|
Archived Transcript for 30 January 2002: Pages
1 to 50
1
1 Wednesday, 30th January 2002
2 (10.00 am)
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Morning ladies and gentlemen, Mr Garnham.
4 I should just explain that I do not have with me today,
5 as you will have noticed, Chief Superintendent Fox who
6 has another commitment. He was not able to be with us
7 but he will of course see the transcript of the
8 evidence.
9 MR GARNHAM: Thank you sir. Before I call the first witness
10 for today can I deal with a matter of housekeeping.
11 Yesterday, after you rose, a number of representatives
12 of interested parties approached me about the day before
13 service of written statements. They observed correctly
14 that the date we had indicated we required written
15 statements was 13th February, some four or five days
16 before the first oral statement was given, and you will
17 recall that Miss Lawson made an application in this
18 regard a little while ago. You in my respectful
19 submission correctly rejected that application for this
20 reason, that it would take some time for the Secretariat
21 to copy, collate and distribute written final
22 submissions made by all the parties so that all other
23 parties could see them.
24 The point that was made to me yesterday afternoon
25 was that at least all of those who spoke to me on the
2
1 subject were not anxious to have sight of those written
2 statements before the week of oral submissions and were
3 content if they had them during that week. That being
4 so, the reason for our asking for them to be delivered
5 by 13th February melts away.
6 If that is the position, and each and every one of
7 the interested parties who I have managed to speak to
8 since confirms that they are content to receive the
9 written submissions at the start of that week, then,
10 sir, I would suggest that you adopt that course.
11 Certainly from our point of view as Counsel to the
12 Inquiry, since we are going to be preparing some form of
13 submissions, it would assist us but I think it would
14 also assist everybody else to have that extra four or
15 five days to get their written submissions in.
16 What I would suggest therefore is that you direct
17 that instead of the current date for the submission of
18 written submissions of 13th February, you change it to
19 no later than 9 am on the Monday of the following week.
20 My submission to you would be that it is right that they
21 be in at that stage so that no party has an advantage or
22 disadvantage by the place they are in the order of
23 making final submissions. I think it is the 18th but
24 I do not have a diary in front of me. I am told it is.
25 I would also urge you, sir, to make it a requirement
3
1 of this extension of time that written submissions are
2 with the Secretariat by 9 o'clock that morning,
3 underlining it by saying that you will not take into
4 account written submissions that are served late,
5 because it is right that everybody should be in the same
6 position when it comes to that last week of final
7 submissions. If you were content with that that is what
8 I would urge you to do.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr Garnham. You are quite right in
10 saying that I had had the application and considered it
11 carefully but felt that the commitment that not just me
12 but we all have to the openness and fairness of the
13 Inquiry demanded that we had an opportunity to circulate
14 these written submissions before the oral submissions,
15 but in the light of what you have said I am content for
16 that to be amended to 9 am on 18th February and hope
17 that that helps, but I do want to emphasise that point
18 made by Mr Garnham that 9 am on 18th February is the
19 last possible time and I hope that everyone will honour
20 that.
21 MR GARNHAM: I should have said, as we had arranged
22 previously, I would urge all interested parties,
23 particularly because of the now relatively late in the
24 day submission of oral statements, to provide us with
25 20 copies of each statement so that we do not have to go
4
1 to the trouble of reproducing them ourselves and they
2 can simply be slotted into files, so 20 copies of all
3 statements. I am being told by my instructing
4 solicitor, I am sorry, 30, not 20 copies.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: If you are going to do 20 I imagine there --
6 let us settle for 30 copies.
7 MR GARNHAM: By 9 am on the 18th. On the same subject
8 I have had various representations about closing
9 statements and the order of closing statements. Sir,
10 frankly we as Counsel to the Inquiry are fairly neutral
11 on the order in which these statements are delivered.
12 What I tentatively suggest to you, although it may be
13 others have different views, is that we maintain the
14 order we used for opening statements, subject to these
15 amendments.
16 Firstly, that we ask interested witnesses who are
17 not interested parties but have received notices of
18 criticisms who wish to make statements to make those
19 first and Mr Fitzgerald will work out a sensible order
20 for that. Secondly, we take final oral statements
21 thereafter in the same order as opening speeches,
22 subject to two amendments. Firstly to move the Climbies
23 so that they are the last of the interested parties to
24 make a statement, and secondly so that Counsel to the
25 Inquiry go last of all after the Climbies.
5
1 That is a tentative suggestion. It may be others
2 disagree about that and if they do sir it may be that
3 now is a convenient moment to indicate that and we can
4 try and sort something out.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. I am content with
6 whatever arrangement is best suited for everyone and
7 that seems a sensible suggestion to me. I will leave it
8 to anyone who wants to make comment, either now or later
9 in the day, to you Mr Garnham to do that.
10 There is just one thing that is on my mind. As you
11 will have observed, reading the clock is not exactly one
12 of the things that I am particularly good at, amongst
13 lots of other things, and I would rather not spend the
14 time worrying about the different time slots. I would
15 rather spend the time actually listening to what is
16 being said. Therefore we will find some more reliable,
17 more effective way to actually make sure that people
18 keep to their times.
19 MR GARNHAM: Thank you very much. I will then call our
20 witness for today, Anne Bristow.
21 MS ANNE BRISTOW (sworn)
22 MR GARNHAM: Good morning Ms Bristow, please take a seat.
23 MS BRISTOW: Good morning.
24 MR GARNHAM: Would you give the Inquiry your full name.
25 MS BRISTOW: Anne Elizabeth Bristow.
6
1 MR GARNHAM: Your professional address?
2 MS BRISTOW: 40 Cumberland Road, Wood Green, London N22.
3 MR GARNHAM: You have made one statement for the Inquiry.
4 MS BRISTOW: That is correct.
5 MR GARNHAM: We have it in volume 2 page 137, I hope a copy
6 is in front of you.
7 MS BRISTOW: Yes, it is.
8 MR GARNHAM: Would you glance through it and confirm that
9 you have signed it please.
10 MS BRISTOW: Yes I have.
11 MR GARNHAM: Are its contents true or do you need to make
12 any amendments to it?
13 MS BRISTOW: The contents were true at the time I made the
14 statement. Obviously the situation has moved on and no
15 doubt we will discuss that during the day.
16 MR GARNHAM: Since October 2000 you have been the Director
17 of Social Services at the London Borough of Haringey?
18 MS BRISTOW: I have, yes.
19 MR GARNHAM: You have spent your whole professional life in
20 local government administration, I think?
21 MS BRISTOW: Bar a couple of very early years when I had
22 some other employment, yes.
23 MR GARNHAM: You were at Lambeth between 1977 and 1982?
24 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
25 MR GARNHAM: Redbridge between 1982 and 2000?
7
1 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
2 MR GARNHAM: During that latter period after 1991 I think
3 you took on responsibility for the assessment services
4 for both Social Services and Housing at Redbridge?
5 MS BRISTOW: I did, yes.
6 MR GARNHAM: In 1993 that role was expanded to include all
7 childcare services?
8 MS BRISTOW: That is correct.
9 MR GARNHAM: And you chaired the local ACPC?
10 MS BRISTOW: Yes, I did.
11 MR GARNHAM: Later on you managed community care services
12 and were deputised for the Director of Social Services?
13 MS BRISTOW: Yes, I did.
14 MR GARNHAM: We have your job description; sir, it is volume
15 42, page 62; but I do not think I need trouble you with
16 it in detail Ms Bristow. It is right though, is it not,
17 that on your appointment your principal duties consisted
18 of managing the Housing and Social Services Departments?
19 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
20 MR GARNHAM: Advising the Council and the Social Services
21 Committee?
22 MS BRISTOW: Yes, that is correct.
23 MR GARNHAM: Managing the joint working arrangements with
24 other agencies?
25 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
8
1 MR GARNHAM: Managing the Council's housing stock?
2 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
3 MR GARNHAM: And taking part in the Council's Corporate
4 Management Group?
5 MS BRISTOW: That is correct.
6 MR GARNHAM: Five months after you joined Haringey the
7 Housing and Social Services Department was split.
8 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
9 MR GARNHAM: And you became Director of Social Services?
10 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
11 MR GARNHAM: Presumably somebody else took on Housing?
12 MS BRISTOW: That is correct, and one of the functions I was
13 responsible for, the Housing Benefit Service, was moved
14 to the Director of Finance's control.
15 MR GARNHAM: Did that split come as a surprise to you?
16 MS BRISTOW: No, it did not. I think as you may have had
17 heard Councillor Meehan say yesterday, when I applied
18 for the post I was told that the Chief Executive had
19 been asked to review the Council's organisational
20 structure and I was asked if was I willing to take the
21 job on the basis that my responsibilities might change
22 and that was confirmed to me in my letter of
23 appointment.
24 MR GARNHAM: I see.
25 MS BRISTOW: During the summer of that year, when I had been
9
1 offered the job but was working my notice with my
2 previous authority, I did have some discussions with the
3 Chief Executive about the thinking about what kind of
4 splits, which direction it might go, and was consulted
5 on that.
6 MR GARNHAM: The Chief Executive at the time was
7 David Warwick?
8 MS BRISTOW: That is correct.
9 MR GARNHAM: Gurbux Singh having left in I think March 2000.
10 MS BRISTOW: I have only met Mr Singh this year but he had
11 left the authority before I joined them.
12 MR GARNHAM: Can I ask you to look, please, in volume 45D at
13 a special report from the Chief Executive to the Policy
14 and Strategy Committee of 31st October 2000, page 16.
15 If you look at page 1 first to identify the document.
16 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
17 MR GARNHAM: This is a document prepared for the special
18 Policy and Strategy Committee meeting 31st October.
19 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
20 MR GARNHAM: Page 16 in the bundle, paragraph 7.19:
21 "Regarding the arrangements of the front line
22 service delivery units, we propose the education and
23 environment should remain largely untouched but housing
24 and social services be split to address the basic
25 problem of its current size and agenda. Detailed
10
1 structures to be put in place to reflect the best fit
2 after further analysis and consultation. "
3 That is the very end of October 2000. Was that the
4 first time to your knowledge that the idea of a split
5 was mooted?
6 MS BRISTOW: You will appreciate by that stage I had only
7 moved to the authority for a month. It is my
8 understanding that during the summer months there had
9 been discussion between the Chief Executive and leading
10 members of the Council about the direction it might go
11 with and I understand that those people who were members
12 of the Corporate Management Team at that stage had had
13 discussions about it. Obviously the decision-making
14 body of the Council is the Policy and Strategy Committee
15 and I think this was the formal report then coming
16 forward.
17 MR GARNHAM: And we are to understand, are we, that the
18 process of separating up the two departments was
19 completed from first submission of the idea to the
20 Council to introduction in a little over four months?
21 MS BRISTOW: That is my understanding, because in effect it
22 was a fairly high level change and for the vast majority
23 of staff there was not a change in their function.
24 There had been a decision taken to try to centralise
25 what we have called shared services, support services
11
1 such as personnel, legal services, some of our finance
2 functions, to work across the authority as a whole and
3 having Directorate based versions in five departments.
4 However, if you were a housing officer or if you
5 were a social worker your line management would remain
6 the same and it may be your Assistant Director would
7 change but beyond that it would not impact on you.
8 MR GARNHAM: I see, so this change, this split was not
9 something intended to have a significant effect on the
10 ground?
11 MS BRISTOW: I think it was intended in the long term to
12 have a significant effect by enabling the senior
13 management to concentrate on the delivery of our core
14 services in a more focused way but if you mean did it
15 affect how you did your job as a social worker on
16 a day-to-day basis, in the short-term, no.
17 MR GARNHAM: And that is why it was possible to put in this
18 change in four months or so?
19 MS BRISTOW: Yes, there were discussions with senior staff
20 but in essence the arrangements needed to be put in
21 place were to appoint a Director of Housing in order
22 that someone could smoothly take over responsibility for
23 that and on an orderly basis for me to transfer
24 functions for which I was responsible to a colleague
25 director.
12
1 MR GARNHAM: Mr Meehan, Ms Adamou and Mr Singh, together
2 with Mr Sulaiman, describe these events in similar terms
3 in their statements to this Inquiry. They say:
4 "A plan for implementation over three years was
5 agreed and commenced from June 1999 leading to the
6 separation of Housing from Social Services into two
7 directorates from April 2001."
8 That sounds as if the split of the two directorates
9 was the culmination of a series of events put into place
10 in April 1999. Now, both Ms Adamou and Mr Meehan have
11 made a point at the beginning of their evidence to amend
12 that expression of events and I take it from what you
13 have said to us already that your understanding is what
14 they have now told us, rather than the interpretation
15 that might have been put on those words in their
16 statements.
17 MS BRISTOW: Yes, it is but you will appreciate as I was not
18 with Haringey I am reliant on what people have
19 subsequently told me rather than what I know from
20 personal knowledge.
21 MR GARNHAM: Yes, I am content to work on the basis of what
22 you have been told, but on that basis what they now say
23 represents your understanding?
24 MS BRISTOW: My understanding is that in 1999 the Council
25 did a lot of reflection on its performance as a local
13
1 authority and started to think about how could Haringey
2 move its service delivery up and how we could deliver
3 better services to our residents, so clearly there was
4 a process of discussion going on about how do we improve
5 services in Haringey. I do not believe from what I have
6 been told that a decision about the organisational
7 structure was reached until after the appointment of the
8 current Chief Executive.
9 MR GARNHAM: Yes, that reflects what Mr Meehan said to us
10 yesterday, that this split was first discussed
11 after March 2000 and certainly after Mr Singh had left.
12 Ms Adamou said something slightly similar, in that she
13 said it was first discussed after the new Director
14 arrived. That would certainly be after Mr Singh had
15 left but that would put it too back in time on your
16 evidence, would it not?
17 MS BRISTOW: Yes, it would. I am certain that I was asked
18 at interview, which was in June 2000, and that it is in
19 my letter of appointment, which would have been --
20 sorry, I can provide you with the date if you need it
21 but it was in the latter part of June was the formal
22 offer.
23 MR GARNHAM: Ms Adamou must be mistaken when she says that?
24 MS BRISTOW: I believe she is mistaken. As she was not part
25 of my interview panel there is no reason she would
14
1 necessarily know that it was put to me at interview.
2 MR GARNHAM: No. When Miss Lawson was questioning Mr Singh
3 she suggested to him and he agreed that initially
4 restructuring in the department was going on within
5 a joint department. Then Mr Singh said this in answer
6 to one of Miss Lawson's questions, Day 40 page 198:
7 "The intention to separate was planned over a period
8 of time. I thought that there was the intention to
9 separate out the two departments and that that was
10 actually taken earlier on in principle but that it came
11 back subsequently to effectively implement, but it was
12 always the case that it would be on a planned basis over
13 time."
14 Your understanding is slightly different from that?
15 MS BRISTOW: Yes it is, but I do not think I can help you
16 further because I am reliant on what people who have
17 already given evidence directly have told me.
18 MR GARNHAM: I see. Presumably when you took up your new
19 post you familiarised yourself with material of weight
20 that was important to that post. I think in fact
21 material was sent to you while you were working out your
22 notice at Redbridge?
23 MS BRISTOW: Yes, it was. From about July I was receiving
24 a weekly bundle which almost felt like an alternative
25 in-tray from Haringey each week, and I was reading key
15
1 documents, clearly not with the attention you would if
2 you were employed in an authority, but nevertheless
3 trying to familiarise myself with the agenda both for
4 the Corporate Management Team and for the department of
5 which I was going to become Director. I have also made
6 some visits to the department and the authority over the
7 summer.
8 MR GARNHAM: To borrow a cliche from a different field, the
9 intention was that in October 2000 you were going to hit
10 the ground running?
11 MS BRISTOW: I believe that was the intention.
12 MR GARNHAM: Amongst the documents you were shown did you
13 receive the position paper that the Council had adopted
14 ahead of the inspection by the SSI in 1998?
15 MS BRISTOW: I do not believe so, but I have to say I could
16 not be absolutely certain because I have clearly seen an
17 awful lot of papers and the first thing I recollect
18 seeing -- that is not to say it was not sent to me, you
19 will appreciate that -- was the headline feedback from
20 that inspection.
21 MR GARNHAM: Presumably after you took up your post you
22 would have seen that position statement, and you have
23 seen it since?
24 MS BRISTOW: Undoubtedly I have, it is not a document I can
25 bring to mind readily as opposed to the inspection
16
1 report.
2 MR GARNHAM: This is not meant to be a memory test and I am
3 going to show you it. The position paper appears to
4 have been written in 1998 on the assumption that the
5 two --
6 MS BRISTOW: When you say 1998 do you mean the Joint Review
7 position statement?
8 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
9 MS BRISTOW: Sorry, I thought you meant the SSI inspection
10 position statement.
11 MR GARNHAM: I think I said that and I am wrong, I meant the
12 Joint Review.
13 MS BRISTOW: In that case can I amend my answer; I had seen
14 the Joint Review position statement.
15 MR GARNHAM: It is my mistake not yours, thank you for
16 correcting me. That, as I am now corrected, Joint
17 Review position statement was written on the assumption
18 that the two departments would remain united, was it
19 not?
20 MS BRISTOW: Yes, it was.
21 MR GARNHAM: That was certainly the evidence we had from
22 Mary Richardson. And the position paper goes on to set
23 out the benefits that flow from a joint Housing and
24 Social Services Department. I want to ask you what your
25 view is about the benefits and disbenefits, so let me
17
1 get you to look at that Joint Review position statement
2 in volume 15 page 139. Go back to 134 first please so
3 we can identify the document. Joint Review position
4 statement prepared on 11th November 1998 authorised by
5 Mary Richardson. Go over if you will to page 139,
6 left-hand column, second paragraph:
7 "As a joint Housing and Social Services Department
8 we are better placed to be more proactive and responsive
9 to the effects of deprivation through the provision of
10 welfare rights advice and take-up campaigns and ensuring
11 housing solutions are addressed as part of a wider
12 package of services. We are proud of our suggestions in
13 developing integrated housing and social care solutions,
14 many of which received external recognition, such as our
15 commissioning process for new social housing, our
16 response to the asylum seeker crisis or the development
17 of our policy for housing sex offenders."
18 Then if you go over to page 143, third paragraph:
19 "The merged housing and social service department.
20 The merger was part of a major reorganisation in 1993.
21 it separated purchasing and provider functions in line
22 with community care guidance. Integration has made
23 service planning and delivery more cohesive by combining
24 all provider services for older people in one division
25 and managing jointly homelessness services and adult
18
1 commissioning. An independent evaluation of the changes
2 was recently reported on positively by Bristol
3 University."
4 Lastly, 146, comment about Mr Ludlow's death:
5 "He was to symbolise the merger of Housing and
6 Social Services and championed user-centred services."
7 Reference back in the first paragraph to the
8 paragraph I have already taken you to which sets out
9 some of the benefits as they were then seen. Do you see
10 those as benefits of a joint department? You took over
11 a joint department when you first arrived.
12 MS BRISTOW: My experience over the last 10 years has been
13 work in both merged and separated Housing and Social
14 Services departments. There are as many advantages as
15 there are disadvantages in my -- I also do not think --
16 sorry, put it the other way around.
17 What I believe is that whatever organisational
18 structure you have, there will be boundary issues about
19 where you place those boundaries and that in delivering
20 good services and working together that is not the key
21 factor. The key factor is the culture of your
22 organisation and the determination to work together.
23 At times a joint department can assist but it can
24 also hinder and I think the thinking in Haringey was
25 that the scale of the agenda faced by Social Services
19
1 and Housing was such that additional management capacity
2 would be more helpful than a joined-upness, given that
3 at the same time a decision had been taken to adopt an
4 approach of working as one Council and the Corporate
5 Management Team of which I am a member has very firmly
6 taken the view that we will not tolerate individual
7 staff working as if they belong to different
8 organisations because they are in one particular
9 department as opposed to one council, which is how our
10 residents see us.
11 MR GARNHAM: So if you had been writing the position paper
12 for the Joint Review, you would not have phrased things
13 in the way they were, you would have pointed out the
14 advantages and disadvantages, would you?
15 MS BRISTOW: I think that is probably unlikely in the sense
16 that when you are writing your position statement,
17 whilst you would analyse -- I would not have perceived
18 it as a particular weakness. I think there are
19 different models of service provision that can equally
20 well deliver, is what I am saying, rather than I think
21 the joined-up approach was inferior.
22 MR GARNHAM: Yes, the position statement though was couched
23 in terms that made it clear that an important factor as
24 far as Haringey in 1998 were concerned was the benefits
25 of a united department. You presumably would not have
20
1 put that, you would have said there are arguments both
2 ways?
3 MS BRISTOW: No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying
4 that because I think models can deliver equally well,
5 I think also in something like a position statement you
6 will seek to showcase at that time strengths of the
7 organisational arrangements you have, and whilst you
8 will acknowledge where there are areas of weakness, you
9 will not showcase them in the same way.
10 MR GARNHAM: Because position statements are continued to be
11 something of an advert as well as --
12 MS BRISTOW: A position statement is your opportunity ahead
13 of the inspection team's arriving to flag up what you
14 think works well. Clearly you will be marked down, so
15 to speak, if you show no insight into the weaknesses in
16 your department, but if something is working well, and
17 I have no reason to believe that at that stage there
18 were not benefits, however I do think there were also
19 things that were less beneficial, certainly by the time
20 I arrived, but it is very hard to form a judgment about
21 whether or not that was the right arrangement for
22 Haringey in the early 1990s when it was put in place,
23 from the perspective of not having worked there.
24 MR GARNHAM: I am not asking you to do that, I am interested
25 in your views at the changeover from one department to
21
1 split departments.
2 MS BRISTOW: My view is that at this point in time it is
3 right for Haringey to have adopted a structure that
4 allows increased management focus on service delivery
5 both in Housing and in Social Services.
6 MR GARNHAM: Did you regard the joint department in the few
7 months, five months or so that you were in charge of it,
8 as manageable?
9 MS BRISTOW: It was manageable in one style as opposed to --
10 you were much more reliant on your assistant directors
11 to have taken the day-to-day operational control and to
12 have developed the strategy. I think it depends on the
13 scale of the challenge you find.
14 MR GARNHAM: Tell us about the challenge you found -- you
15 were facing in the end of 2000. Did you regard the job
16 you had managing the joint department as one that was
17 within your capacity, capabilities?
18 MS BRISTOW: I think it would have been difficult to achieve
19 the same pace of change if I had remained responsible
20 for both Housing, Social Services and Housing Benefit.
21 MR GARNHAM: I am interested in your views on the benefits
22 and disbenefits of working on a wide scale as opposed to
23 working on a narrower scale. I do not know whether you
24 were here when some of the police officers were giving
25 their evidence, some of the more senior police officers,
22
1 in particular Mr Kendrick. He was discussing the
2 benefits and disbenefits of a joint approach to child
3 protection between the Met Police on the one hand and
4 social services authorities on the other, and he could
5 not think of any reason why across London there should
6 not be a single protocol to which all local authorities
7 on the one hand and the Met on the other signed up. Do
8 you have a view on that?
9 MS BRISTOW: I think I am in agreement. Indeed I have been
10 doing work with DAC Howlett, another London director on
11 the SSI, about how we may progress that.
12 MR GARNHAM: There seems to you to be merit in a suggestion
13 that there should be a single protocol governing London?
14 MS BRISTOW: My view, and that of a number of colleague
15 directors across London, is that that is where we need
16 to get to. Work has been commissioned to start to bring
17 that about and there are cross-London groups meeting to
18 try and bring that about sooner rather than later.
19 MR GARNHAM: Because it does seem to be an awful lot of
20 wasted effort and time with each local authority
21 devising its own set of protocols, its own guidelines,
22 when all have to fit into a London scene in which people
23 move about.
24 MS BRISTOW: I think that is true from a purely London
25 perspective but clearly for a number of outer London
23
1 boroughs they may have as much contact with the Home
2 Counties and their neighbours there as they may have
3 across London, but, however, I do not think that we
4 necessarily all start from scratch. It has certainly
5 always been my practice that if I am about to revise
6 procedures then you would start with asking other
7 authorities in London that have recently done it to
8 share a copy of what they have done and to move from
9 there. Now, in my experience people willingly share
10 those kinds of documents and we build on them.
11 MR GARNHAM: And it may be that that can be taken forward in
12 a rather more formalised way.
13 MS BRISTOW: I think that is the intention and certainly
14 there are currently meetings going on across London and
15 quite strong lead is being shown by the Met Police in
16 that area.
17 MR GARNHAM: You arrived in Haringey at a time of
18 considerable upheaval in Social Services, did you not?
19 MS BRISTOW: There would have been easier times to become
20 the Director in Haringey, yes.
21 MR GARNHAM: Perhaps it maximised the challenge Ms Bristow.
22 MS BRISTOW: Indeed.
23 MR GARNHAM: There are three particular sources of upheaval
24 I want to ask you about. First of all the death of
25 Victoria, secondly the SSI's inspection and thirdly the
24
1 special measures on which Haringey was placed. First
2 the death of Victoria. She died four months before you
3 were given the job?
4 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: And nine months or so before you took up the
6 position actively?
7 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
8 MR GARNHAM: Did you know about her case when you were
9 offered the job?
10 MS BRISTOW: At the time, during the interview process I was
11 told there had been a death of a child and that a Part 8
12 review process was under way. I did not at that time
13 know it was Victoria or any details about it.
14 MR GARNHAM: Did you learn the circumstances of Haringey's
15 involvement in Victoria's case between the time you got
16 the job and the time you took up the post?
17 MS BRISTOW: Not in any detail.
18 MR GARNHAM: After you took up the post?
19 MS BRISTOW: One of the first things I did was to ask the
20 Assistant Director to provide me with an update and, you
21 know, the detailed documentation.
22 MR GARNHAM: In the course of that process were you shown
23 the internal audit that was done? You ought perhaps to
24 see it, volume 15 page 106. Were you shown this?
25 MS BRISTOW: I am unable to recollect at what point I first
25
1 saw that document. It is one I am obviously familiar
2 with but you will appreciate I have spent a lot of time
3 over the last year looking at these documents and
4 I would not like to mislead you about the date on which
5 I first saw it.
6 MR GARNHAM: But it is certainly something that has had some
7 of your attention since?
8 MS BRISTOW: Indeed.
9 MR GARNHAM: It is a fairly devastating critique on the
10 state of affairs at Hornsey and North Tottenham District
11 Office, is it not?
12 MS BRISTOW: Yes, it reflects very poor practice.
13 MR GARNHAM: And it makes more explicable some of the things
14 that happened in Victoria's case whilst it was at
15 Haringey?
16 MS BRISTOW: I think it is one of the things that sheds some
17 light, yes.
18 MR GARNHAM: Six weeks after your arrival in post, Kouao and
19 Manning went on trial?
20 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
21 MR GARNHAM: A number of Haringey staff gave evidence at the
22 Central Criminal Court and so presumably you were then
23 taking a very close interest in that case?
24 MS BRISTOW: Yes, indeed. On my arrival at Haringey I had
25 a series of meetings with people who had -- I believe
26
1 this to be common with all new directors. I had met
2 with the assistant chief inspectors in London for the
3 SSI, both those that are our business link and do
4 performance monitoring, and the inspection division.
5 I had also met with the lead reviewer of the review
6 and the lead inspector of the children's inspection so
7 they could share with me their perspectives on Haringey
8 as a means of me quickly getting an external feel of how
9 my authority was performing. As we moved into the trial
10 then clearly it became ever more important to understand
11 what had gone on and where that might be leading.
12 MR GARNHAM: We have heard several people talking about dip
13 sampling in order to get a feel of the way a department
14 operates. If nothing else, the Kouao and Manning trial
15 was the most vigorous dip sampling in respect of
16 a single case, was it not?
17 MS BRISTOW: I think you could describe it like that, yes.
18 MR GARNHAM: After their conviction you spoke at a press
19 conference held immediately afterwards I think?
20 MS BRISTOW: I did.
21 MR GARNHAM: And you acknowledged during the course of that
22 press conference that the system had failed and that
23 Haringey, part of that system, had failed Victoria?
24 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
25 MR GARNHAM: Is that right?
27
1 MS BRISTOW: Yes, it is.
2 MR GARNHAM: And that remains your view?
3 MS BRISTOW: It does remain my view. Clearly it is not
4 possible for a child to die in the tragic circumstances
5 that Victoria did, and for people involved in a system
6 meant to protect her to then be left in the position of
7 not feeling that system has failed. Clearly it has been
8 a very sad, distressing time for staff in Haringey;
9 needless to say, not nearly as distressing as it has
10 been for her parents, and I would again like to say, as
11 I have previously, and personally to Monsieur and
12 Madame Climbie, we are very sorry about the great loss
13 they have suffered but from that I believe is born
14 a determination from myself and my staff that we will
15 work to improve Haringey services.
16 MR GARNHAM: Sorry about the loss they have suffered no
17 doubt, but also I imagine sorry about the part that
18 Haringey Social Services played in failing to prevent
19 that loss?
20 MS BRISTOW: Indeed, it would be inconceivable that you look
21 as hard as we have looked at what took place and not
22 have regrets about any I think what you described as
23 missed opportunities.
24 MR GARNHAM: The second upheaval that I suggest Haringey
25 were going through at this time was the SSI inspection.
28
1 That was conducted between the 12th and 26th June 2000,
2 in other words at precisely the time you were being
3 offered the job.
4 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: I think your letter went out slap-bang in the
6 middle of that two-week inspection?
7 MS BRISTOW: Yes, I do not think I was aware of the
8 coincidence at the time.
9 MR GARNHAM: No. I want to have a look at that report,
10 volume 42. A report in volume 42 at page 93 published
11 on 21st November of 2000, so seven weeks or so after you
12 actually took up post. How much of its contents did you
13 know before publication?
14 MS BRISTOW: All of it in fact. The convention around
15 publication is it becomes a public document by being
16 placed in the House of Commons library on the night it
17 is formally presented to the Committee of the Council,
18 so we would therefore have had a printed version three
19 weeks -- I do not know the exact date, but we would have
20 had a draft report to comment on for factual accuracy
21 I imagine at some point in the summer, that is the
22 normal process.
23 MR GARNHAM: Page 99 in that bundle is the summary and the
24 overall conclusions. First the Inspectorate found that
25 Children's and Families Services were poorly resourced,
29
1 SSA had dropped by nearly 25 per cent and the current
2 budget was £5 million below SSA. That was their first
3 conclusion.
4 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: Second, that there was a high level of
6 vacancies, particularly in the two district teams,
7 morale was low and there were concerns about the quality
8 of practice.
9 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
10 MR GARNHAM: The concerns are expanded at paragraph 1.14.
11 10 cases were looked at in-depth, three found to be
12 unsatisfactory and the inspectors could not be sure that
13 the child's safety was being safeguarded. In a further
14 three cases the Inspectorate had concerns and in four
15 cases they were satisfied with what they found.
16 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
17 MR GARNHAM: This was the picture you were being presented
18 by the Inspectorate very close to your start date. From
19 your stance, newly taking up the job in the Council, did
20 you have reasons to think that these conclusions were
21 inaccurate?
22 MS BRISTOW: No, I did not and as I said earlier I had met
23 with the lead inspector; I think quite helpfully the SSI
24 had offered that, as I had not been there at the time
25 the inspection was done, that the lead inspector would
30
1 make time available to come and talk through with me the
2 flavour of it as well as the words on the pieces of
3 paper.
4 MR GARNHAM: You presumably were also taking briefings from
5 senior managers in your new department?
6 MS BRISTOW: Yes I was.
7 MR GARNHAM: And were getting an understanding of the basis
8 upon which the inspectors had reached these concluding?
9 MS BRISTOW: Yes, and I had obviously looked through the
10 reports and started to familiarise myself with making
11 visits to staff and things like that.
12 MR GARNHAM: Anything to suggest in the work you did in
13 those early weeks that these conclusions were not well
14 founded?
15 MS BRISTOW: No, there was not.
16 MR GARNHAM: So you took this, did you, as an accurate
17 baseline statement of the state of play when you took up
18 your job?
19 MS BRISTOW: Yes, I did.
20 MR GARNHAM: The Inspectorate had particular concerns about
21 the quality of work in Hornsey's I&A Team, reflecting as
22 they did on the internal audit that you knew about and
23 that we have just looked at?
24 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
25 MR GARNHAM: Third, and on a more positive note, the
31
1 Inspectorate do regard in that summary page that there
2 were a significant number of staff and managers who were
3 both committed and capable?
4 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: So you knew you had something to work with?
6 MS BRISTOW: Indeed.
7 MR GARNHAM: In response to that inspection report you tell
8 us members agreed the action plan that we have in
9 volume 42 page 279, same volume, written in landscape
10 rather than portrait, but that is the plan that was
11 presented to members and agreed by them?
12 MS BRISTOW: Yes, it was.
13 MR GARNHAM: The third development in your early days was
14 that on 12th January 2001, by coincidence the day of the
15 press conference in Victoria's case, you were placed on
16 special measures by the Department of Health?
17 MS BRISTOW: My authority, was, yes.
18 MR GARNHAM: I was using you in the plural collective sense.
19 I will try and distinguish between the two as we go.
20 Why did you understand you had been placed on special
21 measures?
22 MS BRISTOW: I think we need to go back a little bit to
23 understand that. Following the inspection the Social
24 Services Inspectorate had written to me in the December
25 explaining that my authority was being placed on
32
1 warning. Now, according to the protocol on intervention
2 this is usually the first stage of saying to an
3 authority that your performance in social services in
4 specified areas and not across my -- not social services
5 in all its dimensions in Haringey, because indeed in
6 other client groups our services are thought to be
7 good -- that we needed to improve services in a number
8 of specified ways.
9 As I understand the process from my discussions with
10 colleagues at the SSI, as the events of the trial
11 unfolded and more information came to light there was
12 felt to be a need to take a stronger step and it was as
13 a result of that that whereas we had been placed on
14 warning on 12th December, we were placed on special
15 measures on 12th January.
16 MR GARNHAM: Warnings mean that there are significant
17 concerns but not of such severity as to justify the use
18 of interventional powers. The Council is aware of those
19 concerns and has the capacity to address them?
20 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
21 MR GARNHAM: I am taking that from the document you refer us
22 to.
23 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
24 MR GARNHAM: Special measures are taken where there are
25 serious concerns that could justify the use of
33
1 intervention powers?
2 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
3 MR GARNHAM: Intervention powers are very, very seldom used,
4 are they?
5 MS BRISTOW: I do not think that is the experience of London
6 authorities.
7 MR GARNHAM: London have known the government to take over
8 in effect the running of a department.
9 MS BRISTOW: I do not think being placed on special measures
10 equals the government taking over the running of your
11 department by any means. It is an enhanced level of
12 regional monitoring.
13 MR GARNHAM: That is why I was distinguishing between the
14 various stages, warning, special measures, intervention.
15 MS BRISTOW: Yes. In general terms there have been two
16 London authorities who were placed on directions where
17 the Secretary of State directs specified action to take
18 but we were not put in that category.
19 MR GARNHAM: I see. The normal process as I understand it
20 is that the Chief Inspector will meet the Leader of the
21 Council, the Chief Executive, the Director of Social
22 Services to ensure they understand the nature of the
23 concerns and to establish what they are going to do
24 about it.
25 MS BRISTOW: That is correct.
34
1 MR GARNHAM: And is that what happened in your case?
2 MS BRISTOW: Yes, indeed. The Chief Executive, the Deputy
3 Leader, the Lead Member for Social Services, the Chief
4 Executive and I met the Chief Inspector and some of her
5 staff subsequent to that, from memory towards the end
6 of January.
7 MR GARNHAM: Were ministers involved in that meeting?
8 MS BRISTOW: No, ministers were not involved in the meeting,
9 I do not believe that is normally what happens.
10 MR GARNHAM: What did you say you were going to do about the
11 situation that had prompted the introduction of special
12 measures?
13 MS BRISTOW: I am trying to recollect what we actually said
14 to the Chief Inspector as opposed to a number of
15 correspondence we have subsequently had. My
16 recollection is that the Leader of the Council gave his
17 assurances that he and other elected members understood
18 very clearly the seriousness of the matter, understood
19 the commitment that was required from elected members to
20 turn Haringey's Children's Services round, and indicated
21 that they would provide me with the support I needed to
22 achieve that.
23 MR GARNHAM: Were you subjected to what I think is called
24 enhanced regional monitoring after that?
25 MS BRISTOW: I believe so.
35
1 MR GARNHAM: Do you not know?
2 MS BRISTOW: Sorry, I know exactly how we are being
3 monitored and when you related the protocol it does not
4 specify exactly what enhanced regional monitoring
5 comprises of. However, I have met on a regular monthly
6 basis with my business link inspector to discuss my
7 services and I have provided data on a monthly basis to
8 the SSI which they tell me meets their requirements.
9 MR GARNHAM: Were further intervention measures ever
10 contemplated beyond that?
11 MS BRISTOW: Not that have been shared with me but obviously
12 I am not party to what private discussions they may
13 have.
14 MR GARNHAM: One of the means by which you were able to
15 satisfy the inspectors that you were taking the
16 necessary steps was by the provision of regular monthly
17 data.
18 MS BRISTOW: Yes, that is correct.
19 MR GARNHAM: And we will have a look at what you told them
20 through that data in a moment but that continued, did
21 it, for how long?
22 MS BRISTOW: It continues to this day.
23 MR GARNHAM: So from the time special measures were
24 announced right through to today?
25 MS BRISTOW: No, it predated special measures. When we were
36
1 placed on warning I then had a discussion with my
2 business link inspector about what data I had available
3 and what I was in a position to supply. He indicated to
4 me that that would be satisfactory. Subsequently,
5 because I understand the SSI were receiving monitoring
6 data from a number of London authorities, they revised
7 in I believe April of this year what information they
8 required which is a one-page sheet of information.
9 MR GARNHAM: One week after you were placed on special
10 measures the Chief Executive produced a report for the
11 Council meeting of 22nd January?
12 MS BRISTOW: Correct.
13 MR GARNHAM: We have that in the same volume at page 339.
14 As a result of that report I think it is right that the
15 Council instructed officers to implement the action plan
16 that they had agreed on 30th November?
17 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
18 MR GARNHAM: That action plan of 30th November had been
19 devised in response to the warning or the report?
20 MS BRISTOW: The action plan that was presented to the
21 Policy and Strategy Committee had arisen from the SSI
22 inspection report and, as you will see, it is linked to
23 the standards against which we are inspected. It was
24 clear at that stage we would be reinspected, and
25 obviously we ought to work to the standards that are --
37
1 the national standards set in the meantime, as it
2 happens the national standards have been revised.
3 MR GARNHAM: To what extent was the action plan informed by
4 or reflected the circumstances of Victoria's death?
5 MS BRISTOW: I think at the point in November to a limited
6 extent, however over the last year that action plan has
7 been updated and refined in a number of ways. Work has
8 taken place in the multiagency setting under the
9 auspices of the ACPC and identified some things that
10 needed to happen there. Where they were germane to
11 social services activity as opposed to health or police
12 activity, they have subsequently been imported into our
13 action plan.
14 So what we have is a living document rather than an
15 action plan in November 2000 and it is reported on
16 a quarterly basis to the Policy and Strategy Committee
17 so they can monitor progress against the actions set
18 out, and also be advised of the need to put new items in
19 place.
20 MR GARNHAM: Victoria's case is important not only for what
21 it says about the particular errors that can be
22 identified in relation to Haringey's handling of that
23 case, but also for what it says across the piece about
24 the quality of work being done by Haringey Social
25 Services, is it not?
38
1 MS BRISTOW: It is important but equally if you wish to
2 improve your children's services to focus purely on the
3 information from one particular case, given that the
4 inspection report identified other things that needed to
5 be done, for example the need to provide fair access to
6 unaccompanied minors in our -- who are asylum seeking
7 young people, the need to extend family placements,
8 matters that did not apply to Victoria, so obviously the
9 action plan needs to be wider than simply drawing on
10 those lessons.
11 MR GARNHAM: Plainly so, because the genesis of the
12 inspection report was a lot more than Victoria's case
13 but Victoria's case is useful in that context of
14 responding to the totality of the concerns identified by
15 the inspectors in that it provides particular light in
16 one particular dark corner.
17 MS BRISTOW: Yes, I think it does, and indeed whenever you
18 have a Part 8 review into the death of a child you
19 should seek to learn those lessons and build them into
20 your future practice.
21 MR GARNHAM: Yes. We can see reference in the Chief
22 Executive's report to the reviews that were conducted
23 after Victoria's death, page 342, paragraph 5.6 at the
24 bottom:
25 "Guidance on child protection work, working
39
1 together, requires an inquiry to be established when
2 a child dies and abuse or neglect is known or
3 suspected."
4 Next page, the first stage of the process is to
5 conduct management reviews in each agency, and this is
6 set out in the context of a chapter called "The Death of
7 Anna Climbie":
8 "Where it is decided to proceed to a full
9 interagency review, Part 8 review, these then form part
10 of the review. This process was initiated in Haringey
11 in March 2000 and the report is at a final draft stage.
12 Not possible to finalise report while criminal
13 proceedings under way."
14 Then you go on to deal with certain matters relating
15 to publishing of that report.
16 According to the report that was submitted by the
17 Chief Executive, the Part 8 process was initiated in
18 Haringey in March and by the time this report went to
19 committee that Part 8 report was in its final draft.
20 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
21 MR GARNHAM: This is January 2001, yes?
22 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
23 MR GARNHAM: In fact Haringey appear to have produced two
24 Part 8 reports, is that right?
25 MS BRISTOW: If I can clarify, the Part 8 report does not
40
1 belong just to Haringey Council, it belongs to Haringey
2 Area Child Protection Committee of which we are one of
3 the constituent members.
4 MR GARNHAM: Thank you for the correction because it is made
5 clear in those opening sentences of paragraph 5.7, the
6 way it normally works is that each agency produce their
7 own "Part 8" review, that is then blended together to
8 produce a multiagency Part 8 review.
9 MS BRISTOW: That is not how I would describe the process.
10 MR GARNHAM: Do so then.
11 MS BRISTOW: When a child dies you would expect the Area
12 Child Protection Committee to meet within 48 hours and
13 you would expect a formal case review to take place in
14 each agency about that agency's actions, so in the case
15 of the local authority we would look at what happened in
16 our Education Service, our Housing Service, our Social
17 Services, similarly Health would usually look in more
18 than one place because of the different parts.
19 You would then consider whether there were things
20 that should have been done or whether the multiagency
21 issues -- and if that was felt to be the case one would
22 normally complete that within the first month. You
23 would then proceed to the full Part 8 which is on
24 a multiagency basis.
25 So it is not simply a collating of it together.
41
1 Clearly sometimes when a child dies you have initial
2 concerns but perhaps at post mortem for example you find
3 there was a genetic disorder or something has caused the
4 child's death through natural causes. You might still
5 want to review did you do everything you could have
6 done, but you would not then proceed to Part 8.
7 MR GARNHAM: So as I understand it the first stage in the
8 process in Victoria's case ought to have been Haringey
9 producing their own internal review?
10 MS BRISTOW: Which was done, I understand.
11 MR GARNHAM: Yes. We have two Part 8 reviews so-called.
12 Can I ask you to look at them? First of all in
13 volume 2, please, page 260. Tell us what this is.
14 MS BRISTOW: Right. As it says, in October 2000 -- sorry,
15 when the Part 8 process was first commissioned by
16 Haringey Area Child Protection Committee a decision was
17 taken which I believe was around April 2000, you
18 appreciate -- and at that time an independent person,
19 Mirrelle Foreman, was asked to undertake the work on
20 behalf of the Area Child Protection Committee.
21 It is my understanding that over the subsequent
22 months there were reports back to the Area Child
23 Protection Committee who asked for some further work.
24 In the event the Area Child Protection Committee were
25 not prepared to endorse this report on their behalf
42
1 because they did not feel it reflected accurately all
2 the comments they had made.
3 MR GARNHAM: At 260 what we have is a first attempt at the
4 Part 8 review, it intending to be the multiagency
5 review.
6 MS BRISTOW: Indeed, and I understand from Illid Davies from
7 the Probation Service, who chaired the Area Child
8 Protection Committee at that time, that at no stage did
9 it reach where the Area Child Protection Committee as a
10 whole were prepared to accept the report.
11 MR GARNHAM: So when the Chief Executive said in the passage
12 I read earlier, "This process [that is the Part 8 review
13 process] was initiated in Haringey in March 2000 and the
14 report is at the final draft stage in January 2001",
15 what was that meant to convey to the members?
16 MS BRISTOW: I think at that point in time it was believed
17 that using this report as a basis, that the comments
18 that a number of members of the Area Child Protection
19 Committee believed needed to be incorporated into the
20 report to make it an accurate reflection of events was
21 capable of being achieved within that report.
22 MR GARNHAM: That was felt to be the stage in January 2001,
23 was it?
24 MS BRISTOW: Yes it was and there had been -- I was not
25 personally party to them but there were quite protracted
43
1 discussions about how this could be moved forward.
2 Clearly a lot of work had been done and it was felt that
3 the correct approach was to build on that work and
4 resolve the differences between the respective agencies
5 and the author, rather than start again.
6 MR GARNHAM: Help me with that. Does that mean that when
7 the Chief Executive wrote this report in January 2001
8 there was some other draft other than the one we have in
9 volume 2 page 260, because this looks as if it is
10 completed. Was there some work still being done on it?
11 MS BRISTOW: I think -- I cannot tell you accurately whether
12 another piece of paper existed. What I can tell you is
13 that there were ongoing discussions between the Area
14 Child Protection Committee and Mirrelle Foreman about
15 the satisfactoriness or otherwise of the report as she
16 had produced it at that date, and that not just Haringey
17 Council but a number of the participating agencies of
18 the Area Child Protection Committee were unhappy to
19 adopt the report because they did not feel it reflected
20 what had taken place.
21 MR GARNHAM: What was meant then in the report to the
22 committee by the expression "the report is at final
23 draft stage"?
24 MS BRISTOW: I think that was because at the time that
25 report was done we believed that the extent of changes
44
1 required for the Area Child Protection Committee to sign
2 the Part 8 off and send it to the Department of Health
3 would be achieved very shortly, yes.
4 MR GARNHAM: The reference to final draft is a reference to
5 the document we have just seen in October?
6 MS BRISTOW: I am not trying to be evasive, but to be honest
7 I cannot recollect whether between 25th October and the
8 date in January when that report would have been
9 drafted, somewhere round the 19th/20th, a further piece
10 of paper with some further additions had been produced
11 and I would not like to mislead you.
12 MR GARNHAM: Presumably, given the thoroughness of the
13 search Haringey has done for documents relevant to this
14 Inquiry, if it existed you would have found it and given
15 it to us?
16 MS BRISTOW: I believe so but this was not just a Haringey
17 Council document but I do not believe there was another
18 version, but I know work was going on and I believe it
19 has been shared with you. The difficulty we had, to the
20 extent I instructed my lawyers, was to try and recover
21 documents that were in the possession of author.
22 MR GARNHAM: My concern however is to understand what was
23 meant when you told members that the draft is in its
24 final stage.
25 MS BRISTOW: I was concerned having arrived in Haringey that
45
1 at that stage a Part 8 review had not yet been
2 completed. It was my expectation, and indeed as set out
3 in Working Together, that a Part 8 review would have
4 been completed much more speedily than turned out to be
5 the case.
6 MR GARNHAM: Indeed.
7 MS BRISTOW: Therefore, one of the early things I did was to
8 personally join the Area Child Protection Committee,
9 which directors sometimes do but not always, and seek to
10 work with partner agencies to move this to conclusion.
11 I was also in discussion with the Social Services
12 Inspectorate about the pace at which we might now bring
13 this matter to a conclusion. We had by that time run
14 into the difficulty that we were in the middle of the
15 criminal trial, which again made it more difficult to
16 finalise it than if it had been done the previous
17 summer.
18 MR GARNHAM: I am wondering what is happening
19 between October and the start of the trial in
20 late November. Is this being worked on?
21 MS BRISTOW: I personally do not know, because you will
22 appreciate as I arrived there are a number of matters
23 that require my attention and at that stage the
24 Assistant Director assures me that the report is nearing
25 completion, so I did not initially get personally
46
1 involved in how we were going to get this report
2 completed, because I believed its appearance and
3 agreement amongst the agencies was imminent.
4 As it became apparent to me that this was not as
5 imminent as I would have expected, I began to take
6 a direct personal interest in it and at that stage
7 I learn that there is a non-acceptance of parts of this
8 report.
9 Now, what I understand then happens is that some
10 people on behalf of the Area Child Protection Committee
11 continue to have discussions with the author of the
12 first report about the kinds of amendments that would
13 make it acceptable to the Area Child Protection
14 Committee. During that period I understand that people
15 felt that progress was being made and that drafting
16 amendments would be made and that would then mean the
17 Area Child Protection Committee would endorse the
18 report.
19 However, whether or not on Miss Foreman's word
20 processor she had another document that has never been
21 supplied to us in those months, I do not know, because
22 as I said we had extreme difficulty retrieving the
23 papers.
24 MR GARNHAM: Presumably that was successful in the end; you
25 got the papers from her, did you?
47
1 MS BRISTOW: I believe so, but clearly when you have had as
2 much difficulty as we had I only have their assurance
3 they have returned them to us.
4 MR GARNHAM: The second Part 8 review is found in volume 43A
5 page 2. I wonder if you can be given that, please.
6 August 2001, revised chronology analysis and
7 recommendations.
8 MS BRISTOW: Yes, I am familiar with it.
9 MR GARNHAM: We are now 18 months after Victoria's death?
10 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
11 MR GARNHAM: A pretty unhappy state of affairs, a Part 8
12 review that takes 18 months, is it not?
13 MS BRISTOW: Indeed it is.
14 MR GARNHAM: It does not say a great deal for the quality of
15 cooperation between the various agencies in Haringey
16 that it takes 18 months to produce a Part 8 review.
17 MS BRISTOW: No, I do not accept that. I think there is
18 a very high degree of cooperation between the agencies.
19 MR GARNHAM: Why does it take 18 months to do a review? How
20 long do they normally take?
21 MS BRISTOW: You would normally expect to do them within
22 three months.
23 MR GARNHAM: Why does it take six times as long?
24 MS BRISTOW: I believe that the way it was initially
25 commissioned may have led to the delays and that when
48
1 the report that was produced was not satisfactory, we
2 then commissioned someone else to do it again.
3 You will appreciate that by that time this was no
4 ordinary case review because we had then had the
5 criminal trial, we had had the very extensive media
6 attention on all Haringey agencies, and perhaps then we
7 had initiated disciplinary investigations in both the
8 police and social services and therefore people's
9 willingness to cooperate further was not the position
10 you would normally find yourself in.
11 MR GARNHAM: Did you find a lack of willingness to cooperate
12 with the Part 8 then?
13 MS BRISTOW: I think we had reached a stage by the time
14 Miss Downey was doing this for us that people felt they
15 had told their -- explained their actions on a number of
16 occasions. You will have seen from some people who have
17 given evidence to this Inquiry how distressed some
18 people have been, how their own personal mental health
19 has been affected by it, so the fact we were reaching
20 a stage where yet another person was seeking to
21 interview people about what they had done was obviously
22 very difficult, and I think that is one of the key
23 lessons, you know, you must do your Part 8 reviews
24 speedily, and I think Haringey Area Child Protection
25 Committee has taken that firmly to heart.
49
1 We do however stand by the work that was done on
2 this one which the entire Area Child Protection
3 Committee has endorsed. I would say to you we do
4 recognise that there are some things in this now that
5 are not what we now understand to be the facts from the
6 evidence given to the Inquiry.
7 MR GARNHAM: It is right, is it not, that Lisa Arthurworrey
8 cooperated with all of the enquiries that were made as
9 part of the Part 8 reviews?
10 MS BRISTOW: Yes, she did and she made comments on the first
11 report.
12 MR GARNHAM: Noting as she saw it a large number of
13 inaccuracies in that first report?
14 MS BRISTOW: Indeed, and it was that kind of response from
15 a number of people that led to the concerns in the Area
16 Child Protection Committee about the first report.
17 MR GARNHAM: Did Carole Baptiste cooperate, do you recall?
18 MS BRISTOW: I do not recall.
19 MR GARNHAM: Paragraphs 20 onwards in your statement you
20 describe the steps your department took to address the
21 problems identified by the SSI.
22 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
23 MR GARNHAM: 20 to 23, and then again between 32 and 35 you
24 describe the way that services have been improved.
25 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
50
1 MR GARNHAM: Including, and you deal with it in paragraph
2 23, the expenditure of additional monies on Children's
3 Social Services.
4 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: You describe how management capacity has been
6 strengthened, paragraphs 24 to 27.
7 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
8 MR GARNHAM: And you describe the steps taken to improve the
9 quality and performance of the workforce, paragraphs 28
10 to 31.
11 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
12 MR GARNHAM: I want in a moment to come on to consider how
13 much has in fact been achieved, but before I do that may
14 I ask you a few questions about your observations in
15 those paragraphs. You tell us in paragraph 23 that
16 Social Services' budget was increased by 3 million for
17 the 2001/2002 financial year.
18 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
19 MR GARNHAM: How was it possible for the Council to make
20 that additional money available?
21 MS BRISTOW: I think we were faced with a set of
22 circumstances in which we needed -- clearly there had
23 been the criticism about the funding of Children's
24 Services. When I arrived in Haringey by the December
25 I was then faced with the position of one of my
|
