3 The Casey Report
Introduction
61. We took evidence on 23 February from Louise Casey
on her Report into Rotherham Council, which was published on 4
February. Contrasting Louise
Casey's approach with that of Ofsted we concluded that her Report
not only got under the skin of the authority but had a directness
which could not be misconstrued. For example, her handling of
the question of race, a sensitive and complex issue, was both
penetrating and instructive.
Rotherham's state of denial
62. The starting point has to be that, even in the
face of the evidence in the Jay Report, Rotherham Council was
in a state of denial about child sexual exploitation. The Casey
Report found that Rotherham:
denied that there had been a problem, or if there
had been, that it was as big as was said. If there was a problem
they certainly were not told¯it was someone else's job. They
were no worse than anyone else. They had won awards. The media
were out to get them. [...]
When Inspectors commenced work in Rotherham we
were struck by the overwhelming denial of what Professor Jay set
out in her report. This attitude was so prevalent that we had
to go back through many of the aspects of her work in order to
satisfy ourselves that the Council had no grounds upon which further
action could be delayed. [...]
When faced with the solid findings contained
in the report it had itself commissioned by Professor Jay, [Rotherham]
did not accept them. And without accepting what happened and its
role in it, it will be unable to move on and change. [113]
63. On the day that the Casey report was published
Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP, Secretary of State for Communities and
Local Government, announced that he was considering exercising
his powers of intervention to appoint commissioners to run the
executive functions of Rotherham Council.[114]
Subsequently, on 26 February he appointed five commissioners.[115]
64. In our view,
faced with the denial of the evidence in the Jay Report and the
findings in the Casey Report we cannot see that there was any
reasonable prospect of Rotherham itself putting its own house
in order. We conclude that the Secretary of State was justified
in appointing commissioners to take over the executive functions
of Rotherham Council.
The Improvement Board
65. The appointment of commissioners leaves in limbo
the Improvement Board jointly established, following the publication
of the Jay Report in September 2014, by Rotherham Council and
the Local Government Association (LGA). The LGA explained that
the Improvement Board was part of the "sector-led response
to Rotherham's improvement and recovery process". It had
been assembled rapidly and included a number of leading figures
that had worked with both the Department for Communities and Local
Government and the LGA on a range of Government interventions
and improvement structures in other councils. The Board was "intended
to offer immediate support and was commissioned on the understanding
that the Secretary of State may in the future be minded to appoint
commissioners".[116]
66. The Board was advisory with executive authority
in the hands of the council in Rotherham. When she gave evidence
to us Louise Casey said the administration led by Cllr Lakin had
made mistakes and that Rotherham was "a local authority at
points that is simply inept, including during the era that Paul
Lakin was responsible for as the leader".[117]
She reiterated that Rotherham had "a culture where there
was bullying and sexist behaviour that intimidated people and
got in the way" and this had to be put "alongside the
race issue".[118]
She added that having a "group of people coming in once every
few weeks and having a meeting and looking at things" was
"not a match for the types of problems that are in Rotherham
[but] an improvement board might be something that is helpful
now, when there is a set of commissioners in place".[119]
67. We conclude
that, faced with an ineffective council administration and an
ingrained culture of denial and bullying and sexist and intimidating
behaviour, the Improvement Board operating in an advisory role
would have had an uphill, if not impossible, struggle to facilitate
any significant and timely improvement at Rotherham.
RETURN TO DEMOCRATIC CONTROL
68. When we asked Louise Casey about the timetable
for the return to local democratic control, she considered that
it had to be "done properly but speedily".[120]
She was also sure that there were "some councillors in Rotherham—in
the party that is in power currently—who can do a very good
job."[121] The
Secretary of State said that his intention was that Rotherham
would move back to democratic control and that he wanted a "review
every three months and, at each month, I want to know what services
can be handed back, what services are ready for handing back,
which services have started to hand back".[122]
He explained:
It will be the commissioners' job to start that
process of rolling back. I expect to see the major functions,
particularly childcare, start the process in 2016, but I would
anticipate some of the other functions [...] coming back much
quicker, because I would be a lot happier to see full democratic
control of services there. It will be part of the commissioners'
duty to offer confidence to the staff—it is about rebuilding
morale, rebuilding a spirit within Rotherham—and also I
am particularly keen that officials, alongside the Local Government
Association, look in terms of building some sustainability within
members of the council.[123]
69. We consider
that the Government's intervention in Rotherham must have a definite
end point and strategy for returning the authority to democratic
control. We welcome the Secretary of State's assurance that the
services which can be passed back to local council control will
be reviewed regularly.
RETURN TO DEMOCRATIC CONTROL: THE
ROLE OF THE IMPROVEMENT BOARD
70. The LGA pointed out that the Secretary of State's
letter of February 4 to Rotherham stated that he proposed to "direct
the authority to maintain such improvement panel as the commissioners
may agree [and] the role of the panel, with a membership accordingly".
The LGA said that the final decision on the nature, scope and
membership of any Improvement Panel or Board was therefore a matter
for the commissioners but that the "LGA and the Council would
hope to ensure as much continuity as possible in the work that
the Rotherham Improvement Board has already informed and supported".
It added:
More importantly, whether or not there is an
Improvement Board, the LGA will be on hand offering support for
Rotherham. We can provide unique support in the area of member
development and, through our pool of experienced member peers,
support to help the council rebuild the political leadership that
is needed. The forthcoming elections are likely to lead to a significant
turnover of councillors and, with the additional factor that councillors
will no longer have any executive powers, it is likely to mean
that the challenges around political engagement and leadership
are going to require a great deal of support.[124]
71. We consider
that the Improvement Board, which has been in place and operating
since September 2014, has built up knowledge and expertise which
should be of benefit in ensuring a smooth and effective return
to local democratic control in Rotherham. We
recommend that the commissioners now in place in Rotherham consider
using the Improvement Board to facilitate this process.
72. Ms Casey has made the offer to re-inspect Rotherham.[125]
We recommend to the Government
that as part of the process of returning Rotherham to full democratic
control Louise Casey undertake a further inspection to establish
that children's services at Rotherham are operating satisfactorily.
The conduct of former council
officers
73. In our report on Rotherham in November 2014 we
had concerns that there should be equitable arrangements in place
to ensure the accountability of those senior staff with responsibility
for the effective operation of a local authority, where, after
their departure from the authority, serious concerns have arisen
about their conduct.[126]
We noted with unease that the Casey Report "concluded that
whilst the Council has followed its own procedures, these have
not always ensured that it has taken, and continues to take, appropriate
action" and that "that no-one has been held to account
for the serious failures Professor Jay identified".[127]
We asked Louise Casey to expand on the findings and she said:
We did look at their HR processes and [...] we
found them failing or not fit for purpose [...] Where we did find
evidence of senior culpability, we did name those senior councillors
and we identified those staff in the report whether they work
there now or not, and they are identifiable in the report. The
[...] Local Government Association are very supportive, as I am,
of the review of social workers in the area, which, in fairness,
commenced before we arrived. The local authority did that. Secondly,
the employers of all staff that used to work in Rotherham who
are now working in other local authorities or public services
around the country need to take a look at those individuals and
satisfy themselves that they should be doing what they are doing,
and I know a number of local authorities are doing that. In a
way, our job was to establish whether this place was fit for purpose
in terms of HR. The answer to that question is "no".
It becomes a matter for others, in some ways, to hold individuals
they are still employing to account.[128]
74. We welcome the action taken
by Rotherham Council to start examination of the conduct of present
and past employees, both those within a profession subject to
a regulating body, such as the Health and Care Professions Council,
and those who are not. The process now needs to be completed by
the commissioners and, if necessary, by those local authorities
for whom past senior employees from Rotherham now work.
75. As we have noted in chapter 1, the Government
also announced proposals to extend the crime of "wilful neglect"
to cover children's social care and education. We have not seen
the detailed proposals. If
Parliament does extend "wilful neglect" to cover children's
social care we conclude that if any officer or councillor is found
guilty of such an offence that should be automatic grounds for
dismissal or disqualification.
Scrutiny within local government
76. In our earlier report we had concerns about the
ineffectiveness of scrutiny at Rotherham. What we heard from Louise
Casey heightened our worries:
the calibre and capability of councillors was
very mixed and that when you have people in cabinet positions
or key roles like chairs of scrutiny, they have to be very good
at what they are doing and very skilled, particularly in an environment
where you are standing up against a big majority that may not
want to listen to you.[129]
The Casey Report provided more details on the weaknesses
at Rotherham:
Rotherham's reaction to this scrutiny is defensive.
[It] is unable to look at itself critically and can put the reputation
of Rotherham above actual services.[130]
Inspectors saw regular reports to the Cabinet
and Scrutiny committees, but not the effective challenge we would
expect from elected Members. The notion of challenge has been
misunderstood and misinterpreted as bullish questioning.
[131]
The fact that Members' services are provided
informally and are in the gift of each director leaves the Member
position weak and further discourages effective day to day challenge.
Clearly, if scrutiny is unwelcome and only funded at the behest
of those being scrutinised, it is unlikely to be effective.[132]
Senior officers described a difficult relationship
with overview and scrutiny, a lack of detailed information to
back benchers, and an in-built self-regulation of the process.
Senior Members admitted that Cabinet has been unprepared to release
information to scrutiny. At one point there was an instruction¯lasting
five months¯that no information could be given to scrutiny
without the agreement of the Lead Member.[133]
Inspectors concluded that overview and scrutiny
had been deliberately weakened and under-valued.[134]
77. The Jay
and Casey Reports reveal a deeply concerning failure to scrutinise
children's services in Rotherham.
We recommend that local democratic control cannot be restored
in Rotherham without an effective system of scrutiny in place.
78. We conclude
that the Jay and Casey Reports and the PwC report on Tower Hamlets,[135]
have raised for us
disturbing questions about the effectiveness, capacity and function
of local government scrutiny, which our successor committee in
the next parliament may wish to examine.
Whistle-blowers
79. In our earlier report we recommended that the
effectiveness of Rotherham Council's policy on whistle-blowers
needed to be tested.[136]
Louise Casey did and the results were deplorable:
As I put in the report about whistle-blowers
more generally, when they came forward to talk to us, many of
them said, "I would never do that again. It was the worst
experience of my life". People got very upset; they felt
that they were punished very harshly for being whistle-blowers.[137]
80. We conclude
that the experience of whistle-blowers at Rotherham was the antithesis
of what a good whistle-blowers policy should be.
South Yorkshire Police
81. During this inquiry the responsibility and role
of the police has hung like shadow over our work on child sexual
exploitation in Rotherham. We asked Louise Casey about the position
of the police. She said that South Yorkshire Police needed to
look at the failure to the victims in Rotherham. She added that:
The interesting thing about Rotherham Metropolitan
Borough Council is they had no choice but to be inspected. They
have to pay for their own inspection. Every member of staff that
we asked to see had to see us or else we would infer something
negative from that. We could look at any document that we wanted
to look at. We left no stone unturned. [...] In my view, that
same scrutiny has not happened to South Yorkshire Police.[138]
[...] The police have to step up and accept the same level of
responsibility to those victims and those perpetrators as the
local authority.[139]
Ms Casey was clear that such a review should take
place.[140] She was
also clear that the perpetrators had to be apprehended and taken
to court.[141] We understand
that South Yorkshire has been, and is, subject to a number of
reviews,[142] but we
see the case for a best value inspection along the lines of that
conducted by Ms Casey.
82. In our view
South Yorkshire Police would benefit from an inspection into its
handling of child sexual exploitation in Rotherham along the lines
of that conducted by Louise Casey. It would ensure that the Police
are fully held to account.
113 Casey Report, pp 5 and 19 Back
114
HC Deb, 4 February 2015, cols 293-95 Back
115
HC Deb, 26 February 2015, cols 17-19WS Back
116
Local Government Association (JRR 002) para 1 Back
117
Q437 Back
118
As above Back
119
Q450 Back
120
Q438 Back
121
Q454 Back
122
Communities and Local Government Committee, Oral Evidence, 24 February 2015,
HC 878, Q167 Back
123
Communities and Local Government Committee, Oral Evidence, 24 February 2015,
HC 878, Q166 Back
124
Local Government Association (JRR 002) para 2 Back
125
Qq438-439 Back
126
Communities and Local Government Committee, Third Report of Session
2014-15, Child sexual exploitation in Rotherham: some issues for local government,
HC 648, para 28 Back
127
Casey Report, pp 130-31 Back
128
Q455 Back
129
Q470 Back
130
Casey Report, p 24 Back
131
Casey Report, p 65 Back
132
Casey Report, p 77 Back
133
Casey Report, p 76 Back
134
Casey Report, p 76 Back
135
PwC, Best Value Inspection of London Borough of Tower Hamlets Report,
16 October 2014 Back
136
Communities and Local Government Committee, Third Report of Session
2014-15, Child sexual exploitation in Rotherham: some issues for local government,
HC 648, para 24 Back
137
Q472; see also Casey Report, p 134 and ff. Back
138
Q458 Back
139
Q459 Back
140
Q460 Back
141
Q485 Back
142
Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), Inspectorate of Police South Yorkshire Police's Response to Child Sexual Exploitation, Findings of an inspection commissioned by the Police and Crime Commissioner,
2013; HMIC, National Child Protection Inspections- South Yorkshire Police 12 - 22 May 2014,
September 2014; Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC),
"IPCC announces investigation into South Yorkshire Police handling of Rotherham CSE matters",
18 November 2014; National Crime Agency (NCA), "NCA begins two-stage investigation into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham"
18 December 2014; NCA, "NCA to investigate matters arising from Rotherham Council inspection",
4 February 2015 Back
|
