Interview with Lord Laming

    Lord Laming  
    Lord Laming

    Interview with Lord Laming carried out by Lauren Revans,
    news editor with Community Care.

     

    What was your first reaction when you were told you were
    to chair the inquiry?

    First of all, I wasn’t told. I was invited to consider,
    then persuaded to do it because conducting inquiries of this kind
    is a huge responsibility and it wasn’t something I was
    looking for. But I was persuaded because the range of services
    involved meant that the whole system had been in some way in touch
    with Victoria and yet it didn’t protect her. So the thing
    that persuaded me to do it was the possibility of making
    recommendations to improve the safeguarding of children so this
    kind of thing can’t happen again.

    Who was doing the persuading and how long did it
    take?

    Ministers. The secretary of state wanted to make plain that
    there was going to be an inquiry so it wasn’t something that
    I could consider for months. I was treated very fairly but there
    were deadlines to be met.

    How did you go about selecting your
    advisers?

    I decided that because of the range of services involved that I
    would need at least four advisers and I wanted to have people who
    had day by day direct involvement in the provision of services. It
    is some time since I managed services directly, therefore I wanted
    people around me who had current – not former –
    experience in service provision. So I asked the different
    departments of government who were the people who had recently
    contributed to matters to do with children’s services and I
    made other enquiries to organisations I knew about, and then drew
    up a shortlist, interviewed them, then appointed them.

    The inquiry report is with ministers 16 months later
    than originally expected. What caused the delay?

    There is a tendency to always under estimate how long these
    things take. But because Victoria had only been alive in this
    country for 10 months, it is understandable that it may have been
    thought to involve less than it did. But the fact that we had to
    see so many witnesses was an indication of just how many people had
    an involvement with Victoria and how big the issues became.

    How did you go about appointing the inquiry’s
    legal team?

    I was concerned to get a counsel to the inquiry who had an
    understanding of the issues and had experience of inquiry work. So
    we made enquiries and had a list of names, interviewed, and
    selected Neil [Garnham]. Neil had previously worked on the Ladbroke
    Grove Inquiry in a more junior position so he was very familiar
    with inquiries. If you do one inquiry, you learn about how all
    inquiries work. And then he decided, with my blessing, that he
    needed two junior counsels. One was a woman who is a specialist in
    children and families legislation and the other was more general
    but extremely able.

    You said you were committed to these values of rigour,
    openness and independence back in May 2001 when I interviewed you
    shortly after your appointment. Do you believe you managed to
    achieve this throughout this inquiry?

    Yes I do. I totally cut myself off – and my colleagues as
    best they could – from all other contacts, influences,
    anything that could in any way be even perceived to influence the
    inquiry. I was determined that the only factors that would
    influence the report was the evidence that we heard in the inquiry
    room. And we wanted everything that was heard in the inquiry room
    not only to be in public but to go on the website so that anyone
    who wanted to understand what was happening in the inquiry could
    look at the website every night – the transcript was on the website
    by 8pm. So I do think it was as open and fair as possible. But also
    very rigorous. I don’t imagine that any of the witnesses that
    came before the inquiry enjoyed the experience.

    What were your most memorable moments from phase
    one?

    There was one thing that upset me greatly, and that was when one
    of our witnesses – a policeman – was attacked while
    giving evidence by someone who had nothing to do with the inquiry
    and, as far as I know, had no grievances with the police and
    certainly not with this particular policeman. It was a terrible
    experience to see a witness attacked from behind and a pot of paint
    poured over his head. It had a terrible effect on the poor fellow
    – he had to go to hospital and have his hair cut off, and his
    eyes, mouth and nose irrigated. I was very upset about that. I
    think that giving evidence to an inquiry is arduous enough without
    that. And what it meant was that we had to increase security even
    more, when I had tried to keep the proceedings as relaxed for the
    witnesses as possible and not to make giving evidence even more
    onerous than it had to be.

    What about the witnesses – were any of them
    particularly memorable?

    Marie-Therese Kouao was very difficult in giving evidence, in
    contrast to Carl Manning, who was very helpful. But I think that
    the other witnesses all tried in their own way to co-operate with
    the inquiry.

    What about Carole Baptiste’s initial failure to
    show up, and the late documents from the NSPCC, Haringey Council
    and the Social Services Inspectorate?

    Conducting an inquiry of this kind is difficult enough without
    documentation not being provided at the right time and in the right
    way, and I did find it annoying because it frustrated at the time
    the work of the inquiry. But I never felt, and still don’t
    feel, that any of the witnesses ever attempted to deliberately
    withhold their submissions. It was not a question of deliberately
    trying to avoid giving evidence.

    Have you had any feedback from the government
    yet?

    No. The government has behaved impeccably throughout. At no time
    from the day that I was appointed to this day has any government
    minister or any officials sought to have contact with me, send me
    material, or influence me in any way. So when I handed over the
    report to them it was the printed version. There was no first
    draft, nor was there any wink wink, nudge nudge, hint hint. I
    wanted – and I know ministers felt this strongly too –
    to be able to look anyone in the eye at any time and say the
    inquiry was wholly independent and that there was absolutely no
    contact, whether formal or informal.

    At what stage did the advisers leave you to write the
    report?

    The report was a joint effort. The advisers and their
    authorities were committed from day one and still are now. At
    different sections of the report, they were involved at different
    times, depending on the section we were working on. The advisers
    read and commented on every word of the report and I am very
    grateful to them. They have been absolutely 100 per cent in support
    of the inquiry and me.

    So how did you go about writing the final report? How do
    you decide what to put in and what to leave out?

    That is a continuous judgement that you have to go through all
    the time, deciding ‘is this directly relevant to what
    ultimately will be the findings of the report and its
    recommendations?’. It requires a degree of concentration and
    rigour.

    What is the biggest single thing that you regret most
    from your time as chairperson of the inquiry?

    The pain of what happened to Victoria is always present. The
    missed opportunities and the failure to protect her was something
    that weighed incredibly with me and I hope that that is reflected
    in the report.

    It must have been quite difficult when Victoria’s
    parents were there?

    They were there every day during phase one. They were both
    courageous and dignified throughout.

    With the report now in the hand of the ministers, are
    you anxious about how the government will respond to
    it?

    I’m not anxious about what the government is going to say
    because ministers have told me that they will read the report with
    great care and they will take seriously the issues. They clearly
    have a wider remit than an inquiry of this kind, and I hope the
    report will prove to be extremely helpful to them as they seek to
    improve services for children and families.

    How do you feel about the inevitable attention from the
    media again?

    It goes with the job. I will do my best to make sure the key
    messages are communicated.

    Finally, do you think the inquiry and your report will
    satisfy the wider public concerns around child protection that you
    mentioned in your interview with Community Care in May
    2001?

    I do believe that there are wider issues beyond Victoria. I hope
    very much that the report has set out the ways in which they can be
    properly addressed. We have done our best. I have done my best to
    produce recommendations which I hope will strengthen the services
    for children and families.

    More from Community Care

    Comments are closed.