Archived Transcript for 15 October 2001: Pages 201 to 249

201



1 Mr Bamford, could I ask a little more about the

2 circumstances in which this document came into

3 existence, first of all? The copy we have been given

4 comes under cover of two e-mails; the first one sent by

5 you to Mimi Konigsberg saying:

6 "I believe that I am still awaiting your

7 comments/amendments/agreement to my response to Martin

8 Punch's memorandum about duty/intake."

9 The second is addressed to Robert Smith and

10 Carol Copeman, saying:

11 "I attach a copy of Martin's memorandum which aired

12 a number of concerns he had concerning duty and my

13 response. Robert, can you look at my response and let

14 me know if you think I have omitted anything important

15 or many/any remarks which are factually incorrect."

16 Do I take it from that that the memo from you to

17 Punch dated 11th December 2000 was forwarded in draft

18 form to Konigsberg, Smith and Copeman?

19 MR BAMFORD: Correct.

20 MR GARNHAM: With a view to their commenting on its accuracy

21 before you forwarded it to Punch?

22 MR BAMFORD: That is right.

23 MR GARNHAM: Did they comment on its accuracy?

24 MR BAMFORD: Copeman and Smith did.

25 MR GARNHAM: Did they do so in writing or orally?

202



1 MR BAMFORD: Orally, the same day I wrote to them.

2 MR GARNHAM: Saying what?

3 MR BAMFORD: That it was fine, they thought it was accurate.

4 MR GARNHAM: What about Mimi Konigsberg?

5 MR BAMFORD: I did not get an immediate response. I think

6 I raised it in supervision one time, and I think, if

7 I recall -- it was a long time ago, but I think she was

8 not perfectly happy with it, so I left it with her to

9 make recommendations/suggested amendments.

10 MR GARNHAM: Did she ever do so?

11 MR BAMFORD: I have not seen them. She may have written

12 directly to him.

13 MR GARNHAM: Did you ever respond to Martin Punch's memo?

14 MR BAMFORD: I told him I had drafted a response.

15 MR GARNHAM: That was not my question. Did you ever respond

16 to his memo?

17 MR BAMFORD: I did not respond in writing, no.

18 MR GARNHAM: So Martin Punch's memo that we have in our

19 bundle remains as it was, unanswered?

20 MR BAMFORD: Unanswered by me, yes.

21 MR GARNHAM: Do you know whether it was answered by anybody

22 else?

23 MR BAMFORD: I do not.

24 MR GARNHAM: Does that mean you are unaware one way or the

25 other, or not answered as far as you know?

203



1 MR BAMFORD: I presume from the transcript I read that it

2 was not, because Martin said it was not, he had not had

3 a response.

4 MR GARNHAM: Mr Punch's memo would appear to an outsider at

5 least to be a carefully considered series of

6 observations which warranted a sensible reply; do you

7 agree?

8 MR BAMFORD: I would agree.

9 MR GARNHAM: And that whether or not one agrees with what

10 Mr Punch wrote, he should have had not only the courtesy

11 of a reply but also a reply of substance dealing with

12 the matters he raised; do you agree?

13 MR BAMFORD: I agree.

14 MR GARNHAM: Are you able to help with why that did not

15 happen?

16 MR BAMFORD: I am not -- I cannot say further than I have

17 done, in respect to that.

18 MR GARNHAM: From your discussions with the three people to

19 whom you copied your draft reply, did you understand

20 them to regard Mr Punch's observations as important or

21 trivial?

22 MR BAMFORD: I understood that they realised they were of

23 importance, but I think perhaps that was measured by the

24 fact that they knew certain things were already been

25 done to correct some of them.

204



1 MR GARNHAM: Yes, I see. Can we look, please, at your draft

2 reply -- do you have a copy of it?

3 MR BAMFORD: I do not, I do not think, unless it is in the

4 bundle.

5 MR GARNHAM: It is not in the bundle, but we can make one

6 available to you. Could the witness manager carry one

7 across, please. (Handed). This is the draft reply which

8 we have been discussing, is that right?

9 MR BAMFORD: Yes, it appears to be.

10 MR GARNHAM: Part 1 of that memorandum deals with

11 understaffed duty and CP administration staff.

12 A substantial part of it is historical, but if you go to

13 1.4.1, we see a description of events in 1998/1999 which

14 largely tally with what you have told us earlier in

15 evidence. This provides a little more detail and ends:

16 "We therefore formed the opinion that with the then

17 current rate of referrals three workers should be able

18 to manage the administrative workload. We agreed to

19 keep this under review."

20 That I think is what you told us, is it not?

21 MR BAMFORD: Yes.

22 MR GARNHAM: Then in 1.5, you describe how one of the Admin

23 Team was signed off work, you have told us about that

24 before; is that right?

25 MR BAMFORD: That is correct.

205



1 MR GARNHAM: And you say:

2 "After a couple of months, we still had no

3 indication of a likely return date for the absent worker

4 and agreement was obtained for recruitment of temporary

5 cover."

6 That is what you have told us as well.

7 MR BAMFORD: Yes.

8 MR GARNHAM: Then 2000/2001, some observations relevant to

9 what has happened since Victoria's case:

10 "By early 2000/2001, it was becoming increasingly

11 obvious that the reintroduction of SSID was in reality

12 going much less smoothly than might have been expected

13 given the positive feedback of Sheridan's trainers."

14 Who is Sheridan?

15 MR BAMFORD: They are the makers of the product. Sheridan

16 made SSID.

17 MR GARNHAM: "Staff were considerably less enthusiastic

18 about the software, finding it cumbersome and

19 time-consuming to use. This combined with the high

20 turnover of temporary/agency social work staff on Duty

21 where, in the opinion of the Group Admin Officer and I,

22 clearly impacting on the CP/Duty Admin's ability to

23 manage the intake workload."

24 Next sentence but one:

25 "The Group Admin Officer and I were of the opinion

206



1 that, under the circumstances, the best use of this

2 funding was to part-fund the return of the CP/Duty Admin

3 establishment back to four workers."

4 Then you go on to describe how a further worker is

5 needed as a result of these matters, is that right?

6 MR BAMFORD: That is correct.

7 MR GARNHAM: That was difficult, however, you explain in

8 1.6.2, because there was nowhere to put him.

9 MR BAMFORD: That is referring to a subsequent post,

10 I believe, not the same one.

11 MR GARNHAM: I see. Where has that got to now?

12 MR BAMFORD: I think again QP funded post plus when the

13 reorganisation was started, I think it was about June

14 last year, I think it was agreed at that time to

15 increase the numbers of Admin in Duty, but at that time,

16 there certainly was not space for any additional staff.

17 MR GARNHAM: And now?

18 MR BAMFORD: And now there is and there are.

19 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. Paragraph 2 deals with "running two

20 relational database systems/untimely introduction of

21 SSID.

22 "As you are aware, the decision to reintroduce SSID

23 as the Council's sole client index for Social Services

24 was one made without any prior consultation with this

25 unit"; this unit being?

207



1 MR BAMFORD: Children's Social Work, as it was then called.

2 MR GARNHAM: "Unfortunately, once the recommendation to

3 reintroduce SSID had been agreed by Members this Unit

4 had no choice but to commence working towards its

5 reintroduction.

6 "Similarly, the original timetable for its

7 reintroduction was also drawn up unilaterally, with

8 little or no understanding of the significant amount of

9 work required in implementing such a system. The

10 original timetable, received by memo in December 1997,

11 was wholly unrealistic expecting all CSW data systems to

12 be transferred to SSID by September 1998."

13 You explain further relaxation of the timetable,

14 then 2.4:

15 "Regrettably, in addition to the above, the

16 reintroduction of SSID within Children's Services was

17 seen by many as a wholly administrative task."

18 You took the view that it was more than that, did

19 you?

20 MR BAMFORD: As did the manufacturers of the product.

21 MR GARNHAM: What was it in addition to an administrative

22 task?

23 MR BAMFORD: Well, the product was originally designed -- it

24 was supposed to be a tool that social workers would use.

25 They would write their case notes in it, for example.

208



1 MR GARNHAM: And the transfer from one database system

2 across to SSID, that transfer, was that more than an

3 administrative task?

4 MR BAMFORD: No, the actual transfer was administrative, but

5 the actual product we were transferring to was one not

6 designed to be just an administrative -- not in the way

7 of admin workers administrative solely.

8 MR GARNHAM: Your sentence is:

9 "Regrettably, in addition to the above, the

10 reintroduction of SSID ... was seen by many as a wholly

11 administrative task."

12 The reintroduction, is that more than --

13 MR BAMFORD: Perhaps that is a bad choice of word.

14 MR GARNHAM: I am only trying to understand what you mean.

15 What do you mean?

16 MR BAMFORD: That getting it used there -- it was being

17 reintroduced, but to be used solely by Admin, was what

18 I was trying to say.

19 MR GARNHAM: I see, and the error in that analysis was that

20 it would be reintroduced so that it could be used by

21 social workers?

22 MR BAMFORD: No, I think I am saying it was being

23 reintroduced as a tool that Admin were going to be

24 solely using, but the product itself was one designed to

25 be used by practitioners as well as administrators.

209



1 MR GARNHAM: How was that problem got over?

2 MR BAMFORD: It is now being used increasingly by

3 practitioners at the front end of the service.

4 MR GARNHAM: Does that mean that for a time it was not, it

5 was just being used by administrators as a method of

6 recording, rather than social workers as a working tool?

7 MR BAMFORD: That is certainly the fact, that it was not

8 being used at all by practitioners to start with.

9 MR GARNHAM: When does the changeover happen? When do we

10 start having it used as a tool?

11 MR BAMFORD: I am not clear on the date.

12 MR GARNHAM: Roughly?

13 MR BAMFORD: I am just trying to think, if you give me

14 a moment, sorry. I would have thought it was after

15 Carol Copeman transferred on secondment to help us do

16 it, I think maybe November last year, October/November.

17 MR GARNHAM: 2000?

18 MR BAMFORD: I think that is when the practitioners started

19 receiving training.

20 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. In paragraph 2.5, you appear to

21 make quite serious criticism of the Council, of the

22 members; is that right?

23 MR BAMFORD: It was not members.

24 MR GARNHAM: Who were you making criticism of here?

25 MR BAMFORD: It was someone in Social Services that was

210



1 directing the reimplementation of the product.

2 MR GARNHAM: Who was that?

3 MR BAMFORD: Again, it is a long time ago. I can remember

4 a number of people that were involved. I have a feeling

5 it was someone called Maureen Innes, I think.

6 MR GARNHAM: Because I read 2.1 as suggesting that the

7 initiative or the momentum for the reintroduction of

8 SSID came in part from the members.

9 MR BAMFORD: The members would have received a report making

10 recommendations, and they would have either agreed or

11 disagreed with it.

12 MR GARNHAM: I see, so the fact that they have agreed with

13 that report is then the source of the momentum?

14 MR BAMFORD: Yes. If they had disagreed, that would have

15 been the end of the matter, perhaps.

16 MR GARNHAM: But the originator of the suggestion is

17 a officer rather than a member?

18 MR BAMFORD: I would imagine so, but I do not know who wrote

19 it.

20 MR GARNHAM: In any event, your criticism is trenchant, is

21 it not?

22 MR BAMFORD: I was a little annoyed, it is true.

23 MR GARNHAM: "The original lack of consultation, unrealistic

24 timetable and general poor planning (in particular the

25 expectation that this could be managed with no

211



1 additional resources) did little to facilitate the

2 successful reintroduction of SSID within the unit. In

3 short, I can only agree with the majority of your

4 observations on this point. One point I would make

5 though is in respect of the period when inputting on to

6 both the Filemaker database and SSID was required. This

7 was a relatively brief period during which outstanding

8 data entry relating to referrals received prior to the

9 SSID 'go-live' was inputted on to the old database."

10 So subject to that qualification in respect of the

11 overlap between the two systems, you agreed with what

12 Mr Punch had said?

13 MR BAMFORD: On that point I did.

14 MR GARNHAM: Do I take it from the fact that this draft was

15 approved by Smith and Copeman that they shared that view

16 as to the criticism of the administration?

17 MR BAMFORD: I do not think -- you would have to ask them

18 what their view on specifics were. I was only asking if

19 they thought it was accurate, as far as they were aware.

20 The earlier decision certainly pre-dated them working in

21 the unit.

22 MR GARNHAM: As regards Mr Smith, I am asking you because we

23 have already called Mr Smith and we were not aware of

24 the existence of your memo, so from the discussion that

25 you told us you had with Mr Smith, upon his receipt of

212



1 this draft, was there anything to suggest that he

2 differed from you in the criticism you made in this

3 paragraph?

4 MR BAMFORD: He did not indicate any criticism.

5 MR GARNHAM: Section 3 deals with "referrals completed

6 improperly". There is an explanation of how Carol, who

7 presumably is Carol Copeman, is going to be monitoring

8 the quality of referrals. Do you know what the outcome

9 of that monitoring was?

10 MR BAMFORD: While she was working for us she kept a regular

11 eye on it and met with staff at the One Stop Shop and

12 communicated with them in other methods, other ways, to

13 let them know when and if she found inadequate referrals

14 or lacking data.

15 MR GARNHAM: Did the quality of referrals improve as

16 a result, or do you not know?

17 MR BAMFORD: I do not actually know at this moment.

18 MR GARNHAM: "Unorganised duty flow/procedures.

19 "As indicated above, this has been identified as an

20 issue, which needs addressing. I believe a significant

21 cause of the breakdown in workflow ..."

22 What is the breakdown in workflow?

23 MR BAMFORD: It is a reference to whatever he said. Just

24 a sec, I can cross-reference. (Pause). He talks about

25 a lack of consistency.

213



1 MR GARNHAM: "Lack of consistency in the duty procedures"?

2 MR BAMFORD: Yes, that is what he is saying.

3 MR GARNHAM: He says:

4 "The result is a multiplicity of systems involving

5 too many routes and locations into which files can be

6 'lost'."

7 MR BAMFORD: Yes, I think he is talking hard copy files at

8 this point, I believe.

9 MR GARNHAM: And you say that that had been an issue which

10 had been identified as needing addressing.

11 MR BAMFORD: It is not a new issue that files are sometimes

12 removed from cabinets and not -- and a tracer card is

13 not put there, particularly where it is the case worker

14 that has got them. I understand from making some checks

15 the other day that they are quite religiously good about

16 it when it is a file leaving the site though.

17 MR GARNHAM: You say:

18 "The cause of this is agency workers remaining

19 barely long enough to grasp the intricacies of the many

20 forms and systems in use, only then to leave. This

21 constant flux in staff has, I believe, worn some staff

22 out and perhaps as a result of this fatigue, as much as

23 anything else, has led to a less than adequate induction

24 of new staff."

25 So the defect in the duty flow/procedures identified

214



1 by Mr Punch you think is a result of staff leaving after

2 short periods of time?

3 MR BAMFORD: That is my impression, but I would remind you,

4 this is a draft document. It does not mean other people

5 would agree with me. It is my perception.

6 MR GARNHAM: Your perception is what I am asking you about.

7 Part 5 deals with lack of space for filing, I think we

8 can read that for ourselves. Part 6, "No induction of

9 new staff.

10 "Your memorandum appears to refer on this item

11 specifically to practitioners as opposed to

12 administrative staff. I have already indicated ... my

13 belief that one of the contributing factors to the

14 difficulties being experienced within CP/Duty relates in

15 part to the inadequate induction of new staff."

16 So you were willing there to comment, as I read your

17 letter, on the quality of induction of new staff; you

18 thought it inadequate?

19 MR BAMFORD: Based on what he was saying, and what -- yes,

20 it did appear to be so.

21 MR GARNHAM: And is that your view independently, that staff

22 were being inadequately inducted?

23 MR BAMFORD: That is just my view.

24 MR GARNHAM: You then deal with "Children looked after

25 forms", I do not need to trouble you with that. Then in

215



1 paragraph 8, your summary and conclusions, you note:

2 "Since the change in senior management ... there has

3 been clear change in both expectations and approach ..."

4 You then itemise by bullet points a series of

5 improvements as you see them; is that right?

6 MR BAMFORD: Yes.

7 MR GARNHAM: Can I revisit a question I asked you at the

8 beginning of your evidence? Your statement produced for

9 this Inquiry makes no mention of any administrative

10 difficulties at all, and I asked you whether in fact you

11 felt there were any. Does it remain your answer to that

12 question that there were none?

13 MR BAMFORD: I still maintain -- well, I do not believe

14 I have talked about any significant administrative

15 difficulties. I know there would have been some

16 pressure when Robert was required to provide cover, that

17 was inevitable, with someone off sick, but I was not

18 aware of any significant problems.

19 MR GARNHAM: Yes, thank you. You remind me and correct me

20 quite properly that you did in fact answer my question

21 to say that there was one difficulty, which was the

22 absence of the member of staff. But you do not regard

23 any of the other points made by Mr Punch to which you

24 have replied in the memo we have just looked at as

25 evidence of further administrative problems in the

216



1 period with which we are concerned?

2 MR BAMFORD: Perhaps it is the use of terminology. There

3 were things we had moved forward on, had little control

4 over, some of them, or personally had little control of.

5 MR GARNHAM: Whether or not you have control over them,

6 Mr Bamford, they were problems, were they not, that were

7 affecting the proper administration of these Children's

8 Social Work Teams?

9 MR BAMFORD: I could arguably say it was making things not

10 run as smoothly as one would hope.

11 MR GARNHAM: Is the reality that the opposite is unarguable;

12 self-evidently they were making things not run smoothly,

13 in the manner you describe in this draft memo?

14 MR BAMFORD: I would say this is an impression I got --

15 MR GARNHAM: Yes, I am asking you for your impression, and

16 that is your impression, is it not?

17 MR BAMFORD: Yes, my impression was that the high turnover

18 of staff was making life more difficult than it should

19 otherwise be.

20 MR GARNHAM: So there were administrative problems during

21 the period with which we are concerned.

22 MR BAMFORD: I am not sure I would see them as directly as

23 administrative problems though. I am talking about high

24 turnover of practitioner staff.

25 MR GARNHAM: I see. Can I just go back in that context

217



1 talking about the backlog, as I suggested it was, in

2 referrals being logged on by the Administrative Team?

3 As well as the evidence to which I referred when I asked

4 you questions before, we had the evidence of Mr Smith,

5 who said there was a major backlog, although he was

6 uncertain as to the period. Can you account for the

7 difference in recollection between you and him as to the

8 existence of a major backlog?

9 MR BAMFORD: Perhaps I am being more specific on time. I am

10 totally unaware of any backlog at the time in question.

11 I believe a backlog was identified some year plus later.

12 MR GARNHAM: So into the year 2000?

13 MR BAMFORD: Yes.

14 (4.15 pm)

15 MR GARNHAM: It is right to say that in his evidence to this

16 Inquiry, he does not give a precise date for that, but

17 he talks about that backlog in the context of the loss

18 of a member of staff at the Easter of 1999, and the

19 temporary measures that were taken during the summer of

20 1999, so it might be thought he is talking about the

21 same period, but you would still disagree with him?

22 MR BAMFORD: I believe it was a year later when

23 Cecelia Hitchen took over line management of referral

24 and assessment. I believe that was

25 August/September 2000.

218



1 MR GARNHAM: When was it that Mr Smith helped out with the

2 logging work?

3 MR BAMFORD: That was April 1999 and June, until

4 Rajesh Rajmangal was taken on as a temp.

5 MR GARNHAM: So that was in the second quarter of 1999?

6 MR BAMFORD: Yes.

7 MR GARNHAM: Because he appears to have agreed with

8 Miss Gibson, I think, who was asking him questions at

9 the time, that there was a backlog at that time, but

10 again, you would say he is wrong?

11 MR BAMFORD: Unless he was referring to the work he was

12 doing helping out, which was not what I would consider

13 a backlog. It is the work of someone that is missing

14 and he was helping to cover.

15 MR GARNHAM: I see.

16 MR BAMFORD: Not what I would consider a backlog.

17 MR GARNHAM: Sir, for your note, the reference to those

18 answers from Mr Smith are on Day 10, page 59, line 3 and

19 page 69, line 24. Were there, Mr Bamford, occasions

20 when files would simply go missing in the Children's

21 Social Work Department?

22 MR BAMFORD: I have been aware of files being removed from

23 cabinets in the past and tracer cards not being placed

24 there. I am not aware of files disappearing. Generally

25 speaking, the file was on the worker's desk and just had

219



1 not been logged out and was relatively easy to find.

2 MR GARNHAM: Mr Armstrong described occasions when it was

3 impossible to find files, and said that this was

4 a repeated problem. Can you make any comment about

5 that?

6 MR BAMFORD: I was not aware of a repeated problem.

7 MR GARNHAM: Mr Smith says he brought to your own attention

8 the problem of missing files; sir, for your note it is

9 Day 10, page 66, line 22. Was there a conversation you

10 had with Mr Smith about the problem of missing files?

11 MR BAMFORD: I certainly cannot recall one, and not at this

12 time.

13 MR GARNHAM: So your evidence to this Inquiry is during the

14 second quarter of 1999, there were no occasions on which

15 files went missing and could not be found?

16 MR BAMFORD: None that I was made aware of.

17 MR GARNHAM: And you recollect no conversation on that topic

18 with Mr Smith?

19 MR BAMFORD: Not then. I do remember there was a problem in

20 finding some of the papers in connection with this case.

21 MR GARNHAM: When was that? Presumably after the death of

22 Victoria?

23 MR BAMFORD: Indeed.

24 MR GARNHAM: As regards the problems you had with staff

25 numbers, was there a problem with sickness in the

220



1 Children's Social Work team in the period with which we

2 are concerned?

3 MR BAMFORD: I do not carry staff sickness figures in my

4 head. Certainly not of practitioners generally. I only

5 know of Pauline -- sorry, Barbara Armstrong who was off

6 sick at that time.

7 MR GARNHAM: Otherwise, there was not a significant problem

8 in the team for which you are responsible?

9 MR BAMFORD: No, I generally have not had serious sickness

10 problems.

11 MR GARNHAM: You have told us, by reference to your memo in

12 reply to Mr Punch, about the problems created by the

13 high turnover of staff. What was done to address that?

14 MR BAMFORD: Relating to practitioner staff, there was a --

15 I cannot remember the words offhand -- a recruitment and

16 selection document drawn up by Brian Sweetment(?),

17 I believe, and they commenced exploring different ways

18 to attract staff.

19 MR GARNHAM: Successful?

20 MR BAMFORD: With some success.

21 MR GARNHAM: Did the high turnover of staff and the absence

22 of a member of staff during this period affect staff

23 workload?

24 MR BAMFORD: It is likely to have affected staff workload.

25 MR GARNHAM: So as to increase it?

221



1 MR BAMFORD: I do not know how much of the uncovered was

2 covered by Robert Smith. I was under the impression he

3 was covering the majority of it. He was certainly

4 working long hours at the time to do so.

5 MR GARNHAM: Was the workload of staff in your team

6 monitored during the second quarter of 1999?

7 MR BAMFORD: We used to have a look at the number of

8 referrals and see how they averaged out on a daily

9 basis.

10 MR GARNHAM: And what did that reveal?

11 MR BAMFORD: At that time, I believe it was still averaging

12 about 12 a day.

13 MR GARNHAM: In June of 1999, Dr Bridget Edwards, the

14 Vice Chair of the Brent ACPC, wrote to the Chair of the

15 Social Services Committee of Brent, expressing concern

16 about the Children's Social Work Team's ability to

17 recruit and retain more experienced staff. Did you ever

18 see that letter?

19 MR BAMFORD: No, I did not.

20 MR GARNHAM: The third of the three matters I want to ask

21 you about concerns the financing of the Children's

22 Social Work team, but before I do, I want to make sure

23 I am asking the right person. Your responsibilities

24 include finance for that team, I think?

25 MR BAMFORD: Yes, perhaps I can clarify. I am not the

222



1 budget manager though. The finance work relates to

2 monitoring and budget projections, that sort of thing.

3 MR GARNHAM: Do you have any knowledge of or say in the way

4 in which the Council's budget is divided up amongst

5 different departments?

6 MR BAMFORD: None at all.

7 MR GARNHAM: Do you know about the consequence of the

8 division of monies between departments?

9 MR BAMFORD: Sorry, could you rephrase that? I do not

10 actually understand what that means.

11 MR GARNHAM: No, I agree, it was not a very well phrased

12 question. Let me tell you what it is I would ask you

13 about if you were able to help me, and will not if you

14 cannot.

15 There is some documentation to suggest that in the

16 years with which we are concerned, Brent were spending

17 a smaller amount of money on Children's Social Work than

18 the Government standard spending assessment might have

19 permitted. Are you able to help with that, or should

20 I be directing these questions to someone else?

21 MR BAMFORD: I am aware of it, but I have no control over

22 it.

23 MR GARNHAM: Then let me ask only about the aspect of it of

24 which you are aware. Were you short of funds in your

25 department?

223



1 MR BAMFORD: We were having difficulty, yes.

2 MR GARNHAM: How did that difficulty manifest itself?

3 MR BAMFORD: Memory aside, but I believe it was that year we

4 had to pay a corporate contribution to offset costs at

5 the centre of the Council, and this was something new.

6 MR GARNHAM: You had better tell us what that means,

7 corporate contribution.

8 MR BAMFORD: I believe we were contributing from our

9 operational budget to cover other costs outside the

10 unit.

11 MR GARNHAM: Was that an accounting device? That sounds

12 like robbing Peter to pay Paul. Do you understand its

13 purpose?

14 MR BAMFORD: I think the purpose was to provide funding to

15 another part of the Council. I am not sure of the

16 rationale behind it.

17 MR GARNHAM: What sort of monies were required from your

18 department for this purpose?

19 MR BAMFORD: Initially I believe it was 5.25 per cent.

20 MR GARNHAM: Of your total budget?

21 MR BAMFORD: Of the operational budget.

22 MR GARNHAM: What was your operational budget?

23 MR BAMFORD: Sorry, I am not very good at remembering

24 things. I am too used to referring to my computer.

25 I think about £5 million that year.

224



1 MR GARNHAM: So a little over 5 per cent of £5 million?

2 MR BAMFORD: Yes.

3 MR GARNHAM: So £250,000 or thereabouts?

4 MR BAMFORD: 257, I think it might have been.

5 MR GARNHAM: £257,000 was required to be paid from your --

6 you finish.

7 MR BAMFORD: It was removed from our budget, yes.

8 MR GARNHAM: Removed from your budget for what purpose?

9 MR BAMFORD: For corporate contribution. I really do not

10 know exactly what it was being used for. It was

11 a common thing that happened to all business units that

12 year.

13 MR GARNHAM: You say you think that is the year with which

14 we are concerned, so 1999 --

15 MR BAMFORD: I think that was 1998/1999 that started.

16 MR GARNHAM: Continuing into 1999/2000?

17 MR BAMFORD: I could not be certain, but I was under the

18 impression that the base budget for the new year took

19 that into account, but it was not deducted. It was not

20 given and then taken away again, I believe, it was just

21 removed at the front.

22 MR GARNHAM: That was the first instance you were giving us

23 as to the difficulties your department had on funding.

24 Were there any other respects in which you were short of

25 money?

225



1 MR BAMFORD: There was another corporate contribution added

2 further that year, that was 3 per cent, I believe.

3 MR GARNHAM: For what purpose?

4 MR BAMFORD: Again the same, I imagine.

5 MR GARNHAM: So that is a total of 8 per cent deducted, or

6 a little over 8 per cent deducted for those purposes.

7 MR BAMFORD: Mm.

8 MR GARNHAM: Any other deductions?

9 MR BAMFORD: I think there was a further 1 per cent later.

10 MR GARNHAM: Up to 9 per cent; this is all in the same year,

11 is it?

12 MR BAMFORD: Yes.

13 MR GARNHAM: How did that affect the work of your

14 department, the loss of what must have been a little

15 under 10 per cent of its budget?

16 MR BAMFORD: It made it more difficult to -- well, we had

17 difficulties recruiting anyway, but it did limit the

18 posts available we could recruit to and not overspend

19 on.

20 MR GARNHAM: Given that the difficulties you have been

21 describing this afternoon related in the past to

22 difficulties of recruitment, that means the money

23 shortage fed through into the way your department was

24 operating, did it?

25 MR BAMFORD: Yes, it would have had an effect.

226



1 MR GARNHAM: You have talked so far about deductions from

2 your budgeted allowance. My question had originally

3 related to the proportion of the standard spending

4 assessment which could have been spent on Children's

5 Social Work that was spent on Children's Social Work.

6 Are you able to help us any more about that?

7 MR BAMFORD: No, I do not think so.

8 MR GARNHAM: Mr Bamford, I have to suggest to you that in

9 your role, you were guilty of a failure in this respect,

10 and I want you to comment on it if you would, that you

11 failed to allocate proper financial and administrative

12 resources to the Duty Team or the CPIAT, so as to

13 prevent the backlog of referrals that we have talked

14 about.

15 MR BAMFORD: Sorry, were you referring to administrative

16 staff only?

17 MR GARNHAM: Then let us take it like that first.

18 MR BAMFORD: Well, as I have said to you, I was given no

19 impression that there was a backlog at the time we are

20 talking about.

21 MR GARNHAM: Yes, thank you very much. Thank you, sir.

22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Garnham. Mr Turner, please?

23 MR TURNER: Mr Bamford, I wonder if you could be shown

24 volume 28, please, page 000.518; I just want to see if

25 this is your document. Is that a document that you

227



1 recognise, Mr Bamford?

2 MR BAMFORD: Yes.

3 MR TURNER: Is it something you have extracted from the

4 computer and prepared?

5 MR BAMFORD: It was something I was asked to produce for

6 Janet Palmer when she was undertaking the internal

7 investigation.

8 MR TURNER: And this is a document which I think Mr Punch

9 was asked about by one of counsel to the Inquiry. You

10 may not know that. That shows input times, and the one

11 that we looked at was the middle set of figures on the

12 left hand column; input timescales. Obviously there is

13 quite a range of input timescales displayed by that

14 document. Do you want to comment on that?

15 MR BAMFORD: There is not much to say, except for they look

16 pretty poor, but they are a measure of -- from referral

17 date to input.

18 MR TURNER: And given that you said if things are working

19 well it is potentially as little as a five or ten minute

20 exercise, what might lead, typically, to a delay of as

21 much as -- well, the number of dates and so on that are

22 set out there?

23 MR BAMFORD: I maintain that I am of the belief that child

24 protection index checks were requested immediately and

25 done almost immediately, and the others were completed

228



1 within approximately 24 hours.

2 MR TURNER: Did those figures come as a surprise to you when

3 you did this piece of analysis yourself?

4 MR BAMFORD: I was surprised to see them, particularly the

5 middle block. Well, I would not expect to see anything

6 beyond two days.

7 MR TURNER: What might conceivably take as long as 12 weeks

8 before something was inputted? What might be happening

9 to the papers?

10 MR BAMFORD: The only thing I can think of obviously is the

11 paperwork was not actually with the Admin until it was

12 inputted.

13 MR TURNER: And what might cause it not to reach Admin?

14 MR BAMFORD: Perhaps if someone was working on it. Perhaps

15 the referral seemed clear-cut and there was enough

16 information, and a decision was made not to pass it for

17 checks, but it was just worked. But I do not know, that

18 is supposition.

19 MR TURNER: I understand. Was it common for files to be

20 worked on before checks were carried out in various

21 cases?

22 MR BAMFORD: At the time, I certainly was not aware of it.

23 I did have it reported to me late last year that in some

24 cases that was what was happening.

25 MR TURNER: What is the operational significance of a delay

229



1 in placing the referral on the computer, in practical

2 terms?

3 MR BAMFORD: Perhaps one of the more obvious ones is if

4 another referral comes in, it will not be traced,

5 because it will not be there.

6 MR TURNER: Of course. I want to ask you a little bit about

7 the present situation in relation to some of the heads

8 of concern which have been raised. What is the present

9 picture in terms of administrative staffing?

10 MR BAMFORD: There are higher numbers than there were.

11 MR TURNER: What is the present position in terms of

12 practical procedures? Have things changed in any way?

13 MR BAMFORD: I believe they are much clearer. I should

14 point out that I am actually not line managing the Duty

15 Admin at the moment, but my impression is that things

16 are working more smoothly.

17 MR TURNER: Have you any sense of whether staff turnover in

18 Administration is still an issue or a problem?

19 MR BAMFORD: Staff turnover with Admin has never been a huge

20 issue. Recruiting replacement staff is sometimes

21 a problem.

22 MR TURNER: Have you done anything recently yourself to

23 address this question of files not always being where

24 they should be or readily identifiable?

25 MR BAMFORD: As I was saying earlier, I made a point of

230



1 checking when I heard -- it was covered in one of the

2 transcriptions -- I made a point of yesterday going

3 round to check that the tracking cards were available in

4 all teams, and I found that they were. I also asked

5 a couple of administrators what their perception was of

6 its use. The answer from the Admin was the one I gave

7 earlier, that whereas it seems to be fairly good in the

8 case of files being removed from site, files being

9 removed for working on the case worker's desk, it is not

10 always as good.

11 MR TURNER: Mr Armstrong painted a fairly worrying picture

12 generally of Administration, he spoke of missing files

13 and of faxes uncollected and so on. You have read his

14 evidence, I think?

15 MR BAMFORD: I have read it. I have not memorised it.

16 MR TURNER: No. Did much of what he said about

17 Administration ring bells with you or not?

18 MR BAMFORD: It did not ring bells with me. I certainly did

19 not recognise the reference to a paper carpet.

20 MR TURNER: Of faxes spilling everywhere?

21 MR BAMFORD: Yes.

22 MR TURNER: There seems to be a criticism of the

23 Administration Team that no one was specifically

24 earmarked to collect and deliver faxes as they arrived.

25 Do you want to respond to that, Mr Bamford?

231



1 MR BAMFORD: I would say that was true. There was not

2 anyone specifically -- not at a higher level made

3 responsible. I believe, from what I have heard other

4 people saying, that one particular Admin was taking

5 responsibility, but it is my experience that on most

6 floors, all the Admin do take an interest in clearing

7 the faxes, as do other members of staff, as they pass

8 the machine.

9 MR TURNER: Have physical issues now improved in any way,

10 storage, space, cabinets of files, that sort of thing;

11 has that changed?

12 MR BAMFORD: There is more storage space on the ground floor

13 now than there was; more working space too, generally.

14 MR TURNER: Mr Punch's letter clearly required a response

15 and you have told us what you went to do about that, by

16 circulating a draft which we have now seen. Did you

17 discuss with Mr Punch directly the contents of his

18 worries? It clearly was as the Chairman said on the day

19 of his evidence a cry from the heart. Did you pick that

20 up at all, as the manager concerned?

21 MR BAMFORD: I have never met with him about it.

22 MR TURNER: With Mr Punch?

23 MR BAMFORD: No, only to tell him that I had drafted

24 something which I thought he would have shortly.

25 MR TURNER: Was there any particular reason for not talking

232



1 through as a colleague the various issues he was

2 raising, in a fairly impassioned way, in that

3 20th September memo?

4 MR BAMFORD: I thought I fairly clearly understood what he

5 was telling me -- what he was talking about in his

6 letter or memo.

7 MR TURNER: Did you feel that he was overstating the case at

8 that point, and if so, how?

9 MR BAMFORD: I believed he was not being completely

10 accurate, or his perception was not completely accurate.

11 There was a couple of points in particular, like the

12 staffing numbers, where admittedly he will have got used

13 to there being more staff than there was an

14 establishment for, but the reductions he referred to in

15 his memo were not quite correct when compared to the

16 establishment. They had been lucky, in a way, to have

17 some extra for a while, plus he referred to parallel

18 running of two data systems. It was I thought implied

19 when I read his letter that it was a long time; my

20 impression was it should only have been a very short

21 period of time.

22 MR TURNER: Yes. He very fairly says in that letter that he

23 is speaking for himself; was this something that you

24 talked through with Mr Smith and any other colleagues in

25 the administrative section, or not?

233



1 MR BAMFORD: We did talk briefly, but I cannot remember what

2 we said. I know it was discussed, and I spoke briefly

3 with Robert and said I was going to draft a response, to

4 which he seemed to be happy with the response.

5 MR TURNER: Finally, the computer question: is SSID now

6 working better than it was in 1999?

7 MR BAMFORD: I think it is working better than it was.

8 MR TURNER: Is it as good as or better than Filemaker as

9 things stand at the moment?

10 MR BAMFORD: There is pros and cons. It is still far more

11 difficult to use, but it does have the benefit of being

12 able to see information that other parts of the Council

13 might be --

14 MR TURNER: I got the impression from your evidence that

15 further technical changes were still about to happen, or

16 were expected. Is that right, in relation to SSID?

17 MR BAMFORD: That is true, SSID -- the company have decided

18 not to support SSID any longer after next year, so we

19 will be looking for a replacement for it.

20 MR TURNER: Do you know whether SSID is a widely used system

21 across local authorities, or not?

22 MR BAMFORD: I think it might be around 17, I am not sure,

23 I think.

24 MR TURNER: Nationally or in London?

25 MR BAMFORD: Nationally, but I am not sure. I am pulling

234



1 figures out of the air a bit, or I may even be thinking

2 of another database that someone said 17 in connection

3 with.

4 MR TURNER: Thank you very much.

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Turner. Mr Turner, I wonder if

6 you could help me, please. I try very hard to be

7 understanding, and I hope that comes across, but I have

8 to say that I was very surprised to receive this letter

9 today at this time. We had Mr Punch before us on Day 8;

10 we are now on Day 12.

11 MR TURNER: Yes.

12 THE CHAIRMAN: On Day 8 we spent quite a lot of time with

13 Mr Punch's letter, and Mr Punch said -- which I now

14 understand to be correct -- that he had not had a reply

15 and nobody had discussed it with him, yet at 3.30 on

16 Day 12, this draft appears. Could you help me, please?

17 MR TURNER: Yes, sir, gladly. I learnt on Friday that in

18 fact Miss Konigsberg had had an e-mail from Mr Bamford.

19 It was obvious that that might potentially be

20 a significant document. Mr Bamford was asked to bring

21 it, and brought it today, and showed it to me first

22 thing this morning. I regret slightly, I think, with

23 hindsight, not making arrangements for it to be copied

24 earlier, but it was plain that these matters would need

25 to be explored. I made it clear that Mr Bamford would

235



1 need to make reference to this draft in his evidence, so

2 it never occurred to me that he would do other than

3 produce it at some point in his evidence.

4 I ought physically to have had it copied earlier,

5 I acknowledge, and I apologise for that.

6 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Turner, it is a significant document, but

7 not just for Mr Bamford's evidence. I think that some

8 of the points that Mr Bamford has raised -- I certainly

9 would have been helped to have had this document in

10 front of me for the earlier people that we saw from

11 Brent.

12 MR TURNER: Sir, I agree, and had I had it myself, you would

13 have had it as well, of course, as would Mr Garnham. It

14 goes without saying.

15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Turner.

16 Mr Bamford, you are the Assistant Director for

17 Administration and Finance?

18 MR BAMFORD: I believe the title at the moment is Head of

19 Finance and Admin.

20 THE CHAIRMAN: How many heads are there of Finance and

21 Administration?

22 MR BAMFORD: In children's services, there is only me,

23 I believe.

24 THE CHAIRMAN: So how would you describe your

25 responsibilities, in ordinary, everyday lay terms?

236



1 MR BAMFORD: Well they are supposed to be changing,

2 I believe, under the restructuring, but overall

3 management for administration, management of the finance

4 processes, but not the budgets, management of IT and

5 development, broadly.

6 THE CHAIRMAN: To put it another way without putting words

7 in your mouth, the smooth running of the department?

8 MR BAMFORD: That might be one way of phrasing it.

9 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, is it a way that you would accept?

10 MR BAMFORD: I will accept it.

11 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you attend the Social Services Committee?

12 MR BAMFORD: No, I do not usually attend committees.

13 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you see draft reports that go to the

14 Social Services Committee?

15 MR BAMFORD: I am more likely to see them afterwards.

16 THE CHAIRMAN: I find this difficult to understand. Here

17 you are as Head of Administration and Finance, and

18 reports are being prepared for the Social Services

19 Committee that you neither see nor have any input in?

20 MR BAMFORD: I can only confirm, I did not know anything

21 about it until I received the memo in 1997.

22 THE CHAIRMAN: But I mean, is this general, Mr Bamford?

23 MR BAMFORD: I am not aware of anything as large as that

24 having bypassed me with no consultation.

25 THE CHAIRMAN: No, not quite as large, because it was very

237



1 large indeed, but are you saying to this Inquiry that as

2 Head of Administration and Finance, you are not aware of

3 all draft committee reports that have either an

4 administrative or financial impact, before they go to

5 Committee?

6 MR BAMFORD: I am not aware of any that I have not seen that

7 have gone. I would have to know what all the reports

8 were to know if I had actually missed any. I am not

9 aware of anything with major or significant impact on my

10 responsibilities that I have not been aware of --

11 THE CHAIRMAN: Let me be clear -- let me put it directly.

12 In general, are you aware of all reports that go to the

13 Committee in draft? Are you aware of them in draft,

14 those that have an administrative and financial impact?

15 MR BAMFORD: Again, I cannot actually recall any reports

16 that have gone with specific administrative implications

17 for Children's Services or Children's Social Work that

18 fulfil the criteria you are saying. I am not aware of

19 any that have gone --

20 THE CHAIRMAN: You mean there is no report that fits that

21 criteria or no report you are not aware of?

22 MR BAMFORD: I am not aware of any.

23 THE CHAIRMAN: Any what?

24 MR BAMFORD: Any reports with specific implications for

25 Administration in Children's Social Work which I have

238



1 not seen before they went to Committee.

2 THE CHAIRMAN: So would it be accurate to say that you never

3 see reports that go to Committee?

4 MR BAMFORD: I do get reports coming -- get sent to me for

5 reading. I believe they are usually not draft though.

6 I believe I would be asked to contribute, generally

7 speaking, to something that would have a specific impact

8 on the service I work in.

9 THE CHAIRMAN: All right then, well let me put it another

10 way then, so I can be precise. You are never asked to

11 comment on the draft of any report that goes to Social

12 Services Committee?

13 MR BAMFORD: I am sure I have provided information for them.

14 I am not aware of actually being asked to comment on

15 a drafted report, but that might be my memory that is at

16 fault.

17 THE CHAIRMAN: So here you are, Head of Administration and

18 Finance, that is never asked to comment on reports that

19 go to the Committee?

20 MR BAMFORD: That does not mean I do not know -- or have not

21 given some information that has gone towards one before

22 it has been drafted, but I am not aware of getting

23 reports on a regular basis where I am asked to agree

24 them or ratify them prior to them going.

25 THE CHAIRMAN: So who prepared the report that had such

239



1 a big impact?

2 MR BAMFORD: I actually do not know that.

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Why do you not know? You are the Head of

4 Admin and Finance.

5 MR BAMFORD: I did not write the report. I think it was

6 Mr Ludgate, but I am not sure.

7 THE CHAIRMAN: I know that you did not write the report and

8 I know you did not comment on it, I am asking you who

9 specifically drafted the report for Committee.

10 MR BAMFORD: I do not know, it is some time ago. I was

11 never sent a copy of it. I only found out afterwards

12 the effect of it.

13 THE CHAIRMAN: And when reports go to Committee, do they

14 have the name of the author on the report?

15 MR BAMFORD: They do, I believe.

16 THE CHAIRMAN: Whose name was on the report?

17 MR BAMFORD: I have not seen that report.

18 THE CHAIRMAN: You have never seen the report?

19 MR BAMFORD: I do not believe I have. If I have, I have

20 forgotten. It was a long time ago.

21 THE CHAIRMAN: What, a report of such importance you have

22 never actually seen?

23 MR BAMFORD: I cannot recall seeing the actual report.

24 THE CHAIRMAN: This was not just an ordinary, everyday

25 report. This was a report of exceptional importance.

240



1 MR BAMFORD: That does not change my recollection, that

2 I cannot recall actually reading the report.

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you find that amazing?

4 MR BAMFORD: I found the decision to go back to SSID

5 amazing.

6 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you find it amazing that you in your

7 position, who has to implement this report --

8 MR BAMFORD: I would have thought there would be some

9 consultation with the Unit before any such decision

10 would be made.

11 THE CHAIRMAN: And nobody ever showed you the report

12 afterwards?

13 MR BAMFORD: The first I knew about it was just the memo

14 arriving. It was a fait accompli by then.

15 (4.45 pm)

16 THE CHAIRMAN: And did you protest?

17 MR BAMFORD: I let a number of people know what I thought of

18 it.

19 THE CHAIRMAN: I did not ask that. I said, did you protest?

20 MR BAMFORD: I do not know, perhaps you could tell me what

21 you mean by protest. I said I was not very happy.

22 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, can you --

23 MR BAMFORD: I protested about the timescale, said it was

24 unrealistic.

25 THE CHAIRMAN: All right, who did you protest to?

241



1 MR BAMFORD: There was a group set up, that was the group

2 being led by Maureen Innes, I believe.

3 THE CHAIRMAN: So could you point me to a minute, a memo,

4 however you describe these things, that you sent to

5 whoever was the most senior person in the organisation

6 to say what the implications of this decision would be?

7 MR BAMFORD: I am not sure if I did put anything in writing

8 to anyone outside the Council. I think I may have

9 written to my then manager about it and put certain

10 things down. I certainly raised it at the working group

11 that was set up to deal with this, and mentioned it to

12 the consultants that were sent posthumously to consult.

13 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, this is actually quite important.

14 Either you wrote, set out what were going to be the

15 problems and the implications for service delivery or

16 you did not.

17 MR BAMFORD: I am not saying I did or I did not, I am saying

18 I really cannot remember, after this time, exactly what

19 I have written. I have written a number of documents

20 about SSID. I cannot remember specifically who they

21 were all to and what the content was.

22 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, perhaps you will be good enough to

23 cause some enquiry to be made, and if you do discover

24 that you actually set out in writing your professional

25 concerns about this decision, and the implications it

242



1 would have, then you could let us have it.

2 MR BAMFORD: I will look to see whatever I can find. I know

3 there was a very large document produced to do with its

4 implementation, where we stated everything we would need

5 SSID to be able to do, for it to effectively replace

6 what we were using. That was the biggest document;

7 I cannot remember all the memos, but I will look when

8 I get back to the office.

9 THE CHAIRMAN: If you can find nothing, would you accept

10 from me that that was a failure on your part?

11 MR BAMFORD: If I can find nothing, but I know I have

12 certainly said things verbally, even if not everything

13 was in writing.

14 THE CHAIRMAN: Mm. For the Head of Administration to deal

15 with something as important as this verbally seems to me

16 also to be a shortcoming; would you agree?

17 MR BAMFORD: If that is the case -- this was also

18 a direction from more senior management.

19 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, I understand that, but you are also in

20 a responsible position. If I do not hear from you, can

21 I assume that you agree it is a shortcoming?

22 MR BAMFORD: I will look first thing tomorrow morning to see

23 what I can find in supporting it and send it to you.

24 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Punch's letter, Mr Turner rightly said

25 that I described it as a cry from the heart. As the

243



1 Head of Administration, how many letters of that kind

2 had you received in your career?

3 MR BAMFORD: It is the only one I have ever had like that.

4 THE CHAIRMAN: So that is the only letter you have ever

5 received and it is the only letter that has never been

6 replied to of that kind.

7 MR BAMFORD: Certainly.

8 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you not think that is another failure?

9 MR BAMFORD: I think that is a failure, that he did not get

10 a response, yes.

11 THE CHAIRMAN: Not just a response, but no invitation to

12 come and talk it through.

13 MR BAMFORD: There was an invitation, which I allowed to

14 slip, him being on leave when I arranged it.

15 THE CHAIRMAN: I meant in practice; it did not happen.

16 MR BAMFORD: Yes.

17 THE CHAIRMAN: In your reply, which we have only had time,

18 of course, to look at very quickly, at first reading it

19 seems to me that actually you agree with a great deal of

20 what Mr Punch said.

21 MR BAMFORD: In respect of SSID in particular, yes.

22 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, SSID was quite important for the

23 efficient running of the organisation.

24 MR BAMFORD: I agree.

25 THE CHAIRMAN: You also indicate what I could also describe

244



1 as a cry from the heart but you use different terms:

2 "... combined with the high turnover of

3 temporary/agency social work staff on Duty where, in the

4 opinion of the Group Admin Officer and I, clearly

5 impacting on the Duty Admin ability to manage the intake

6 workload", et cetera. What you say is that this had

7 a demoralising effect.

8 MR BAMFORD: I am not --

9 THE CHAIRMAN: You did not use the word "demoralising",

10 sorry.

11 MR BAMFORD: I could not remember using that. I think that

12 was an acknowledgment that with lots of staff being new,

13 the Admin in particular might be spending more time

14 pointing -- helping new people on locations of things

15 and how to do things, if they were not clear or they

16 could not remember.

17 THE CHAIRMAN: "I believe a significant cause of the

18 breakdown in workflow with the intake service results

19 from the extraordinarily high turnover in practitioners.

20 In many cases, agency workers have remained barely long

21 enough to grasp the intricacies of the many forms and

22 systems in use only then to leave. This constant flux

23 in staff has, I believe, worn some staff out and perhaps

24 as a result of this fatigue, as much as anything else,

25 has led to this inadequate induction of new staff."

245



1 A cry from the heart from you?

2 MR BAMFORD: Possibly.

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, the difference between you and Mr Punch

4 was that you were Head of Administration.

5 MR BAMFORD: I was not necessarily there referring to me

6 anyway.

7 THE CHAIRMAN: No, I was referring to your responsibilities,

8 not you personally.

9 MR BAMFORD: Right.

10 THE CHAIRMAN: Of course, this letter suddenly appearing at

11 3.30 this afternoon is not the first time that Brent has

12 surprised us. It took until February 2001 to make the

13 link with the earlier referral.

14 MR BAMFORD: I believe it was linked at the time it was

15 first inputted.

16 THE CHAIRMAN: It took until February 2001 for us to hear

17 about it. How did that come about?

18 MR BAMFORD: I have not the answer to that. As far as I can

19 see, the referral was linked at the time it was index

20 checked, and why the social workers do not -- did not

21 know is possibly down to human error.

22 THE CHAIRMAN: Right. Let us go to what you have just been

23 describing with Mr Turner, page 158, in front of you.

24 You said earlier on, in answer to Mr Garnham, that you

25 were not aware of delays, and yet this monitoring that

246



1 you have done, as I understand it, done in

2 June/July 1999 -- is that right? I am sorry, page 518.

3 MR BAMFORD: My book does not go up to 518.

4 THE CHAIRMAN: Bundle 28, page 000.518. You did this

5 monitoring?

6 MR BAMFORD: This was done a few months ago, when we were

7 doing the internal investigation.

8 THE CHAIRMAN: By you?

9 MR BAMFORD: I did it.

10 THE CHAIRMAN: You said earlier on to Mr Garnham that you

11 were not aware of delays.

12 MR BAMFORD: That was in the context of -- I thought the

13 question was in the context of, was I aware of delays at

14 the time.

15 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, that is right.

16 MR BAMFORD: I was not. This was done much more recently.

17 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, indeed, but you were the Head of

18 Administration at the time. Why did you not know at the

19 time that these delays were occurring?

20 MR BAMFORD: These were not checks that we normally did.

21 THE CHAIRMAN: I can understand that, Mr Bamford. Why were

22 these checks not done?

23 MR BAMFORD: Possibly because it was never thought to be --

24 there was not thought to be any real problem in that

25 area.

247



1 THE CHAIRMAN: Well if you do not look, you do not know.

2 Would that be another shortcoming --

3 MR BAMFORD: In hindsight, it would have been a good thing

4 to look. They still do not actually tell us the full

5 picture, they just tell us of the delay in things

6 getting on to a database.

7 THE CHAIRMAN: Were you aware of the SSI report in 1996?

8 MR BAMFORD: I cannot remember. I know the SSI came, but

9 I cannot remember the specific.

10 THE CHAIRMAN: You never bothered to look at their report?

11 MR BAMFORD: No, I am here, I am feeling stressed, and

12 I cannot remember the specifics right now.

13 THE CHAIRMAN: You are not alone. Are you aware of the 1998

14 SSI report?

15 MR BAMFORD: I am aware of one. Again, I am not carrying it

16 around in my head.

17 THE CHAIRMAN: But could you recall any points within those

18 reports that might have fallen within your area of

19 responsibilities?

20 MR BAMFORD: I cannot remember which one it was, but there

21 was certainly one that had concerns with respect to

22 SSID, I believe, but I cannot remember which one it was.

23 There were concerns -- there were earlier ones that had

24 actually been very encouraging in respect of Admin.

25 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Bamford, I think you might well read the

248



1 1996 and 1998 SSI reports again. It might be quite

2 informative.

3 Thank you, Mr Garnham.

4 MR GARNHAM: Sir, I just have one question arising out of

5 matters that have gone so far. Can you help us with

6 this, Mr Bamford? The page that the Chairman has just

7 taken you to, 28/000.518; I appreciate your answer to

8 him that you had not done the exercise that produced

9 these figures until this year, but in the light of what

10 they reveal, is it not the case that the evidence we

11 have from other witnesses as to the delay in logging in

12 is likely to be accurate, since it is reflected, I would

13 suggest to you, in this report?

14 MR BAMFORD: I cannot recall reading any evidence which

15 specifically says that there were huge delays in

16 logging, and my understanding is still the same, and

17 that -- I was led to believe at the time from

18 Robert Smith that there were no significant delays in

19 Admin getting paperwork and then doing checks on new

20 referrals.

21 MR GARNHAM: Putting it shortly, this suggests that

22 Mr Armstrong was right when he described long delays in

23 logging in, does it not?

24 MR BAMFORD: I would say again, this is telling us it is

25 a long time after referrals that logging in is taking

249



1 place. I cannot say why the delay is.

2 MR GARNHAM: But on the face of it, it supports Armstrong

3 saying there were delays, regardless of the reasons, in

4 logging in. This supports the point that he is right.

5 MR BAMFORD: I might be wrong, but I think the point he was

6 putting was that the delay was on new referrals when

7 they first arrived.

8 MR GARNHAM: And this does not help us with that?

9 MR BAMFORD: Not necessarily.

10 MR GARNHAM: Thank you very much, sir.

11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Garnham.

12 MR GARNHAM: Sir, looking at the time, it might be

13 a convenient moment to adjourn for the evening.

14 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Garnham. Ladies and gentlemen,

15 we will adjourn until 10.00 tomorrow morning. Thank you

16 very much indeed.

17 (The witness withdrew)

18 (5.00 pm)

19 (Hearing adjourned until 10.00 am the following day)

20

21

22

23

24

25