|
Archived Transcript for 30 January 2002: Pages
151 to 200
151
1 we would have expected to find; was not sufficient
2 improvement.
3 MR GARNHAM: This was May, was it not?
4 MS BRISTOW: What I said to you was I met with the staff in
5 February/March and we started it shortly thereafter. So
6 we would have had one, two months at most.
7 MR GARNHAM: If this audit we are about to look at was
8 a true bill, you would have been expecting, if your
9 sampling processes were working well, that that would
10 have been already emerging?
11 MS BRISTOW: I think what we would have found was emerging
12 was that cases were being sent back for work to be done
13 on them, yes.
14 MR GARNHAM: Tell us what this report is, will you, please?
15 MS BRISTOW: The Child Protection Quality and Review
16 sections who had done the audit immediately following
17 the death of Victoria, had done a repeat exercise the
18 following year.
19 MR GARNHAM: We have learned through the evidence that the
20 Hornsey and North Tottenham District Office audit that
21 was done after Victoria's death was carried out by child
22 protection advisers.
23 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
24 MR GARNHAM: Was this done similarly?
25 MS BRISTOW: Yes. The same staff, I believe.
152
1 MR GARNHAM: I cannot recall whether this is signed. No, it
2 just says "Child Protection Quality and Review Service,
3 25th May".
4 MS BRISTOW: It is my understanding that at least some of
5 the people doing the audit were the same staff that had
6 done the one previous year. Whilst I think there are
7 some issues about the audit method, at least it has the
8 benefit of having had the same method applied twice.
9 MR GARNHAM: This is a draft that we have?
10 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
11 MR GARNHAM: Did it ever go to final version?
12 MS BRISTOW: No, it did not.
13 MR GARNHAM: Why was that?
14 MS BRISTOW: I think it was overtaken by other events.
15 MR GARNHAM: There appear to be a number of handwritten
16 corrections to this draft.
17 MS BRISTOW: I believe that what happened was that I had
18 some concerns about anecdotal feedback I was receiving
19 and I was aware that this audit was taking place, so
20 prior to the manager having completed it, I asked her to
21 provide me with a copy which I think she felt slightly
22 reluctant because it was still a working draft and she
23 had scribbled over it and what have you, but
24 I nevertheless asked her to provide it to me that day.
25 MR GARNHAM: It never got beyond the handwritten version?
153
1 MS BRISTOW: It never got beyond the handwritten version.
2 As I indicated earlier, there were some possible
3 concerns about the robustness of the auditing method,
4 however, what I felt was valuable about it was that it
5 compared -- it had been done exactly the same way the
6 previous year so whilst there might be other things you
7 might have wanted done, nevertheless they were comparing
8 broadly like with like.
9 MR GARNHAM: We will look at some of the paragraphs of this
10 in detail in a moment. It is right to say, this is
11 a fairly damning report again?
12 MS BRISTOW: It concerned me greatly when I read it, yes.
13 MR GARNHAM: You have now been in post nominally for
14 nine months, in fact for six/seven months?
15 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
16 MR GARNHAM: One reads this with a sinking heart.
17 MS BRISTOW: Indeed.
18 MR GARNHAM: Let us look at it. North Tottenham District
19 Office, at the bottom of the first page.
20 "A pivotal person in the culture of the service was
21 moved to Hornsey ..."
22 Presumably that is a reference to Miss Mairs?
23 MS BRISTOW: It may be.
24 MR GARNHAM: "There are a number of team members taking
25 substantial amounts of sick time and the personnel
154
1 change on a week to week basis, some leaving in the
2 middle of crucial pieces of work. There is a lack of a
3 proper comprehensive induction for staff, particularly
4 agency staff, many of whom have been trained abroad ...
5 auditors found that these changes had an impacted on the
6 overall standard of the team ... average caseload is not
7 estimated in either team as there is some confusion
8 about recording of caseload numbers ... auditors found
9 this confusing and decided only to audit the identified
10 file ..."
11 Then under "Referrals":
12 "Referrals are generally short and fail to address
13 even the most basic collection of data."
14 No obvious signs of improvement there, are there?
15 MS BRISTOW: No, there are not.
16 MR GARNHAM: This has a familiar and depressing ring to it.
17 "Other agencies are asked to fax their referral and
18 the referral form simply states that there is a letter
19 or fax to be read, it is never attached in Hornsey and
20 rarely in North Tottenham, but usually filed in
21 correspondence."
22 A bit like Victoria's case, really.
23 MS BRISTOW: I think there are some but not complete
24 similarities, yes.
25 MR GARNHAM: "The audited cases indicated a complete lack of
155
1 early assessment in the referral, rare indications of
2 why the caller chose that point to call, what the
3 context was to the concerns, what that agency had done
4 ... what basic information is there about the child.
5 All of these questions seem to be left for the Initial
6 Assessment.
7 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
8 MR GARNHAM: It looks as if the introduction of the
9 assessment framework with the initial assessment and
10 then the more detailed assessment 35 days later is
11 actually having a negative effect, in that people are
12 leaving things to the initial assessment.
13 MS BRISTOW: Well, as the initial assessment should start as
14 the referral is received --
15 MR GARNHAM: That ought not to be a problem, but if it is
16 left seven days, it is.
17 MS BRISTOW: Indeed. I am not sure that is exactly what
18 that is saying, by the way.
19 MR GARNHAM: Tell us what it is.
20 MS BRISTOW: Sorry, I do not think you can make the leap
21 from "it is left for seven days" to it is left to the
22 initial assessment which may well start later that day
23 or to the next day as opposed to on the referral form,
24 is the point I am making.
25 MR GARNHAM: Over the page:
156
1 "The collection of information varies enormously but
2 it is clear there is a misunderstanding about the
3 undertaking of 'CP checks' or checks with agencies under
4 Section 47. Too many checks are being undertaken in
5 cases where such check are either unnecessary ... checks
6 that are necessary are slow and often incomplete ..."
7 Not a lot of sign as regards collection of
8 information, as at May of last year?
9 MS BRISTOW: I think that is right. It reflects a situation
10 where everything was being treated the same, rather than
11 any discrimination used -- in a positive sense I mean --
12 about what required which action.
13 MR GARNHAM: "Initial and Risk Assessments":
14 "... enormous variation in the quality of Initial
15 Assessments. Forms were often incomplete, they
16 contained simple descriptions of events without context
17 or explanation. Almost all assessments avoided analysis
18 and action plans ... not possible to find
19 a conclusion/risk assessment clearly stated or
20 communicated to others."
21 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
22 MR GARNHAM: No progress from Victoria's time.
23 MS BRISTOW: I think that was true at that point in that
24 team.
25 MR GARNHAM: Over the page, first full paragraph:
157
1 "... particularly concerned about too many office
2 appointments and insufficient understanding of the value
3 of seeing people at home."
4 Could have been written the day Victoria died, could
5 it not?
6 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
7 MR GARNHAM: No obvious sign there that thus far Haringey
8 are learning any lessons.
9 MS BRISTOW: I think it is not shown that the immediate
10 managers in that office had learned the lesson at that
11 stage.
12 MR GARNHAM: "... considered that the use of pro-forma
13 letters and the construction of the letters was
14 unprofessional and showed a disregard for the feelings
15 and dignity of children and their families ..."
16 Last paragraph of that section:
17 "We saw some pockets of excellent work in initial
18 assessment but changes in personnel affect the overall
19 joining up of the work."
20 Again, awfully familiar?
21 MS BRISTOW: Yes, I would say we do not necessarily accept
22 that all of those points are evidenced and can be backed
23 up, however what I did accept was that whether or not
24 the exact detail of each point was correct, the overall
25 picture merited action.
158
1 MR GARNHAM: Over the page to 142, "Planning":
2 "Strategy meetings are not held in time scales and
3 do not often reflect any planning for the case. They
4 are often dated in the wrong place ... reviews are not
5 planned."
6 I thought you told me that you were introducing
7 a system whereby reviews were planned?
8 MS BRISTOW: Yes, we are.
9 MR GARNHAM: But it was not having any effect, at least in
10 North Tottenham, in May 2001.
11 MS BRISTOW: In the cases that were sampled.
12 MR GARNHAM: Well, I suppose it is possible that the
13 sampling process happened to miss all the good ones.
14 MS BRISTOW: I am not as cynical as that but nevertheless
15 I think it is possible to have, as it says, some of the
16 work going well. But, as I will no doubt have an
17 opportunity to tell you in a moment, we did go on to act
18 on this.
19 MR GARNHAM: You will.
20 "Decisions of the meetings are generally carried out
21 but there is not recording of reasons when they are
22 not ... Child in Need meetings were only convened in 4
23 [Hornsey] and 6 [North Tottenham] of the total number of
24 cases to be audited ... complete lack of strategic
25 planning for children in need and children coming into
159
1 the care system. Perhaps the audit reflected a lack of
2 confidence and collaborative working and this results in
3 huge pressures on Social Services to do the work of all
4 agencies. The work is slow and lacks vision, there is
5 very little analysis and no clear plans."
6 More of the same.
7 MS BRISTOW: (Nods).
8 MR GARNHAM: "Allocation/Core Assessments", next page:
9 "Core assessments are generally used as tick boxes
10 and again the analysis and outcomes are rarely
11 recorded."
12 The third paragraph:
13 "We found a general lack of ability in 'reading'
14 children's behaviour or analysing their concerns ..."
15 Next paragraph:
16 "... some SSOs had demoralising caseloads which
17 included work that did not need allocation."
18 Next paragraph:
19 "We had specific concerns about the allocation of
20 totally pointless work to a student, whose caseload will
21 not provide any learning experience ... particularly
22 impressed with the efforts and quality of some of the
23 workers ... however we had the sense that their skills
24 are not being built upon, so that assessments reflected
25 expertise in a particular area but a lack of knowledge
160
1 in other areas necessary for a holistic assessment."
2 Another area in which there has not been much
3 improvement at the time of this?
4 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: Over the page, 144, "Files":
6 "Files are completely unmanageable. Information is
7 filed in a confusing way, there is no flow to the work.
8 Contacts are not used efficiently and there is no way of
9 finding out the whole story without reading the entire
10 file. The files indicate a complete lack of logic."
11 At the end of that section:
12 "Chronologies are not being used ... concern about
13 inconsistency of the spellings of the children's names."
14 Your heart must have been sinking as you read this.
15 MS BRISTOW: I was not happy, no.
16 MR GARNHAM: "The files we viewed indicate a lack of
17 consistency amongst managers in the files and some
18 recorded different instructions between practice
19 managers."
20 Two paragraphs later:
21 "Strategy meetings are not covering enough of the
22 plan and there is no format for checking that the
23 decisions have been carried out."
24 The last page:
25 "... discrepancy in recording of (police
161
1 notifications) so that referrals were being made out of
2 inappropriate notifications".
3 At the last paragraph:
4 "We were very concerned to find forms designed for
5 the new contact centre, a Haringey service, which
6 attached an ethnic monitoring form inconsistent with the
7 Borough's procedure."
8 What did you do when you got this?
9 MS BRISTOW: I do not think -- from my recollection it was
10 in June, not May when I got this, and I had immediate
11 concern about the fact that despite the work we had
12 done, clearly a number of people were not willing to
13 engage actively and fully in the process of improving
14 the services, and no doubt for a number and variety of
15 different reasons.
16 I think not long after that was when Ms Kozinos drew
17 to my attention -- wrote to me with her concerns about
18 the North Tottenham District Office, prior to her going
19 off sick. As a result of that I asked Ben Brown to, on
20 my behalf, spend some time at North Tottenham District
21 Office, getting a view about what was going on there.
22 Because here I have two pieces of information: I have
23 a manager expressing her concerns to me in a particular
24 way; and I have had this audit report.
25 When I received his report I was equally concerned
162
1 about some of the conclusions that were drawn and at
2 that stage I went to elected members to share my concern
3 with them about the ability or willingness of some of my
4 managers to turn the service round.
5 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. I wanted to ask you about Kozinos's
6 memo and now is a convenient moment to do so since you
7 have brought it up. That memo, that you have just
8 referred to, has been described earlier in this Inquiry
9 as a "crie de coeur" and if we look at it, it appears to
10 be a reasonable description of it. It is volume 45A,
11 page 150.501.
12 Here we have an acting team manager raising concerns
13 about what she regards as an impossible situation in
14 which she finds herself. We have looked at that before
15 and I do not need it take you through it, but she is
16 setting out very significant concerns about the
17 situation at North Tottenham in June 2001; yes?
18 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
19 MR GARNHAM: Your response -- I would be glad if you could
20 keep that file because we may need to come back to
21 that -- your response is in 45E, please, page 280. You
22 write in response to that memo which you saw that same
23 morning, 7th June:
24 "... concerned about the issues you raise ... impact
25 you consider this is having both on your health ... and
163
1 on the service ... wish to see you at 11 am tomorrow ...
2 at my office. I note you copied your memo to Unison and
3 if you feel it would be helpful, I have not objection to
4 you bringing a friend or your Trade Union Representative
5 to the meeting."
6 Why did you think that was necessary when you were
7 having a meeting following a memo of concerns from
8 a team manager?
9 MS BRISTOW: The reason I phrased it like that is that
10 I wanted her, if she felt -- as I felt she did from a
11 memo -- under stress and vulnerable, that she could
12 bring whoever she wanted with her to the meeting as a
13 support. I have not phrased it in the way that I would
14 if I was saying to her, I think you ought to bring your
15 Trade Union Representative. So I was trying to set up
16 the meeting in a way that she would not feel that
17 because I had the Assistant Director with me she was on
18 her own and there were two of us.
19 MR GARNHAM: You had the Assistant Director with you, did
20 you, because you were very concerned about what she was
21 saying?
22 MS BRISTOW: I was very concerned about what she was saying.
23 As you say, it sounded like a crie de coeur and whether
24 or not her judgment about things in North Tottenham was
25 correct, clearly the impact it was having on her was
164
1 such that I had to be concerned.
2 MR GARNHAM: Yes, of course, and one can see why you are
3 concerned about her personally, but given the fact that
4 this comes in within a few days of the audit we have
5 just looked at, which describes a pretty disparate
6 situation in North Tottenham, I imagine your primary
7 concern was the quality of work being done in that
8 office?
9 MS BRISTOW: I do not recollect in which order I actually
10 saw them. I appreciate it is dated that, but I saw them
11 around about the same time. Irrespective of whether
12 I had already seen the audit or I was yet to see it, if
13 you receive a memo like that from a member of staff,
14 then you have to be concerned, and in my view the
15 appropriate thing to do is to arrange as quickly as
16 possible to see them; hear from them direct what it is.
17 MR GARNHAM: Rose Kozinos says she did not receive that memo
18 until the end of June -- sir for your note paragraph 14,
19 202.429, volume 2. Could that be so, she did not
20 receive this?
21 MS BRISTOW: I subsequently learned, though I did not know
22 at the time I wrote, that she had not actually sent the
23 e-mail to me while she was still at work. I believed
24 she had either used the delayed transmission mechanism
25 on the system or had asked someone else to send it after
165
1 she went on leave. Unbeknownst to me, when I wrote back
2 to her, she was not at work and I did not know that.
3 I subsequently got a phone call from the office she
4 worked in saying, "Rose is not at work, she is on
5 leave".
6 MR GARNHAM: Did you chase up the need to see her?
7 MS BRISTOW: That was pursued on a number of occasions by my
8 PA.
9 MR GARNHAM: Without success you are telling us?
10 MS BRISTOW: Without success. She declined to meet me on
11 all occasions I was at Haringey.
12 MR GARNHAM: That is not her evidence but you say that is
13 wrong?
14 MS BRISTOW: I understand that is not what she says in her
15 evidence, but I made a number of attempts, including
16 when she tendered her resignation in our response to her
17 making it clear that we were not agreeing to her using
18 the rest of her employment with Haringey to take leave
19 but would require her to be available for certain
20 meetings. On all occasions she declined to come and see
21 me. Clearly, I did not push it because I was not --
22 I did not feel it was helpful at that stage.
23 MR GARNHAM: Could you have volume 45B, please. While that
24 is being brought to you can I ask you this: It is
25 right, is it not, in addition to that letter inviting
166
1 Ms Kozinos to your office you also very promptly
2 commissioned another report from Mr Ben Brown?
3 MS BRISTOW: Yes, I did.
4 MR GARNHAM: 45B, page 118. Commissioned on 7th June 2001,
5 I think the day after Kozinos's memo to you?
6 MS BRISTOW: Yes, I was very concerned about what she wrote
7 about and I did then meet with my Management Team to
8 discuss the issues that were being raised and how we
9 might approach it.
10 MR GARNHAM: Is that because this was just so appalling what
11 Rose Kozinos was writing that it required instantaneous
12 action?
13 MS BRISTOW: I think I had had a growing sense of unease
14 that some of the things I was asking people to do were
15 perhaps not happening and that when I then got that from
16 Rose Kozinos I think I had also had some discussions --
17 I do not have a very detailed chronology as events
18 unfolded. I had also had some discussions with the
19 trade unions and I felt we needed to take stock of what
20 the various sources were of information we had and what
21 we thought was going on.
22 MR GARNHAM: Mr Brown was asked to prepare this report by
23 18th June, 11 days later.
24 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
25 MR GARNHAM: So that you were expecting to get on with it
167
1 fairly sharpish?
2 MS BRISTOW: Yes, I was.
3 MR GARNHAM: He concludes at page 135 that the evidence does
4 not support Rose Kozinos's view.
5 MS BRISTOW: That is correct.
6 MR GARNHAM: Instead, it supports a conclusion that there
7 were grounds criticising Rose Kozinos and indeed
8 Dave Duncan.
9 MS BRISTOW: Yes, it does.
10 MR GARNHAM: You act on that report and we will turn to have
11 a look at how you acted in a moment, but you regarded
12 that report as a sufficient basis for you to make
13 certain further decisions and inform members and so on?
14 MS BRISTOW: Yes, I did.
15 MR GARNHAM: Did you ask Mr Brown what he had done to verify
16 his conclusions?
17 MS BRISTOW: Yes, I did go through with him. I knew this
18 was not -- what I had asked him to do was to have
19 a quick look, yes? We were very clear that the concerns
20 were being raised. At the time I asked him to do it
21 I had no idea what the conclusions would be but I wanted
22 someone who had experience in childcare work, which he
23 did. I did not want to ask Mr Derbyshire, who was on
24 the point of arriving. His first job as the new
25 Assistant Director was to go in and have an in-depth
168
1 look at one office, because I did not think that was the
2 most helpful way for someone to start in Haringey.
3 Then to take stock of where we were and what it was
4 we needed to do rather than a long, detailed piece of
5 work with every conclusion evidenced.
6 MR GARNHAM: He reached conclusions contrary to
7 Rose Kozinos. Did you know -- she says at least he did
8 not seek her views on the matters raised in his report.
9 MS BRISTOW: At the timeframe in which he wrote it she was
10 not available. As I explained a moment ago, my
11 understanding was that at the time she wrote me the memo
12 she had gone on three weeks' leave. She had sent it
13 either as a delayed transmission -- I do not know which
14 one she did. The memo arrived in my office
15 electronically after she had started her leave. So she
16 was not there.
17 MR GARNHAM: Did you know Dave Duncan had had to go out of
18 his way to press Ben Brown to talk to him about it?
19 MS BRISTOW: I think that is -- the reason for that was that
20 by that stage Dave Duncan was not working at North
21 Tottenham, he was at Hornsey.
22 MR GARNHAM: It does not matter, does it? Why should it be
23 the obligation of Duncan to press the investigating
24 officer to speak to him when really the investigating
25 officer should have done that as a matter of course?
169
1 MS BRISTOW: He did speak to the manager Terry Burns who was
2 managing North Tottenham.
3 MR GARNHAM: The people he ends up criticising in this
4 report are Duncan and Kozinos, neither of whom he speaks
5 to.
6 MS BRISTOW: It is not my understanding he did not speak to
7 Dave Duncan.
8 MR GARNHAM: True, he did later.
9 MS BRISTOW: I think there is a disagreement between
10 Dave Duncan and the discussions with Ben Brown about how
11 that came apart. I was not party to the interchange of
12 words between them so clearly I am not certain which way
13 around it went.
14 MR GARNHAM: What emerges from initial questioning from
15 those involved is that Mr Brown did not speak to
16 Kozinos, he only spoke to Duncan when Duncan pressed him
17 to do so. He did not speak to the two other permanent
18 practice managers at this office, but spoke to only one
19 practice manager who had been employed there for three
20 weeks. It is no way to produce a report, is it?
21 MS BRISTOW: My understanding is he spoke to a large number
22 of staff at North Tottenham and gave all staff at North
23 Tottenham the opportunity to come and see him is they
24 wished to do so.
25 MR GARNHAM: That is not good enough, is it? You must have
170
1 felt that was not good enough. It is not enough to say,
2 "You can speak to me if you want". Since he is trying
3 to find out what happened, he should have gone out and
4 hunted them out. Duncan told us he only spoke to
5 Mr Brown after Mr Brown had completed a draft of the
6 report.
7 MS BRISTOW: What I understand he did was he spent a fair
8 bit of time just sitting and observing what was going
9 on, which I also think is valuable because he could form
10 his own judgment about what was taking place.
11 MR GARNHAM: Plainly it is but it is not enough, is it? You
12 need to talk to the people you are about to criticise.
13 MS BRISTOW: I was satisfied that in the time he had
14 available to do it he had given a reasonable reflection.
15 We were never suggesting -- this was not an inspection
16 or a major investigation of the North Tottenham District
17 Office. What I was asking him for was a quick review,
18 go in and out in the week and let me know what he
19 thought was happening, as opposed to the sort of
20 investigation we would have where we contemplated
21 disciplinary proceedings for example.
22 MR GARNHAM: Did you appreciate he failed to distinguish
23 between the DIA team and the Children and Families team?
24 MS BRISTOW: I understand that is alleged.
25 MR GARNHAM: Do you think that is right?
171
1 MS BRISTOW: No I do not.
2 MR GARNHAM: You think he got that right, do you?
3 MS BRISTOW: I believe he has given a reasonable picture of
4 how he saw it at North Tottenham in that week in June.
5 MR GARNHAM: It does appear as if he has misunderstood
6 Kozinos's complaints about staffing, in that he has
7 concentrated on numbers and her point concerned their
8 competence and experience.
9 MS BRISTOW: I understand there is a wide divergence of view
10 between what Mr Brown found and what Rose Kozinos
11 states, but because he reaches a different conclusion
12 does not necessarily make him wrong and her right.
13 MR GARNHAM: Plainly not, on the contrary you would be
14 a weak manager if that is the way you approached things
15 and I am sure you are not that. But surely you have to
16 look and see whether or not he has the basics right and
17 in particular whether he has properly understood the
18 complaints that Kozinos was making.
19 MS BRISTOW: What I asked him to do was not particularly
20 investigate line by line Rose Kozinos's complaint but to
21 take an independent look on my behalf at how he felt
22 North Tottenham was operating. I think that is a rather
23 different thing to investigating her complaints because
24 if we were going to investigate those, clearly the first
25 step would have been to have that discussion with her
172
1 and she was not available for that and declined to come
2 subsequently.
3 What I was more concerned about -- whilst I have
4 a concern about any individual member of staff, what
5 I was more concerned about was the service that North
6 Tottenham was offering to public at that time.
7 MR GARNHAM: You say that the purpose of the report was not
8 to investigate her complaints. Look at the purpose
9 section on page 118. It begins:
10 "Rose Kozinos is the Duty Manager. She wrote
11 expressing concerns."
12 Given those concerns, you agreed that a senior
13 manager should urgently carry out an assessment of the
14 situation. Also agreed during this assessment a brief
15 examination of how things are at Hornsey should also be
16 carried out. It sounds as if the focus was going to be,
17 as it says in the next sentence, the focus was going to
18 be on the points of concern raised in her memo. That is
19 exactly what he was doing.
20 MS BRISTOW: About the concerns about the situation -- I do
21 not think we are very far apart in that. My major
22 concern at that time was Rose Kozinos suggests, apart
23 from her concerns about her own well-being and the
24 effect it has on her, she also asserts that the service
25 is falling apart, in broad terms. My primary concern
173
1 has to be is she right or not?
2 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
3 MS BRISTOW: Therefore, whilst those concerns she was
4 raising obviously were the focus of it, in the sense of
5 line by line, it was not what I was concerned about at
6 that stage. Later on, if it appeared to be well
7 founded, then later on you would need to go back and do
8 something much more detailed, but I wanted a quick
9 assessment: where we were at, what we needed to do and
10 what needed to be done most urgently.
11 MR GARNHAM: Had you already decided the managers at North
12 Tottenham were not willing to change?
13 MS BRISTOW: I had some concerns about the approach of some
14 of the managers.
15 MR GARNHAM: Including Kozinos?
16 MS BRISTOW: Not particularly at that time.
17 MR GARNHAM: Did you see any evidence in Ben Brown's report
18 for a conclusion that Kozinos was a poor manager?
19 MS BRISTOW: I think what came across from it was that there
20 were concerns about the way in which she managed rather
21 than the results she achieved were necessarily poor.
22 MR GARNHAM: What matters: techniques or results from
23 a manager?
24 MS BRISTOW: I think both matter.
25 MR GARNHAM: When you were faced with Kozinos's complaint,
174
1 the essential was that you got at the truth as to what
2 was happening at the North Tottenham District Office,
3 was it not?
4 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: Was it not essential if that was to happen that
6 the person you sent in should see Kozinos?
7 MS BRISTOW: I think I have explained it was her
8 unavailability.
9 MR GARNHAM: Why not visit her at home, if that is right?
10 MS BRISTOW: She made it very clear directly and through her
11 Trade Union representative she was not willing to see
12 us.
13 MR GARNHAM: Really? That was done in writing, was it?
14 MS BRISTOW: I believe my PA liaised with her Trade Union
15 representative and there were attempts to get it.
16 I tried very hard to see her directly because I not only
17 wanted Mr Brown to see her, I wished to speak to her,
18 but there comes a point where someone has tendered her
19 resignation, submitting certificates to say they are
20 ill, that it serves no useful purpose to push the matter
21 with her and that is the view I took in the end.
22 MR GARNHAM: I have to suggest to you if this report to
23 Brown is to be worthwhile as an instrument in
24 discovering the truth, he needed to see her and the
25 other managers, he needed to address her complaints,
175
1 give her a chance to comment on her concerns and reach
2 conclusions in the light of her views.
3 MS BRISTOW: It would clearly have been preferable to see
4 her and indeed I would have preferred to have had an
5 opportunity to have a direct discussion with her, but
6 for the reasons I have just given you, that did not
7 prove to be possible.
8 MR GARNHAM: That being so, why was a copy of this report
9 not sent straight away to her, to ask her to comment on?
10 MS BRISTOW: I understand a number of the staff -- what we
11 had originally agreed, and I understand it did not
12 happen as we had intended, was that the staff would be
13 given a summary because a number of people were very
14 unwilling to talk openly if they thought the report was
15 going to be shared in detail. Subsequently, Mr Brown
16 was extremely unwell and was in hospital for some
17 considerable time and that did not happen as it should
18 have done.
19 MR GARNHAM: Yes, so what happened was that people like
20 Kozinos got neither the report nor the recommendations
21 or summary?
22 MS BRISTOW: No, but nor did I know until much later that
23 she had been asking for it.
24 MR GARNHAM: No, but you were content to proceed. This is
25 the point, is it not: you were content to proceed in the
176
1 absence of her having commented or had the chance to
2 comment on it?
3 MS BRISTOW: Yes, I was, because I also had the audit
4 information and other information from managers.
5 MR GARNHAM: But you were simply not in a position to come
6 to a conclusion to advance to members as to whether or
7 not her concerns were right, because you had not got her
8 feedback on a response to that.
9 MS BRISTOW: The conclusion I reached, the reason I went to
10 members was that I was not satisfied for whatever the
11 cause is -- and I think what we disagree, potentially
12 disagree with Kozinos was what the causes were as
13 opposed to what the effects were, is the North Tottenham
14 office was not operating effectively.
15 Now I do not think I am at any variance with her on
16 that point. She has a different reason why she thinks
17 that is happening but the essence for me and the issue
18 I was faced with, here I have a service that is still
19 not delivering the standard of service I think we need,
20 and I am not satisfied that the managers there are able
21 or willing to deliver the changes necessary, and that in
22 part I think as you have said to me earlier on, here
23 I am some seven or eight months later, a number of
24 initiatives that have been taken and still no measurable
25 difference on the ground.
177
1 So it is not purely related to any one of those
2 factors, it was a culmination of them.
3 MR GARNHAM: You had Brown's report within a fortnight or so
4 and you then provided a briefing note on it?
5 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
6 MR GARNHAM: And we have that note at 45B, page 138.
7 MS BRISTOW: I do not think so. I have the audit at --
8 MR GARNHAM: You are quite right. I am told 45E, 349. Yes.
9 Do you have that?
10 MS BRISTOW: I do, thank you.
11 MR GARNHAM: The last bullet point on the last page:
12 "Following concerns raised by an acting team manager
13 on 6th June 2001 about the 'impossible situation'.
14 I asked Ben Brown ... to undertake a review of the
15 position at North Tottenham District Office and by
16 extension at Hornsey. His report concludes that the
17 issue is essentially not one of resources but of
18 management approach and capacity."
19 Ben Brown's conclusion on that subject was critical,
20 was it not, to the way you were going to take it forward
21 because if the problem was, as Kozinos asserted, one of
22 resources, it would require to be dealt with in
23 a different way than if it had been as Brown concluded,
24 one of approach and capacity; would it not?
25 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
178
1 MR GARNHAM: So it was essential for you to reach
2 a conclusion as to who was right: Brown or Kozinos?
3 MS BRISTOW: Though I was also weighing other information
4 I had available to me. So I had the monthly monitoring
5 information, I had the staffing information, I had had
6 discussions with the Acting Assistant Director about her
7 perceptions of what had been happening as well. So, you
8 know, what I am faced with at that time is a jigsaw
9 where I am trying to put the pieces together and this is
10 one piece of the jigsaw, Ben Brown's report rather than
11 the whole picture.
12 MR GARNHAM: And the other substantial piece of the jigsaw
13 is the audit. You refer to that in the first few bullet
14 points.
15 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
16 MR GARNHAM: If you go immediately to your conclusions:
17 "A number of the managers in the District Social
18 Work Service are unable or unwilling at this point in
19 time to engage positively in the change management
20 activity required to deliver safe, high quality
21 services."
22 You then refer to the resignation of four managers
23 and say:
24 "This provides an opportunity to create a more
25 effective local management team, although we may
179
1 experience short term pressures while we recruit."
2 It sounds as though you were pleased to be shot of
3 these four?
4 MS BRISTOW: I think obviously you would appreciate there is
5 a limit to how I wish to comment, as some of these
6 matters are before an employment tribunal.
7 MR GARNHAM: Yes, but you can tell me this, can you not:
8 Were you glad that those people were no longer employed?
9 MS BRISTOW: I think, Mr Garnham, you are asking me to
10 compromise my position before the employment tribunal.
11 I think it provided an opportunity. I would have been
12 happy for any manager who was able and capable and
13 willing to work to Haringey's agenda of improving
14 services to stay with us. Some people did not wish to
15 do that, some of them chose to resign, some other people
16 chose to stay on and work with us.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: As this is a statutory Inquiry with all the
18 powers that it has, I think it is a perfectly reasonable
19 question and I think it deserves an answer.
20 MS BRISTOW: With that guidance, Lord Laming, I would be
21 happy to answer it, having put for the record my
22 position in case I am questioned at the employment
23 tribunal. You understand I am trying to balance my
24 different responsibilities.
25 I did, as I think I said here, felt it gave us an
180
1 opportunity. Some of the people who resigned, not all
2 of them, did not wish to engage in the agenda. I think
3 as Haringey was trying to change the way it worked with
4 a different culture, for some people this was a real
5 opportunity to try and move services on and they
6 welcomed it, they engaged with it and they have worked
7 exceedingly hard to try and prove our services up.
8 For other people it was a bit scary that we were
9 starting to confront the way things were being done, we
10 were starting to look at new ways of doing it and that
11 was not welcomed by everybody.
12 I hope that clarifies my views.
13 MR GARNHAM: What I, at the moment, still do not
14 understand -- and I wonder if you could help me with
15 this -- is how you could be confident of that position
16 when you had a report produced by Mr Brown that had not
17 been tested even in the most simple way by putting it to
18 Kozinos.
19 MS BRISTOW: I think as I said to you there were a number of
20 things that were coming forward. Some of my direct
21 experiences of talking to some people, some things we
22 had asked people to do that they had not been willing to
23 engage with. Now I felt it was going to be difficult
24 enough to turn around Haringey services if everyone was
25 committed to what we wanted to do, everybody agreed this
181
1 was the way forward, and we all worked hard together.
2 If some people did not feel that is what they wanted to
3 do, and did not feel able to do that, then they were
4 going to be a weaker link in the chain.
5 MR GARNHAM: That begs the question, does it not, begs the
6 question which you think Brown's report answered;
7 namely, was the problem with Kozinos that she was not
8 willing to engage with change or was it that she did not
9 have the resources?
10 MS BRISTOW: I think we need to be clear, I did not ask
11 Rose Kozinos to leave, she chose to go.
12 MR GARNHAM: But you are making a decision as to what the
13 reasons for the problems in that office were.
14 MS BRISTOW: But did not -- I do not think at any time here
15 I have said I think it is this individual to that
16 individual or the other. I think the collective effect
17 was that people found it difficult to adopt new ways of
18 working.
19 MR GARNHAM: The alternative view is: the problem is lack of
20 resources. You are making an assumption as to which of
21 those two it is, based on an inadequately researched
22 report.
23 MS BRISTOW: If I were relying purely on that report, and
24 not all the other information I had available to me,
25 then I think your assertion would stand up. But I was
182
1 looking at the resources available, I was looking at
2 what we put in. At that point I was staffing North
3 Tottenham District Office above this establishment, we
4 had put extra staff, extra qualified social workers in,
5 we had put extra administrative staff in.
6 An example of why I felt people were not willing to
7 engage, for example, was I had employed someone to work
8 exclusively on recruitment for them. The manager said
9 to me the workload was hard, that they had too much to
10 do, one of the big problems was they had to keep ringing
11 around agencies to get staff. So I then appoint someone
12 to do that task on their behalf and a number of them
13 then refuse to go through that individual, preferring to
14 continue doing it themselves.
15 Now I think that is an example of where as an
16 authority we try to make things better and some of the
17 people then will not work with it, in order to relieve
18 them of one task to free them up to do another.
19 MR GARNHAM: Whatever its reasons or whatever its causes,
20 Ms Bristow, one thing we can be certain of is six months
21 after you had taken up your post at Haringey, North
22 Tottenham District Office was in as poor a state as it
23 was at the time of Victoria's death.
24 MS BRISTOW: It certainly was not in a good state.
25 MR GARNHAM: An exit interview was conducted with
183
1 Rose Kozinos, we have it in our bundles at 29A,
2 page 33.509. It might be as well if you had it,
3 although I am not going to take you through it in
4 detail. She says she had to fight to obtain that exit
5 interview; is that right?
6 MS BRISTOW: I have no knowledge of that. It seems to me
7 unlikely as we offer exit interviews to people.
8 MR GARNHAM: She says other managers were not offered exit
9 interviews. They are a useful source of information,
10 are they not?
11 MS BRISTOW: They are a useful source of information and
12 people do have exit interviews. Another member of my
13 staff indeed only last week had her exit interview with
14 the Chief Executive because at her request she wished to
15 see him, not someone else in the department. So it does
16 exist, it does happen and I am sure Rose Kozinos knew
17 that and how to obtain one.
18 MR GARNHAM: She pointed out in this that she still had not
19 had a substantive response to her memo/letter of
20 6th June. Why had she not?
21 MS BRISTOW: I think I dispute that because I had invited
22 her to come and talk to me. The fact that because she
23 declined to come and talk to me she did not get a
24 response --
25 MR GARNHAM: She says she did not have a copy of Ben Brown's
184
1 report or the recommendations and conclusions in it.
2 Why not?
3 MS BRISTOW: I was very clear that the way I wished to share
4 that with her was to see her face to face and talk to
5 her about this.
6 MR GARNHAM: Why was it that despite her frequent requests
7 the first time Rose Kozinos got to see this report was
8 five minutes after it was handed to me on the day she
9 came to give evidence?
10 MS BRISTOW: I was not aware she had made frequent requests.
11 I understand from her evidence that she appears to have
12 made some, yes. She was to write to me. She had not
13 been averse in the past to writing to me and would draw
14 to my attention that she was having difficulty.
15 MR GARNHAM: Page 511 in this interview. She says her
16 reasons for leaving were because of the very bullying,
17 repressive, unmanageable directorate and she questioned
18 their integrity and honesty. They take, she says, no
19 responsibility for their failings. That appears to be
20 criticism directed at you.
21 MS BRISTOW: It would appear to be so, yes, which you
22 appreciate I do not share the view.
23 MR GARNHAM: That observation about no willingness to take
24 responsibility for their failings is a more or less
25 precise echo of an observation made in one of the Prince
185
1 reports which I am going to take you to in a moment
2 where it is said that one of the characteristics that he
3 detects in senior management at Haringey Children and
4 Social Services was an unwillingness to take
5 responsibilities for failings.
6 MS BRISTOW: I am very clear that the responsibilities for
7 my department rest with me, whether or not I have
8 personally done something, and that I am accountable for
9 my department's performance. There is no escaping that
10 as far as I am concerned, and indeed in my time with
11 Haringey I think I have demonstrated I take the
12 responsibility for my department.
13 MR GARNHAM: You complain that Rose Kozinos did not write to
14 you when she was not getting an appropriate response but
15 she did, did she not? Same volume, 507.
16 16th August 2001:
17 "Dear Anne Bristow, further to your letter dated
18 28th June, in my view you have left a number of issues
19 unanswered and your responses are inaccurate."
20 Then she goes on over the space of two pages that we
21 have been given. We do not appear to have the end of
22 the letter. But over two pages anyway she goes on to
23 refute paragraph by paragraph the observations that are
24 made. I am told we have another copy of this at 542.
25 Yes, we do. So she does reply to you.
186
1 MS BRISTOW: I apologise. I do not recollect that. That
2 did not mean I did not have it but you appreciate I get
3 a lot of correspondence.
4 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
5 MS BRISTOW: I imagine that we also replied to that. That
6 would have come in while I was on leave I think that
7 year.
8 MR GARNHAM: I am asked to take you to it. 513.
9 3rd September, a letter from you.
10 MS BRISTOW: I am relieved to find I did reply.
11 MR GARNHAM: Yes, thank you. Can I turn then to the Prince
12 report. Mr Alistair Prince is an independent social
13 work and management consultant, I think, used now and
14 again by Haringey to provide reports on social work
15 practice. Yes?
16 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
17 MR GARNHAM: Commissioned many years ago by Joe Heatley, the
18 then Commissioning Manager for the North Tottenham
19 District, to conduct an inquiry into the performance of
20 a social worker who we have called B. Commissioned as
21 I say many years ago, 1997 or thereabouts I think from
22 memory, and provides a report that we have in volume 29.
23 If you could have that, please, at page 47.750. We will
24 if we may continue to refer to the social worker as B.
25 MS BRISTOW: That is fine. I am aware of who it is.
187
1 MR GARNHAM: It is undated, this report. Do you remember
2 when you first saw it?
3 MS BRISTOW: Could I see which one it is first?
4 MR GARNHAM: Yes, of course. It is being found for you as
5 we speak in a file, the clasp for which is undoubtedly
6 broken. Do you remember this one?
7 MS BRISTOW: I do, yes.
8 MR GARNHAM: Commissioned many years ago but I think
9 received in your time?
10 MS BRISTOW: That is correct, yes.
11 MR GARNHAM: The report is critical of Miss B's performance
12 and more particularly it is critical of her management
13 by Carole Baptiste.
14 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
15 MR GARNHAM: A summary of it was I think produced in January
16 of 2001 and the final report in March 2001.
17 MS BRISTOW: I believe that to be correct.
18 MR GARNHAM: What was Haringey's response to receipt of it?
19 MS BRISTOW: At the start of 2001 I had become concerned
20 that there might be unfinished business of various sorts
21 in the department and I then asked the then Deputy
22 Director who managed the human resources function to do
23 a trawl and let me know if there were any outstanding
24 matters that needed to be dealt with.
25 This was one of the matters that came out. Concern
188
1 I had clearly at that stage was: here is something that
2 has been commissioned a long time ago, appears to be
3 unfinished business. There also appeared to be
4 unfinished business in relation to another allegation in
5 relation -- a linked allegation in relation to
6 Ms Baptiste, and what we did at that stage was to ask
7 a manager then to do some work on it, take on board the
8 Prince things and try to bring the matters to
9 a satisfactory conclusion.
10 In the event with social worker B I ultimately, and
11 I regret I cannot tell you which month, but later in
12 2001, wrote to her setting out Haringey's concerns about
13 her performance and indicating to her that any reference
14 that Haringey would give would reflect the following
15 concerns and giving her an opportunity to comment on
16 those.
17 MR GARNHAM: Your response, the way you intend to respond to
18 this Prince report is set out in a letter you write to
19 Peter Lewington in June of last year. I wonder if you
20 could have a look at that, please, 45E, page 282. Do
21 you have that letter?
22 MS BRISTOW: I have, thank you.
23 MR GARNHAM: You write to this effect. You say that in
24 order to ensure that the Council is fulfilling its
25 statutory obligations to clients as well as to safeguard
189
1 the Council's positions, Mr Len Weir is requested to
2 review Miss B's recent case work. He is then to address
3 the poor standards of Miss B's performance and the
4 apparent failure of her managers to address the failures
5 by that social worker. Do you have that?
6 MS BRISTOW: Yes I do. Could I clarify she was not working
7 for us at that time, as I think the letter you can see
8 makes clear, but would not be evident on the transcript.
9 MR GARNHAM: This seems, can I suggest to you, Ms Bristow,
10 an extraordinarily convoluted process for dealing with
11 the poor performance both of B and Carole Baptiste.
12 1997 you commission a report. You get it in 2001. You
13 then commission somebody else to do another report on
14 the report.
15 MS BRISTOW: You will appreciate I inherited a set of
16 situations and I then had to try and take stock of where
17 we were actually at. It was clear to me at that time
18 that whilst that report had been commissioned, it had
19 not been received, and whilst I sought some
20 explanations, nevertheless I was left in the position
21 that the matter had not been brought to a conclusion.
22 I did not think, given the level of concern that was
23 being expressed to me about this social worker's
24 conduct, that it was open to me, if I were to be
25 responsible to Social Services more generally rather
190
1 than just to Haringey. She was not working for us but
2 clearly I had to have a concern that if that was well
3 founded, if she was working for somewhere else and in
4 order for me to be in a position that we could
5 reasonably, in an employment reference, state the
6 situations as we saw it, I needed in fairness to her to
7 give her an opportunity to do that.
8 MR GARNHAM: Do you know why Prince had taken so long to
9 produce this report?
10 MS BRISTOW: No, but I do think it is unsatisfactory.
11 MR GARNHAM: What do you think of the way in which Haringey
12 had gone about the task of managing Carole Baptiste?
13 MS BRISTOW: I think there was insufficient rigour.
14 MR GARNHAM: Somebody should have grasped that particular
15 nettle some time ago, should they not?
16 MS BRISTOW: That would have been my view.
17 MR GARNHAM: The second Prince report is in volume 45B. Can
18 you have that back, please. Page 250. Obviously the
19 month for Mr Prince delivering reports because it is
20 delivered the same month.
21 MS BRISTOW: Indeed.
22 MR GARNHAM: 11th January. Interim report on an
23 investigation into Hornsey Duty IAT. At page 253, under
24 the heading "A Failure to Manage", Mr Prince refers to
25 another report of his, done in 1997, which he says had
191
1 highlighted difficulties faced on a Duty system. I do
2 not need you to look at that 1997 report, although sir
3 for your note it is in volume 13A at 135.517.
4 Turn on, if you will, to 258 in this bundle.
5 Heading "Culture of Non-acceptance of Responsibility":
6 "A strong impression has been gained that there
7 exists an embedded culture of various individuals and
8 groups not wishing to take responsibility for the
9 variety of problems that exist within the District (and
10 division?) Difficulties would always seem to be
11 somebody else's 'fault' or responsibility. This has led
12 to something of a 'seige' mentality among staff and some
13 managers in the district."
14 Did that strike a chord with you when you read it?
15 MS BRISTOW: A chord but not precisely in the same way as
16 Mr Prince, I would have to say.
17 MR GARNHAM: Had you detected an unwillingness amongst
18 management at Haringey to accept responsibility?
19 MS BRISTOW: It was my view that -- you will recall these
20 were early days for me so I had been there about three
21 months at this stage -- I had an impression that some
22 people felt quite stuck and overwhelmed by some of the
23 problems they felt they were facing.
24 MR GARNHAM: Is that the same thing as an unwillingness to
25 accept responsibility?
192
1 MS BRISTOW: In some instances but not in all because it
2 manifests itself in different ways in different
3 individuals.
4 MR GARNHAM: Did detect this quality he notes, that it
5 always seems to be someone else's fault?
6 MS BRISTOW: Again, in parts but not in whole. It would be
7 unfair to many of the good managers I have to say that
8 they behaved in that way, but I could see where some
9 staff would form that view in relation to some
10 individuals who were their managers.
11 MR GARNHAM: Go on to 260, please, the conclusion.
12 Mr Prince says one of the main factors that he noted had
13 been a failure to manage. He says:
14 "This appears to be evident in a variety of areas:
15 The non-implementation of the recommendations made in
16 (his) earlier investigatory report. This despite the
17 assurances of the then Director."
18 You disagree with the fact that this report too
19 evidences a failure to manage on the part of Haringey?
20 MS BRISTOW: Sorry, I think I have lost the reasoning there.
21 Could you take me through that bit again?
22 MR GARNHAM: Conclusion at the top of the page:
23 "As noted at the outset of this interim report, one
24 of the main factors noted to date has been a 'failure to
25 manage'."
193
1 He says that that appears to be evident from
2 a variety of areas, one of which is the
3 non-implementation -- this is the first bullet point --
4 "... of the recommendations made in my earlier
5 investigatory report. This despite the assurance of the
6 then Director."
7 Now that appears to be a reference back to the 1997
8 report that I said we do not need to look at unless you
9 need to. What I am suggesting to you is that this
10 provides evidence of a failure in the period up until
11 the date of this report, 1991, to get a grip to manage
12 properly. Would you agree?
13 MS BRISTOW: I think there appears to me, as someone coming
14 in and looking afterwards as opposed to someone there,
15 that there were areas where a management group had not
16 been got and that what had emerged in time was an
17 empathy with the staff and their problems, rather than
18 the provision of the advice and guidance they needed to
19 resolve them.
20 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. Has that changed?
21 MS BRISTOW: I hope we are changing it.
22 MR GARNHAM: So that the emphasis moves from empathy with
23 the staff to a solution to the management problems?
24 MS BRISTOW: I hope we will not lose the empathy because
25 I think that is important, but I think there is -- an
194
1 empathy on its own in my view is insufficient to manage
2 a large organisation, and whilst I think we need to
3 appreciate and understand what we are hearing from front
4 line staff and their managers, also what senior
5 management should be able to do is to stand back from
6 that, apply what is hopefully wider experience they have
7 or wider experience elsewhere in the authority, because
8 I see as part of my role to bring in experience from
9 elsewhere in the authority, if it can help us resolve
10 something, and in that way we should be able to move
11 forward.
12 MR GARNHAM: You see, there will be some that will say that
13 you have swung too much the other way, that what has
14 happened now is in order to deflect criticism from
15 senior management, punitive disciplinary proceedings are
16 pursued against more junior staff.
17 MS BRISTOW: I understand that that has been said. What
18 I would say in my evidence is that that is not my view
19 of those I hope that we are treating fairly all those
20 staff who are employed by Haringey. Clearly, there are
21 other issues about what you do if people no longer are
22 employed with you, but ...
23 MR GARNHAM: Yes. I am asked to suggest to you that people
24 like Lisa Aurthurworrey have simply been scapegoated.
25 A junior member of staff identified as being directly
195
1 involved, she is the sacrificial lamb to explain away
2 what happened in Victoria's case. Is there any truth in
3 that?
4 MS BRISTOW: I would wish to be very clear that Haringey
5 Council has taken no decision about Lisa Arthurworrey.
6 As you will recall, last summer, where we intended to
7 proceed to disciplinary, a judicial review application
8 was made on her behalf and in accordance with that the
9 court ordered us to wait until she had given evidence to
10 this Inquiry. What we have actually chosen to do is to
11 wait to take a view about how we move forward at the end
12 of Phase I.
13 MR GARNHAM: I think the criticism that is being made that
14 I am being asked to put to you is that the commencement
15 and continuation of such disciplinary procedures is
16 inappropriate because it amounts to scapegoating.
17 MS BRISTOW: Under the Council disciplinary procedures we
18 have investigated the conduct of a number of staff who
19 were involved and not merely the front line social
20 worker.
21 MR GARNHAM: I do not want you to give me names for the
22 moment, but what senior management had been investigated
23 in that regard?
24 MS BRISTOW: I think you have available to the Inquiry the
25 Monaghan report and it will show you very clearly which
196
1 senior staff were interviewed as part of that
2 investigation.
3 MR GARNHAM: Yes, I see. It does stop some way short of the
4 most senior level management, does it not?
5 MS BRISTOW: Yes, it does.
6 MR GARNHAM: Any particular reason?
7 MS BRISTOW: I do not think that is a matter for me to
8 comment on.
9 MR GARNHAM: Very well. Can I turn next to relations
10 between Haringey and two other agencies, namely NMH and
11 Enfield.
12 You have told us that Haringey have now employed
13 social workers as part of the Hospital Social Work Team
14 at the North Middlesex.
15 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
16 MR GARNHAM: Is it two you have employed?
17 MS BRISTOW: Perhaps I should explain: we are also providing
18 a social work service at North Middlesex in respect of
19 adults and in that case it is in an integrated team with
20 Haringey Primary Care Trust.
21 MR GARNHAM: Yes, I see.
22 MS BRISTOW: So whilst in a traditional setting you might
23 have expected a hospital social work team that dealt
24 with anyone that went into the hospital, what we have
25 actually done is separated out partly because of the
197
1 differences in approach that legislation guides us
2 towards, but we have integrated under the direct
3 management of Haringey Primary Care Trust a jointly
4 funded post to manage adult discharges from the
5 hospital, and what we have added to that recently is the
6 two social workers and specifically in respect of
7 children's work.
8 MR GARNHAM: Do you provide a similar service at the
9 Whittington?
10 MS BRISTOW: No, we do not. That service is provided by
11 Islington Council on our behalf.
12 MR GARNHAM: Similar to the arrangements that were in place
13 with Enfield at North Middlesex at the time of
14 Victoria's death?
15 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
16 MR GARNHAM: It may be that this is the simple result of the
17 attention that has been focused on relations between you
18 and North Middlesex in this Inquiry, but why is it that
19 social work services are provided at the one hospital
20 and not the other by you?
21 MS BRISTOW: I think it is because we have not had -- in the
22 discussions that took place with the North Middlesex
23 they felt this was a particular problem. The
24 Whittington Hospital -- neither the Whittington Hospital
25 nor Islington have identified it as a problem to us in
198
1 relation to that.
2 However, what we are now doing, as a health and
3 social care economy, is moving to plan our services
4 together, and we have what we call locally Health and
5 Social Care Executives, that the Chief Executive of the
6 Primary Care Trust Chairs and I and my senior managers
7 attend as well as his, to which the Whittington has
8 joined. It is through that mechanism we will look at
9 forward planning. It may change, but it has not been
10 raised with me as an issue at this time.
11 MR GARNHAM: When did the two hospital workers start at the
12 North Middlesex? November?
13 MS BRISTOW: Approximately.
14 MR GARNHAM: Of last year?
15 MS BRISTOW: Yes.
16 MR GARNHAM: Are they following Enfield or Haringey Child
17 Protection Procedures?
18 MS BRISTOW: I understand that an agreement was reached
19 between the two assistant directors and communicated
20 precisely what they would follow.
21 MR GARNHAM: But you do not know what it is. This is not
22 a memory test. If you do not know, just say so.
23 MS BRISTOW: I have to say I have been told but I do not
24 recall here.
25 MR GARNHAM: Does it make a difference whether they follow
199
1 Enfield or Haringey Child Protection Procedures?
2 MS BRISTOW: I think that what makes a difference is there
3 are one set of procedures the hospital staff are
4 operating, whichever social workers it is, rather than
5 significantly in the detail. Because the Child
6 Protection Procedures are based on Working Together, the
7 detail of the difference will be small.
8 MR GARNHAM: This might be one of the --
9 MS BRISTOW: Which is why we talked earlier today about
10 coordinating across London.
11 MR GARNHAM: This may be a good example of the circumstances
12 where it would help.
13 MS BRISTOW: It would help enormously. I think it would
14 help us and I think that is why people are keen to
15 pursue it, that staff move between London boroughs and
16 if they are trained in one borough of procedures, that
17 they be trained then in another borough.
18 MR GARNHAM: Why is it worthwhile Haringey employing
19 a hospital social worker now when it was not at the time
20 of Victoria's life?
21 MS BRISTOW: I do not think it was the view that it was not
22 worthwhile, I think it is a question of looking at the
23 resources you have and what is the best use of them.
24 MR GARNHAM: Why is it justified now rather than then?
25 MS BRISTOW: It felt to me it was one of these things that
200
1 had become a major issue in the interagency working that
2 we could resolve at relatively low cost and would help
3 move things forward.
4 MR GARNHAM: Not because you knew it was being the subject
5 of attention in this Inquiry?
6 MS BRISTOW: No, because there were other things at the
7 attention of this Inquiry that I have not been able to
8 move forward.
9 MR GARNHAM: Where do strategy meetings for Haringey
10 children who were in-patients now take place?
11 MS BRISTOW: In the hospital.
12 MR GARNHAM: As they should always have done?
13 MS BRISTOW: As they should always have done.
14 MR GARNHAM: Are Haringey hospital social workers now
15 attending the weekly psychosocial meetings in the NAI
16 forum?
17 MS BRISTOW: I do not know.
18 MR GARNHAM: Have a look at 45E, please.
19 MS BRISTOW: I am not saying nobody knows in Haringey
20 Social Services, only that I personally do not know.
21 MR GARNHAM: Page 230.502. A letter from Dr Mary Rossiter
22 to you of 22nd May last year:
23 "I am writing to request the attendance of a Social
24 Worker at the above multi-disciplinary meetings held
25 weekly as part of the overall management of children and
|
