CHAPTER 32 The response of higher management to investigations, - TopicsExpress



          

CHAPTER 32 The response of higher management to investigations, including the Jillings inquiry Introduction 32.01 It is of some relevance to the relationship between Clwyd county councillors and the Social Services Department that from 1974 until 1989 no political party had overall control and that until 1987 committee and sub-committee chairmanships were shared between groups, in which the group of independents was prominent. Emlyn Evans, the first Director of Social Services, found that the members were supportive but, apart from a small number of prominent figures, they had neither the inclination nor the ability or experience to give a firm lead; and this last comment applied to successive chairmen of the Social Services Committee. Members saw the Director of Social Services rather than themselves as the employer and the staff as his employees. 32.02 This relationship changed from 1989 when the Labour group became a majority of the elected members. From 1987 Labour members had conducted themselves as the opposition to a coalition of the other groups and, when they became the majority, conduct of the Councils affairs changed quite quickly. In particular, two relevant leading figures emerged. The first, Councillor Dennis Parry, a former Mayor of Holywell and of Delyn Borough, who had been a county councillor from 1981, became chairman of the Labour group in 1990 and its leader in 1991, whereupon he became Leader of the Council, with his own office at Shire Hall. The second leading figure was Councillor Malcolm King, who had been employed by the Council as Centre Manager/Area Organiser of an Intermediate Treatment Centre at Wrexham from 1977 to 1982 and had then become manager of a community project for children and families in Wrexham. Councillor King was elected to the County Council in May 1989 and became Chairman of its Social Services Committee from January 1990, after serving as Vice-Chairman for six months. The result was that these two men played leading roles with John Jevons in all major decision making in relation to the Countys social services from 1990 onwards until the County Council ceased to exist on 1 April 1996. 32.03 By an unhappy coincidence for them the Norris scandal surfaced in June 1990 and major decisions had to be made in the aftermath of the police investigations into Norris activities at Cartrefle. Up to that point only the prosecution of Thomas and Gillison in 1986 and 1987[435] had raised any public concern about possible abuse in Clwyd community homes (as distinct from private homes): we are not aware of any general public reaction in 1977 to the prosecution of Leslie Wilson[436], perhaps because it concerned his obsessive relationship with one boy only. From June 1990, however, there was persistent public discussion of alleged abuse in the community homes. It is convenient, therefore, for a number of reasons to consider separately in this chapter (a) the response to internal investigations before 1990 and (b) action taken by the Council after 1990 in the light of successive further disclosures. The response to internal investigations before 1990 32.04 In this period there were five internal investigations into the affairs of community homes but three of these were into Park House. The latter took place in 1975, 1978 and 1988 and the other two were into Little Acton in 1978 and Chevet Hey in 1986. A sixth inquiry, at the behest of Mr Justice Mars-Jones in 1987, was into the circumstances in which Gillison and Thomas had become employed by the Social Services Department. All these investigations have been outlined earlier in this report but it is necessary to emphasise here the ineffective response of higher management to all of them and the failure to report them promptly and adequately to members of the Council. 32.05 All three reports about Park House were highly critical. The first investigation was triggered by the actions of a local resident, who drafted a letter for a girl resident to send to the News of the World, in which she complained about her treatment[437]. It was carried out by Gledwyn Jones and Geoffrey Wyatt, who dismissed the girls complaints but disclosed a number of matters of concern, including the unfamiliarity of staff with the Community Homes Regulations, the need for advice on control and discipline from the Residential and Day Care Officer, the need for a less rigid regime and the failure of the Officer-in-Charge to provide access to case records to residential care staff. This report does not appear to have led directly to any general administrative action. Veronica Pares (RDCO) did produce an undated discussion document entitled A Guide to Good Practice in Community Homes for distribution to residential and field staff, although it stated that the views expressed are personal and must not be quoted as Clwyd policy. 32.06 The investigation in 1980 was into complaints made by NALGO and staff at the home about various working practices and also about the food and clothing supplied for residents. It was conducted by Pares co-inspector, Ivor Hughes, who reported that he had found turmoil and unrest and that the demands and inclinations of the staff were being met first rather than the needs of the residents (the cook, for example, worked only from 9 am to 1 pm so that she served the staff rather than the children and she was unwilling to change). The relationship between the Officer-in-Charge and her Deputy was so strained that the Inspector regarded it as beyond recall. Two out of four rota visit reports by councillors had been adverse and there were deficiencies in the background information about residents supplied by their social workers[438]. Probable consequences of the report were that both the Officer-in-Charge and her Deputy left Park House by the end of March 1981. The remarkable fact is, however, that the new Officer-in-Charge was not shown a copy of the report nor told of its contents. As far as we are aware, the report did not go beyond senior and middle management and it was not thought necessary or appropriate to put it before councillors.
Posted on: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 08:21:30 +0000

Trending Topics



Recently Viewed Topics




© 2015