|
Archived Transcript for 18 October 2001: Pages
1 to 50
1
1 Thursday, 18th October 2001
2 (10.00 am)
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
4 Mr Garnham?
5 MR GARNHAM: Good morning, sir. May I begin the proceedings
6 today with an apology and a plea? The apology is in
7 respect of the late addition to our bundles of
8 substantial additional documentation, and the plea is to
9 try and avoid it happening.
10 The drip feed to which I referred on Tuesday, sir,
11 has turned into a flood. We have been flooded over the
12 last 24 hours with additional documents said to be
13 relevant to the matters before this Inquiry. It
14 resulted in members of the Secretariat staying in this
15 office until gone 10.00 last night and members of the
16 legal team staying in the office until gone midnight.
17 It is simply impracticable to manage an Inquiry of
18 this size if parties are going to supply us with
19 documents and witnesses so late in the day, and in the
20 future I would be very grateful if parties could try and
21 get any additional documentation, which is relevant to
22 the issues we have to consider, as soon as possible
23 otherwise it makes life extremely difficult for all
24 concerned.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Turner, do you want to ...
2
1 MR TURNER: Sir, of course I am very conscious of the
2 inconvenience that is caused by this late delivery of
3 material. Two further sources of material have come
4 from our direction. I put it that way, because this is
5 a case where although I nominally represent Mr Boyle,
6 the fact is that he departed our employment some time
7 ago, and has, I think, been anxious to prepare his
8 material to reflect his own concerns, as well as the
9 wider concerns of Brent and the Inquiry.
10 The two bundles of material which have undoubtedly
11 caused further inconvenience to the team and to
12 yourselves come from two directions. Mr Bamford's
13 material arose, you will recall, sir, in response to
14 a direct request from the Inquiry about the background
15 to the introduction of SSID. We, I think, all envisaged
16 perhaps one or two memos. What in fact has emerged is
17 a fairly detailed bundle of additional material. The
18 extent to which, of course, sir, that helps you will be
19 a matter ultimately for your judgment. There is,
20 I suspect, way more detail than probably is required,
21 but I think that was on his part an honest attempt to
22 comply with the Inquiry's request.
23 So that could not have been anticipated, sir, and
24 has been provided as soon as he got back to the office
25 and made the enquiries.
3
1 Mr Boyle prepared himself and submitted -- not at
2 our particular request, although obviously we are
3 grateful for his care in preparing a supplementary
4 statement -- he prepared and submitted in effect off his
5 own bat -- I do not criticise him for that -- this
6 further statement which also reached us I think the
7 evening before yesterday, but it could not be
8 distributed any earlier than that, realistically. So
9 sir, I am extremely sorry. Again my hope is that
10 certainly in Mr Boyle's case, the contents of the
11 material will be of broad assistance, although it is
12 late. Again, sir, I unreservedly apologise.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Turner, I am grateful to you. I have
14 become more and more aware over the days of your
15 determination to be as helpful and as constructive as
16 possible to the Inquiry, which I appreciate greatly.
17 MR TURNER: I am very grateful, sir.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: However, I feel as if you have been battling
19 against some difficulties which in turn have caused the
20 Inquiry difficulty, and so far as Mr Boyle's statement
21 and additional documentation is concerned, I have only
22 received it this morning, and I think that is really
23 unacceptable to the Inquiry. It makes it impossible,
24 and although I am indebted to the team who worked so
25 late last night -- and I am indebted to them, their
4
1 conscientiousness -- I think it is unreasonable that
2 they should have to do that, and I hope very much that
3 this is the last time you, Mr Turner, or anybody else
4 finds themselves in the situation we are in today.
5 MR TURNER: Sir, I am very grateful for your understanding.
6 Thank you.
7 MR GARNHAM: Sir, I should perhaps say that it was not
8 intended to be an invitation to Mr Turner to come to the
9 despatch box on this occasion, because I was conscious
10 that most of the material had not originated with Brent.
11 My concerns were not with Mr Turner's efforts, which as
12 you say are continued, but a general warning for the
13 future, that it does make life very difficult, but I am
14 grateful for Mr Turner's comments.
15 Sir, may we then turn to the business of the day,
16 which means recalling Mr Ludgate, please?
17 MR RONALD LUDGATE (continued)
18 MR GARNHAM: Mr Ludgate, please have a seat. You are still
19 under oath. Mr Ludgate, we finished on Tuesday with
20 your giving a description of your past employment
21 record, and also with us identifying some of the new
22 documentation that had come to light. It may well be
23 that you will want to refer to some of that in answer to
24 my questions, and I therefore wonder if you could have
25 available bundle 26A, into which has been inserted the
5
1 new material that you have provided to us. I do not ask
2 you to read it, I simply want you to have it available
3 in case you need it. It begins at page 000.307.
4 You also suggested to the Inquiry that we might make
5 enquiries ourselves of the SSI, and we did, and sir I am
6 grateful for the SSI responding so promptly. The
7 additional material to which Mr Ludgate referred, and
8 which we have now obtained from the SSI, is to be found
9 in volume 11, beginning at page 354, and although it
10 will probably mean standing it on the floor, Mr Ludgate,
11 I wonder if you could have that available to you as
12 well.
13 Mr Ludgate, you say in paragraph 6 of your statement
14 that Brent Social Services tended to reorganise itself
15 every 18 months or so.
16 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
17 MR GARNHAM: Did you regard that as a healthy thing or an
18 unhealthy thing?
19 MR LUDGATE: Unhealthy.
20 MR GARNHAM: Why?
21 MR LUDGATE: The frequency of reorganisation meant that
22 there was no continuity and development of the service
23 we were trying to actually provide.
24 MR GARNHAM: And did that affect the service you were trying
25 to provide, in your judgment?
6
1 MR LUDGATE: I believe that with any continuous
2 restructuring, it does have a negative impact on
3 continuity of service, yes.
4 MR GARNHAM: I want to ask you a little, please, about
5 finance and budgeting. You say in paragraph 8 that
6 there were significant changes in the budget for Social
7 Services in the period from 1996 through to the year
8 2000.
9 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
10 MR GARNHAM: There is an attempt to explain those changes in
11 our documents, and I wonder if you could have volume 26.
12 I think you have got 26A in front of you, but you will
13 need 26. Page 127.751, please. (Pause).
14 Sir, I am afraid one of the penalties of late night
15 photocopying is sometimes bottom lines get missed off,
16 as they have on this occasion.
17 You now have volume 26, page 127.751?
18 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
19 MR GARNHAM: Can you tell us first of all who compiled that;
20 do you know?
21 MR LUDGATE: Social Services accountants.
22 MR GARNHAM: Was it provided to you?
23 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
24 MR GARNHAM: Can you explain it to us, please?
25 MR LUDGATE: It summarises five financial years of budgets,
7
1 and is based on a steady state position, that i.e. if we
2 would do everything we would do one year, the budget we
3 would need to continue that level the following year.
4 MR GARNHAM: I see, allowing only for inflation at 2.5 per
5 cent?
6 MR LUDGATE: Yes, but also transfer of placement commitments
7 from one budget year to the next budget year as well,
8 because we made those placements in the previous budget
9 year, but would have a full year effect the following
10 year.
11 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. What does "STG transfer to base
12 budget" mean?
13 MR LUDGATE: There was transitional funding in about 1993
14 which had a knock-on effect, which was for adult
15 placements.
16 MR GARNHAM: What does STG stand for?
17 MR LUDGATE: I cannot remember, sorry.
18 MR GARNHAM: The final column is "Cumulative Budgetary
19 Squeeze"; what does that mean?
20 MR LUDGATE: The difference in budget, for example
21 1996/1997, there was £3,721,000 short of that steady
22 state position. That is not to say that our outward
23 budget did not increase each year through inflation
24 et cetera, but the actual service cuts or infrastructure
25 cuts we had to make for that financial year --
8
1 MR GARNHAM: Resulted in that squeeze?
2 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
3 MR GARNHAM: And we see that that squeeze, being cumulative,
4 grows during the period we are looking at on this
5 document.
6 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
7 MR GARNHAM: Thank you.
8 MR LUDGATE: But you need to look at both the cut reports in
9 Social Services and the full budget report which might
10 actually show outwardly that there is a slight increase,
11 but if you look at the service reduction reports which
12 were associated with that final Council-wide budget
13 report, you would see cuts in services and cuts in
14 infrastructure to that amount roughly.
15 MR GARNHAM: And that is what is reflected in this overall
16 analysis?
17 MR LUDGATE: Yes, and it was prepared by a qualified
18 accountant. It was not a finance assistant, it was
19 a qualified accountant who did it.
20 MR GARNHAM: From Brent?
21 MR LUDGATE: Brent Council qualified accountant, yes, in
22 Social Services.
23 MR GARNHAM: It may assist, if we are to understand the
24 significance of that, if I ask you to explain a little
25 the Government's role in social services funding. Can
9
1 you tell us what standard spending assessment is?
2 MR LUDGATE: It is the amount of money that each borough
3 should be spending on each area of service each year.
4 MR GARNHAM: Should be spending?
5 MR LUDGATE: Well, is asked to spend. I am not sure of the
6 actual legal --
7 MR GARNHAM: There is no legal obligation to spend that
8 amount, is there?
9 MR LUDGATE: Not so far as I am aware, no.
10 MR GARNHAM: But it indicates an amount, does it, that the
11 Government thinks can properly be earmarked to that area
12 of activity?
13 MR LUDGATE: That is the principle.
14 MR GARNHAM: Can I ask you, please, in volume 26, to go to
15 175.579? (Pause).
16 MR LUDGATE: By the way, "TG" in "STG" is "transitional
17 grant". I have just been out of circulation.
18 MR GARNHAM: Let us just make sure we know what this
19 document is. It begins, I think, at page 175.571, and
20 is a Department of Health circular to chief executives
21 of county councils, dealing with personal social
22 services funding, yes?
23 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
24 MR GARNHAM: Annex A begins at page 175.576, which sets out
25 resources for personal social services 1997/1998; yes?
10
1 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
2 MR GARNHAM: And if you go on to the page to which
3 I referred, namely 579, you will see a listing by local
4 authority of the children's PSS SSA. What is PSS?
5 MR LUDGATE: Standard spending assessment.
6 MR GARNHAM: No, what is PSS?
7 MR LUDGATE: Personal social services?
8 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. And SSA is standard spending
9 assessment?
10 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
11 MR GARNHAM: If we read across from Brent to the first
12 column, we see the figure of £26.5 million roughly.
13 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
14 MR GARNHAM: Which was the SSA for Children's Social
15 Services for 1997/1998.
16 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
17 (10.15 am)
18 MR GARNHAM: I am afraid you are going to be juggling quite
19 a lot of volumes this morning, Mr Ludgate. Can you have
20 volume 41 as well, please?
21 MR LUDGATE: At the same time?
22 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
23 MR LUDGATE: It is just balancing them.
24 MR GARNHAM: It might be sensible if we put a chair beside
25 Mr Ludgate, because there is going to be a queue of
11
1 these. Page 406 in volume 41.
2 WITNESS MANAGER: There is no 406 in this volume.
3 MR GARNHAM: Sorry, sir, another example of the late night
4 photocopying. Perhaps that could go on the screen,
5 please? (Handed). That is a letter dated 19th September
6 of this year -- if you pull back so we can see the whole
7 letter, please, it is from the principal lawyer acting
8 for Brent, and it says:
9 "I have now been instructed that the amount spent by
10 this authority on children's services for the financial
11 years requested are as follows", and if we look across
12 to (a), 1997/1998, it is a little under £14.3 million.
13 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
14 MR GARNHAM: So the SSA was £26.5 million and the actual
15 spend was £14.3 million.
16 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
17 MR GARNHAM: Were you aware of that at the time?
18 MR LUDGATE: I was aware that we were spending below SSA.
19 MR GARNHAM: What did you understand to be the reasons for
20 that?
21 MR LUDGATE: Well, the reason is that we were working on the
22 historical budget, and that was the amount of money that
23 Social Services was given. I do not know of the
24 analysis of where the other proportion of the SSA went
25 to, within the Council.
12
1 MR GARNHAM: So we have the full picture, can you go back to
2 volume 26, the same page you had open, 175.579? That is
3 the 1997 figures. Turn on to 175.589; this is the
4 1998/1999 figures, yes?
5 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
6 MR GARNHAM: And if we read across from Brent to Children's
7 SSA, I think we see £28.1 million-odd?
8 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
9 MR GARNHAM: And looking back at the screen, we see that the
10 actual spend that year was a little over £14.5 million.
11 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
12 MR GARNHAM: On the face of it, a significant underspend
13 again; can you help us with how that came about?
14 MR LUDGATE: I think it would be possibly a more applicable
15 question to the Director.
16 MR GARNHAM: Very well.
17 MR LUDGATE: But I am aware that Members were advised that
18 we were spending below SSA.
19 MR GARNHAM: What effect did that difference of expenditure,
20 below SSA, have on the way you did your job during the
21 period when you were Director?
22 MR LUDGATE: Well, it had an accumulative effect over the
23 years. As you can see from the letter or memo from
24 Lucille Thomas, the Director of Children's Social Work,
25 which would be the equivalent of an AD type level in
13
1 other authorities, she recorded that eight or ten social
2 workers were lost in terms of the establishment
3 deletion, and other posts were frozen because of the
4 cuts in 1997/1998. Also, a document I provided in the
5 Core/Commissioning Review --
6 MR GARNHAM: Before you go on to tell us about that,
7 Mr Ludgate, we had better find the first letter you
8 refer to. If it is in the new documents you supplied us
9 with, that will be in bundle 26A, which had been given
10 to you; if you go to 26A/000.342, is that the letter?
11 MR LUDGATE: That is the letter, yes.
12 MR GARNHAM: And what is it that you want us to take from
13 that?
14 MR LUDGATE: It is about halfway down the page, starting:
15 "CSW [that is Children's Social Work] made
16 reductions in the staffing establishment to meet the
17 corporate contribution, 1 per cent levy. In addition,
18 in 1997, the budget was reduced by a further £100,000.
19 Although some posts were frozen, eight social work posts
20 were deleted."
21 MR GARNHAM: So you see that as one of the consequences of
22 this funding position?
23 MR LUDGATE: That is one of the consequences, yes.
24 MR GARNHAM: And then you were going on to tell us of
25 another?
14
1 MR LUDGATE: In the Core/Commissioning Review, again the new
2 documents I provided, the Director, Mike Boyle, warned
3 about the negative effects if we deleted the post of
4 Service Development Director (Childcare).
5 MR GARNHAM: Page 000.307 in 26A, please. Is that the one?
6 MR LUDGATE: 311?
7 MR GARNHAM: 307.
8 MR LUDGATE: Sorry, I was turning to the page which related
9 to the point.
10 MR GARNHAM: I wanted to find the start of the document
11 first of all. Where is the page that you say helps us
12 on this?
13 MR LUDGATE: 311, right down at the bottom of the page, (i).
14 MR GARNHAM: "Early retirement ...", did you say?
15 MR LUDGATE: "... of the Service Development Director
16 Children's Services."
17 MR GARNHAM: "Estimated savings of £93,000 in a full year.
18 Whilst this appears attractive the word STABILITY
19 appears frequently in the SSI report."
20 That is the point, is it?
21 MR LUDGATE: At that point, the post was not deleted, but
22 when the post holder left later on in that financial
23 year, the post was taken and deleted -- sorry, the post
24 was frozen in November of that year.
25 MR GARNHAM: Which year?
15
1 MR LUDGATE: It is 1997 -- I think November 1997 it was
2 frozen, and I think then the Director of Social Services
3 took direct management responsibility for Children's
4 Services, as well as his other duties.
5 MR GARNHAM: Paragraph 9 of your statement, Mr Ludgate; you
6 develop these points about the effects of budgetary
7 restrictions, reductions. Again I think if the witness
8 manager could sit beside you, we are going to need quite
9 a lot of help with this.
10 MR LUDGATE: I have paragraph 9.
11 MR GARNHAM: You have, splendid. Before I ask you about
12 those, by whom are these reductions approved? Is this
13 a decision for the Chief Executive, or is this
14 a decision for the political leadership of the Council?
15 MR LUDGATE: The pattern was that people like myself and the
16 Director of Social Services went away for two days twice
17 a year with the Chairs of the various Committees and the
18 Chief Officers and the Chief Executive, to look at the
19 budget for the following year and progress of quite
20 often budget reductions in that financial year. We were
21 given a cost target or a budget target for the following
22 year.
23 MR GARNHAM: By whom?
24 MR LUDGATE: By --
25 MR GARNHAM: Who gave you the target?
16
1 MR LUDGATE: It would have originated from the politicians
2 in partnership with the Chief Financial Officers of the
3 borough, in terms of bringing in the balanced budget for
4 that year.
5 MR GARNHAM: So the advice came from the Senior Financial
6 Advisor, but the direction came from the politicians?
7 MR LUDGATE: Well, the politicians would have made the
8 decision, with advice from the Chief Financial --
9 MR GARNHAM: And when you talk about the politicians, who do
10 you mean?
11 MR LUDGATE: Well, it would ultimately be the Leader of the
12 Council.
13 MR GARNHAM: Who at this time was who?
14 MR LUDGATE: Paul Daisley.
15 MR GARNHAM: Thank you, and are these budget decisions
16 approved by the Council as a whole?
17 MR LUDGATE: Eventually, yes.
18 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. Now the effects of the cuts; first
19 of all, the post of Service Development Director for
20 Children was frozen in December 1997; that is what you
21 were just telling us about by reference to the document
22 you have just looked at.
23 MR LUDGATE: It was frozen November 1997, yes.
24 MR GARNHAM: What had that post holder done? What was his
25 or her work.
17
1 MR LUDGATE: She took a strategic overview of Children's
2 Services and interagency work on Children's Services and
3 interface between Education and Housing, for example,
4 and Social Services Children's Services work, and led on
5 all the interface between Central Government and Brent
6 Council in terms of new strategic requirements,
7 et cetera.
8 MR GARNHAM: So what happens after that post is frozen? Who
9 does that work?
10 MR LUDGATE: Well, the Committee report said that the
11 Director of Social Services would be accountable for
12 that, although as I say in my statement, in practice it
13 is a mixture of Lucille Thomas, the Director of
14 Children's Social Work, the equivalent of AD, i.e.
15 Assistant Director, and Mike Boyle.
16 MR GARNHAM: While he is in that post, because you told us
17 when you were here on Tuesday that you replaced
18 Mike Boyle.
19 MR LUDGATE: Yes, Lucille Thomas was directly responsible or
20 accountable to me during the six months I was Acting
21 Director.
22 MR GARNHAM: So for that period, part of this function was
23 performed by you?
24 MR LUDGATE: Predominantly Lucille was doing the "Quality
25 Protects" MAP et cetera.
18
1 MR GARNHAM: And you? What responsibility did you have?
2 MR LUDGATE: I was working with her, but I had -- as
3 Statutory Director, I had overall accountability for all
4 areas of service at that time.
5 MR GARNHAM: How practical was it for the functions
6 performed by this now frozen post to be done by you and
7 Lucille Thomas in the way you have described?
8 MR LUDGATE: It was impractical, especially that the Senior
9 Policy Officer, who is very much on the ball, was also
10 deleted a few months after October 1997.
11 MR GARNHAM: Who was that person?
12 MR LUDGATE: Luke Geoghan.
13 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. A few months later, you tell us in
14 9B, the Senior Policy Manager for Children's Services
15 left and was not replaced. Is that him?
16 MR LUDGATE: That is Luke Geoghan, yes.
17 MR GARNHAM: "C. By mid 1999 two service manager posts had
18 been deleted from the structure in Children's Services."
19 Names of the individuals, please?
20 MR LUDGATE: John Skinner was one. There was a Management
21 Development Manager as well that was deleted at that
22 point.
23 MR GARNHAM: What was the consequence of the loss of those
24 two posts?
25 MR LUDGATE: Just that -- not just, their responsibilities
19
1 had to be allocated to other people, but can I just go
2 back to another report?
3 MR GARNHAM: Yes, do.
4 MR LUDGATE: In the additional papers I gave you, the
5 Core/Commissioning Report which related to the early
6 retirement of the Children's Services Development
7 Manager, Mike Boyle prepared a report for Social
8 Services of the 30th of that month, which is relevant.
9 MR GARNHAM: I am afraid I do not have that one flagged up.
10 Can we see if we can find that in the new material?
11 30th of which month? What was your date again?
12 MR LUDGATE: I think it was 30th January, but I am
13 looking -- it was the implications of the decisions
14 taken at the -- yes, 30th January 1997, Social Services
15 Special Committee, decisions taken by the Policy and
16 Resources Committee on 13th January.
17 MR TURNER: 000.319.
18 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. 26A/000.319. And what do you tell
19 us that this shows?
20 MR LUDGATE: I refer to 5.15, which is a numbering on the
21 Committee Report.
22 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
23 MR LUDGATE: "The effect of the Policy and Resources
24 decision is to reduce the number of your most senior
25 officers to 3.5. In 1993, the Social Services Committee
20
1 employed seven officers at the equivalent level.
2 Members will be aware that the responsibilities upon the
3 remaining senior officers have increased" -- that is the
4 point, and also at 5.19:
5 "Your officers are consistently working in excess of
6 65 hours per week and the further reduction in
7 management capability is unlikely to improve this
8 situation."
9 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. At the same sort of time, summer
10 1999, the Operational Manager for Children's Services
11 was absent on sick leave.
12 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
13 MR GARNHAM: Who was that?
14 MR LUDGATE: Lucille Thomas.
15 MR GARNHAM: She is one of the two people who was doing the
16 job we have heard had gone.
17 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
18 MR GARNHAM: So what happened then? What happened to the
19 work that she was doing?
20 MR LUDGATE: The "Quality Protects" MAP, there had been
21 a lead officer allocated to each of the main areas, and
22 during that period they continued their work on the
23 areas they were responsible for, but they were also
24 operational managers, so they had line management
25 responsibility for team leaders, et cetera, and
21
1 operational units.
2 (10.30 am)
3 MR GARNHAM: Since the Service Development Director for
4 Children had been frozen since December 1999 and the
5 functions of that post holder divided between you and
6 Lucille Thomas, after she went on sick leave did you
7 take over the management of that function?
8 MR LUDGATE: The Service Managers, which were known at the
9 time as Assistant Directors for Children, made up the
10 Children's Management Group. I attended once or twice
11 to that group and saw individuals from that group
12 individually during that period, but not all of them,
13 just to discuss specific issues.
14 MR GARNHAM: Were you confident that during the summer of
15 1999, all the work that had previously been done by the
16 Service Development Director for Children, the post
17 frozen in December 1997, was being covered?
18 MR LUDGATE: Definitely not.
19 MR GARNHAM: In addition, you say -- this is paragraph 9D --
20 that due to budget restrictions, the range of support
21 services was limited. What sort of support services
22 were no longer available?
23 MR LUDGATE: In Social Services, we used to have a Human
24 Resources section of about five staff. We did not have
25 any Human Resources staff at all, we relied on staff
22
1 from the central unit, over and above their day job
2 predominantly, and we had a training unit of about eight
3 training officers, I forget now, maybe in the early/mid
4 1990s, and we did not have any training staff at all,
5 and we brought training in in terms of the training
6 support grant programme that we needed to provide each
7 year, and as you can see from my witness statement, all
8 the other core functions of a department we are really
9 struggling with, because there is only four or five
10 officers left at the core.
11 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. That leads me to ask you a little
12 about how all of this took effect in a practical way.
13 You say that not all child protection and child looked
14 after cases were allocated.
15 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
16 MR GARNHAM: Can I ask you to look at volume 26, page 258,
17 in that context, please? That is a letter of
18 8th June 1999 from Bridget Edwards to
19 Councillor Cribbin, yes?
20 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
21 MR GARNHAM: Dr Bridget Edwards was Chair of Brent ACPC at
22 the time -- in fact I think she was Vice Chair, was she
23 not, but she is writing --
24 MR LUDGATE: She was covering the Chair of ACPC.
25 MR GARNHAM: She, as you can see there, writes to express:
23
1 "... serious concern about the Children's Social
2 Work Unit's ability to recruit and retain qualified and
3 experienced social workers. At a recent meeting of
4 Brent ACPC we were informed about cases that remain
5 unallocated, including some child protection cases."
6 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
7 MR GARNHAM: That reinforces the point you made.
8 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
9 MR GARNHAM: What was done about it?
10 MR LUDGATE: I became Acting Director on April 1st, it took
11 me some time to come up to speed in regards to
12 Children's Services, as that was not my area before, but
13 I was meeting with Lucille Thomas a couple of times
14 before the end of April, and was studying the analysis
15 of caseloads and staff turnover and staff analysis of
16 short-term contracts and agency work in ratio to
17 permanent staff.
18 MR GARNHAM: Did that include looking at the number of cases
19 that were allocated and unallocated?
20 MR LUDGATE: Yes, but there was also another dimension which
21 was that the Child Protection Team were keeping child
22 protection cases after they should have done, and were
23 carrying -- as I wrote to Ann Mercer, who is from the
24 Social Services Inspectorate, I did advise her that the
25 statutory visits were being made, but I was concerned
24
1 that there was not an allocated worker to really follow
2 through the plans from the child protection case
3 conferences.
4 MR GARNHAM: By the time of this letter, you are in the hot
5 seat, you are Acting Director.
6 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
7 MR GARNHAM: So what do you do about it?
8 MR LUDGATE: I had done something about it before this
9 letter. My first meeting with the SSI was near the end
10 of April.
11 MR GARNHAM: I will bring you back to your meetings with the
12 SSI, but for the moment I want to know what you did in
13 response to receiving -- because you presumably saw this
14 letter, although it is addressed to Councillor Cribbin?
15 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
16 MR GARNHAM: You have this letter. It sounds as if it
17 reflects some concerns you had previously, and which you
18 are telling us now you had already made steps to
19 address, but what do you do in response to that letter?
20 MR LUDGATE: I am not sure who responded to that letter.
21 MR GARNHAM: I am not sure anybody did, but be that as it
22 may, what did you do practically to deal with the
23 problem that the Chair of the ACPC was raising?
24 MR LUDGATE: I was going to go back to the issues that
25 I raised with the Social Services Inspectorate.
25
1 MR GARNHAM: Was that after this letter?
2 MR LUDGATE: No, it was before this letter.
3 MR GARNHAM: Tell us about that first then.
4 MR LUDGATE: There was a planned meeting between myself and
5 the Business Manager for Brent, Ann Mercer. I brought
6 to that meeting the analysis of the numbers of staff we
7 had in ratio to the bombardment of the Children Looked
8 After, Children in Need and Child Protection, and also
9 the unallocated cases, and those held with teams to
10 respond to emergencies as they arose. I wanted to share
11 with her that I was unsure whether or not Brent was
12 still providing a safe service for children. I did not
13 think it was.
14 MR GARNHAM: Would you go -- I am sorry, please finish.
15 MR LUDGATE: But I wanted someone outside of the dynamic
16 within Brent Council to express their views. I would
17 get my perspective in some sort of external context.
18 MR GARNHAM: Would you go to volume 11, please, page 352?
19 Is that a file note of the meeting to which you refer?
20 MR LUDGATE: It may well be a file note. I would not have
21 actually seen file notes from Social Services --
22 MR GARNHAM: Was this meeting though, 21st April, between
23 you and Ann Mercer?
24 MR LUDGATE: Can I scan it?
25 MR GARNHAM: Please do. (Pause). 11/352.
26
1 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
2 MR GARNHAM: My friend is looking anxiously at me and I can
3 understand it, because I suspect that in the time since
4 midnight, not every one of these files has been updated,
5 but it is important that he has access to this. Would
6 you give me one moment, sir? (Pause). You are taking
7 your time to read this, Mr Ludgate, are you?
8 MR LUDGATE: Sorry, I have done it.
9 MR GARNHAM: Is this a note of the meeting to which you are
10 referring?
11 MR LUDGATE: Yes, I mean, I would have added some other
12 things, but it is the framework of the meeting we had,
13 yes.
14 MR GARNHAM: Paragraph 5:
15 "In Children and Family Services, recruitment is
16 a major problem, with 50 per cent of Children's Social
17 Work staff on agency or short-term contract. Brent's
18 financial problems, together with the recent case, have
19 affected recruitment. All child protection cases are
20 currently allocated, although there are some unallocated
21 children looked after."
22 Is that right?
23 MR LUDGATE: That is what she says, yes.
24 MR GARNHAM: And is that an accurate reflection of what you
25 told her?
27
1 MR LUDGATE: In the letter to Ann Mercer which was in the
2 new papers, I said that there were child protection
3 cases at times without named workers, but that statutory
4 visits were being undertaken, and I am unsure whether or
5 not I covered the number of children in need referrals
6 being held on Duty in the Duty Team.
7 MR GARNHAM: While we have got this note open, just turn
8 over to the next page, please. I think this picks up
9 something you have told us earlier; paragraph 8:
10 "The Senior Management Team is currently very thin.
11 The Chief Finance Officer post is vacant, as is Head of
12 Care Unit. Some cover is being provided for portfolio
13 work for the Deputy Director's post, while Ron Ludgate,
14 is Acting Director. It is recognised that senior
15 manager input in relation to Children's Services is very
16 thin, and that Lucille Thomas, as Head of Children's
17 Services, is expected to deal with strategic and
18 operational responsibilities. Ron's view is that this
19 is not successful and more input at a senior level is
20 needed. He will be making this clear to an incoming
21 Director."
22 At the end of paragraph 9:
23 "We agreed it would be helpful if the feedback
24 letter to Brent was phrased in order to encourage
25 greater input from elected councillors."
28
1 MR LUDGATE: That is correct.
2 MR GARNHAM: You say in paragraph 14 of your statement:
3 "Teams were holding cases above their workloads so
4 emergencies could be dealt with. This had a knock-on
5 effect in delaying statutory reviews and fulfilling care
6 plans."
7 Can you explain that to us, please?
8 MR LUDGATE: Because of the number of short term contract
9 workers and even in long term teams, when one or two
10 workers left, it meant that workload could not be
11 allocated elsewhere within the team, so that team held
12 that workload, which means that thorough child focused
13 plans could not be completed, but if anything varied or
14 changed, or visits were required into those cases, then
15 that team would take the accountability to undertake
16 that work, over and above their workloads -- their
17 allocated workloads.
18 MR GARNHAM: You were also concerned about the ratio of
19 agency social workers and employed social workers.
20 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
21 MR GARNHAM: Why?
22 MR LUDGATE: Well, for the reasons that I said in my
23 statement, that we did not have the training and
24 induction staff to bring them up to speed with
25 procedures and policies. It did not provide continuity
29
1 of care that is required under the Children Act for good
2 standard childcare, and it did not provide any stability
3 for the child, or for the department, in terms of going
4 forward.
5 (10.45 am)
6 MR GARNHAM: You say that too many complex cases were being
7 handled with too few experienced workers; consequences?
8 MR LUDGATE: Those cases that were complex were very
9 difficult to allocate, but one of the things I was
10 really focusing on with Lucille Thomas was that the risk
11 dimensions in these cases were being responded to by
12 staff that we did have, but the capability, for example,
13 that I had in Harrow, in ensuring that all complex cases
14 were allocated to experienced workers in that field,
15 that was not the case in Brent.
16 MR GARNHAM: So that complex cases were being dealt with by
17 less experienced workers?
18 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
19 MR GARNHAM: You have told us about what is in
20 paragraph 17(c), inadequate training for locum workers;
21 that is because they are not there long enough to be
22 trained?
23 MR LUDGATE: First that there was not any induction training
24 of staff, but also when I was in the building talking to
25 team leaders and seniors, it was generally based on the
30
1 job induction by team leaders, seniors and admin that
2 were around when things cropped up.
3 MR GARNHAM: You say in your statement that you are not
4 critical of team leaders, social workers or managers for
5 this overall position you have described.
6 MR LUDGATE: I was talking about the macro budgetary
7 situation, that they were -- if I walked into the
8 building at 7.00 at night, many of the social workers
9 were still doing visits on cases that were not theirs,
10 but felt that the child's needs required that visit,
11 et cetera.
12 MR GARNHAM: So who are you critical of, if not of the
13 social workers themselves?
14 MR LUDGATE: The overall budgetary availability.
15 MR GARNHAM: This is a pretty unsatisfactory situation you
16 are describing in your statement, is it not?
17 MR LUDGATE: Yes, it is an unsatisfactory situation.
18 MR GARNHAM: So where did you see the error as lying, in
19 budgeting?
20 MR LUDGATE: Budgeting obviously was a major factor and
21 organisational stability, in terms of reorganisation.
22 I was part of those reorganisations, but there was
23 a change in corporate organisation during that period as
24 well.
25 MR GARNHAM: Which did not help?
31
1 MR LUDGATE: Which did not help, no.
2 MR GARNHAM: Volume 26 again, please, page 000.101. Do you
3 have that?
4 MR LUDGATE: I have that.
5 MR GARNHAM: You tell us in your statement that a report was
6 presented to the Social Services Committee by you and
7 the Director of Human Resources.
8 MR LUDGATE: That is correct.
9 MR GARNHAM: Is that this?
10 MR LUDGATE: That is the report dated 5th July 1999.
11 MR GARNHAM: So what I have shown you is the one you are
12 referring to in your statement?
13 MR LUDGATE: Correct.
14 MR GARNHAM: Can you take us to what you consider the
15 relevant parts of this?
16 MR LUDGATE: Can I just give a two minute background to it?
17 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
18 MR LUDGATE: Since I was Acting Director, I had a meeting
19 with obviously the Management Group in Children's
20 Services, and I asked a representative from each team of
21 Children's Social Work to meet me to discuss their
22 perspectives on what would assist the recruitment and
23 retention major problem within the department, so this
24 was the fruition of those discussions as well, and
25 Children's Social Work received a draft of this report,
32
1 to see if it reflected what we all were saying.
2 MR GARNHAM: And did it?
3 MR LUDGATE: I did not get any feedback saying that anything
4 should be added.
5 MR GARNHAM: Which suggests it did?
6 MR LUDGATE: Yes. I mean, for me, the whole thing is
7 acutely relevant, so I am not sure if I can just draw
8 out paragraphs which -- I mean, there are very
9 short-term proposals within the Committee Report, then
10 there are medium to long term proposals, which would
11 actually assist the incoming Director of Children's
12 Services to have a more effective infrastructure.
13 MR GARNHAM: But you would invite Lord Laming and his
14 colleagues to read the whole of this document?
15 MR LUDGATE: I am afraid I would.
16 MR GARNHAM: Very well. You say the consequence of this was
17 an increase of £200,000 going into Children's Services?
18 MR LUDGATE: The figure specifically under 3.1 is £170,000
19 in 1999/2000 and a four year effect in 2000/2001 of
20 £258,250, and that is on .105.
21 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. We see there how that was spent, or
22 how it was proposed that would be spent.
23 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
24 MR GARNHAM: If I were to suggest to you that that appears
25 relatively small beer by comparison with the difference
33
1 between SSA and actual spend, what would you say?
2 MR LUDGATE: That would be correct.
3 MR GARNHAM: Did this help?
4 MR LUDGATE: I think when you are talking about the
5 cumulative effect over four or five years, you cannot
6 have an immediate positive impact. I think that the
7 appointment of an Assistant Director, the appointment of
8 a quality advisor with training built into the
9 background of that, are two crucial decisions for
10 medium-term -- a part medium-term response to the
11 historical effect. The honorarium for full-time workers
12 who were working over and above their workloads, and
13 I think it is crucial when a department is under acute
14 stress like this that you do give the workers that are
15 attempting to really focus on the needs of the child
16 some recognition of --
17 MR GARNHAM: That was the purpose of the honorarium?
18 MR LUDGATE: Yes, and the scarcity, because there was
19 this -- I think it was a corporate decision about new
20 employees of Brent not getting London weighting, that we
21 were uncompetitive, and therefore the scarcity factor
22 was bringing us back into line into what other boroughs
23 were paying.
24 MR GARNHAM: How did the effect of these changes described
25 in this report manifest themselves on the shop floor?
34
1 Did it make a difference to the quality of work being
2 done in the department?
3 MR LUDGATE: I think there is always a morale issue of being
4 recognised for the work you are doing, so I think that
5 was important too, but there is no objective analysis
6 that I could show you which showed you that there was
7 a three point qualitative improvement in the work being
8 done, because I still do not think there was any easy
9 fix to the situation we were in. In terms of
10 recruitment, you heard from another witness that team
11 leaders were linked in with agencies where agencies
12 contacted them straight away when there was someone
13 available, and you will see from Lucille Thomas' memo to
14 me that we have already referred to that we had
15 externally advertised and obtained eight new social
16 workers who were starting in September/October. So we
17 were externally advertising, we had recruited those
18 eight or nine, plus we had a streamlined system for
19 agency workers.
20 MR GARNHAM: That eight or nine though would not even make
21 up for those that had been lost through freezing, would
22 it?
23 MR LUDGATE: No.
24 MR GARNHAM: I would like to compare your concerns, if
25 I may, with those of the Social Services Inspectorate.
35
1 I want to start with the 1996 report, but before I do
2 that, can you tell us what you were doing in 1996? You
3 were not in childcare, were you?
4 MR LUDGATE: No. I need to look at my chronology, because
5 there was so many jobs I had. I was Service Development
6 Director (Community Care).
7 MR GARNHAM: So no direct involvement with childcare?
8 MR LUDGATE: No.
9 MR GARNHAM: You were aware of the SSI report of 1996?
10 MR LUDGATE: I was aware of it, but I would not know the
11 detailed recommendations.
12 MR GARNHAM: When you took up the post of Director in
13 April 1999, did you have cause to look at that report
14 and the 1998 report?
15 MR LUDGATE: Just the -- because of the pressure that I was
16 under, it was just the 1998 report and the progress
17 report that Mike Boyle had written to Jenny Owen of the
18 SSI in March 1999 before he left, because we were up to
19 our neck in "Quality Protects" MAP and also what
20 I considered the extreme situation with staffing and
21 workload.
22 MR GARNHAM: Before I take you to the reports themselves,
23 you are presumably aware of the approach of the SSI when
24 they make these inspections?
25 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
36
1 MR GARNHAM: And you are aware of the differences between
2 recommendations and requirements?
3 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
4 MR GARNHAM: Requirements are things that have to be done;
5 recommendations are things that ought to be done.
6 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
7 MR GARNHAM: SSI reports, Mr Ludgate, tend to be couched in
8 relatively diplomatic language normally.
9 MR LUDGATE: Increasingly not so.
10 MR GARNHAM: And is it right that the Social Services
11 Department or the Council as a whole would get the
12 chance to comment on the draft report before it is
13 published?
14 MR LUDGATE: Absolutely, yes.
15 MR GARNHAM: Would you first have a look at the 1996 report,
16 volume 14, page 7, please?
17 I am sorry, sir, can I have a moment?
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Of course.
19 MR GARNHAM: Sir, I am sorry, an oversight by me. I do not
20 have it in front of me. (Pause).
21 Page 7 in volume 14; this is the overview of the
22 1996 report:
23 "Brent Social Services Department has had a history
24 of instability lasting many years which served to
25 undermine the quality of management and practice in
37
1 Children's Services."
2 A fairly damning start, Mr Ludgate.
3 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
4 MR GARNHAM: "Since the appointment of the current Director
5 of Social Services, and supported by the Council's Chief
6 Executive, there has been a concerted effort to improve
7 service quality. A systematic approach has been taken
8 to reviewing and revising each element of the service."
9 Of significance to this work has been the audit by
10 the NSPCC:
11 "The findings of this audit, supported by a wealth
12 of evidence, confirmed the views of senior management
13 that serious deficiencies existed throughout the Child
14 Protection Service."
15 Yes?
16 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
17 MR GARNHAM: Then the strategy to create improvements is
18 described, and 2.6, please:
19 "Despite these significant developments, inspectors
20 were seriously concerned about practice. We are
21 therefore recommending that until practices fundamental
22 to child protection and essential to the safety of
23 children are established throughout the SSD, there
24 should be a reprioritising of management endeavour."
25 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
38
1 MR GARNHAM: "Of immediate importance are those matters
2 which are set out in the 'Requirements' section of this
3 report.
4 "2.9. It will be noted that requirements focus
5 largely upon issues of good practice."
6 How long was it thought likely, can you tell us,
7 that these necessary improvements would take to put into
8 effect?
9 MR LUDGATE: I do not know, I am not really aware of the
10 action plan of the 1996 report. I was at fault --
11 I only focused in 1999 on the 1998 report.
12 MR GARNHAM: Just go back to 2.4 for a moment, please:
13 "Inevitably, such root and branch measures have
14 taken time to develop, implement and bed down in
15 practice. Starting from a low base, the Director of
16 Social Services anticipated that the strategy would take
17 two years to be fully effective."
18 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
19 MR GARNHAM: So that by the time you took up the post, if
20 that prediction was right, all this should have been
21 corrected?
22 MR LUDGATE: Yes, in accordance with the action plan.
23 MR GARNHAM: Was it?
24 MR LUDGATE: Well as I am not familiar with the
25 recommendations and the action plan of it, I would
39
1 need --
2 MR GARNHAM: Let us have a look at some of the more
3 important ones then. 2.12:
4 "Assistant Directors should refocus and reprioritise
5 their management tasks so that they increase the level
6 of direct support, advice and direction to team managers
7 and social workers until such time as practice achieves
8 a consistently good standard."
9 Achieved?
10 MR LUDGATE: I believe, and I might be corrected by
11 Mike Boyle, but I thought the SSI put Brent on a Good
12 Practice Register for supervision.
13 MR GARNHAM: That may well be right. What I am interested
14 to know is when you took up the post of Director,
15 whether these matters had been dealt with.
16 MR LUDGATE: I believe that team leaders were providing
17 supervision at least once every three or four weeks,
18 within the framework of the supervision policy for which
19 we were put on the Register of Best Practice.
20 MR GARNHAM: 2.17:
21 "A management of change strategy should be developed
22 and implemented."
23 By the time you took up the post, was that in place?
24 MR LUDGATE: I am not aware of the management of change
25 strategy, I was only aware of 1998, the quality MAP and
40
1 the various things I have already referred to.
2 MR GARNHAM: "2.18. It is essential that the work
3 undertaken to improve case management takes particular
4 account of the quality of the investigative and initial
5 assessment processes to reinforce the necessity for the
6 safety of the child to be the first consideration."
7 Dealt with by the time you took up the post?
8 MR LUDGATE: I think it was -- I believe it was dealt with
9 in terms of child protection. I think there is still
10 more work to be done in the framework for children in
11 need.
12 MR GARNHAM: Recommendations, 2.22:
13 "Opportunities should be taken, when finances allow,
14 to enhance the quality of technology available to those
15 providing management information to the department."
16 In place by the time you took up the post?
17 MR LUDGATE: The statistics I received from Children's
18 Services when I was Acting Director was of very high
19 quality. There is friction between Filemaker and SSID,
20 so SSID was not fully implemented when I was in post, so
21 in that sense, it was not implemented in the sense of
22 that paragraph.
23 MR GARNHAM: "2.36. Mechanisms should be developed to
24 record and analyse service shortfalls, so that decisions
25 can be made about how best to respond."
41
1 In place by the time you took up the post?
2 MR LUDGATE: Service shortfalls in terms of the workers not
3 available and unallocated cases, but there is a whole
4 different range of service shortfall which I do not
5 think was recorded, which was having a range of
6 community infrastructure and alternative provision to
7 respond to children in need, and I do not think that
8 shortfall was registered, like family centres, and
9 a whole range of responses which are far more applicable
10 to meeting children in need than just having a social
11 worker available.
12 MR GARNHAM: When you took up your post, you tell us, you
13 did have regard to the 1998 SSI report.
14 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
15 MR GARNHAM: Can we look at that, please? That is
16 volume 14, page 77. It begins at 71; look first, if you
17 would, please, at paragraph 10 on page 77:
18 "Overall, we found that the strong importance placed
19 on safety issues by senior officers was reflected in the
20 practice of staff. Careful attention was given to the
21 process of placing children in the independent sector.
22 There was a clear focus on performance measurement and a
23 range of mechanisms were being used to inform managers
24 about operational activity. Brent SSD was also ahead of
25 the field in relation to the progress being made in
42
1 developing contracts with independent placement
2 providers.
3 "We found some particularly good practice by
4 managers and staff in the two residential homes ..."
5 So a number of positive comments about what had
6 happened.
7 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
8 MR GARNHAM: And although it is right to recognise those
9 positives, this was not an entirely positive report, was
10 it?
11 MR LUDGATE: No.
12 MR GARNHAM: Go back, please, to 14/076, paragraph 7:
13 "60 of these cases [those are the cases described in
14 the previous paragraph] were unallocated, 40 of which
15 were looked after children. Service reductions in
16 August 1997 had led to 10 Children's Social Work posts
17 being deleted and a further 13 vacancies frozen.
18 However, restrictions on the frozen posts had been
19 lifted and these vacancies had been advertised."
20 When you read this when you took up the post of
21 Director, what was your feeling about the current
22 position then?
23 MR LUDGATE: Well, the current position is as I reflected it
24 to Councillors and to the SSI, which was that there were
25 still cases that were unallocated.
43
1 MR GARNHAM: It seems in particular as if the Long Term Team
2 were unable to take cases referred to them by the Duty
3 Team on occasions.
4 MR LUDGATE: That is correct, yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: At that time, were posts being created or
6 frozen?
7 MR LUDGATE: When I was Acting Director?
8 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
9 MR LUDGATE: I was willing to pay, as a Director, for any
10 social worker that we could get hold of. So no posts
11 were being frozen in terms of operational staff, and any
12 social worker, in terms of vacancies that we had, we
13 were trying to recruit to as soon as possible, or being
14 covered by short-term contract or agency workers, even
15 though that cost 30 per cent more than having
16 a permanent member of staff.
17 MR GARNHAM: Paragraph 7 continues, page 76:
18 "Managers try to ensure that only children in
19 relatively stable placements were without a social
20 worker, but this was not always possible to achieve."
21 So if you are in a stable placement, you do not have
22 a social worker, and there are occasions when, even if
23 you are not in a stable placement, you do not have
24 a social worker?
25 MR LUDGATE: Yes, it was an unacceptable position.
44
1 MR GARNHAM: "There had also been a series of restructurings
2 within the Children's Social Work service which meant
3 that the responsibility for some cases had changed
4 several times over a relatively short period. Staff
5 were working under a considerable pressure. They worked
6 long hours and stress sickness levels were reported to
7 be high."
8 MR LUDGATE: The sickness levels in terms of the statistics
9 that are in the bundle do not seem to be that high.
10 When I was talking to staff, team leaders and seniors,
11 wandering round the building, there was intense and
12 extreme stress, there was very long hours of working,
13 but I do not -- for the most part, I do not think there
14 was low morale. Everyone was trying to help each other
15 out, for the most part.
16 MR GARNHAM: Page 79, paragraph 24:
17 "The overly large caseloads of staff in the Youth
18 Justice Team, and the pressures on other social workers,
19 must be addressed by senior managers, in order that
20 safety issues are not missed."
21 By the time you took over, had senior management
22 addressed those points?
23 MR LUDGATE: If you look at the allocated -- the number of
24 allocated cases in the statistics in the bundle, there
25 is an overtly high number of cases allocated, I think
45
1 you will find there are no more than 12 or 15 to each
2 worker. It is the additionality to that that caused the
3 problem, trying to cover the cases that were not
4 allocated to a worker, but the actual caseloads you will
5 see were not overtly high, it was the additional work
6 that people were trying to do to make sure that
7 children's needs were safeguarded at the high risk area.
8 MR GARNHAM: This report came out in 1998, and you took over
9 as Director --
10 MR LUDGATE: April 1999.
11 MR GARNHAM: So there had been the best part of a year
12 anywaY since this report had come out before you took
13 over.
14 MR LUDGATE: There was a letter from Mike Boyle to
15 Jenny Owen of the SSI in March 1999, listing the
16 progress and the action plan.
17 MR GARNHAM: What was your feeling when you took over? Did
18 you feel, "Well, thank goodness for that, we have dealt
19 with the majority of the problems identified in the 1998
20 report", or did you feel, "This is all still as was"?
21 MR LUDGATE: At no time during those six months did I think,
22 "Thank goodness for that". I thanked goodness that
23 there was a group of committed workers working to many
24 of the standards in 1998, and I was acutely anxious
25 about the level of service we could give to a range of
46
1 children that were not allocated, or could pass through
2 Duty to allocation and long term teams.
3 MR GARNHAM: And when we try and understand how you felt
4 about the position you were in in the light of that
5 report, when you took over in April 1999, we need to
6 have regard to the file note that we have already looked
7 at, recording the meeting between you and Ms Mercer of
8 the SSI.
9 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
10 MR GARNHAM: Would you also go, please, in volume 11, if you
11 could have that, to page 360? This is a letter from
12 Ms Mercer to you of 30th July 1999; yes?
13 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
14 MR GARNHAM: Go over to 361, please:
15 "National Priority Guidance, Children's Welfare.
16 "We discussed early progress with the implementation
17 of your Management Action Plan, and the content of the
18 SSI/SCR feedback letter sent to you in May. There were
19 some particular concerns about the implementation of the
20 Management Action Plan which will need immediate
21 attention. These were the need to develop a strategic
22 overview of services, financial strategy and
23 governance."
24 What was done about that in the time you were in
25 post?
47
1 MR LUDGATE: Again, two minutes on context. There was not
2 a social services finance person lead in post at the
3 time. Duncan McLeod from Centre gave us amazingly good
4 service in addition to what his main job was, so there
5 was work between his section and Lucille Thomas about
6 the financial dimension. As I said, because we did not
7 have a policy group for Children's Services, operational
8 managers took on responsibility for the range of these
9 sorts of areas, and the focus group that I held between
10 the Chair of Services, the Vice Chair and the Chair of
11 the Children's Committee was evolving into a Governance
12 Members Group.
13 MR GARNHAM: Explain to us what that means, please,
14 a Governance Members Group.
15 MR LUDGATE: Well in terms of the role of Members, in
16 regards to the quality of childcare under the "Quality
17 Protects" initiative, it was only the initial evolution
18 of a group of Councillors who would be taking specific
19 responsibility for overviewing the progress on the MAP
20 and the action plan in regards to "Quality Protects".
21 MR GARNHAM: There was a group of Councillors who were to
22 take that overview?
23 MR LUDGATE: Yes, but this was the very early, initial stage
24 of it, but governance, there was a middle manager who
25 was responsible for developing that, but an operational
48
1 manager, not a policy person, because we did not have
2 a policy person to deal with it.
3 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. You were in post for six months?
4 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: Thereafter, in the early part of 2000, the SSI
6 did yet another inspection and report on Brent Social
7 Services.
8 MR LUDGATE: Yes. Do you know the month of that?
9 MR GARNHAM: May.
10 MR LUDGATE: I would not have been there then.
11 MR GARNHAM: I appreciate that. I know you were not there
12 then, but I still want to ask you about it, because
13 I think it describes the situation that existed during
14 a period which included your period as Director.
15 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
16 MR GARNHAM: Can you go to volume 41 again, please?
17 MR LUDGATE: I have volume 41.
18 MR GARNHAM: As well as your glass of water, you are also
19 going to need volume 11 again, please, page 363. Will
20 you look at that first, please?
21 Another letter from the SSI to you,
22 11th August 1999.
23 MR LUDGATE: I have just finished the letter on 363. What
24 was the other letter?
25 MR GARNHAM: 363 is what I wanted you to look at.
49
1 MR LUDGATE: That is what I have done.
2 MR GARNHAM: That was a letter from SSI to you of
3 11th August.
4 MR LUDGATE: That is right.
5 MR GARNHAM: Middle paragraph:
6 "As Anne" -- that is Anne Mercer, is it?
7 MR LUDGATE: Yes.
8 MR GARNHAM: -- "points out, you face a very considerable
9 development agenda if you are to achieve the desired
10 improvements in outcomes for children in need in Brent.
11 A great deal of work will be required to produce
12 complimentary financial and children's services
13 strategies, the execution of which will require
14 unequivocal political/corporate commitment and
15 leadership.
16 "Clearly in order for you to be in a position to
17 demonstrate real progress, the establishment of a sound,
18 reliable baseline is an essential prerequisite. This
19 too was an area in which I felt you faced significant
20 challenges."
21 Do you feel you had met those challenges by the time
22 you left the post?
23 MR LUDGATE: No.
24 MR GARNHAM: Now if you would go to the May 2000 report,
25 volume 41, page 30. If you go on to page 36,
50
1 paragraph 1.2:
2 "The inspection was agreed between the SSI and Brent
3 Council following a number of concerns about Brent's
4 childcare services."
5 Is it commonplace for inspections to be agreed
6 between councils and SSI?
7 MR LUDGATE: I do not work for the SSI.
8 MR GARNHAM: From your experience, do you know? Say if you
9 do not know.
10 MR LUDGATE: I do not know.
11 MR GARNHAM: The paragraph goes on:
12 "The 'Quality Protects' Management Action Plan
13 submitted by Brent was of a very poor quality and was
14 particularly weak on planning and strategic
15 development."
16 During whose tenure of the Director's post was the
17 MAP produced?
18 MR LUDGATE: I think it was between Mike Boyle and mine,
19 there was more work to be done on the MAP after
20 Mike Boyle left.
21 MR GARNHAM: And you finished it? It was finished during
22 your tenure?
23 MR LUDGATE: It was submitted, but there were obviously
24 revisions to be done, because in terms of the
25 six-monthly SSI review, they were not happy with
|
