Reconvened Hearings Transcript for 9 July 2001: Pages 1 to 50

1



1 Tuesday, 9th July 2002

2 (10.00 am)

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Good morning ladies and gentlemen,

4 Mr Garnham.

5 MR GARNHAM: Good morning sir. You will recall that at the

6 end of proceedings as long ago as 19th February of this

7 year you indicated that all that it was anticipated that

8 there remained to be done in Phase I of this Inquiry was

9 to hear the final submissions from the London Borough of

10 Enfield on 27th February. Nonetheless you indicated

11 that you were not proposing formally to close Phase I at

12 that stage.

13 You will recall you gave three reasons for that

14 decision. First, because of the possibility that it

15 might be necessary to serve further notices of potential

16 criticism. Second, because further information had been

17 produced which might necessitate the calling of further

18 evidence. Third, because points might emerge from the

19 closing submissions that would prompt us to seek further

20 information.

21 As you know, on 27th February the Inquiry received

22 from the Social Services Inspectorate a report of an

23 internal review conducted by the SSI and the Audit

24 Commission in the early part of last year, 2001.

25 Receipt of that report has led to the reconvening of

2



1 these hearings into Phase I.

2 It might be convenient before I begin the main

3 business of the day if I indicate publicly how it came

4 about that we find ourselves here again.

5 I propose to deal with the following matters by way

6 of opening. First, the history of the decision to

7 reconvene; second, the purpose behind the reconvening,

8 and third the procedure that we now propose to adopt.

9 First, the history. In June 2001 the Inquiry wrote

10 to the SSI inviting them to disclose relevant documents

11 to us. Under cover of a letter dated 18th September

12 2001 they disclosed what they said were the documents in

13 their possession relevant to our terms of reference. It

14 is material, sir, to note two things. First, no summons

15 was served on the SSI. We took the view frankly, sir,

16 that a letter of request to a public body such as the

17 SSI ought to be sufficient to ensure proper cooperation

18 with this Inquiry. Second, we made no request for

19 documents from the Audit Commission.

20 We sought certain additional documents relating to

21 another borough in October 2001 but that aside, there

22 was no further correspondence between the Inquiry and

23 either the SSI or the Audit Commission until

24 30th January 2002.

25 As you well know sir, on that date Miss Denise

3



1 Platt, Chief Inspector of Social Services, telephoned

2 you at home to inform you that the Joint Review had

3 reviewed its methodology in the light of Victoria's

4 case. You asked Miss Platt to submit the report to the

5 Inquiry so that it could be considered in the same way

6 as all other material. Four weeks later, on

7 27th February, the Inquiry received a letter enclosing

8 a copy of that report. As you will recall,

9 27th February was the day you heard the very last of the

10 final submissions.

11 Reading the internal inquiry report caused us for

12 our part some disquiet. In our submission it was

13 plainly relevant to Phase I of this Inquiry. Its terms

14 of reference begin with the following words:

15 "In the light of the death of Anna C and the

16 impending independent statutory Inquiry, to consider the

17 report of the Joint Review of Social Services in

18 Haringey and to report to the Controller and the Chief

19 Inspector of Social Services on any issue arising ..."

20 In the opening words of the review itself, sir, the

21 author says this:

22 "The report is not intended for publication, though

23 the Controller and Chief Inspector may wish to make it

24 available to the independent statutory Inquiry."

25 Given that the SSI had indicated in September 2001

4



1 that they were willing to disclose to us all documents

2 in their possession relevant to our terms of reference,

3 the review ought in our submission to have been

4 disclosed then. Without a doubt it would have been of

5 considerable assistance to this Inquiry to have had the

6 internal review when Haringey's witnesses were giving

7 their evidence.

8 With respect, sir, it does not seem to us to be open

9 to the SSI to assert that they thought the internal

10 inquiry report relevant only to Phase II and that they

11 did not therefore need to disclose it until February of

12 this year. First, the review is plainly relevant to

13 Phase I. Second, our request for documents back in June

14 did not distinguish between Phase I documents and

15 Phase II documents. Nor did the SSI's letter of

16 September agreeing to provide documents in their

17 possession relevant to our terms of reference purport to

18 make that sort of distinction. In any event, sir, as

19 you will recall, by September of last year the scope of

20 Phase II was still some way from being settled.

21 Be that as it may, we now had the report and had to

22 decide what do with it. The Solicitors to the Inquiry

23 immediately disclosed copies of it to the interested

24 parties and Mr Fitzgerald also called upon the SSI to

25 disclose documents relevant to the preparation of that

5



1 internal review, and they did so. Those documents were

2 substantial, filling some six lever arch files.

3 At the time they were made available to us we were

4 heavily engaged in Phase II of this Inquiry. We read

5 the new material immediately thereafter with a view to

6 deciding which of those documents was relevant to

7 Phase I and what further witness statements we would

8 need to obtain in the light of them. A very substantial

9 percentage of the documents made available to us by the

10 SSI have now in turn been made available to the

11 interested parties, only those that are plainly

12 irrelevant have been excluded, and sir your bundles have

13 been supplemented with that new material.

14 In the light of the new documentation we requested

15 a further 10 witness statements. We received those

16 statements together with statements from a number of

17 other witnesses. Some of those statements prompted

18 further questions and we sought and have obtained four

19 supplementary statements. All of those have been

20 disclosed to the interested parties.

21 It seems to us, sir, that it would be sufficient as

22 regards a number of those witnesses for the Inquiry to

23 rely simply on their written statements, but in respect

24 of four of the central players we thought it would be

25 advantageous to the Inquiry if they gave their evidence

6



1 orally. In those circumstances we will invite you later

2 today, sir, to read the statements of the following:

3 Katherine Tyrrell, Sue Meade, Avril Nottage,

4 David Webster, John Bolton, Josie Irwin,

5 Mary Richardson, Gurbux Singh, Gina Adamou and

6 Lord Harris. We propose to call to give evidence

7 Dennis Simpson, Jennifer Gray, David Prince and

8 Carol Wilson.

9 I turn second to the purpose of reconvening. It is

10 important before we recommence the evidence that the

11 Inquiry reminds itself of its scope. By two mechanisms

12 the law imposes constraints on the breadth of this

13 Inquiry. The first is the statutes authorising its

14 establishment. The second are the terms of reference

15 given to the Inquiry by the Secretary of State.

16 The Inquiry was established under three separate

17 statutory provisions but for present purposes the

18 material one is Section 8(1) of the Children Act 1989.

19 That section empowers the Secretary of State to cause an

20 inquiry to be held "into any matter connected with the

21 functions of the Social Services Committee of a local

22 authority insofar as those functions relate to

23 children".

24 The terms of reference of an inquiry such as this,

25 sir, may narrow its scope from that permitted by the

7



1 statute but they cannot widen it. In those

2 circumstances in our submission it is not open to you to

3 inquire into matters unconnected with the social

4 services functions of local authorities. It would not

5 for example be permissible for you to inquire into the

6 way in which external inspectorates operate, save

7 insofar as they directly impact upon a children's social

8 services department.

9 That being so, it seems to us that the focus of

10 these resumed hearings has to be on whether the new

11 material or what the new material tells us about the way

12 Haringey Social Services were performing in the period

13 1999 to 2000. The witness statements are very helpful

14 in this regard but there are three issues that seem to

15 us to warrant more detailed exploration. They are as

16 follows.

17 First, what additional light, if any, does the new

18 material throw on the state of children's services in

19 Haringey in 1999? Second, what does the material

20 suggest Haringey knew or ought to have known about the

21 state of those services? Third, if the Joint Review

22 ought to have been differently framed and had been so

23 framed, would Haringey have changed the way it dealt

24 with cases like Victoria's?

25 Those principal questions give rise to three

8



1 supplementary issues: What weight ought the Inquiry

2 attach to the Joint Review Report? Does the material

3 shed light on the adequacy of the monitoring systems

4 employed by Haringey? And what effect, if any, does the

5 new evidence have on the argument that Haringey were

6 entitled to rely on a Joint Review Report as an accurate

7 picture of the state of their children's services?

8 Finally, sir, procedure. We propose calling the

9 witnesses in the order I have indicated, namely Simpson,

10 Gray, Prince and Wilson. As was our practice earlier in

11 Phase I, we will invite you to treat witness statements

12 as the witness's evidence-in-chief. As a result we do

13 not propose taking witnesses through the whole of that

14 evidence.

15 Miss Gray is presently abroad in America.

16 Accordingly we have arranged for her to give her

17 evidence via a live video link which we have timetabled

18 for this afternoon. With the assistance of the

19 Department of Health it has proved possible on this

20 occasion to establish the video link direct to this room

21 so that we can continue via the video link with minimal

22 disruption to our proceedings.

23 The only qualification to that is that we will need

24 to start Miss Gray's evidence at 2 pm and complete it by

25 6 pm this evening. Accordingly, it may be that we have

9



1 to interrupt Mr Simpson's evidence if he has not

2 finished by say half past one.

3 We have invited interested parties and represented

4 witnesses with an interest in this hearing to suggest

5 lines of questioning for us to consider putting to

6 witnesses from whom you will hear over the course of the

7 next two days, and we have received a substantial

8 quantity of suggested questions. We would invite you to

9 adopt the same procedure as you have previously and

10 allow those representing witnesses to re-examine them

11 for up to 30 minutes at the close of our questioning.

12 We anticipate completing the evidence by the end of

13 tomorrow. Were we to run over, we have made arrangement

14 to sit either on Thursday morning if the matter can be

15 completed in an hour or two, or on Monday 15th July if

16 it appears we will need another full day.

17 You have indicated in advance sir that any final

18 oral submissions should follow the conclusion of the

19 evidence and that such oral submissions should be

20 limited to 15 minutes per advocate. You have also

21 indicated that parties may supplement those oral

22 submissions with written submissions provided they are

23 received no later than 48 hours after the end of the

24 evidence, and you have directed that there be no other

25 opening statements.

10



1 We have received a request from Haringey that

2 a longer period than 48 hours be permitted for the

3 submission of written submissions. I will let

4 Miss Lawson make that application. I think she has

5 others to make with it. But I can indicate on that

6 ground, sir, that we are neutral on the subject. We

7 certainly would not oppose a modest extension.

8 Finally, sir, it seems to us that at the end of

9 these reconvened hearings you could properly specify

10 a date on which you will regard the evidence-gathering

11 stage of this Inquiry, both Phases I and II, as closed.

12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed Mr Garnham, I am

13 most grateful to you.

14 Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to make clear my

15 position on the reconvening of Phase I of this Inquiry

16 and if in doing so I repeat some things that Mr Garnham

17 has said already, I hope that that will serve to add

18 emphasis to the importance of these matters.

19 At the end of the public hearings for Phase I of

20 this Inquiry on 19th February it had been my intention

21 then to formally close the evidence to Phase I of the

22 Inquiry. I discussed this with Counsel to the Inquiry,

23 who advised me against that course of action. I have to

24 acknowledge that at the time I was somewhat reluctant to

25 accept his advice on this but now of course unreservedly

11



1 congratulate him on his prescience.

2 That said, I wish to make it clear that by now I had

3 expected that I and my team would be deeply engaged in

4 analysing the evidence to the Inquiry and finalising the

5 report for Ministers. The need to reconvene to take

6 further evidence in Phase I of this Inquiry is

7 a diversion which is as unexpected as it is unwelcome,

8 and one which will inevitably delay the publication of

9 the report.

10 May I remind you that shortly after the end of the

11 trial at the Central Criminal Court on 12th January

12 2001, when Marie-Therese Kouao and Carl Manning were

13 sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of

14 Victoria Climbie, the Government announced its intention

15 to establish a statutory Inquiry.

16 It was clear at that time that the Joint Review

17 conducted by the SSI and the Audit Commission of

18 services in Haringey published in November 1999, only

19 three months before the death of Victoria Climbie, and

20 at a time when Haringey had responsibility to protect

21 her, it was clear that that report would in all

22 probability be important evidence to this Inquiry.

23 It will be noted that the internal review of that

24 document was not instigated by the Chief Inspector of

25 the SSI or the Controller of the Audit Commission at the

12



1 time Victoria died, nor at the end of the trial.

2 Significantly it was established after the Government

3 had announced its intention to set up this Inquiry.

4 Presumably that is the reason why the terms of reference

5 of the internal review conducted by Mr David Prince of

6 the Audit Commission and Miss Jenny Gray of the SSI

7 begins with the following words, and here I quote from

8 their terms of reference:

9 "In the light of the death of Anna C [that we now

10 know is Victoria] and the impending independent

11 statutory Inquiry, to consider the report of the Joint

12 Review of Social Services in Haringey and report to the

13 Controller and the Chief Inspector of Social Services on

14 any issue arising," and then it goes on to deal with

15 those matters.

16 It seems clear to me that whatever the value of the

17 internal review to the Audit Commission and the SSI, it

18 is manifestly clear that this document was of potential

19 importance to this Inquiry. As Mr Garnham has said, in

20 June 2001 a letter was sent to the SSI requesting all

21 relevant documents be submitted to this Inquiry.

22 I do not understand why at that time this Inquiry

23 was not informed by the SSI of the existence of the

24 internal review into the Haringey Joint Review Report.

25 I look forward to hearing an explanation as to why this

13



1 document was not submitted to this Inquiry at that time.

2 It would appear that neither the elected members nor

3 the senior staff in Haringey, who gave evidence to this

4 Inquiry, did so with the benefit of having seen the

5 internal review. They were therefore deprived of the

6 opportunity of giving their evidence regarding the Joint

7 Review in the light of all of the potentially relevant

8 information as they were unaware of the existence of

9 this important document.

10 I need hardly remind anyone of the difficulties this

11 Inquiry has encountered in securing some documents from

12 some parts of local government. In order to obtain

13 relevant documents I have, to my surprise and

14 disappointment, been forced to have recourse to the

15 statutory powers given to me by Parliament. However, in

16 the interests of the proper conduct of this Inquiry

17 I did not shrink from using those powers. I cannot

18 emphasise strongly enough that I did not expect to

19 encounter any such difficulties with a department of

20 Government, least of all from one of the departments

21 that established this Inquiry.

22 On 24th July 2001 the Inquiry received a letter from

23 the Chief Inspector of the SSI confirming that the SSI

24 were, and here I quote, "... arranging for you to be

25 sent those documents in the Inspectorate's possession

14



1 that are relevant to the terms of reference of the

2 Inquiry. This will be done within the next 14 days if

3 at all possible. You will be contacted immediately in

4 the event that there is likely to be delay."

5 On 18th September a letter from the Deputy Chief

6 Inspector of the SSI confirmed that the Inquiry has now

7 been sent, and here I quote again, "... the documents in

8 the Inspectorate's possession that are relevant to the

9 terms of reference of the Inquiry concerning Victoria's

10 case."

11 I want to make it absolutely clear that I consider

12 that the obligation placed on the SSI by the Inquiry's

13 original request for documents was to disclose to us all

14 of the documents that were of potential relevance to our

15 terms of reference.

16 The final decision as to the actual relevance of

17 a particular document is one for the Inquiry and not for

18 the disclosing party. As you have heard, I first

19 learned of the existence of this document when I was

20 telephoned on the evening of 30th January 2002 by

21 Miss Platt, the Chief Inspector. You will know that

22 Miss Platt is my successor as the Chief Inspector and

23 she is also Head of Policy on Children's Services in the

24 Department of Health. When this Inquiry was being

25 established she and I discussed the mechanics of the

15



1 Inquiry and we have on occasions since discussed matters

2 quite unrelated to the work of this Inquiry. However,

3 on this occasion she informed me that she and the

4 Controller of the Audit Commission, Sir Andrew Foster,

5 had established an internal review into the Haringey

6 report in order to assess if any changes needed to be

7 made to the methodology being used.

8 I was asked if I would be interested in seeing the

9 internal report for the purposes of Phase II. I said

10 I would, noting that some of the conclusions expressed

11 in the Joint Review appeared to be somewhat out of step

12 from those contained in the SSI inspections of

13 Haringey's Children's Services which preceded or

14 followed it. I asked Miss Platt to submit the internal

15 review to the Inquiry so that it could be considered in

16 the usual way.

17 As Mr Garnham has pointed out, the internal review

18 was submitted to the Inquiry on 27th February 2002.

19 That was after the public hearings for Phase I had

20 ended.

21 The source material that was used in compiling both

22 the Joint Review and the internal review amounted to

23 a further six lever arch files of documents. As

24 Miss Gray and Mr Prince recorded in their internal

25 review, they were supplied with 56 documents of source

16



1 material, as they rightly say many of which were

2 voluminous, and I use their word.

3 You will understand that time has had to be set

4 aside by this Inquiry to analyse this material. As

5 a result of that analysis counsel decided to request

6 a further 10 witness statements. A number of other

7 statements have, as you have heard, been volunteered.

8 Having scrutinised those witness statements, I concluded

9 that I had no option but to reconvene the public

10 hearings of Phase I of this Inquiry.

11 Inevitably, the administrative inconvenience

12 resulting from that decision has been considerable and

13 the decision is not one that I took lightly. The time

14 taken to process these documents and reconvene this

15 public hearing has seriously affected our timetable. To

16 put it mildly it has caused immense inconvenience.

17 I would want to say one other thing. Each of my

18 professional colleagues sitting with me are themselves

19 senior members of staff in their specialist services and

20 arrangements have had to be made with their services for

21 them to be available to this Inquiry. It is necessary

22 for me to place on record my thanks to their employers

23 for allowing them to remain seconded to this Inquiry for

24 very much longer than any of us could have anticipated.

25 I can only hope that the explanation for the late

17



1 submission of these documents to the Inquiry can go some

2 way to relieving the feelings that I and no doubt others

3 have about being back here today.

4 Now, Miss Platt was invited to address the Inquiry

5 personally or through her lawyer. I do not see her in

6 front of me so I think I must look to Mr Kovats.

7 Mr Kovats please.

8 MR KOVATS: The Victoria Climbie Inquiry asked the Chief

9 Inspector of the Social Services Inspectorate to provide

10 an explanation to the Inquiry of why the internal review

11 was not disclosed to the Inquiry earlier. The Inquiry

12 said that the Chief Inspector could attend either in

13 person or by a representative and the Chief Inspector

14 has asked me to read the following statement on her

15 behalf:

16 "This is the statement of Denise Platt CBE.

17 "I am the Chief Inspector of the Social Services

18 Inspectorate for England and I have held this post since

19 6th July 1998. The death of Victoria Climbie was and is

20 a matter of considerable public interest. On

21 12th January 2001, shortly after Marie-Therese Kouao and

22 Carl Manning were convicted of the murder of Victoria,

23 the Secretary of State for Health announced the setting

24 up of the Victoria Climbie Inquiry. At that time there

25 were discussions between the Social Services

18



1 Inspectorate and the Audit Commission about the

2 difference which had been picked up in the media between

3 the 1999 Joint Review of Haringey Council's Social

4 Services, which I shall refer to as the Joint Review,

5 and the June 2000 Social Services Inspectorate

6 inspection of Children's Services in Haringey Council,

7 which I shall refer to as the SSI inspection. Joint

8 reviews, it will be recalled, are conducted by the Joint

9 Review Team of the Social Services Inspectorate and the

10 Audit Commission, as explained in the statement to the

11 Inquiry by Avril Nottage.

12 "As part of these discussions on 19th January 2001,

13 Sir Andrew Foster, the Controller of the Audit

14 Commission, informed me that he was inclined to carry

15 out a low-key internal review of the Joint Review

16 processes to see what lessons could be learned.

17 I agreed that an internal review was a good idea and

18 said that someone from the Social Services Inspectorate

19 should be involved as well as a senior director from the

20 Audit Commission.

21 "On 22nd January 2001 I was informed that the

22 Director of the Joint Review Team, John Bolton, had

23 commissioned Sue Meade, an assistant review director of

24 the Joint Review Team, to conduct a limited management

25 review of the Joint Review process. The internal review

19



1 commissioned by Sir Andrew and me was deliberately set

2 up to be independent of the Joint Review Team. By

3 mid-February 2001 the terms of reference for the

4 internal review and the identities of the reviewers,

5 namely Jenny Gray of the Social Services Inspectorate

6 and David Prince of the Audit Commission, had been

7 agreed.

8 "The internal review was not a rerun of the Joint

9 Review. It was a review of the methodology of the Joint

10 Review. Sir Andrew and I commissioned the internal

11 review to see what lessons we as heads of our respective

12 organisations could learn about the Joint Review

13 process. It was not designed to enable us or anyone

14 else to second guess the Joint Review.

15 "On 23rd April 2001 Sir Andrew and I, having read

16 the internal review, agreed to send it to

17 Dr Kevin McCoy, former Chief Inspector of Social

18 Services for Northern Ireland, for external review. The

19 internal review was made available to Avril Nottage as

20 the Social Services Inspectorate manager responsible for

21 the Joint Review Team. It was not made available to

22 anyone else in the Social Services Inspectorate other

23 than myself and Jenny Gray. Dr McCoy submitted his

24 comments on 15th June 2001.

25 "On 19th June 2001 the Victoria Climbie Inquiry

20



1 wrote to the London regional office of the Social

2 Services Inspectorate requesting disclosure of 'any

3 documents in the SSI's possession concerning Victoria's

4 case, including any correspondence with any of the

5 agencies involved which touches upon the case'. The

6 letter refers to earlier correspondence between the

7 Victoria Climbie Inquiry and the Social Services

8 Inspectorate London regional office but I have not been

9 able to trace any such correspondence.

10 "At this point I should explain the structure of the

11 Social Services Inspectorate at the material time.

12 Beneath the Chief Inspector were two Deputy Chief

13 Inspectors, Avril Nottage and David Gilroy CBE.

14 Miss Nottage was the head of the inspection division,

15 Mr Gilroy was the head of the SSI social care regions.

16 The social care regions comprised eight regional offices

17 and it was to the London regional office that the VCI's

18 letter of 19th June 2001 was addressed.

19 "The inspection division, as its name implies, was

20 responsible for carrying out inspections of local

21 authority social services. The social care regions were

22 concerned with monitoring the performance of local

23 authority social services and with providing advice and

24 assistance to local authorities on a day-to-day basis."

25 She attaches to her statement a diagram of this

21



1 structure. Earlier this year the Social Services

2 Inspectorate was reorganised and the two divisions have

3 now been unified.

4 To resume the narrative:

5 "The Victoria Climbie Inquiry's letter of 19th June

6 2001 was passed to me. I took advice from the Social

7 Services Inspectorate and the Department of Health Legal

8 Department on the scope of the disclosure requested by

9 the Inquiry. The Department of Health had given copies

10 of both the Joint Review and the SSI inspection to

11 Lord Laming when the Victoria Climbie Inquiry was set

12 up, as these documents were already in the public

13 domain.

14 "I was advised that the Victoria Climbie Inquiry's

15 request for disclosure concerned communications between

16 the Social Services Inspectorate and other agencies and

17 documents specific to Victoria's case and was not

18 concerned with material surrounding the production of

19 the Joint Review or the SSI inspection. In all the

20 circumstances it did not occur to me that the internal

21 review might be relevant to the Victoria Climbie

22 Inquiry.

23 "I wrote to the Victoria Climbie Inquiry on

24 24th July 2001, saying that the SSI London regional

25 office was arranging for the Victoria Climbie Inquiry to

22



1 be sent those documents in the SSI's possession that

2 were relevant to the terms of reference of the Inquiry.

3 I was away on leave from 13th August until 3rd September

4 and from the 13th September until 24th September and was

5 not involved in the detail of the disclosure exercise

6 undertaken by the Social Services Inspectorate.

7 However, I wish to stress that not only I but the Social

8 Services Inspectorate as a whole took our

9 responsibilities to the Victoria Climbie Inquiry very

10 seriously and were anxious to be as helpful as possible.

11 Apart from me, none of the persons involved in the

12 disclosure exercise was aware of the existence of the

13 internal review. At that time the only other persons in

14 the Social Services Inspectorate who knew of the

15 existence of the internal review were Avril Nottage and

16 Jenny Gray.

17 "On 18th September 2001 the SSI sent the Inquiry the

18 documents it believed to be relevant. With hindsight,

19 I accept that the internal review was relevant to the

20 Inquiry. I sincerely apologise for not appreciating

21 this earlier.

22 "In October 2001 the Victoria Climbie Inquiry asked

23 the Social Services Inspectorate for certain specific

24 documents relating to another London council and the SSI

25 sent these on 17th October. The Victoria Climbie

23



1 Inquiry did not ask the Audit Commission or the Joint

2 Review Team for any documents. The Victoria Climbie

3 Inquiry did not ask anyone from the Social Services

4 Inspectorate, the Audit Commission or the Joint Review

5 Team to give evidence to Phase I of the Inquiry.

6 "On 24th January 2002, the Victoria Climbie Inquiry

7 announced details of Phase II of the Inquiry. These

8 included a seminar on monitoring performance. On

9 30th January 2002 Sir Andrew Foster telephoned me. He

10 told me of the details of Phase II of the Inquiry that

11 had been announced and suggested that the internal

12 review might be relevant to Phase II. He also told me

13 that certain witnesses from Haringey Council had in

14 their evidence to Phase I of the Inquiry commented on

15 the Joint Review. Sir Andrew and I agreed that I would

16 telephone Lord Laming to seek his advice.

17 "I telephoned Lord Laming at his home at 20.25 that

18 evening. I saw nothing unusual in this. Lord Laming

19 had on occasions telephoned me directly during the

20 Inquiry. In those telephone calls Lord Laming had

21 discussed with me how the department might assist the

22 mechanics of the Inquiry in a number of respects but we

23 did not discuss evidence given to the Inquiry.

24 "In my telephone call on 30th January I told

25 Lord Laming of the existence of the internal review and

24



1 that it had been carried out for methodological and

2 managerial purposes. I asked him whether he would like

3 to see it and if so when. He said it would be most

4 helpful to see the internal review. He said that he

5 would invite Sir Andrew and me to attend the Phase II

6 seminar on monitoring performance. He gave no

7 indication that he wanted to see the internal review for

8 the purposes of Phase I of the Inquiry. I understood

9 him to say that internal review was relevant to

10 Phase II. The telephone call lasted seven minutes 22

11 seconds. I immediately e-mailed Sir Andrew to inform

12 him of what had been said and we agreed to write a joint

13 letter to the Victoria Climbie Inquiry.

14 "On 26th February Sir Andrew and I sent the joint

15 letter to the Victoria Climbie Inquiry attaching the

16 copy of the internal review. As I had been given no

17 indication that the internal review was relevant to

18 Phase I of the Inquiry, I saw no need for urgency in

19 sending the internal review to the Inquiry. The closing

20 date for evidence for the Phase II seminar on monitoring

21 performance was 12th April. On 4th March 2002

22 John Bolton Bolton, Director of the Joint Review Team,

23 sent at my request a copy of the internal review to

24 Haringey Council, because I believed that in submitting

25 the internal review to the Inquiry it was being put in

25



1 the public domain.

2 "On 4th March 2002 I received a letter from the

3 Victoria Climbie Inquiry stating that the internal

4 review appeared to be relevant to Phase I of the Inquiry

5 and asking to know why the Social Services Inspectorate

6 had not disclosed it earlier. I replied on 6th March,

7 saying that the internal review had not appeared to me

8 to be relevant to Phase I of the Inquiry, which I had

9 understood would focus on the role of front line

10 agencies in this specific case. In saying this, I did

11 not mean to imply that I had always considered the

12 internal review would be relevant to Phase II of the

13 Inquiry, the contrary was the case, as I have sought to

14 explain above.

15 "My letter added that if I had been informed that

16 the Joint Review had become a focus of Phase I of the

17 Inquiry I would willingly have provided whatever

18 information the Inquiry required relating to the Joint

19 Review.

20 "The Victoria Climbie Inquiry wrote me a further

21 letter on 7th March seeking a fuller explanation for not

22 disclosing the internal review earlier. On 14th March

23 the Assistant Director of Legal Services at the

24 Department of Health replied on my behalf. Her letter

25 expressed sincere apologies for the misunderstanding

26



1 that had arisen, which apologies I have reiterated in

2 this statement. The letter attached a chronology of

3 what had passed between the Joint Review Team, the

4 Social Services Inspectorate and Haringey Council since

5 the publication of the Joint Review. The letter

6 concluded by expressing the willingness of the Social

7 Services Inspectorate to contribute to any further

8 consideration of the Joint Review that the Inquiry

9 considered necessary in the light of the existence of

10 the internal review.

11 "On 20th March 2002, the Victoria Climbie Inquiry

12 asked the Assistant Director of Legal Services at the

13 Department of Health for a number of documents referred

14 to in the internal review. The Assistant Director

15 supplied these to the Inquiry on 12th April, together

16 with a more detailed chronology of what had passed

17 between the Joint Review Team, the Social Services

18 Inspectorate, the Audit Commission and Haringey Council

19 since the publication of the Joint Review.

20 "Sir Andrew and I took various actions in response

21 to the internal review. In July 2001 Sir Andrew and

22 I asked the Joint Review Management Team to produce an

23 action plan in response to the review's recommendations

24 and they did so. The action plan involved a number of

25 changes to the methodology of joint reviews. The action

27



1 plan was implemented by January 2002.

2 "As a further footnote I add that the functions

3 carried out by the Joint Review Team will in future be

4 carried out by the Commission for Social Care

5 Inspection.

6 "Sir Andrew Foster has read a draft of this

7 statement. He agrees with its contents and as regards

8 matters within his knowledge."

9 That sir concludes the statement.

10 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Kovats I am very grateful to you indeed

11 for reading the statement. I think that it could be

12 unwise for me to comment on it partly because Miss Platt

13 is not here and partly because we are about to hear

14 evidence about the internal review, the Joint Review,

15 which I think we should hear; except for one thing and

16 that is that I accept the apology given by Miss Platt

17 for the late submission of this document and I would be

18 grateful if you could convey to her the sentiments that

19 I expressed earlier on about the inconvenience that this

20 has caused the Inquiry and the implications of that to

21 the Inquiry.

22 MR KOVATS: Sir, I will do that.

23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Mr Garnham.

24 MR GARNHAM: Sir, as I indicated earlier, I think that

25 Miss Lawson has an application.

28



1 THE CHAIRMAN: Miss Lawson please.

2 MISS LAWSON: It feels as though we have never been away.

3 I have in fact two applications. The first is that in

4 the light of the indication given to me by Counsel to

5 the Inquiry that he does not intend to put several lines

6 of questions which I have invited him to ask the

7 witnesses, that I be permitted to ask them pursuant to

8 the indication which you gave at the preliminary meeting

9 in May of last year that in certain limited

10 circumstances interested parties would be permitted to

11 ask questions.

12 I appreciate that that is an application which would

13 normally be made in relation to specific points after

14 the questioning has been completed, but since the

15 indication has been given to me in relation to

16 Miss Gray, whose time as you have already heard is

17 limited, I thought it was more appropriate to make the

18 application now, since Mr Garnham has been kind enough

19 to indicate to me the questions that he is not at this

20 stage prepared to put forward.

21 The point of principle arises in relation to the

22 other witnesses as well. So again I am asking you to

23 consider in relation to them as well. Should the need

24 arise and indeed, sir, it may not.

25 Throughout Phase I Haringey has relied on Joint

29



1 Review as one of the main planks of its defence to the

2 criticisms of the services it provided. It has done so

3 not just because it relied on the conclusions but also

4 to support the proposition that the picture being

5 painted to this Inquiry of the state of the services at

6 the end of 1999 in the local office is inconsistent with

7 what that Joint Review found, and it is that latter

8 proposition which is being opened up in this reopening

9 of Phase I, since Haringey, as you have heard, knew

10 nothing at all about the conclusions of the internal

11 review until after it had been sent to this Inquiry.

12 The members and officers were entitled to rely on

13 what it said. Internal review calls into question

14 whether the picture it gave, that is Joint Review gave,

15 was an accurate one.

16 Haringey obviously does not accept the findings of

17 that internal review and wants to challenge them. We

18 say that involves looking closely at how and why

19 internal review was conducted. I appreciate, as

20 Mr Garnham has reiterated this morning, that the role of

21 the SSI who had carried out or inspected or made reviews

22 of all the authorities involved in Victoria's case is

23 not a matter which is within your terms of reference.

24 This means that there is a fine line to be drawn between

25 the matters which fall within and outside the terms of

30



1 reference and Mr Garnham is prepared to put many of the

2 points which I have asked him to but considers that some

3 do fall outside the terms of reference and that there

4 are others which are inconsistent with the line that he

5 proposes to adopt in his questioning.

6 My submission therefore is that in fairness to

7 Haringey I should be allowed to put them, should it be

8 necessary, after Mr Garnham has concluded his question.

9 The effect of this evidence is that Haringey is now in

10 a unique position. It is really the only interested

11 party whose conduct may be criticised on the basis of

12 the internal review or the evidence which supports it.

13 Such criticisms of course significantly will predate the

14 relevant period which this Inquiry has been considering

15 and has concentrated in its evidence.

16 So for that reason, as well as the one to which you

17 alluded, namely that we have been denied the opportunity

18 in our witnesses giving evidence in the earlier stage of

19 Phase I, that they have done so in ignorance of this

20 report, and that that has impeded our ability to deal

21 with it, and that the only way in which we will be able

22 to redress the balance and defend the allegations

23 adequately is if we are able to ensure that relevant

24 points -- and I agree we may disagree about whether or

25 not they are relevant, if necessary, to the extent that

31



1 Counsel to the Inquiry does not ask them.

2 The second submission also has a familiar ring to

3 it, namely I am making two applications in relation to

4 submissions, one that I should have 30 minutes instead

5 of 15, as the only interested party which is directly

6 affected by this reopening. It is right that everybody

7 else should get 15 minutes, I think to the extent that

8 they require it. I submit that it is unreasonable to

9 expect us to comment appropriately on the volume of the

10 evidence which directly affects us, even in headline

11 form, in 15 minutes.

12 Sir at least one of the other interested parties has

13 indicated that they may not take their 15 minutes and is

14 inviting sealed bids as to it but my application is to

15 you.

16 I am also asking you to extend the time for filing

17 the written submissions to the end of next week,

18 assuming that the evidence is concluded by Wednesday or

19 Thursday of this week, in my submission to do justice to

20 the volume of material which affects Haringey, and may

21 form the basis of criticism of those who were involved.

22 As you will appreciate, the time allowed to them for

23 responding to the potential criticism postdates the

24 conclusion of these oral hearings. They also need time

25 to consider the draft written submissions and to ensure

32



1 that the matters are covered and it is going to be very

2 difficult indeed for them to do that within 48 hours and

3 I am therefore asking for that extended time.

4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed Miss Lawson.

5 MR GARNHAM: As to Miss Lawson's first application, she

6 indicated to me in advance what it was to be, I do not

7 oppose it sir. It seems to me that this is the sort of

8 circumstance that you had in mind in your preliminary

9 remarks, where cross-examination by an interested party

10 should be permitted. My only suggestion, sir, is that

11 given the nature of this resumed hearing, my submission

12 would be that you limit time for such cross-examination.

13 As regards Miss Jenny Gray, I propose taking

14 a goodly number of Miss Lawson's questions and putting

15 them myself. There are some that I do not propose

16 putting. I would suggest sir that you limit

17 Miss Lawson's time with Miss Gray to 45 minutes but

18 plainly it is a matter for you.

19 As to the second submission in relation to oral

20 submissions, I say nothing sir. It is plainly a matter

21 for you in your exercise of your discretion. As regards

22 the written submissions, I move a little from the

23 position I was in when I began this morning. I would

24 positively support what Miss Lawson says in the light of

25 her remarks just now. It is right to say that the

33



1 timescale we have had to adopt as a result of the late

2 submission of this document has meant that we have been

3 able to be less generous in the time we have given to

4 Haringey in responding to the notices of potential

5 criticism. That being so, you may well think it only

6 fair that they get the extra time that Miss Lawson seeks

7 so that they can deal comprehensively in writing with

8 the matters that arise during the course of these days.

9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr Kovats is there anything you

10 want to say on Miss Lawson's first application?

11 MR KOVATS: Sir, no.

12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Just give me a moment,

13 if you would please. (Pause).

14 Miss Lawson, I have as you will understand some

15 sympathy with the points that you have made and I do

16 absolutely agree with your point that the elected

17 members and senior officers of Haringey were entitled to

18 rely upon the Joint Review Report as you were aware of

19 it and we were aware of it and we will hear evidence but

20 it is important that that be tested. And as you know,

21 throughout this I have tried to ensure that the

22 proceedings were as fair as possible to all the parties.

23 I like to think that overall I have achieved a measure

24 of success, if not complete success.

25 I think with regard to your first application, which

34



1 from my point of view I judge if I may say so the most

2 important application, I think that what I would say,

3 with regard to Miss Gray, I am inclined to agree to it

4 absolutely but to time limit it to 60 minutes. With

5 regard to Mr Simpson, I would hope that you could

6 confine your questions to 20 minutes with Mr Simpson and

7 I wondered whether you would be comfortable if we held

8 over the position of Mr Prince until tomorrow after we

9 have had the benefit of listening to the evidence of

10 Miss Gray.

11 MISS LAWSON: Yes, that is very sensible.

12 THE CHAIRMAN: With regard to your second application about

13 oral submissions, I am afraid I am unmoved, and

14 I suspect that, Miss Lawson, that comes as not

15 a surprise to you.

16 MISS LAWSON: I will negotiate with Miss Hoyal.

17 THE CHAIRMAN: With regard to your third submission, I am

18 content to reach an agreement on a date.

19 Mr Garnham, the business of the day perhaps.

20 MR GARNHAM: The business of the day. I call

21 Dennis Simpson, please.

22 MR DENNIS SIMPSON (affirmed)

23 MR GARNHAM: Good morning Mr Simpson, please have a seat.

24 Your full name please.

25 MR SIMPSON: Dennis Simpson.

35



1 MR GARNHAM: Your professional address please.

2 MR SIMPSON: 33 Greycoat Street, London SW1.

3 MR GARNHAM: Mr Simpson you have provided one statement for

4 this Inquiry. We have it in volume 3 at page 150.411.

5 I hope you have a copy in front of you.

6 MR SIMPSON: I do.

7 MR GARNHAM: Can you confirm that you have signed it, and

8 that its contents are true?

9 MR SIMPSON: I can confirm that I have signed it and its

10 contents are true.

11 MR GARNHAM: I think it is right that you are now

12 a self-employed consultant in social care?

13 MR SIMPSON: I am.

14 MR GARNHAM: But between 1998 and 2001 you were employed by

15 the Joint Review Team of the Audit Commission?

16 MR SIMPSON: I was.

17 MR GARNHAM: You were the lead reviewer in particular on the

18 Joint Review inspection, the Joint Review Report anyway,

19 into Haringey?

20 MR SIMPSON: I was.

21 MR GARNHAM: And for the sake of the record the junior

22 member of that team was Katherine Tyrrell?

23 MR SIMPSON: She was.

24 MR GARNHAM: Can I indicate the ground I want to cover in

25 the course of these questions, Mr Simpson, so you know

36



1 where we are going. There are six principal matters

2 I want to ask you about. Firstly, the purpose of

3 a Joint Review. Secondly, the internal review and your

4 reaction to it. Thirdly, the methodology of the Joint

5 Review. Fourthly, the Joint Review's reports and its

6 conclusions about Children's Services in Haringey.

7 Fifthly, the approach by the Joint Review to the

8 Council's statutory obligations; and finally Haringey's

9 response to the Joint Review as far as you know of it.

10 First of all, the purpose of a Joint Review. It is

11 not, is it, an inspection like an SSI inspection?

12 MR SIMPSON: It is not an inspection. It is primarily

13 intended as a strategic overview of the whole service of

14 Council's social services functions. To that extent it

15 relies on evidence and information in order to form

16 a view, express an opinion about the strategic

17 robustness, the strategic validity, the direction of the

18 social services function.

19 MR GARNHAM: Looking at the review itself, and it might be

20 helpful if you have a copy of it available, it is in

21 volume 15A, page 32, we see in the foreword to this

22 Joint Review, under the heading "Purpose and Process",

23 in the second of those two sub-paragraphs, we see that

24 the purpose of the Joint Review is expressed to be:

25 "To provide an objective assessment of how well the

37



1 people of Haringey are being served by their Social

2 Services and to make a constructive contribution towards

3 the further improvement of the service provided."

4 You would agree with that?

5 MR SIMPSON: I would, yes.

6 MR GARNHAM: That is what you were about on this occasion?

7 MR SIMPSON: Indeed, yes.

8 MR GARNHAM: In order to perform that function, as

9 I understand it, you sample cases handled by a social

10 services department and you look at the teams that are

11 carrying out the work?

12 MR SIMPSON: That is true.

13 MR GARNHAM: You do not look at every file. You do not look

14 at every team?

15 MR SIMPSON: We do not, no.

16 MR GARNHAM: But, on the other hand, presumably, you do not

17 take as read what you are told by the service you are

18 inspecting?

19 MR SIMPSON: Certainly not.

20 MR GARNHAM: You look below the surface in order to try and

21 ascertain the truth of it?

22 MR SIMPSON: That is correct.

23 MR GARNHAM: And to see whether the assertions made by the

24 local authority concerned are accurate?

25 MR SIMPSON: Correct.

38



1 MR GARNHAM: You are an experienced reviewer. This was not

2 your first.

3 MR SIMPSON: Indeed.

4 MR GARNHAM: So I imagine that as a result of that

5 experience you have developed some skill at peering

6 beneath the surface presented by local authorities?

7 MR SIMPSON: I would like to think so.

8 MR GARNHAM: It is right, is it not, that joint reviews are

9 quite highly regarded by local authorities?

10 MR SIMPSON: They are.

11 MR GARNHAM: The officers and members are pretty keen to get

12 a good Joint Review Report?

13 MR SIMPSON: That is correct.

14 MR GARNHAM: And since they provide you with the information

15 and they provide you I think with a position statement,

16 there is going to be an obvious temptation for local

17 authorities in general to provide you with a healthy

18 picture which you have to test?

19 MR SIMPSON: The position statement is designed to be an

20 accurate, honest self-evaluation of the service they

21 provide to users as well as a strategic account, their

22 strategic intentions. So it is not meant to provide

23 a glossy rosy picture, it is meant to be an honest

24 statement.

25 MR GARNHAM: But nonetheless do you always take it as read

39



1 or do you test it?

2 MR SIMPSON: We test it.

3 MR GARNHAM: You were first contacted by the internal review

4 team in February 2001, so that is 15 months after you

5 had completed the Joint Review?

6 MR SIMPSON: Yes.

7 MR GARNHAM: What were you told about this internal review?

8 MR SIMPSON: That it was meant to be a low-key internal

9 review of the methodology of the Joint Review process.

10 MR GARNHAM: What was your reaction to being told that your

11 work was going to be examined in that way?

12 MR SIMPSON: If I am honest I was partly threatened but

13 I could understand the reasons for why that was taking

14 place.

15 MR GARNHAM: What did you understand those reasons to be?

16 MR SIMPSON: That in the light of the Victoria Climbie

17 Inquiry it was important for the SSI and the Audit

18 Commission to be sure that the methodology and the

19 content of the Joint Review Report was accurate and that

20 the methodology was robust and that the content of the

21 report was accurate.

22 MR GARNHAM: So by the time you received first contact from

23 the internal review you knew that Victoria Climbie had

24 died?

25 MR SIMPSON: (Nods).

40



1 MR GARNHAM: You knew that her killers had been prosecuted?

2 MR SIMPSON: (Nods).

3 MR GARNHAM: And you knew that this Inquiry was being

4 established?

5 MR SIMPSON: Yes.

6 MR GARNHAM: I wonder if you could have volume 45P, please.

7 Page 27. You will see this is part way through the

8 comments provided to the internal review by your

9 co-reviewer Miss Tyrrell. You recognise that,

10 I imagine?

11 MR SIMPSON: I do.

12 MR GARNHAM: Fourth bullet point down, that is the second

13 bullet point under the second heading, do you see

14 Miss Tyrrell writes:

15 "I have experienced a number of emotions in relation

16 to this internal review and the reasons why it came

17 about."

18 MR SIMPSON: Yes.

19 MR GARNHAM: "Probably the strongest emotions relate to the

20 article in Community Care on 17th January: 'Joint Review

21 chief admits possible mistakes in Haringey report'. It

22 seems to me that a result was being announced before any

23 inquiry was under way and personal reputations were

24 being damaged. I do not think I was the only member of

25 the Joint Review Team to feel very let down by the

41



1 statements that were apparently made."

2 There were in all three members of this Joint Review

3 Team, Miss Tyrrell, yourself and one other, although

4 that other took a rather more minor role.

5 MR SIMPSON: That is correct.

6 MR GARNHAM: She goes on:

7 "I have not received an apology and depending on the

8 outcome of this inquiry, I would like one."

9 Was your reaction different or similar to

10 Miss Tyrrell's?

11 MR SIMPSON: It was similar. I chose not to express it in

12 print but I felt that a comment of community care in the

13 light you now conveyed was premature.

14 MR GARNHAM: I think it is right that you had the chance to

15 comment on the first draft of the internal inquiry

16 report when it was produced?

17 MR SIMPSON: That is correct.

18 MR GARNHAM: And in that same volume, 45P, page 76, we see

19 I think it is an e-mail or a memo from Andrew Webster to

20 David Prince who was one of the authors of the internal

21 review, which is copied amongst others to yourself.

22 I think that confirms that you had a chance to comment

23 on that first draft.

24 MR SIMPSON: That is correct.

25 MR GARNHAM: Did you see the second draft before it was

42



1 published, printed?

2 MR SIMPSON: I do not think I saw the second draft, no.

3 I cannot be absolutely sure but I do not have a clear

4 recollection of seeing it, no.

5 MR GARNHAM: The reason I ask is because as we will see in

6 a moment, John Bolton thought the second version rather

7 more critical of the Joint Review and joint reviewers

8 than the first. Turn to page 84 in that bundle. We see

9 there a memo which, if you turn over the page, you will

10 see is from John Bolton to David Prince that begins:

11 "Thank you for giving me a final opportunity to

12 comment on your report. I have tried to ring you but

13 failed to get an answer. I note that the overall tone

14 and some of the contents of the report has substantially

15 changed from your earlier draft. It reads in a far more

16 critical way particularly about the role of the lead

17 reviewer as we discussed."

18 In the light of that, is your memory prompted at all

19 as to whether you saw the second draft before it was

20 finally produced?

21 MR SIMPSON: I do not think on reflection I saw the second

22 draft before it was produced.

23 MR GARNHAM: You have obviously seen it now.

24 MR SIMPSON: I have.

25 MR GARNHAM: Because it is in its final form. Is it more

43



1 critical than the earlier draft you saw?

2 MR SIMPSON: I believe it is.

3 MR GARNHAM: And more critical both of the process and of

4 you?

5 MR SIMPSON: Indeed, yes.

6 MR GARNHAM: Do you know how it came about to be rewritten

7 in that manner?

8 MR SIMPSON: I do not, no.

9 MR GARNHAM: Let us go back to the process of this internal

10 review. You I think received a list of questions which

11 the internal reviewers wanted you to answer and you

12 received that under cover of a letter of 6th March. Is

13 that right?

14 MR SIMPSON: That is right.

15 MR GARNHAM: In our bundle the questions are not attached to

16 the letter but we have the questions that I think you

17 were asked incorporated in Katherine Tyrrell's response

18 that we have already looked at. Turn back to page 1.

19 She in her response sets out rather helpfully the

20 questions as well as the answers, whereas I think you

21 have done it simply by giving your answers by reference

22 to numbers.

23 MR SIMPSON: Yes.

24 MR GARNHAM: It does not matter much except it means we need

25 to look at the two documents so we see the questions

44



1 that you were responding to. Your response is at

2 page 40 in the same bundle. That is your letter to

3 David Prince and appendix 1 to that letter we see you

4 are dealing with the questions one by one, giving the

5 letter and number that refers to the particular

6 question, is that right?

7 MR SIMPSON: That is right.

8 MR GARNHAM: Now, I think it is right as you tell us in your

9 statement that subject to two amendments, you remain

10 content with the answers you gave to the internal review

11 in this format?

12 MR SIMPSON: That is correct.

13 MR GARNHAM: Can we deal with those two amendments first so

14 we know how much of this we can take as read and how

15 much we need to look at further. The first amendment

16 you tell us is contained within the answer to G1. So if

17 we look at G1.

18 MR SIMPSON: Which page, which report are you referring to

19 now?

20 MR GARNHAM: Page 16 of your statement and page 150.416 in

21 volume 3. This is your statement. The easiest is if

22 you work by your paragraph numbers in your statement or

23 the page numbers. It is page 16. I am sorry, I have

24 lost my reference. It is my mistake, it is D1, not G1,

25 page 16, and that is where you tell us you have made the

45



1 first of the two amendments you would like to make.

2 MR SIMPSON: I think it is the second D1 entry. The first

3 D1 refers to my comments in relation to Kate Flannery's

4 internal review.

5 MR GARNHAM: Tell us what the amendment is you are making

6 then.

7 MR SIMPSON: The amendment I wish to make is that in

8 preparing for the internal review I read and re-read the

9 Joint Review Report on a number of occasions, and on

10 reflection and with hindsight my feeling is that I could

11 have spelt out more. I could have identified more

12 clearly the practice deficiencies that were discovered

13 in Haringey when we undertook the Joint Review. Not

14 that the report did not identify the practice

15 deficiencies, because it was a compact report, a dense

16 report and if you were to read the report in its

17 entirety from beginning to end and go through every page

18 then you will see scattered throughout the report

19 a number of concerns that the two reviewers had about

20 practice issues, fragile services, poor practices, the

21 lack of information et cetera et cetera.

22 It is just that when people read an audit report or

23 an inspection report they tend to go to the front, they

24 look to the executive summary, they go to the end, they

25 look at conclusions, and they tend to base their views

46



1 on the beginning and the end of reports. They do not

2 look at the content, the middle bit.

3 MR GARNHAM: So you would acknowledge it would have been

4 better if you had put your important points in those

5 places?

6 MR SIMPSON: And the point I want to make is that I could

7 have been stronger at the beginning and at the end in

8 terms of pointing out the practice deficiencies that

9 were discovered and identified in the report.

10 MR GARNHAM: The second amendment you want to make is this

11 I think. If you turn in volume 45P to page 50 we see

12 there under answer D2:

13 "The authority comment on the draft report", that is

14 the Joint Review Report. "Their comments were produced

15 in the form of a schedule."

16 You explain in your statement that the schedule you

17 are referring to there is the memo that we have in

18 volume 45O. I wonder if the witness could have that

19 please. Page 84. Is that right? That is the schedule

20 you are talking about?

21 MR SIMPSON: That is correct.

22 MR GARNHAM: What is that?

23 MR SIMPSON: That is a schedule produced I believe by

24 Haringey and it is their comments, their views that they

25 wanted the Joint Review Team to consider after --

47



1 MR GARNHAM: That is their comments on an early draft?

2 MR SIMPSON: On the first draft reports.

3 MR GARNHAM: We see a lot of ticks, questions marks and your

4 name written beside various points. Presumably you

5 worked through and considered whether to make the

6 amendments?

7 MR SIMPSON: Indeed, although that is not my handwriting.

8 MR GARNHAM: No, but that is the way in which this schedule

9 was used, you worked through it and decided whether to

10 make the amendments suggested?

11 MR SIMPSON: Yes, exactly.

12 MR GARNHAM: In general you will appreciate that we have had

13 access to your notebooks, yours and your fellow

14 reviewers, in the course of this exercise we have been

15 conducting. They are handwritten notebooks that you

16 were using at the time you were conducting the Joint

17 Review. In general do you stand by the remarks you made

18 in your notebook or are any of them which now, having

19 had the chance to reflect on it, you think, "I have got

20 that completely wrong"?

21 MR SIMPSON: I stand by my notes.

22 MR GARNHAM: You tell us in your statement that you had

23 source material, source documentation for all the

24 judgments and views that you expressed in the Joint

25 Review Report and that you would not have expressed

48



1 conclusions on any of the matters you addressed without

2 that sort of back-up material.

3 MR SIMPSON: That is correct.

4 MR GARNHAM: And that remains your view, that your

5 conclusions are supported in that way, does it?

6 MR SIMPSON: It does.

7 MR GARNHAM: So we can conclude, can we, that in your view

8 everything that you said in the Joint Review was backed

9 up by evidence that you had access to?

10 MR SIMPSON: That is correct.

11 MR GARNHAM: Will you turn to paragraph 63 of your Inquiry

12 statement. Sir it is volume 3, page 150.432.

13 This is your Inquiry statement, page 22,

14 paragraph 63, when you are asked by us in our

15 questionnaire what response you make to the criticisms

16 of the Joint Review in the internal review and in

17 paragraph 63 you tell us that you accept and regard as

18 fair a number of the criticisms in the internal review

19 and then you go on and say this:

20 "Others I do not accept and wish to contest. I set

21 these out below."

22 Then, over the course of several pages, four or five

23 pages, you then list those criticisms which you do not

24 accept and you explain why they are wrong. We can read

25 that for ourselves.

49



1 Are we right to understand you to be saying that you

2 have there set out all of the criticisms which you

3 regard as unfair so that we can conclude that you accept

4 the other points made about the Joint Review and

5 internal review?

6 MR SIMPSON: I tried not to be pedantic in responding to the

7 internal review. What I tried to do was to identify the

8 major points which I wished to contest and the major

9 points are here.

10 MR GARNHAM: Let me see if I can understand how that works

11 out then. This is going to involve you having two

12 documents open in front of you at the same time, but

13 keep open your statement at paragraph 63 and onwards,

14 but also please have available 45P and if you look at

15 page 161 -- I am sorry, it is 152 first. We have the

16 start of the internal review report and if I can get you

17 to turn over to page 161, we see at paragraph 5.11 that

18 the internal reviewers are starting to deal with the

19 documentary evidence that was available to you, the

20 joint reviewers.

21 Over the page, page 162, in the box, we see there

22 "Findings".

23 Now, you in your statement make no comment, you do

24 not seek to dispute, for example, the third bullet point

25 on that page:

50



1 "The children and families data provided by Haringey

2 was included at various points in the Joint Review

3 Report. There was however little analysis of what this

4 data meant in relation to service provision for all

5 children and families. This omission seemed

6 particularly significant given Haringey's low spend on

7 Children's Services, highly targeted services for the

8 most needy, high number of children's names on the CP

9 register and high number on the register for over two

10 years."

11 You do not purport in your statement to disagree

12 with that. Can we take it therefore that you accept it

13 is right?

14 MR SIMPSON: It is not, no. Can I refer you to paragraph 66

15 on page 22 of my witness statement?

16 MR GARNHAM: Yes.

17 MR SIMPSON: Is that not my comment in relation to the

18 criticism of the internal review, where I say:

19 "I believe the data on Haringey children's services

20 is presented in a reasonably integrated manner. There

21 is a complete section ..." et cetera et cetera, and I go

22 on to point out that on the basis of the information

23 I had access to, which was the only information I had

24 access to, I was able to summarise my views about

25 Haringey's children's services.