 MR GARNHAM: In any event, a faster service is provided in
6 respect of homelessness cases.
7 MS ANDERSON: That is correct.
8 MR GARNHAM: Can we have a look at the form that was
9 completed by Kouao on 28th August, that is the one at
10 page 80 in volume 5; that is the start of the form. If
11 you then go to 86, you will see a series of questions
12 that are asked, number 4 of which is:
13 "Are you currently registered for housing with
14 another Council? No."
15 MS ANDERSON: That is correct.
16 MR GARNHAM: Ms Green told us that in respect of all the
17 information on this form, no check is made of the
18 assertions by the applicant until a later stage, when
19 a decision has been made, on the face of it, to allocate
20 housing, is that right?
21 MS ANDERSON: That is correct. Could I just clarify that,
22 because what happens is that the application form will
23 indicate that they have met the threshold, and then
24 actually a home visit is carried out.
25 MR GARNHAM: I see, and it is at that time that a check
152
1 would be made, would it, of the information given in
2 question 4?
3 MS ANDERSON: That is correct.
4 MR GARNHAM: And how would you check whether this applicant
5 or any other had been registered for housing with
6 another Council?
7 MS ANDERSON: Because when the rehousing officer actually
8 goes out visiting, they go through the form with the
9 applicant.
10 MR GARNHAM: Right. Assume the applicant says, "Yes, quite
11 right, I am not currently registered with any other
12 Council".
13 MS ANDERSON: Sometimes, if they are not telling the truth,
14 there are discrepancies you do sometimes pick up during
15 a visit, for example they may well give an address which
16 you find out is not consistent with the application
17 form.
18 MR GARNHAM: I can see that. Is any check made of other
19 councils, by means of any central database or any other
20 way as to whether or not that assertion is true?
21 MS ANDERSON: Only if a address is given.
22 MR GARNHAM: If a address is given, as it was here, showing
23 that the applicant was living at 6 Nicoll Road, is
24 a check ordinarily made of that at this later stage?
25 MS ANDERSON: That is correct.
153
1 MR GARNHAM: And how is that check made?
2 MS ANDERSON: What you would be looking for -- they may well
3 be the owner of the property, so you would be checking
4 with the Land Registry to see who actually owns the
5 property. Also a rate book would indicate who was the
6 landlord of the property and so on.
7 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. I assume, but tell me if I am
8 wrong, that the same answer applies in respect to
9 question 5.
10 MS ANDERSON: That is correct.
11 MR GARNHAM: Question 5 asks:
12 "Are you currently housed in temporary accommodation
13 by another Council? No."
14 Is that right?
15 MS ANDERSON: That is correct.
16 MR GARNHAM: And if the answer had been yes, she would have
17 been required to give the details of the Council?
18 MS ANDERSON: That is correct.
19 MR GARNHAM: Question 6 says:
20 "Have you ever been a tenant of another Council or
21 social landlord? (i.e. Housing Association/Housing
22 Co-op)".
23 Why is it thought necessary to ask about both
24 councils and social landlords in respect of question 6
25 but not in question 5?
154
1 MS ANDERSON: In terms of the rehousing officer they say
2 that because what you sometimes establish is that they
3 actually owe rent, in terms of former tenants, so you
4 are looking to see the reasons why they left that
5 accommodation.
6 MR GARNHAM: So in that regard, it would be relevant to
7 discover whether they had been a tenant of a social
8 landlord other than the Council, but if you were asking
9 whether they were currently housed in such
10 accommodation, that would not be relevant?
11 MS ANDERSON: Sorry, repeat the question, please.
12 MR GARNHAM: Yes, you can see 5 does not refer to other
13 social landlords and 6 does.
14 MS ANDERSON: That is correct.
15 MR GARNHAM: I am trying to understand why it is significant
16 that the questions are put in that way.
17 MS ANDERSON: The reason why it is significant, in terms of
18 checking it, is that if you have been placed in the
19 borough by another council in temporary accommodation,
20 you would be considered to be a non-qualifying person in
21 Brent.
22 MR GARNHAM: And that would not be the case if it was
23 another social landlord?
24 MS ANDERSON: Not that I can see, no.
25 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. Question 8:
155
1 "Have you ever applied to a Council for housing and
2 been found to be intentionally homeless? No."
3 Again, that is the sort of thing that would be
4 checked only once you had been registered as being
5 eligible.
6 MS ANDERSON: Again because if you are found to be
7 intentionally homeless you are considered to be
8 a non-qualifying person.
9 MR GARNHAM: Yes. Ms Kouao gave on this form the address of
10 6 Nicoll Road and she also said, at page 89, that she
11 was living in a hostel. Knowing those two pieces of
12 information, would any enquiries be made as to the
13 nature of 6 Nicoll Road at the early stage, when you
14 first look at it?
15 MS ANDERSON: No.
16 MR GARNHAM: Is 6 Nicoll Road a property used by your
17 borough to house people?
18 MS ANDERSON: Not that I am aware of.
19 MR GARNHAM: Do you maintain in Brent a list of hostel
20 accommodation used by other London boroughs?
21 MS ANDERSON: Not that I am aware of.
22 MR GARNHAM: This application was made on behalf of
23 a mother, or so it appeared on the form, with two
24 children.
25 MS ANDERSON: That is correct.
156
1 MR GARNHAM: One male aged 17 and a female aged 7.
2 MS ANDERSON: That is correct.
3 MR GARNHAM: Said to be living in one room in a hostel.
4 MS ANDERSON: That is correct.
5 MR GARNHAM: Most hostel accommodation is temporary, is it
6 not?
7 MS ANDERSON: They are.
8 MR GARNHAM: What was your reaction to reading those pieces
9 of information: three people, two children, one male,
10 one female, living in temporary hostel accommodation?
11 MS ANDERSON: At the time, I cannot recall having any
12 reaction to that.
13 MR GARNHAM: Would you expect somebody concerned with
14 looking at this form to be concerned by those pieces of
15 information?
16 MS ANDERSON: In hindsight, but at the time, I did not have
17 any recollection.
18 MR GARNHAM: You knew at that time, did you not, that the
19 process of registration would take seven weeks?
20 MS ANDERSON: Well, six --
21 MR GARNHAM: Or thereabouts.
22 MS ANDERSON: That is correct.
23 MR GARNHAM: So that on the face of it, the situation
24 described in this form would persist for that period?
25 MS ANDERSON: That is correct.
157
1 MR GARNHAM: Does that not give you some grounds for concern
2 that the family in that apparent situation should have
3 to remain in that situation until the bureaucratic
4 process rolls to its conclusion?
5 MS ANDERSON: Based on looking at the application form at
6 the time, there was no indication that they were
7 homeless. They said they were not homeless, and neither
8 were they imminently homeless.
9 MR GARNHAM: No, I understand that, but that is not quite
10 the point, is it? The point is that the nature of their
11 housing is a single double room in hostel accommodation
12 with one woman, a teenage boy and a young girl.
13 MS ANDERSON: It is an overcrowded situation, but with
14 families living in private accommodation, it is not
15 unusual to have three people living in one room.
16 MR GARNHAM: Any concern on your part that the seven year
17 old girl might be a child in need?
18 MS ANDERSON: At the time, no, there was no concern.
19 MR GARNHAM: And looking back on it?
20 MS ANDERSON: What I see is an overcrowded situation, which
21 is -- in comparison, it is predominantly the situation
22 within the borough of Brent.
23 MR GARNHAM: Is there any mechanism for somebody in your
24 position being able to refer a case like this, if they
25 are particularly troubled by it, to Social Services?
158
1 MS ANDERSON: A referral.
2 MR GARNHAM: So you could make a referral based on this
3 information?
4 MS ANDERSON: I could make a referral.
5 MR GARNHAM: And when might you make a referral?
6 MS ANDERSON: If I received -- if there was more information
7 there, if it was saying that the child was abused, then
8 yes, I would make a referral to the One Stop Shop, yes.
9 MR GARNHAM: I am sorry, would you say that again, please?
10 MS ANDERSON: If there were incidents whereby I felt the
11 child was at risk then I would make a referral.
12 MR GARNHAM: But mere overcrowding of the sort described in
13 this form would not be enough?
14 MS ANDERSON: It would not be.
15 MR GARNHAM: And the reason you say that is because it is
16 commonplace?
17 MS ANDERSON: It is commonplace in Brent.
18 MR GARNHAM: The file I think contained a letter from
19 Central Middlesex Hospital dated 15th July. You say
20 that in paragraph 7 of your statement.
21 MS ANDERSON: That is correct.
22 MR GARNHAM: And that, I assume, but tell me if this is
23 right, is the letter at page 101 in volume 5.
24 MS ANDERSON: That is correct.
25 MR GARNHAM: When you looked at the form, would you also
159
1 have looked at this letter?
2 MS ANDERSON: I would have, yes.
3 MR GARNHAM: This letter is dated 15th July, and therefore
4 predates the completion of that form by five or six
5 weeks.
6 MS ANDERSON: That is correct.
7 MR GARNHAM: But according to that letter, which was sent
8 with the form to you, the mother currently had no place
9 to live, and you were being asked to arrange suitable
10 accommodation for them urgently. There is an apparent
11 discrepancy between the form and that letter, and one of
12 your jobs you have told us is to spot discrepancies.
13 Tell us, if you would, how you dealt with that apparent
14 discrepancy.
15 MS ANDERSON: Well, the discrepancy is that the application
16 form actually supersedes this letter. In terms of
17 homelessness, you need to be homeless within 28 days.
18 We are talking about a discrepancy of seven weeks.
19 (2.30 pm)
20 MR GARNHAM: So you would say, "I see this letter, I see
21 that at the time she was homeless, she must have got
22 these premises since"?
23 MS ANDERSON: No, I would not say that, because on the
24 application form, it gives the date when she moved into
25 the premises at Nicoll Road.
160
1 MR GARNHAM: Exactly. So how do you tie up those two
2 conflicting pieces of information?
3 MS ANDERSON: Because based on my experience we get
4 applicants who come into reception who say that they are
5 homeless, and at the time they perceive themselves to be
6 homeless, but they are still at the accommodation
7 several months later.
8 MR GARNHAM: In this case, you have a letter from a hospital
9 expressing concern about the absence of somewhere to
10 live, which comes in at the same time as the application
11 form. Is that not rather different from a situation
12 where the individual asserts that they are homeless?
13 MS ANDERSON: Based on the information there, if it were
14 from a hospital, I would have assumed that they would
15 have sent the letter through directly to us. According
16 to the information here, the letter was accompanied by
17 the application form, which means that the applicant in
18 question waited two months to attach it, so therefore
19 I would not consider them to be homeless at the time.
20 MR GARNHAM: This letter is addressed "To whom it may
21 concern" at Mahatma Gandhi House, but the only way you
22 received it is by its inclusion in the application form
23 by Kouao, is that right?
24 MS ANDERSON: That is correct.
25 MR GARNHAM: The letter also suggests a second inconsistency
161
1 between itself and the application form, in that that
2 says that it was necessary for the child to have a night
3 in hospital, whereas the form had said that there were
4 no medical concerns.
5 MS ANDERSON: That is correct.
6 MR GARNHAM: Are you troubled about that inconsistency?
7 MS ANDERSON: Again, bearing in mind the dates, we are
8 talking about seven weeks overlap, an infection -- there
9 is no details to say what the infection is, and it is
10 possible that it could have been resolved over the past
11 seven weeks.
12 MR GARNHAM: This brings me back to my questions about the
13 delay, because were this all being registered promptly,
14 all the points you make would be entirely sound, because
15 there would be no particular delay in dealing with the
16 matter thereafter, but if you know that there is going
17 to be yet further delay after the document has been
18 received by you, would there not be justification for
19 exploring these matters then and there?
20 MS ANDERSON: Again, at the time, when I am looking through
21 an application form, I am looking to see whether they
22 are eligible to be on the Housing Register, and that is
23 my initial reaction.
24 MR GARNHAM: Does Brent normally make any enquiries on
25 receipt of a form like this as to whether a child's
162
1 needs are anything other than the housing ones which
2 prompt the application?
3 MS ANDERSON: Sorry, can you repeat that, please?
4 MR GARNHAM: Does Brent, does your department ever make any
5 enquiries other than housing enquiries when they receive
6 an application form like this that refers to a child of
7 Victoria's age?
8 MS ANDERSON: Sometimes we do.
9 MR GARNHAM: But only in the circumstances that you
10 described earlier, where something jumped out of the
11 page suggesting abuse?
12 MS ANDERSON: Well, not necessarily. We have got mental
13 health cases and then we may well -- we may pursue that.
14 Also cases whereby you may well have a mother who has
15 just been discharged from prison, who has also included
16 her children, then we will make referral to see where
17 the children are actually staying.
18 MR GARNHAM: Explain to us if you will please why it is that
19 those particular categories warrant further enquiries
20 being made by you, whereas the question of whether or
21 not a child is in this sort of accommodation does not.
22 MS ANDERSON: Because if somebody has been released from
23 prison, then they are homeless, and therefore initial
24 reaction needs to be taken, and it is referred to the
25 Homeless Section. That is the way. It is again
163
1 prioritising cases.
2 MR GARNHAM: It is because of the threat of homelessness or
3 the existence of homelessness?
4 MS ANDERSON: That is right.
5 MR GARNHAM: The Housing Department was on SSID, was it not?
6 It had access, I am sorry, to SSID, Social Services
7 Information Database?
8 MS ANDERSON: That is correct.
9 MR GARNHAM: Children's Social Work at the time with which
10 we are concerned did not use SSID; were you aware of
11 that?
12 MS ANDERSON: I am not aware of that, because when we make
13 referral, we often go through to the One Stop Shop and
14 I assume they are looking on the SSID database.
15 MR GARNHAM: The changeover came at some stage after
16 July 1999, so it may be that by the time you had it,
17 they were registered, and I confess I do not know the
18 answer to that, but what I want to know from you is
19 whether you had access in your department to Children's
20 Social Work records. If you had wanted to find out
21 whether a child with whom you were dealing was on their
22 records, could you do so?
23 MS ANDERSON: At the time, there was an officer who had
24 access to that, to SSID.
25 MR GARNHAM: So provided Children's Social Work was by that
164
1 time on SSID, you could have had access to it?
2 MS ANDERSON: Most of our referrals are dealt with by the
3 One Stop Shop, you see, because we are relying on -- the
4 information on SSID is only as good as the information
5 that is inputted.
6 MR GARNHAM: Yes, I can see that. What I want to know
7 though is: did you have access, for example, to the
8 Filemaker system?
9 MS ANDERSON: I am not aware of that system.
10 MR GARNHAM: You do not know of Filemaker, a system
11 previously used by the Children's Social Work
12 Department?
13 MS ANDERSON: I am not aware of this system, no.
14 MR GARNHAM: Last question, please, Ms Anderson. Ms Green
15 talked this morning about a quota system whereby
16 a certain amount of your housing stock is reserved for
17 use by other departments as necessary.
18 MS ANDERSON: That is correct.
19 MR GARNHAM: Are you able to help us with that any more?
20 Are there a number of houses or a percentage or anything
21 of that sort that is reserved for the Children's Social
22 Work Department?
23 MS ANDERSON: Yes, we have got a quota for children in need
24 or Social Services quota, and the initial assessment is
25 done by Social Services. They will look at a case and
165
1 assess to what extent -- if they feel that case meets
2 the criteria they will then refer it on the Social
3 Services quota.
4 MR GARNHAM: What does that quota represent? Is it a number
5 of rooms?
6 MS ANDERSON: It is another way of actually qualifying for
7 housing.
8 MR GARNHAM: Is it a number of rooms?
9 MS ANDERSON: Sorry, what do you mean?
10 MR GARNHAM: What does the quota mean?
11 MS ANDERSON: The quota is number of cases that can actually
12 be improved.
13 MR GARNHAM: Can you tell us in respect of how many cases
14 housing was available via this quota system?
15 MS ANDERSON: At the time I do not recollect.
16 MR GARNHAM: Now?
17 MS ANDERSON: At the moment it is approximately ten, but we
18 do not base a restriction, because each case is based on
19 its merits. We do not draw a blanket policy.
20 MR GARNHAM: So quota is a bit of a misnomer, it is merely
21 recognition that there may be cases where this is
22 necessary?
23 MS ANDERSON: How it is used is that in my understanding or
24 in my experience, that Social Service would only use the
25 quota if it is like a last resort. If they can qualify
166
1 on the points scheme or via another route, then the
2 Social Services quota would not be used.
3 MR GARNHAM: Yes, but quota does not mean that there is
4 a certain number of rooms set aside for that purpose, it
5 merely provides a faster route where other methods are
6 not available.
7 MS ANDERSON: That is correct.
8 MR GARNHAM: And all social service officers would be aware
9 of that quota system?
10 MS ANDERSON: I cannot honestly say all social workers or
11 whoever.
12 MR GARNHAM: But it was something that was used by the
13 Social Work Department?
14 MS ANDERSON: That is correct.
15 MR GARNHAM: Thank you very much.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Garnham. Mr Turner, please?
17 MR TURNER: Ms Anderson, of the then 80 now 100 cases or so
18 a week coming through, have you any sense of the
19 proportion of those who involve young children, in the
20 broadest terms?
21 MS ANDERSON: I could not give a number.
22 MR TURNER: Is it a few, a lot, very many?
23 MS ANDERSON: I would say there is a large proportion of
24 cases which come through with children involved.
25 MR TURNER: Have you able to give the Inquiry any
167
1 impression, again, however general, of the number of
2 cases you would refer across to Social Services in
3 a given year?
4 MS ANDERSON: I cannot say how many.
5 MR TURNER: Think back maybe to the year 2000. Are we
6 talking two or three, dozens? Can you give us any
7 impression of the number of cases where on the basis of
8 something arising from the housing form, you felt it
9 right to refer across to Social Services?
10 MS ANDERSON: The only cases I can think of, of which I gave
11 an example, is somebody who is actually leaving prison,
12 when there are children involved, then I would do
13 a referral because I would see that as being urgent.
14 MR TURNER: Right. You have said to us that despite the
15 fact that there are -- and Mr Garnham has taken you to
16 them -- a number of discrepancies of sorts on this form,
17 nothing stood out to you from this form suggesting that
18 Victoria was in any sort of risk?
19 MS ANDERSON: Not at the time.
20 MR TURNER: Ms Green told the Inquiry that there is a pretty
21 good working relationship between Housing and Social
22 Services. Do you agree with her in that respect?
23 MS ANDERSON: I would agree with that, yes.
24 MR TURNER: And what are the strengths of that working
25 relationship?
168
1 MS ANDERSON: The strengths are that in terms of we can work
2 generically and we can carry out joint visits and joint
3 assessments, so that is a strength whereby if we are not
4 familiar with the Social Services processes, we can
5 contact the Social Services and they can actually assist
6 us along that.
7 MR TURNER: How realistic is it for you housing officers
8 specifically to grapple with the interests of any minor
9 child who is entering the housing system with a parent
10 or a carer?
11 MS ANDERSON: It is difficult, bearing in mind that the
12 officers, they are not trained in the social work field.
13 Most of the time we are focusing, we are looking, in
14 terms of housing, whether they do meet the criteria for
15 housing or whether they qualify, and that is our main
16 focus.
17 MR TURNER: Are you and colleagues given any guidance about
18 things in forms which perhaps should ring alarm bells?
19 MS ANDERSON: Well, if we received a vulnerability report,
20 then that would stem an alarm bell.
21 MR TURNER: And what is a vulnerability report?
22 MS ANDERSON: It is a report from Social Services whereby
23 they will give quite a thorough assessment of the case,
24 the mental health element, and from that, you can
25 actually make a good decision whether you ought to refer
169
1 it to the Homeless Section.
2 MR TURNER: Right. If someone is on the homelessness track,
3 what does prioritisation mean in terms of getting on to
4 the computer? How much less than the six to eight weeks
5 is it likely to be before someone gets on the computer
6 on the homelessness track?
7 MS ANDERSON: It is quicker for the mere fact that when you
8 actually register the case, you are generating
9 a reference number. Somebody comes into reception, you
10 need to generate that case there and then, so that you
11 can forward it to place them into temporary
12 accommodation, so it is crucial.
13 MR TURNER: That does not quite tell me what we are talking
14 about in terms of the differential. Six to eight weeks,
15 not unusual on the non-homeless track, but on the
16 homeless track, how quickly might someone's name enter
17 the computer system?
18 MS ANDERSON: I would say it can be done the very same day,
19 they come into reception --
20 MR TURNER: As quickly as that?
21 MS ANDERSON: As quickly as that.
22 MR TURNER: Can I take it that there is no question of
23 a homeless track person having to languish -- which
24 seemed to be the implication of the line of
25 questioning -- for six to eight weeks?
170
1 MS ANDERSON: Not at all.
2 MR TURNER: That is simply not your experience?
3 MS ANDERSON: No, I have no experience of that at all.
4 MR TURNER: Just imagine someone in Ms Kouao's position, or
5 a parent in fact with young children needing two to
6 three bedroomed accommodation entering the system, all
7 going well, acquiring sufficient points, et cetera.
8 Practically speaking, give the Inquiry some sort of
9 impression of how soon, in Brent, they could expect to
10 be offered a home.
11 MS ANDERSON: Okay. Based on the last meeting we had, which
12 I believe was some time this year, if we say the Housing
13 Register remains static, no one came on to it or went
14 off the list, we can say up to ten years, on average.
15 It takes quite a long time.
16 MR TURNER: Thank you.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Turner.
18 Ms Anderson, I may have missed it, but how long have
19 you worked for Brent Housing?
20 MS ANDERSON: I have worked there for ten years.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: And in your present position?
22 MS ANDERSON: Six years.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. You mentioned in answer to
24 Mr Turner's question that if you received
25 a vulnerability report, then this would be speeded up,
171
1 if I can put it that way, accelerated through the
2 system, would be regarded as a matter that needed to be
3 investigated urgently.
4 MS ANDERSON: That is correct.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Would the letter of 15th July from Dr McMahon
6 at the hospital not be the equivalent of a vulnerability
7 report?
8 MS ANDERSON: No, a vulnerability report is very much
9 in-depth, very much detailed, we are talking about seven
10 pages, whereby they go into the history of the case and
11 so forth. It is very in-depth.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: I accept that, of course, but to put it
13 another way, this letter from Dr McMahon said:
14 "She is a mother, but they have currently no place
15 to live."
16 Would that not of itself be sufficient at least to
17 make an enquiry of Social Services?
18 MS ANDERSON: No, because again, going back to the date,
19 there is seven weeks -- with a vulnerability report, it
20 is accompanied straight away, there would not be a seven
21 week backlog at all.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: You said earlier on that you could contact
23 Social Services through SSID, but we have been told
24 quite specifically -- Mr Garnham made reference to this,
25 and I just want to make this clear -- that Children's
172
1 Services in Brent at that time were not using SSID.
2 MS ANDERSON: I am not aware of that. All the enquiries we
3 have dealt with via the One Stop Shop -- and they must
4 be getting the information from somewhere, some
5 database.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. I think we got a bit confused about the
7 databases, to be frank. And finally, it is your belief,
8 is it, that this letter from Dr McMahon, although
9 addressed to the Housing Department, was not sent
10 directly to the Housing Department?
11 MS ANDERSON: What I am saying is that if it is an
12 accompanied application form, that is seven weeks later,
13 it was not sent direct -- we have no record to say that
14 came on its own. It is not addressed to anyone in
15 particular, but there is no recollection of receiving
16 that form direct -- that letter direct.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr Garnham?
18 MR GARNHAM: No, thank you, sir. Thank you very much,
19 Ms Anderson.
20 (The witness withdrew)
21 MR GARNHAM: Sir, before I call the next witness, may I just
22 have one moment? (Pause).
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Garnham.
24 (The witness withdrew)
25 MR GARNHAM: Sir, before I call the next witness, may I just
173
1 have one moment? (Pause).
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Garnham.
3 MR GARNHAM: Sir, our next witness is Mr Branton Bamford.
4 MR BRANTON BAMFORD (affirmed)
5 MR GARNHAM: Please have a seat, Mr Bamford.
6 MR BAMFORD: Thank you.
7 MR GARNHAM: Your full name, please?
8 MR BAMFORD: Branton Gordon Bamford.
9 MR GARNHAM: And your professional address?
10 MR BAMFORD: Brent House Annexe, 356 to 358 High Road,
11 Wembley, Middlesex HA9 6BX.
12 MR GARNHAM: Sir, Mr Bamford has made one statement to the
13 Inquiry, which is at page 15 of volume 1, and a copy of
14 that has now been put in front of you, Mr Bamford.
15 MR BAMFORD: Thank you.
16 MR GARNHAM: Could you glance through it and confirm that
17 you have signed it?
18 MR BAMFORD: I have.
19 MR GARNHAM: And that its contents are true?
20 MR BAMFORD: There is one point in it I would like to amend.
21 MR GARNHAM: Thank you, tell us what that is.
22 MR BAMFORD: I refer to a document I drafted last December,
23 which made me realise that the reference to four staff
24 at this time is actually incorrect. There was three
25 staff at that time, plus one of those that was off sick,
174
1 not one of four.
2 MR GARNHAM: I see, so in paragraph 2, we should delete the
3 word "four" at the end of the first sentence and replace
4 it with "three"; is that right?
5 MR BAMFORD: I am just reading it if I may. Did you say
6 paragraph 4?
7 MR GARNHAM: Paragraph 2.
8 MR BAMFORD: Sorry. Yes, that is correct.
9 MR GARNHAM: And when it says "one of these four", it should
10 be "one of these three"?
11 MR BAMFORD: Correct.
12 MR GARNHAM: Thank you very much for that. Between May of
13 1996 and the present day, you have been the Assistant
14 Director of Finance and Administration at the London
15 Borough of Brent.
16 MR BAMFORD: Yes, I have.
17 MR GARNHAM: Could you give us a thumbnail sketch, please,
18 of what your department does?
19 MR BAMFORD: The department as a whole, or Children's Social
20 Work as it was originally, is there to provide
21 a referral service for children in need and a long-term
22 service for families or children requiring long-term
23 support or accommodation.
24 MR GARNHAM: Does your post as Assistant Director for
25 Finance and Administration relate solely to Children's
175
1 Social Work?
2 MR BAMFORD: It does.
3 MR GARNHAM: Your responsibilities include -- and I think in
4 this you speak personally -- your personal
5 responsibilities include the provision of financial and
6 administrative services to the Children's Social Work
7 Business Unit through your department?
8 MR BAMFORD: That sounds correct.
9 MR GARNHAM: And the development and maintenance of
10 information systems?
11 MR BAMFORD: That is correct also.
12 MR GARNHAM: Again, for the Children's Social Work
13 Department?
14 MR BAMFORD: Indeed.
15 MR GARNHAM: Mr Bamford, we have your statement, and we can
16 read that. I want to ask you about just three matters,
17 please. First, the administrative support for the Duty
18 Team and the Child Protection Team in your department.
19 The establishment, you say, was three members of staff.
20 MR BAMFORD: Well, the establishment was four. There was
21 three that were filled, one was notionally frozen.
22 MR GARNHAM: I see, so that in the second quarter of 1999,
23 the period with which we are primarily concerned, you
24 had how many members of staff?
25 MR BAMFORD: Well, I know in April we certainly had two,
176
1 because one was off sick. We replaced -- we got a temp
2 in to cover her when it appeared she was not going to be
3 returning soon to work, so there would have been
4 three -- I cannot remember the exact date -- by July,
5 I think.
6 MR GARNHAM: And with the help of that temp, you were able
7 to cover the work?
8 MR BAMFORD: As far as I am aware. During her sickness
9 absence before the temp came, Robert Smith was providing
10 support and cover.
11 MR GARNHAM: How busy was the Duty Team in the second
12 quarter of 1999?
13 MR BAMFORD: My understanding was there was an average of
14 about 12 referrals a day.
15 MR GARNHAM: I am sure that flows from the figures you have
16 given us in paragraph 3: 600 total referrals.
17 MR BAMFORD: I believe it does.
18 MR GARNHAM: Affecting 946 children, in that quarter.
19 MR BAMFORD: I understand it do.
20 MR GARNHAM: Is that high or low by comparison with the
21 previous quarter and the subsequent quarter?
22 MR BAMFORD: I believe it was fairly static at that period.
23 It has changed since.
24 MR GARNHAM: And in your view, was there an adequate number
25 of staff available for the work in the Administrative
177
1 Team, given that sort of workload?
2 MR BAMFORD: When the fourth member of staff left,
3 I actually met with Mr Smith, and we discussed the
4 number of referrals and how many staff we thought were
5 adequate to undertake checks and associated
6 administrative work in connection with them, and we both
7 agreed that three should be sufficient.
8 MR GARNHAM: And was your team, in your view, adequately
9 skilled? Had you got the right people in the job?
10 MR BAMFORD: By that time, one of the most -- two skilled
11 people, one was off sick and one had left, so
12 Martin Punch was actually the most experienced at that
13 time.
14 MR GARNHAM: So were they adequately skilled, in your view,
15 the team as a whole?
16 MR BAMFORD: When the temp arrived, they would not have
17 had -- they would have taken some time to familiarise
18 themselves or be familiarised by the other workers with
19 the complexities of the job. Murline Morrison, who was
20 there, she had been -- had transferred to the unit in
21 December 1997, I believe -- no, 1996 --
22 MR GARNHAM: So fairly experienced?
23 MR BAMFORD: So she had had some experience too by then.
24 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. The work of the Duty Team was
25 directed, I think, by a set of forms known as the Duty
178
1 Pack.
2 MR BAMFORD: Correct.
3 MR GARNHAM: Can we have a look at that, please? Volume 26,
4 page 187. If you go to page 192, I think we see the
5 first of those forms -- I am sorry, that is the second.
6 The first of the forms, according to page 188, is the
7 "Referral and Allocation Process"; I am sorry, that is
8 just a description, and the first form is indeed 192; is
9 that right?
10 MR BAMFORD: Yes, I think the first is just a reminder on
11 things to do, things to check, a checklist of sorts.
12 MR GARNHAM: And then the first form is page 192 -- I am
13 sorry, are you having difficulty with the file?
14 MR BAMFORD: Yes, it is broken. Yes, that is the first main
15 form.
16 MR GARNHAM: Can you just quickly sketch through for us how
17 these forms are used? What is that form used for, D2?
18 MR BAMFORD: It would be the form that is completed by
19 a social worker, assuming you are not talking One Stop
20 Shop, but the social worker would complete this at the
21 time that they are gathering information on the
22 referral, so if it is a telephone referral, they would
23 be completing this as they question the caller.
24 MR GARNHAM: You say, "Assuming we are not talking about the
25 One Stop Shop", what happens if the process does begin
179
1 with the One Stop Shop?
2 MR BAMFORD: My understanding is they would be entering it
3 directly on to SSID.
4 MR GARNHAM: Would that be the case in June of 1999?
5 MR BAMFORD: I believe the One Stop Shop have always used
6 SSID.
7 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. So if it is One Stop Shop, it goes
8 straight on to the computer; if it comes direct to the
9 Duty Team, it is by use of this form?
10 MR BAMFORD: If the One Stop Shop had taken it, they would
11 send a -- fax the referral over.
12 MR GARNHAM: And would the person receiving that fax then
13 complete D2?
14 MR BAMFORD: I think they would only complete D2 if the
15 detail on the fax referral was not sufficient.
16 Essentially, it is supposed to cover the same
17 information.
18 MR GARNHAM: Thank you, and is D2 completed electronically
19 or by hand?
20 MR BAMFORD: It was an NCR paper form.
21 MR GARNHAM: NCR?
22 MR BAMFORD: No carbon required.
23 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. D3 then, please. What is that?
24 MR BAMFORD: This is the checklist which the administrators
25 are to use on request to see if a case is already known.
180
1 MR GARNHAM: Routinely filled in whenever D2 is completed?
2 MR BAMFORD: It should be for all referrals.
3 MR GARNHAM: The purpose of which is to ascertain whether
4 the person concerned is known to Brent?
5 MR BAMFORD: Or been previously known.
6 MR GARNHAM: So in the case with which we are concerned,
7 this would have been completed as soon as D2 had been
8 filled in, to discover what else was known about this?
9 MR BAMFORD: As soon as the paperwork was passed to the
10 administrator it would have been done.
11 MR GARNHAM: D4, please. Tell us what that is.
12 MR BAMFORD: Again I think it is something to help the
13 manager check he is making the right decisions. Some of
14 these forms I know better than others, because I did not
15 actually put the pack together. The ones I did the
16 artwork for I know best.
17 MR GARNHAM: D5, duty manager's action sheet?
18 MR BAMFORD: Yes.
19 MR GARNHAM: Completed by somebody like Mr Armstrong?
20 MR BAMFORD: Duty manager or duty senior.
21 MR GARNHAM: At what stage in the process?
22 MR BAMFORD: I would expect this to start being recorded
23 when they first see the referral.
24 MR GARNHAM: And progressively completed as the social work
25 goes on?
181
1 MR BAMFORD: As needed, yes.
2 MR GARNHAM: D6, referral form allocated?
3 MR BAMFORD: Right, I believe this form was to be completed
4 once it was known the case was going to not be an
5 immediate piece of work and closed, if it was going to
6 be ongoing, I believe.
7 MR GARNHAM: And D7?
8 MR BAMFORD: Much the same, I think. I think it is just
9 asking for more detail on something that is going to
10 carry on through the system.
11 MR GARNHAM: I think that D8 is the document we find at
12 page 22, although it does not have a D number on it; is
13 that right?
14 MR BAMFORD: If I go back to the checklist -- the list of
15 contents at the beginning, I will be able to clarify --
16 MR GARNHAM: Yes, page 188.
17 MR BAMFORD: -- but I think that is correct. Yes, it is an
18 initial child in need assessment form, an early version.
19 MR GARNHAM: Thank you, and that largely speaks for itself.
20 Then D9 is referral by Children's Social Work Duty Team
21 to another service.
22 MR BAMFORD: Could you give me the page, please?
23 MR GARNHAM: Page 210.
24 MR BAMFORD: Yes.
25 MR GARNHAM: And finally, D10 is at page 213, which is the
182
1 record sheet for duty referral to other agencies pending
2 closure.
3 MR BAMFORD: So it would seem, yes.
4 MR GARNHAM: Thank you for that. Can I ask you about the
5 part you played in ensuring that the process described
6 by those forms was actually put into practice? What is
7 your role?
8 MR BAMFORD: I was not directly involved in drawing up the
9 pack, that was the duty manager at the time it was done,
10 plus the Group Admin for the manager of the Duty Admin
11 and CP Admin, I think that was early 1996. My
12 involvement was I was asked to do some artwork, because
13 they were having trouble squeezing it on a page.
14 MR GARNHAM: Can I ask you then a little about the work of
15 the Administrative Team, for which I think you are
16 responsible, is that right?
17 MR BAMFORD: That is correct.
18 MR GARNHAM: What induction process was there for your
19 administrative staff, when they started employment with
20 you?
21 MR BAMFORD: Primarily, apart from a brief introduction and
22 being shown round the building, a brief description of
23 what was happening, most of the induction relied on
24 people who already knew the work undertaking the work,
25 to show them how to do it.
183
1 MR GARNHAM: An on the job induction process?
2 MR BAMFORD: Indeed.
3 MR GARNHAM: Can you help us with what induction process
4 there was for Duty Team members in the use of these
5 forms?
6 MR BAMFORD: Are we talking practitioners, social workers?
7 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
8 MR BAMFORD: I do not know how much of that was covered in
9 their induction.
10 MR GARNHAM: In respect of your Administrative Team, what
11 training was there in the systems that were in use? Was
12 it all on the job, as was the case of the induction?
13 MR BAMFORD: Not all. In the case of the Duty Pack, there
14 was only one form they were directly using themselves.
15 The rest was just extracting information, summary
16 information for data systems. For other paper systems
17 which were a little more complicated, those relating to
18 the CH forms, for example, there was proper training
19 arranged offsite.
20 MR GARNHAM: What are CH forms, please?
21 MR BAMFORD: There is a number of CH forms. Three of them
22 relate to children becoming looked after, or being
23 placed to be looked after, another four relate to them
24 ceasing to be looked after and another, to do with
25 changes of circumstance, is for children looked after,
184
1 and there are two others to do with notifying other
2 agencies.
3 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. What form of monitoring was there
4 for members of your team of their work? How did you
5 know how well they were performing?
6 MR BAMFORD: We used to extract some information from just
7 looking at the database, though admittedly most of the
8 information from that was not specific to the admin that
9 we were looking at. It would be their line manager that
10 would be concentrating mostly on any performance issues
11 and whether any concerns were being raised by people
12 they were supporting.
13 MR GARNHAM: Was there ever any auditing of the function of
14 your department as a whole?
15 MR BAMFORD: I am not aware of that.
16 MR GARNHAM: Would you have been had there been?
17 MR BAMFORD: Sorry, can you repeat that, please?
18 MR GARNHAM: Would you have been, had there been such
19 auditing? Would you have been aware of it?
20 MR BAMFORD: I think I would, yes.
21 MR GARNHAM: So we can assume there was not?
22 MR BAMFORD: I think we can.
23 MR GARNHAM: From your standpoint, are you able to help us
24 with how the work of the Administrative Team assisted
25 the Duty Team in identifying a child in need?
185
1 MR BAMFORD: I would not expect the Admin to be doing that.
2 MR GARNHAM: Then in how you helped your team help them
3 perform that?
4 MR BAMFORD: They would only be doing that by finding
5 reference to people being previously known, which might
6 influence the decision in relation to the current
7 referral.
8 MR GARNHAM: And the same answer presumably would apply if
9 I were to ask you how they assisted in identifying
10 children suffering or likely to suffer harm?
11 MR BAMFORD: Yes, indeed.
12 MR GARNHAM: And equally how they went about safeguarding
13 and promoting the welfare of children?
14 MR BAMFORD: Yes, they were not responsible for making any
15 decisions in relation to how a case was undertaken.
16 MR GARNHAM: Have you reviewed how well the processes for
17 which you are responsible operated in Victoria's case?
18 MR BAMFORD: We have spent some time auditing files. I have
19 personally audited some as well.
20 MR GARNHAM: And your conclusions?
21 MR BAMFORD: Well, some of the conclusions are that some of
22 the paperwork was not of a standard to allow you to
23 actually know what was going wrong, if something was
24 going wrong. Some of the paperwork has been changed
25 since to make it more -- to allow a proper audit to be
186
1 done. We have to identify exactly where any delays are,
2 if there are delays.
3 MR GARNHAM: Can we divide that up into two parts, please?
4 First of all, you say that the examination that was
5 carried out identified where things went wrong. Can you
6 give us examples or tell us exactly what it was that
7 went wrong?
8 MR BAMFORD: I believe the Inquiry is already aware of
9 a delay in getting one of the two referrals entered on
10 the database, that sort of delay.
11 MR GARNHAM: That is the first referral.
12 MR BAMFORD: Mm.
13 MR GARNHAM: Any other errors in administration that your
14 review revealed?
15 MR BAMFORD: No, I did not find any other errors as such.
16 MR GARNHAM: Inadequacies?
17 MR BAMFORD: Well, there is a potential one in connection
18 with this case on the linked case, that workers seemed
19 to not be aware that it was linked, and it clearly is
20 recorded as linked, so something has gone wrong there.
21 MR GARNHAM: Did you discover what it was that had gone
22 wrong?
23 MR BAMFORD: No, because without any paperwork backing it
24 up, one can only make a guess or a supposition.
25 MR GARNHAM: You are probably in as good a position to make
187
1 a guess as anyone here; what do you think went wrong?
2 MR BAMFORD: Specifically to that case? It does look like
3 it was identified as linked and it was not brought to
4 the attention of the workers.
5 MR GARNHAM: So what should have happened?
6 MR BAMFORD: I would have expected the papers for the
7 previous referral to have been obtained from the file,
8 linked to the current set and returned to the duty
9 manager when the index checks were completed.
10 MR GARNHAM: And in the timetable of events affecting
11 Victoria, when should that have been by?
12 MR BAMFORD: I would have expected it to have happened
13 within 24 hours of them getting the request for index
14 checks.
15 MR GARNHAM: And that request for index check ought to have
16 happened when?
17 MR BAMFORD: I would have expected it to have happened when
18 the referral arrived.
19 MR GARNHAM: So within one day of the arrival of the
20 referral, that check should have been made and the link
21 revealed?
22 MR BAMFORD: Yes, or sooner if people were concerned it was
23 CP and handed it directly to Admin.
24 MR GARNHAM: And the link, having been made, should then
25 have been communicated to whom?
188
1 MR BAMFORD: It would have been the duty manager or duty
2 senior, whoever had passed the referral for index
3 checks.
4 MR GARNHAM: And your examination suggests that did not
5 happen?
6 MR BAMFORD: My audit did show that there were clearly
7 delays between the referral coming in and a check being
8 done.
9 MR GARNHAM: A delay of how much?
10 MR BAMFORD: Well, in one of the cases we are talking here,
11 it was several weeks.
12 MR GARNHAM: And the other?
13 MR BAMFORD: Well, I did some stats for the internal
14 investigation we did, and looked specifically to find
15 what the frequency was, and there was quite a number.
16 I do not have the figures in my head, but enough to be
17 concerning.
18 MR GARNHAM: Well, we are quite interested to have that
19 information, Mr Bamford. You do not have it in your
20 head, but presumably you have it elsewhere?
21 MR BAMFORD: I was told it was already here.
22 MR GARNHAM: I see. Forgive me then, I do not have it to
23 hand. We will find it. Any other errors or
24 inadequacies that were revealed by your review?
25 MR BAMFORD: I did not see anything startling specifically
189
1 to do with Admin, no.
2 MR GARNHAM: Thank you for that. You then said that the
3 second part of your review was to change things to put
4 these matters right. What was changed?
5 MR BAMFORD: One of the gaps was, for example on the index
6 check, (a) it was no longer quite as up to date as it
7 should have been, having gone live on SSID, plus --
8 MR GARNHAM: Sorry, say that again.
9 MR BAMFORD: When that index check was first created, that
10 was prior to us using SSID, or after us using SSID and
11 prior to us reintroducing SSID, plus there was -- in the
12 request to Admin, there was not facility for documenting
13 when things were asked for, only when they were done, so
14 the forms were modified so that the person passing or
15 making a request of Admin could actually record what
16 they were asking for and when they were asking for it,
17 and for the worker to be able to record when it was
18 completed, thereby allowing some audit trail, to be able
19 to see where delays were, should we need to.
20 MR GARNHAM: Have you subsequently done an audit to discover
21 how well this is now working?
22 MR BAMFORD: I have not done an audit since then.
23 MR GARNHAM: Are audits done regularly?
24 MR BAMFORD: Not by me. We do do file audits, generally of
25 a practitioner nature, looking for the full quality of
190
1 everything on the file, not just admin.
2 MR GARNHAM: When were the changes introduced that you have
3 just described?
4 MR BAMFORD: There was more than one form, and another one
5 that is still pending, awaiting approval. The index
6 check I think was about three months ago. There was
7 a duty action form introduced, I cannot remember if that
8 was just before or afterwards. There is a new duty
9 manager's action sheet that is pending but not in use
10 yet.
11 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. To what extent were administrative
12 staff in 1999 expected to categorise referrals, as to
13 whether they are child protection or child in need?
14 MR BAMFORD: I would not expect them at all to do that.
15 MR GARNHAM: So they would not be expected to do that at
16 all, that is entirely a social worker function?
17 MR BAMFORD: I would expect the receiving worker to -- or
18 their manager to decide what it was.
19 MR GARNHAM: And if a administrative worker found a case not
20 categorised at all, what should they do?
21 MR BAMFORD: I would expect them to ask for that
22 information, as they would need it for inputting.
23 MR GARNHAM: And if they, on a flick-through of the papers,
24 thought differently to the social worker, would they
25 just proceed nonetheless or would they refer that on to
191
1 somebody?
2 MR BAMFORD: I do not think they would do anything with it,
3 as they are not considered to have had the training to
4 be in a position to contradict those that have.
5 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. The second topic I want to ask you
6 about is the quality of the administrative process in
7 practice. Nothing in your statement suggests that there
8 were any problems in the Administrative Team in 1999; is
9 that what we should take to be your view of the matter?
10 MR BAMFORD: I was certainly not aware of any major
11 problems. I was aware of the difficulty relating to the
12 absence of one member of staff on sick leave, and we
13 decided -- Mr Smith and I discussed whether we should
14 try and get a temp in straight away, and both were of
15 the view that as we were not aware whether the sick
16 employee would be back in a couple of weeks, whether it
17 would be practical to spend a lot of time training and
18 inducting someone only to have to let them leave
19 a couple of weeks later, so he agreed to cover until we
20 had more idea, and after a couple of months, it was
21 clear she was not returning, so we sought temporary
22 cover.
23 MR GARNHAM: That aside, there were no problems in the
24 Administrative Team?
25 MR BAMFORD: None were brought to my attention.
192
1 MR GARNHAM: Can I ask you in that context about the
2 software that you were using?
3 MR BAMFORD: Indeed.
4 MR GARNHAM: Children's Social Work Department using
5 Filemaker.
6 MR BAMFORD: Yes.
7 MR GARNHAM: The rest of Social Services using SSID.
8 MR BAMFORD: Yes.
9 MR GARNHAM: That position persisted until, I think,
10 September of 1999?
11 MR BAMFORD: 26th September I believe was the go live date.
12 MR GARNHAM: At which date Children's Social Work also went
13 on to SSID?
14 MR BAMFORD: Yes.
15 MR GARNHAM: Did the fact that one department was using
16 Filemaker and the rest were using SSID create any
17 difficulties?
18 MR BAMFORD: It was not an ideal situation.
19 MR GARNHAM: How did it come about?
20 MR BAMFORD: In late 1995, a corporate decision was made to
21 discard SSID, so when I moved into Children's Social
22 Work in May 1996, they had no connection to SSID then
23 and, as I thought, as parts of Social Services were
24 supposed to be making alternative arrangements, that is
25 what I proceeded to do.
193
1 MR GARNHAM: What was the inadequacy that it was felt there
2 was in SSID?
3 MR BAMFORD: It was not necessarily just an inadequacy; it
4 is certainly not a very easy system to use, and
5 certainly seems to be more geared towards its use in
6 connection with adults. I think more to the point was
7 the original -- I always have trouble remembering this
8 word, excuse me -- implementation, I think it was in
9 1993, was considered not to have been a success and even
10 if the product was in theory capable of the job, it had
11 lost all credibility with people that were going to be
12 using it.
13 MR GARNHAM: Given that picture, it seems rather curious, in
14 September 1999, that the decision was made to put
15 Children's Social Work on SSID.
16 MR BAMFORD: I agree.
17 MR GARNHAM: Can you tell us how that came about?
18 MR BAMFORD: The first I knew about it was when I received
19 a memo from -- I am not sure if he was Acting Director
20 or Assistant Director of Social Services, which was in
21 December 1997, telling me a decision had been made at
22 Committee that SSID would be reintroduced as the
23 Council's sole client index.
24 MR GARNHAM: December 1997 you said that was?
25 MR BAMFORD: Yes.
194
1 MR GARNHAM: But that decision was not implemented, so far
2 as Children's Social Work is concerned, until
3 26th September 1999.
4 MR BAMFORD: No.
5 MR GARNHAM: So a delay of 21 months.
6 MR BAMFORD: There was a considerable amount of work and
7 little or no extra resources provided to try and get us
8 back from one system to another.
9 MR GARNHAM: So the situation we have is that SSID was
10 introduced in the early or mid 1990s, was found to be
11 inadequate -- well, to not work sufficiently well in
12 Children's Social Work, and then for reasons you cannot
13 understand, the decision was made that nonetheless, SSID
14 should be used for Children's Social Work in
15 December 1997, eventually put into effect in
16 September 1999.
17 MR BAMFORD: Firstly, I do not believe it was just
18 Children's Services, which I was not in at the time. My
19 understanding was it was a common and shared
20 understanding throughout Social Services that its
21 implementation had not been a success. I am not aware
22 of the reason why SSID was reimplemented.
23 MR GARNHAM: Was Filemaker working adequately in Children's
24 Social Work in 1999?
25 MR BAMFORD: It certainly seemed to be.
195
1 MR GARNHAM: Curiouser and curiouser. Would there not have
2 been a method by which Filemaker could have become the
3 common system?
4 MR BAMFORD: There may have been technical difficulties with
5 that. It was a Windows based product, not specifically
6 designed to work across WANs, wide area networks, so
7 whereas it was suitable to be put on a server for one
8 building, its performance over multiple buildings, even
9 using fibre optics, might have been doubtful. I do not
10 think in those days it had really been tested. These
11 days, it is now used as a web front as well, so
12 presumably is adequate now.
13 MR GARNHAM: Now that SSID has been in force for
14 two years --
15 MR BAMFORD: Yes.
16 MR GARNHAM: -- are the deficiencies that were revealed
17 earlier on in the 1990s still apparent?
18 MR BAMFORD: It is still certainly not an easy system to
19 use. It is time consuming, and I think the makers have
20 recognised that and they are replacing it with a new
21 product with a Windows front, which is supposed to be
22 easier for people to use.
23 MR GARNHAM: The practical consequence of all this is that
24 in the second quarter of 1999, it was not possible, was
25 it, for Children's Social Work to have access to the
196
1 records of cases held by other departments of Social
2 Services?
3 MR BAMFORD: Not if we are referring to SSID, no, we did not
4 have access to SSID. I believe some people had asked
5 for it, but we had not been given access.
6 MR GARNHAM: And from a practical point of view for social
7 workers trying to do their job, that must have created
8 a real problem.
9 MR BAMFORD: We certainly had a significant amount of
10 information on children, but if we were trying to locate
11 whether a family was known to Mental Health, for
12 example, an adult member of a family, it would have been
13 more difficult, it would have required phone calls.
14 MR GARNHAM: So when I asked you earlier on whether there
15 were any problems in the Administrative Team in 1999,
16 was this not one of them?
17 MR BAMFORD: I am not sure if I would necessarily see that
18 as just an administrative problem.
19 MR GARNHAM: It was more fundamental than that?
20 MR BAMFORD: It is as fundamental as people -- it depends
21 how important people think index checks are.
22 MR GARNHAM: Yes. We have heard some evidence to the effect
23 that there was a substantial backlog in the logging on
24 of cases by the Administrative Team during this period;
25 do you recognise that?
197
1 MR BAMFORD: I am not aware of any backlog at that time.
2 MR GARNHAM: So when Mr Armstrong and, I think it is right
3 to say, others described there being a substantial
4 backlog of some weeks, you would dispute it?
5 MR BAMFORD: If there was, I am surprised it was not brought
6 to my attention.
7 MR GARNHAM: Would you not be the obvious person to whose
8 attention it ought to be brought?
9 MR BAMFORD: If it is specifically just an admin problem,
10 yes, I would have expected it to be brought to my
11 attention, and as the supervisor was actually working
12 down there most days providing cover between April and
13 May, I would have expected him to know first hand.
14 MR GARNHAM: How long would it take on average for a new
15 referral to be logged on to the computer?
16 MR BAMFORD: On to the then existing live database?
17 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
18 MR BAMFORD: I suppose it would depend on how much
19 information in the free text field is going to be
20 recorded, but if we are talking basic details and
21 assuming it is not a very large family, a few minutes,
22 five minutes.
23 MR GARNHAM: And was there any delay in doing that, or was
24 that happening the day the referral was made?
25 MR BAMFORD: As far as I am aware, that was being made at
198
1 exactly the same time as the checks.
2 MR GARNHAM: So those who have told us otherwise have got
3 that wrong?
4 MR BAMFORD: Possibly, or they are thinking of a different
5 period perhaps, or they did not inform me.
6 MR GARNHAM: Could you be shown, please, volume 28/000.519?
7 Do you have that?
8 MR BAMFORD: Yes.
9 MR GARNHAM: This is a letter from Martin Punch to
10 Mimi Konigsberg, copied to you. Do you remember
11 receiving that?
12 MR BAMFORD: I do.
13 MR GARNHAM: Dated 20th September 2000, so more than a year
14 after the date with which we are concerned. Mr Punch
15 lists a number of concerns relating to administration.
16 What did you do as a result of this letter?
17 MR BAMFORD: Initially I wrote and acknowledged his letter,
18 with the intention of seeing him when I returned from
19 training. He was unfortunately on leave when
20 I returned, so that threw things out, and I must admit
21 I let it ride for a while. My new boss at that time,
22 who is Mimi Konigsberg, reminded me -- asked me if I had
23 responded in December, and I admitted I had not, so
24 I drafted something that evening.
25 MR GARNHAM: Can we go through the observations -- let me
199
1 ask you first of all, as we go through these, can you
2 indicate whether these are new in September 2000 or
3 whether they existed in 1999? First of all, under
4 "Understaffed Duty and CP administration staff".
5 MR BAMFORD: I believe that relates in part to Martin's --
6 to a misconception of his. They did have
7 a supernumerary member of staff at one point, and so he
8 had seen the reduction in staff from five to three, he
9 thought, when it was actually only from four to three.
10 MR GARNHAM: Nevertheless, which period is he describing?
11 MR BAMFORD: I believe he is talking about that period. As
12 I say, the document I referred to earlier, which made me
13 realise I had put four instead of three, was my draft
14 response to him. I responded on all the points raised.
15 MR GARNHAM: Sir, I confess it is a deficiency on my part,
16 but I do not have that response to hand.
17 MR BAMFORD: No, I did not realise you would have this
18 document either. It was only when I read of it in the
19 transcriptions that I thought to pull it up and refresh
20 my memory. I have given a copy to Brent's QC though,
21 should you need to see it.
22 MR GARNHAM: Do I take it from that that it is not
23 a document that we have so far?
24 MR BAMFORD: I do not believe it is.
25 MR GARNHAM: I am quite relieved, sir, that I have not
200
1 missed it. I would be grateful for sight of it.
2 I wonder in fact whether, if Mr Turner has a copy now,
3 it might shorten my questions if I could look at it.
4 (Handed).
5 Sir, this is a four-page letter that does indeed
6 address Mr Punch's memo. Since some of my questions
7 were going to be occupied dealing with that, and it
8 might be more sensible if I read this first, it does
9 occur to me, sir, that now might be a good moment to
10 have a short break, if you were minded to have one this
11 afternoon.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Garnham, that is fine. I think
13 I would like you to have time to be able to absorb that,
14 and maybe at some stage we could have a look at it also,
15 so I think that it is sensible then if we adjourn until
16 3.45.
17 MR GARNHAM: Thank you very much, sir.
18 (3.30 pm)
19 (A short break)
20 (3.50 pm)
21 MR GARNHAM: Sir, thank you for that time, and for the extra
22 five minutes that you granted me. It has given us time
23 to copy this and to hand out copies to the interested
24 parties. I hope, sir, you also now have a copy of this
25 document, and I have read it as well.
|
