Minutes:
Commissioner Ney invited members of the public to put questions to report authors.
(1) A member of the public referred to his own legal experiences with the Magistrates Court in securing rebates and argued the case when the Police were being investigated and how much from the criminal activities of gangs fed into police federation coffers. He referred to criminal collusion and how perpetrators of child sexual exploitation were often involved in other activities, such as the taxi service being a cavalry running around for someone’s benefit.
He, therefore, asked why the Local Children’s Safeguarding Board had not openly discussed child sexual exploitation when it was within its remit.
He believed shop floor secrecy laws stopped people from reporting concerns and whistleblowing on areas of concern. He suggested this needed to be addressed and a full judicial review enquiry requested.
Mark Greenburgh from Gowlings confirmed Chairs of the Local Children’s Safeguarding Board were interviewed and their evidence was set out in report.
Raising concerns and whistle blowing featured in the investigation and he referred to the Public Interest Disclosure Act. There had been some amendments in recent times which removed the public interest about some of the conditions that would have to be met in order to gain the protection of the act. However, the ability for people to raise concerns effectively should be promoted and historically the failure to listen to alarm bells was one of the serious failings found for the Council.
(2) A member of the public expressed his surprise that in all the reports Councillors appeared to come out whiter than white with no mention of Councillors only officers.
Councillors should oversee what office staff were doing. He referred to when Paul Lakin was Leader and he asked him about the failures of the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services when people were calling for the then Police and Crime Commissioner to resign about what did the Senior Adviser know. He was advised the Senior Adviser to the Cabinet Member had the same information as the Cabinet Member, but no-one had asked for her to resign. Present in this room were people that attended the 2005 seminar when they were told about child sexual exploitation. There was no indication that Councillors were to be investigated, but the blame placed with senior officers. People sat in this room today who knew ought to hang their heads in shame.
Commissioner Ney advised the comments raised were noted.
(3) A member of the public asked why was there no mention about education. Local schools knew what happening to these victims, why not ask them the questions.
Mark Greenburgh confirmed the local management of schools was not in the scope for consideration and the investigations concentrated on Heads of Service or above.
In a supplementary question the member of the public referred to the Local Children’s Safeguarding Board which comprised of representatives from education and asked why this was not included as part of the report. The first people who would know if there were concerns would be Head Teachers and Teachers.
Commissioner Ney confirmed information from schools did appear in the Gowlings report and understood the point being made about what senior officers did with the information from the schools.
Jean Imray, Independent Consultant, confirmed in the cases reviewed there was evidence of schools being involved in meetings and discussions and passing on information. She had looked at what had been done with the information passed on which was clearly inadequate. Reference was made in the report to the Local Children’s Safeguarding Board and the Area Child Protection Committee that preceded it who had a responsibility to know their purpose to scrutinise and challenge how agencies were working together to protect children and to adhere to the statutory regulatory framework. This was not the case and identified as another failing.
In a further question the member of the public asked why victims, survivors and their families were not asked to give information to these reports.
Jean Imray, Independent Consultant, chose not to do so as she had some difficulties accessing information from the files, but had enough to make judgements on whether or not basic grade frontline social workers and managers were responsible for what happened.
On reviewing files, whilst practice was inadequate there was nothing that could be found that constituted disciplinary action. From the fifteen cases looked at over a fifteen year period little would have been gained from consulting victims and their families. What happened was appalling and poor quality practice that was evident within the case examples.
In a further question the member of the public asked if any minutes had been taken when he saw Rose McNeely as Mayor in a meeting with Mr. Wootton, Chair of Licensing, and at a later meeting with Warren Carratt.
Commissioner Ney pointed out this was not covered by the report and this would be addressed elsewhere.
The member of the public described the report as a whitewash.
(4) A member of the public welcomed the fact the Council called for this enquiry, but was unable to offer support as he had not yet read it.. As a consequence of all the reports the Council had been trashed, but also had the people of Rotherham and their reputation which was not helped by the media who portrayed the problem as the whole of Rotherham.
As a consequence the cost of intervention with the Commissioners had cost the taxpayers of Rotherham over £1 million to oversee the Council.
He hoped that survivors would have empathy for children in other towns who had suffered the same kind of exploitation. He, therefore, asked had any other towns who had suffered this called for independent enquiries in the way that the Council had and taken the flack that the people of Rotherham have taken.
Commissioner Ney was unable to answer this question, but would ensure this was checked out.
(5) A member of the public referred to the sensitive data on the stolen laptops and asked had the people the data belonged to been informed and what kind of sensitive data did this entail.
Colin Earl, Former Head of Internal Audit, confirmed there had been no consensus as to what was on the laptops. The Senior Officer involved and the Police took the decision not to inform those of whose data was stolen. This was referred to in the report and criticised, but it was not possible to comment on why this was decision was made.
Again the member of the public asked if children and adults had been informed that their sensitive information had been stolen and what it was on there that was stolen.
Colin Earl, Former Head of Internal Audit, confirmed children and adults were not informed laptops had been stolen containing sensitive data. It was not clear what data was being held for individuals as a record was not taken at the time.
In a further question the member of the public asked if individuals had been informed their cases were being looking into again and if not why not.
Jean Imray, Independent Consultant, explained the purpose of her report had been to look specifically at individual practices. For the record any individual could have access to their records.
The practice within the cases reviewed was criticised and the historical cases in to child sexual exploitation were ongoing at that time. Every care had to be given to prevent any compromise to any evidence that may have been forthcoming.
The member of the public in a further question referred to the Home Office Researcher’s grievance being withdrawn and asked could information be provided on why this was withdrawn and when.
Colin Earl, Former Head of Internal Audit, confirmed a full audit trail was not available. The incident alleging the removal on files was the 18th April, 2002. A grievance was submitted on the 28th June, 2002 and some time between 28th July and 30th August, 2002 the grievance was withdrawn. The Home Office researcher left the Council’s employment on 30th August, 2002 and the file records referred to some issues being resolved but with no specific details.
The member further asked as a taxpayer and in the public interest should those individuals who had failed to co-operate be looked at criminally and criminal investigations carried out.
Mark Greenburgh confirmed the investigations had looked at the potential allegations and misconduct of public office to see if reference should be made to the Police. He could understand the frustrations with the lack of co-operation from people who had important information and who had chosen not to come forward
Whilst he could see negligence and failure in conduct he believed there was insufficient proof or evidence. He was happy for the report to be forwarded on to the relevant agencies.
Further the member of the public called for a criminal investigation into these people as someone needs to be held to account.
(6) A member of the public sought clarification that the Councillors did not see these reports until this morning and yet Item 4 on this agenda was for questions from members of the Council. He found it unbelievable to ask them to put questions at this meeting.
(7) A member asked if anyone present was from the Crown Prosecution Service and asked the Leader for support into historical incidents involving one young girl who had been raped, badly injured and then was found dead from a drug overdose by the National Crime Agency. He asked if the Council could put pressure on the Crown Prosecution to take forward criminal investigations on her behalf.
Commissioner Ney confirmed these issues would be picked up separately.
In a further question the member of the public referred to the difficulties with residential children’s homes and described his involvement in the Street Team that supported children’s homes visiting taxi ranks, takeaways and the five parks. He claimed Councillors knew about what was going on and was shocked that no one seemed to notice.
(8) A member of the public paid tribute to the survivors of this horrendous crime not only to get prosecutions, but also in the presentation of these reports. He referred to his own family being safer for the action now taken to address the issues.
The report on taxis mentioned different aspects of taxi licensing being split into different functions that seemed to have worked well for the abusers and asked why.
In a further question he referred to the culture that was allowed to fester, asked why was nothing done and what action would be taken in the future to prevent this happening again.
A third question referred to data protection and the theft of twenty-one laptops from a Council Office with no sign of a break in. These laptops could not just vanish; someone must have taken them and he asked how could the culprits be identified.
John Riddell, Weightmans, explained the reasons for the separation in the taxi service at the time. The Licensing Act required the enforcement service to be separated from taxi management to ensure independence in their proceedings and recommendations. The other reason was felt the number of enforcement officers in the Licensing Team were too few with insufficient resilience who then joined with general enforcement. This had not worked out the way people expected, but this was referred to at length as part of the report.
Mark Greenburgh responded by explaining the difficulties with establishing and challenging culture and what were acceptable standards. There were special responsibilities on those that lead in the organisational and political senses. The evidence reviewed some horrific incidents of senior female managers being treated in a very sexist way by former members of the Council in the presence of their male professional colleagues and how this was not dealt with even when sought to challenge. The experience of the Council today was very much a different place that it was then.
The Chief Executive also responded and confirmed she was the first female Chief Executive that had been appointed by the Council. As part of the improvement journey the Senior Leadership Team was now made up of people from different genders and ethnic backgrounds. Values and behaviours was an area that had been prioritised and subject to regular review through Commissioners, Government intervention and Members in order to change behaviour and cultures, celebrate the good and addressing bad practice quickly.
Colin Earl, Former Head of Internal Audit, explained the stolen laptops were password protected which provided a degree of comfort for the data held on them, but this was not as good as data encryption, which was not the case at the time. The Council was currently installing data encryption at the time the laptops were stolen.
The member of the public commented that if someone could get into a Council office and get out with twenty-one laptops then they would not have a problem with the requirement for a password.
Colin Earl, Former Head of Internal Audit, explained he was not defending the Council, but did mention in the report that so far none of the data has come to light. In terms of the Police the incident was reported as soon as the theft came to light, but it was difficult to establish any evidence as there was no forced break-in nor anything to identify the culprit so had to drop the case at that point
The member of the public queried any evidence of CCTV.
Colin Earl, Former Head of Internal Audit, did not believe there was any CCTV footage available.
The member of the public sought assurances that the culture evident previously would not be able to develop again.
The Chief Executive confirmed that with intervention and with Commissioner oversight over the last few years there had been significant changes. The improvements were subject to regular review. There was oversight by independent regulators and the Commissioners as well as public meetings that the Council held on a regular basis.
The Leader commented that in terms of the question about culture a significant amount of work had gone into values and behaviours and Members had reviewed their own processes around the Standards and Ethics Committee.
It was an issue that all in senior positions must take responsibility for. Culture was simply a culmination of behaviours in how one conducts them self and how to act. Staff who have worked for the Council a long time have indicated that the Council was now a different place and were more confident in their work.
The Leader gave his commitment that he was leading the change and would continue to lead during the time he was here.
(9) A member of the public referred to the publication of Voices of Despair, Voices of Hope he co-authored, which was the voices of the victims and survivors and family members of child sexual exploitation. With regards to culture a Rotherham Truth Campaign was to be launched asking officials of RMBC to establish a new culture that operated to a new standard of behaviour based on the seven principles of public life.
The member of the public described how he had met with Chief Executive on the 26th July and presented her with evidence of dishonesty of officials appointed since the Jay Report. He, therefore, asked what actions were the Commissioners prepared to take about evidence of dishonesty of officials appointed since the Jay Report.
Commissioner Ney confirmed it was the Commissioners’ responsibility in what appeared to be a H.R. function and, therefore, she would ask the Chief Executive to advise on the results of her enquiries into the complaint and then she would decide what action the Commissioners could take.
(10) A member of the public expressed her disappointment and shock at the scale of senior management incompetence and the lack of support for frontline staff. She asked what was going to be done in practical terms to ensure people did adhere to the professional standards and practices so they could work at their best possible level and get support from line managers.
She described the responsibility of the Chief Executive and the senior officers to run the organisation to ensure it did not fail in the future. Reports should go to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government as they should have some powers to take forward criminal prosecutions.
Having re-read the Jay Report the sixty-three councillors for Rotherham had responsibilities to question and challenge the executive and senior officers. If more of this had been done initially, the victims would have been spared the suffering that had taken place, the perpetrators imprisoned and Rotherham’s reputation remained intact. As a citizen of Rotherham she too felt responsible for what had happened.
The Chief Executive shared the member of the public’s concerns around policies and procedures, how they were implemented, how support was provided, how those responsible could be held to account and how this had been the key focus since the intervention.
It was also about understanding the issue about communities and getting to the heart of some of the issues, understanding and providing information to people so people could hold the organisation to account. This would be continued as part of the improvement journey.
The member of the public asked if all the comments would be addressed at an operational level.
Commissioner Ney confirmed there were a number of improvement plans in place which were reported into Cabinet and Council and Commissioners were still here to have oversight of progress.
(11) A member of the public, himself a father, commented on the exploiters and groomers of the child abuse scandal and asked, for the families and victims, what action would be taken for the exploitation by professionals and the system, which was happening over and over.
Commissioner Ney had been passed two questions from victims and survivors observing the proceedings in another room.
(12) As a survivor why have we not been given the proper truth. Don’t we deserve it. Accept responsibility.
Commissioner Ney advised this was more of a statement and very much a flavour for the meeting.
(13) I am Child A I want to know why any help I was getting has now stopped. I am now a professional adult I cannot access services that Rotherham Council keep offering me. I feel used and abused again.
Commissioner Ney advised this should be followed up individually with that person and asked the Chief Executive to ensure this should happen.
Councillor B. Cutts wished to pass comment on the questions and asked why there was no appreciation or clapping from the Labour Members present in the Chamber today.
(14) A member of the public referred to the Youth Services and how this was said to be the best interface for young people coming. He stressed the importance of Youth Clubs as an environment for children to grow up in. The use of computers was making young people isolated with little skill of interaction. He asked what the Panel’s view was of the current state and future of active youth service for Rotherham.
Commissioner Ney advised the report authors were not in a position to comment on this. Both the Gowlings and Jean Imray’s reports referred to the Youth Service and the important role they had in working with young people.
(15) A member of the public commented on the earlier question that had been submitted from downstairs and how the support would be looked into. She had heard this for the past year and asked where should she go. She was a professional adult and could not go accessing Evolve; things that other young people accessed as she herself worked with young people. She claimed to have made numerous complaints to Ian Thomas and had had the same replies from Jo smith that there were services she could access. The victim indicated she was unable to attend those places.
Commissioner Ney confirmed someone would discuss this further outside the meeting as to what could be done.
The member of the public questioned if this would really happen. She had made numerous complaints about this matter and had had to go public to make this happen. As a victim she should not have to come forward in public to get something done.
She claimed this was why this town had not changed. She had put her trust in RMBC, convicted six paedophiles and was still stood here struggling.
Councillor Reeder asked could everyone have an answer to this why this girl was still struggling.
Commissioner Ney pointed out the appropriateness of dealing with the victim separately and would ask the Chief Executive to let Members now what the outcome was.
Councillor Reeder pointed out she had raised her own problems with the Chief Executive and nothing had happened. She claimed it was still the same culture as before - totally ignored.
(16) A member of the public acknowledged the Council was trying and had made changes, but the point of this was to have answers not about why the perpetrators acted, but to why children’s calls were blatantly ignored. Children were reporting and no action was taken and this was not just individual social workers, but multiple.
Answers had not been given, but answers were deserved. Until these had been received people could not move on. People had fought for years, put their lives on hold and families destroyed. Too much money had been spent, but nothing had been provided.
Answers were still needed and requests would not stop. Why had people continually spoke out and been ignored. It had taken a Professor to finally listen.
(17) A member of the public asked why a criminal lawyer had not been involved with these reports Former officers had not done their jobs properly and children had been raped. These people had been allowed to walk away and leave the families and children. This was a whitewash to all the families.
Mark Greenburgh was unable to offer anything further to report. Alison Lowton worked for on the framework report and she was a child care specialist. As part of the investigation consideration was given as to what might constitute a criminal offence. In his investigation there were examples where people who were aware of incidents had deliberately chosen to do nothing.
(18) A member of the public pointed out that the reports indicated no one was culpable, no one prosecuted so what were the authors looking at. Well someone was to blame whether this was councillors or officers.
Mark Greenburgh explained the question about criminal culpability. If it was found officers deliberately concealed information or had turned a blind eye then this would become a criminal matter and investigated. Unfortunately, there was no evidence of this. He understood the frustrations and the regret for how they had been let down.
The member of the public pointed out people were not carrying out their duties properly. There was a way to take action, but no one would look for it.
(19) A member of the public pointed out the people of Rotherham had paid the authors for these reports, the salaries of the Commissioners and rather than the public having to come and find out the information why did the Council not give the information to the public. This meeting had been arranged in the middle of the day in a working week and he asked would it not be more of a benefit to move meetings such as this into evenings for people to get this information.
The Leader explained consideration had been given to evening meetings, but he was not convinced this would resolve people attending. All meetings such as this were webcast and reports published to give as much information as possible. Clearly discussions about this would continue into the future. Every effort had been made to make this information available as widely as possible.
The member of the public acknowledged the use of webcasting technology, but would not have been able to ask questions had he not been in attendance. Could this be looked at again.
The Leader confirmed it would.