Minutes:
Mark Greenburgh from Gowlings Solicitors outlined the basis of the independent report into the performance, practice and conduct of senior employees of the Council over the period of the Jay report as submitted. He was assisted by Jemma O’Reilly, Principal Associate, and Alison Lowton, Consultant throughout.
The report had been commissioned to assist the Council in determining whether or not there were grounds to commence disciplinary or capability proceedings against any current employee or the need to refer any current employee to the relevant regulator on grounds of professional misconduct.
Furthermore, to assist the Council in determining whether there were cases against former employees with any recommendations being passed to the current employers for them to consider.
As part of the investigation more than seventy people were sent letters seeking their agreement to an interview, most of which were current and former employees of the Council and a number of individuals who worked in the voluntary sector. Only those working at Service Manager level were named in the report. Forty-four people were interviewed and their comments had been carefully documented.
Some members and officers declined to be interviewed in person, but six agreed to respond to written questions.
A further twenty-seven people who were sought to be interviewed as part of this process either failed to respond at that time or declined the request. Of these eight held key senior roles over the relevant period and it did mean that the evidence reported in respect of the period was somewhat limited. These included:-
Roger Stone Martin Kimber
Shaun Wright Claire Pyper
Paul Lakin Annie Redman
Pam Allen Joyce Thacker
Mike Cuff Howard Woolfenden
Ged Fitzgerald Simon Perry
Tom Cray Christine Brodhurst-Brown
Thousands of documents were reviewed in line with the terms of reference with some records not always complete and any relevant documentation located.
The findings, on the balance of probabilities, confirmed no individual officer could or should be held solely or principally culpable for the Council’s systematic failings in responding to child sexual exploitation with a finding that the silo approach in some services contributed to the failure of management systems.
Most senior officers with safeguarding responsibilities knew of the issues with child sexual exploitation, but evidence suggested that the concerns being raised were sometimes dismissed or played down with a lack of trust between relevant directors. There was no evidential data to suggest this was a planned or deliberate conspiracy or cover up.
Performance management was poor and had not been resolved successfully with little target setting or priorities. There were cultural failings due to the sensitivity around race and ethnicity of the alleged perpetrators.
Based on the evidence as presented a number of recommendations were made to the Council given the limited powers available to the enquiry:-
· Senior officers who may be in receipt of pensions from the Local Government Pension Scheme. Whilst there were provisions within the scheme to review pensions in certain circumstances, the evidence found would not support any application of the provisions associated with either gross negligence or fraud. There were not any grounds for the Council to take steps in this respect as no culpable behaviour was found which could justify any form of legal action or regulatory involvement of any kind.
· No disciplinary and/or capability proceedings were warranted in respect of any senior manager currently in post at the Council, nor was a referral to the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) in respect of any current or former officer of the Council identified in the report.
· Time period covering the events during the relevant period. Whilst there were residual concerns regarding the response to what was already a well-established issue by Mr. Perry and Mr. Woolfenden during their respective tenure in office, the evidence reviewed was insufficient to reach a concluded view. Their current employers were encouraged to be satisfied that any relevant lessons had been learned.
· The current employers of Mr. Fitzgerald and Ms. Allen had already conducted investigations of their own. No details of the evidence considered or the conclusions reached had been shared. The initial investigation into Ms. Wilson was also undertaken by Gowlings.
The Council should refer this report and its findings to the current employers of Mr. Fitzgerald and Ms. Wilson and recommend that those employers consider whether they wish to raise any of these matters with their employee in light of the content of this report, the findings of any internal investigation already conducted and the nature of the role and responsibilities now undertaken by the employee in their current role, to satisfy themselves that the learning had been adequately captured.
In respect of Ms. Allen the Council should refer this report and its findings to her current employer for them to review in light of the internal investigation already undertaken.
· The Council was no longer the same institution it once was either in terms of performance or culture, where significant improvements appeared to have been made. It was recognised that substantial progress, especially in Children and Young People’s Services. Whilst the present day managers should look to see how the lessons learned were implemented and it remained vital that the Council should continue to look forward.
· On the evidence available it was concluded that the way in which the Council responded to child sexual exploitation in Rotherham was not the responsibility or fault of any one person. It was the product of multiple and systemic failures.
Reference was made to page 55 regarding persons listed for interview and whether this could be separated out to identify those who declined to be interviewed and those who failed to respond. An assurance was provided that this would be provided to the Council.