Conclusions and recommendations
Roger Stone, former Leader of Rotherham Metropolitan
Borough Council
1. Having carefully
listened to, and read, Mr Stone's evidence we are clear that in
the light of the findings of Professor Jay and Louise Casey, which
we fully accept, the authority which he led failed to protect
the children of Rotherham from organised sexual exploitation.
In these circumstances as Leader—and given that he was aware
of the child sexual exploitation from 2004/05 and given the culture
in the Council which prevented the follow through and tackling
of child sexual exploitation on the scale it was occurring in
Rotherham—Mr Stone's position was wholly untenable. Therefore
he had no alternative other than to resign and to apologise. (Paragraph
4)
Why did Ofsted not detect and expose Rotherham's
failure to address child sexual exploitation?
2. The first weakness
in Ofsted's approach was that it relied on the appearance of,
and paperwork describing, Rotherham's systems rather than the
actuality. It did not effectively check the policies with practical
examples that could demonstrate evidence that the policies were
working. (Paragraph 13)
3. The second weakness
in Ofsted's approach was that it relied on what the officers at
Rotherham told it. These officers do not appear to have passed
on the concerns Risky Business raised about child sexual exploitation
and Ofsted does not appear to have probed beyond what it was told
and it failed to penetrate the professional jealousy and incompetence
that distorted the operation of Children's Social Care in Rotherham.
(Paragraph 16)
4. The third reason
is that the 'frameworks' used by Ofsted in inspections from 2007
to 2012 relied on an approach narrowly focussed on structured
processes that did not include enquiry for, or into, organised
child sexual exploitation. (Paragraph 18)
5. Mr Hart's evidence
leaves us with a picture of Ofsted as an organisation in 2007
and 2008, and probably later, that was culturally and operationally
functioning in impenetrable silos. This regrettable situation
is the fourth reason why the noticing or exposing of organised
child sexual exploitation in Rotherham was hampered. (Paragraph
22)
6. The fifth reason
why Ofsted failed to notice child sexual exploitation in Rotherham
is that its inspections were too short and narrowly focused. (Paragraph
24)
Changes from 2012
7. The recent changes
which Ofsted has made to the inspection regime appear to be an
improvement, though the Local Government Association has voiced
concern that the role of councillors in challenging within the
system has been ignored. We recognise Ofsted's assurance, albeit
with a caveat, that the new arrangements, which are both broader
and deeper than those before 2012, should not let child sexual
exploitation such as that in Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxfordshire
and other places slip by undetected. We have, however, a lingering
concern that Ofsted is still a reactive organisation that will
only detect known problems, and that it will not be the body that
identifies the next, as yet undetected, class of serious failure.
(Paragraph 29)
The interpretation of Ofsted's assessments
8. We conclude that
Ofsted's rating of 'adequate' was ambiguous and open to misinterpretation.
To Ofsted, it meant that improvement was required and we welcome
Ofsted's redefinition and clarification of the meaning of an authority
assessed as falling into this category. To a person unfamiliar
with Ofsted's methods of operations—and this could include
councillors carrying out the vital work of scrutinising their
officers and services—the term could be represented or interpreted
as meaning satisfactory. Rotherham appears to have gone a step
further and interpreted it as indicating a 'strong' performance.
(Paragraph 34)
Adequacy of Ofsted's inspections
9. In our view Ofsted's
inspections of Rotherham were too episodic and disconnected to
produce a clear picture of steady decline in Children's Social
Care that would be noticed let alone acted upon by the Council.
Nor did they link to the internal processes of scrutiny which,
we consider, need to be strengthened. (Paragraph 39)
10. We accept that
it is neither Ofsted's job to run local authorities' children's
services nor a good use of tight resources for it to follow up
in detail what each authority has done to address every finding
in an inspection. Rotherham shows, however, that it cannot stand
back when the welfare and safety of children are at risk. In our
view Ofsted needs to assess an authority's ability to operate
the inspection process as it should function: that is to test
the findings and see through improvements. A pattern of systemic
failure and deterioration in children's services started to emerge
in Rotherham from 2000 and it carried on. Where an authority is
incapable of making improvements, Ofsted needs to take measures
to assist it and, if necessary, ensure the improvements are systematically
and comprehensively carried out. If this is not happening, then
there needs to be a clear escalation policy. It cannot be left
to chance. (Paragraph 43)
11. While we encourage
Ofsted to assist those local authorities where serious deficiencies
have occurred to improve. Ofsted has within its organisational
structure and arrangements to keep the process of improvement
separate from that of inspection, to ensure public confidence
in the independence and integrity of the inspection process. (Paragraph
45)
Linking with other inspectorates
12. Debbie Jones and
John Goldup are clearly right that it is necessary to look at
issues such as child sexual exploitation in a 'joined-up way'
across inspection regimes, and to be effective the process needs
to be able to dig deep into an authority. What concerns us is
the length of time taken to achieve the join and the need to ensure
that the process that emerges can focus on an issue and examine
it in depth. Work started in 2012 but a pilot looking at two authorities
was only due to report in February 2015. We must put on record
our concern at the slow progress. (Paragraph 49)
Child sexual exploitation in other local authorities
13. We note that Ofsted's
annual report on social care 2013-14 acknowledged that changes
were needed in the way it carried out its responsibilities in
respect of child sexual exploitation and that changes are underway,
including the creation of a specialist team with expertise in
child sexual exploitation and coordination with other inspectorates.
We hope these changes will result in substantial improvements
in Ofsted's inspections of children's services. We have serious
concerns that the shortcomings in Ofsted's inspection arrangements
until 2013 may mean that organised child sexual exploitation in
other local authorities in England was missed. We are clear that
Ofsted missed child sexual exploitation in Rotherham and on the
basis of the way it was operating from 2007 to 2012 we are also
clear that it will have missed child sexual exploitation in many
other local authorities. It should therefore inspect all local
authorities in England. (Paragraph 53)
2014 Inspection of Rotherham
14. We accept that
Ofsted's 2014 inspection of Rotherham was necessary and prudent
in the light of the findings in the Jay Report. However, Professor
Jay had done the job for Ofsted. It was as if having been told
the answer to the question Ofsted was bound to come up with the
correct answer when it took the examination. Eventually coming
up with the correct answer does not wipe out Ofsted's past record.
(Paragraph 57)
Accountability
15. This is not the
report in which to make recommendations about the accountability
of Ofsted. That would require a much bigger inquiry. But as a
committee new to scrutinising non-ministerial departments we make
two points. First, without calling former officials it would have
been difficult getting as far as we did in this inquiry. Second,
we must put on record a concern that the balance between independence
and accountability in the face of the failure to detect organised
child sexual exploitation at Rotherham and dysfunction of the
local authority may need adjustment. The past officers were more
open and prepared to admit past mistakes than the officer currently
in post. On the basis of the evidence we took concerning Rotherham
we are uneasy that Ofsted should be left to mark its own examinations
and decide internally what lessons to draw and changes to make.
(Paragraph 60)
The approach of the Casey Report
16. 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. (Paragraph 61)
Rotherham's state of denial
17. 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. (Paragraph 64)
18. 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. (Paragraph 67)
The Improvement Board and the return to democratic
control
19. 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. (Paragraph 69)
20. 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. (Paragraph 71)
21. 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. (Paragraph 72)
The conduct of former council officers
22. 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. (Paragraph
74)
Consequences where "wilful neglect" established
23. 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. (Paragraph 75)
Scrutiny within local government
24. 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.
(Paragraph 77)
25. We conclude that
the Jay and Casey Reports and the PwC report on Tower Hamlets,
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.
(Paragraph 78)
26. We conclude that
the experience of whistle-blowers at Rotherham was the antithesis
of what a good whistle-blowers policy should be. (Paragraph 80)
South Yorkshire Police
27. 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.
(Paragraph 82)
| 
