Minutes:
Commissioner Ney invited Elected Members to put questions to report authors.
(1) Councillor Alam asked what changes were recommended from a Human Resources perspective to ensure no one was ever let down.
Mark Greenburgh from Gowlings responded and confirmed there was a need for good performance management, effective communication between officers enquiring minds and determined purpose.
(2) Councillor Cowles highlighted several issues including why Chief Executives at the head of organisations were not accountable; secondly, if time could be set aside for Councillors to ask further questions on the report as he had been in meetings this morning and had little time to digest the contents and thirdly; why the backing up of laptops had not been picked up by Internal Audit or External Audit.
Mark Greenburgh from Gowlings responded by confirming nowhere in his report did it indicate they should not be accountable. He gave examples of the kinds of management tools that would be expected around the level of knowledge which were not apparent previously, especially when opportunities were brought to the attention of senior staff by third parties.
The greatest failure in leadership was attributable to the lack of action and the response to close down complaints rather than investigating and discussing further.
Commissioner Ney would leave it to the Leader and Chief Executive to consider any further opportunity to discuss the reports further with Members.
Colin Earl, Former Head of Internal Audit, confirmed the Council’s data was backed up daily. At the point the laptops were stolen a mirror copy was not taken so during the course of the day the data input was not copied.
At this point in time I.T. had been an outsourced arrangement.
Councillor Cowles further believed the person in charge of an organisation should be responsible and, therefore, culpable and compared the accountability of the former senior leadership of the Council to the comments of the judge who had investigated the Zebruggee ferry disaster in 1987.
With regards to the laptops, he felt there should have been many backups over a period of time so to suggest none was available was unbelievable.
Neither Mark Greenburgh or Colin Earl disputed Councillor Cowles’ comments but it was pointed out back up arrangements for laptops were such that they were only retained for a certain period of time or overwritten.
(3) Councillor Ellis, as Chair of Licensing in Rotherham for the previous two years, thanked Weightmans for the report on taxi licensing enforcement service, which had still been a difficult and disturbing read. She was grateful for the acknowledgement that in the past two years process had changed a great deal in an effort to protect and safeguard the public travelling in taxis.
A rigorous taxi licensing policy had now been adopted and had stood the test of numerous appeals in the courts. The policy included strict standards and a fit and proper test, convictions policy and mandatory safeguarding course and the controversial fitting of cameras.
In addition, the Council had recruited a new team of enforcement officers and brought together taxi enforcement and management and introduced proper work systems in all reports.
Nothing could now change what had happened in the past, but it was now incumbent on Members of the Council and those on the Licensing Board to be proactive and vigilant in enforcing the new policy. Members had demonstrated they were eager to ask questions until they were satisfied they could make a decision and ensure the highest standards were maintained.
As an update there had been cross border working and information shared at LGA events to highlight the problems in Rotherham. More recently a new parliamentary bill on the standards for taxis had been tabled and this had been welcomed to drive up standards for taxi licensing in Rotherham and across the country.
(4) Councillor Simpson pointed out there was still some way to go, but asked, with the changes to date, were the same people still licensed drivers as there were still occasions where there were no cameras installed and no I.D. present in a vehicle.
(5) Councillor B. Cutts asked why had it not been raised about the lack of contact between the driver and the Council office on specific improper journeys. This had been the practice for years with taxi drivers going out of town incurring large costs for which the journey could not be verified.
Commissioner Ney explained the contracting arrangements and the use of a taxi for personal use would be for the Chief Executive to look into further. This matter had not been part of the independent investigation.
(6) Councillor John Turner asked, as he had not had time to read the reports, could a further meeting be arranged for other matters to be aired. He also asked about the reasons for the redacted text.
He referred to some Chief Executives and Members declining to be interviewed and asked who was really in charge of an organisation; the Leader or the Chief Executive.
He made reference to Sonia Sharp who had been in charge of children’s services. He described how the former Council Leader, Roger Stone, had admitted to the activity and who had asked that a lid be kept on it due to the ongoing Police investigations.
Mark Greenburgh pointed out he had never asked to speak to the current Leader. He did, however, ask Roger Stone, Paul Lakin and Shaun Wright to co-operate, but all declined.
Mark Edgell did consent and provided assistance where he could. He emphasised he did not have the powers to compel anyone to participate and it was only investigative agencies of the crown which could compel people to participate. He could only deal with the evidence given.
With regards to Sonia Sharp, there was a section in the report outlining her involvement. There was no substantive criticism of her tenure and she had participated fully.
In terms of the comment about redactions; there were none in the Gowlings report, but normally redactions were made due to data protection laws.
Responsibility of leading the Council was equal to the Leader and the Chief Executive.
The Chief Executive explained the need for the redactions and confirmed some people who gave evidence were not under investigation. The witnesses that came forward were thanked for their time and effort to provide other information that could assist the investigations.
(7) Councillor Albiston expressed her disappointment and frustration, as did the victims and their families, that specific individuals could not be held to account for past failings. Jean Imray’s report had highlighted a number of past failings around child protection and had suggested that tools should have been in place from the 1990’s. Why had Directors for children’s services not been held to account to protect children when they had reached the stage of having assessments or strategy meetings.
Mark Greenburgh stated that he could understand the frustrations. If people were still employed by the authority, then the Council could take disciplinary action. However, not all those named were still employed and some were retired and not in active service. The Local Government Pension Scheme’s regulations only allowed for a former employing authority to look for a certificate of forfeiture by applying to the Secretary of State. The powers were only limited to circumstances with a conviction by court. Had an officer been negligent and failed in their responsibilities then they could have faced disciplinary action, but with no criminal culpability the action on pensions was too remote to warrant action.
For those employees now employed elsewhere, in their current job the current employers would need to have confidence in the individuals in their employment and their ability to perform in their current role and to ensure they did not bring their new employer in disrepute.
(8) Councillor B. Cutts asked if the report authors were aware that external legal professionals were complaining about the lack of co-operation being received by the Council in relation to the abuse of children.
Commissioner Ney asked the Chief Executive to discuss this matter further and identify what the issues were.
(9) Councillor Hoddinott referred to Cases A to O, the recommendations about Child E and the magnitude of failings which needed further investigation to learn from what happened.
Jean Imray, Independent Consultant, found that Child E was the most shocking case, which deserved a more forensic review not just the period covered by the Jay report but the whole of that young person’s life.
Having had access to more detailed records a recommendation was made to the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board to see if it met the criteria for a Serious Case Review. Unfortunately, this did not meet the criteria, despite being referred to an Independent Panel. However, some action had been taken against the perpetrators and was now being investigated.
The Chief Executive confirmed that a further review into this case had been undertaken independently from the Council and, as a result, new systems were now in place.
(9) Councillor Senior referred again to Child E and asked if this young person was getting the support and the counselling what she and her family needed.
Jean Imray confirmed Child E was now an adult and was no longer living in Rotherham. She was in receipt of services.
(10) Councillor B. Cutts directed his question to the Chair and asked to what extent she thought today was successful. He described the arrangements for the receipt and collection of the independent reports and the restrictions he encountered as aberrant. Given the number of pages each report contained he asked would it not be of more benefit to have the reports set out individually and discussed at length. He found it impossible to read the amount of pages in such a short time.
He also sought clarification as to the placement of the media cameras and why there would be no opposition members on film.
Commissioner Ney acknowledged the distress and frustration, but confirmed the opportunities had been given to Members to receive and read the reports prior to the meeting taking place. The meeting would then give Members and the public the opportunity to ask questions. The requests for further consideration of the reports had been heard and every effort would be made to avail this opportunity.