GIDS being sued by their safeguarding lead.

EJG – we don’t know who that other person was, but one might think the relationship betw SA and GR was important. Are you saying that SA knew the relationship were difficult?
DS – I don’t know…. Until we received letter of claim we did not know SA was having any difficulties

EJG – it seems the claimant didn’t know GR had a problem with her, but you did, so one way of taking it forward was to establish with the claimant that she and GR needed to build some bridges… something like that

DS – I was trying to get service safeguarding leads to come together with the central team in a forum.
YG seeking clarification on a few issues raised in DS’s evidence this morning.

END OF DR SINHA'S EVIDENCE
LUNCH

EJG – you didn’t tell SA that allegation came from GR
DS – yes – to preserve anonymity
EJG – what did you want to achieve from your meeting with SA in July 2019?
DS – in broad terms, to draw a line under the issue and move on

EJG – so matter you saw was lack of trust between claimant and GR?
DS – that words SA had used had a hurtful impact on people within the service
EJG – important it was GR because he was the s/g lead and needed a good working relationship with the claimant
DS – Yes

EJG – So instead of talking about the remark itself, couldn’t you have said I’ve heard you and GR may have some issues, perhaps we need to build some bridges?

DS – I cld have, but thought if I didn’t say exactly what the concerns were it wouldn’t work(?), but also had advice from HR

EJG – so started out with learning that GR had a problem with SA, but nothing was going to change because SA didn’t know GR had a problem with her

DS – It wasn’t just GR. Other staff were weary about what was reported to have been said. I wanted to make SA aware but also not to take it forward in a formal manner. I was trying to get people to move on

"accompanied by respectful support from central safeguarding resources.” The implication is that support had not always been respectful?
DS – throughout the review I was aware of a breakdown in the relationship between central s/g and GIDS ...

DS- I was trying to reframe that; it is not pointed at an individual. SA is not the only member of that team.
EJG – that sounds like to me that GIDS did have good relationship with central team because they were using their time?

DS – I didn’t hear it that way. There were concerns about not going to s/g; concerns about the Bell report; concern that people were raising s/g issues simply because families bringing children to gids. There was a
‘general lack of trust within safeguarding across the piece’

EJG – were you suggesting that the support was disrespectful or not respectful?
DS says he heard a picture of quite a lot of suspicion and mistrust
EJG – did you have in mind what GR had said about the claimant and JS?

DS – Clearly that was one of the concerns that was brought up… it was part of what I was worried about it
EJG – so from what you heard, the claimant had an attitude about what gids did
DS – I heard certain members of staff expressing that concern… even beyond the JS allegation

AP – you wanted her to be unsettled by this didn’t you
DS – I completely disagree
AP – and the reason was for her protected disclosures and her involvement with the Bell Report
DS – I respectfully disagree

QUESTIONS FROM EJG...
EJG – you say you found SA argumentative and difficult to manage – on what did you base that opinion?

DS – in terms of trying to set tasks in s/g; IT felt hard to have straightforward conversations ‘she wld simply end up arguing about everything’. I don’t have specific egs– just getting a bit of a commentary from her on straightforward tasks. ‘it felt v difficult with Miss A’

‘It was a constant pushback to my seeking assurances from her… what she was planning in the coming period’ etc
EJG – can you give an eg of an operational task where you wanted assurance and she blanked you

DS – Eg the audits are an operational task; I don’t remember the exact details, but that’s an example.
EJG – 1507 par 61 – you said in your review – “it is
important that the continuing enhancements in safeguarding framework within the service are ...

AP refers to Hodge Report into SA’s claims – p832 – notes of his interview with DS; cites ref to Bell report and you seem to be saying that was written with a lot of input from SA.

DS – no. I wld say that in either version, that was my understanding there was input from Sonia… I don’t remember my exact words – that there was ‘a lot’ or not
EJG – do you think AH has got that right?

DS – I don’t think so. My coming away with interview with SA was that she did not want continuing involvement with DB report.

AP – did you say SA ‘back pedalled’?
DS – No those are AH’s words
AP puts that the note implies that DS believed SA did co-author report/regarded her as suspicious
DS – No. SA was v clear that she was not at all a co-author, so I didn’t think she was.

AP (832) – refers to “just marking her card” when talking about meeting with SA about JS
DS – That is not a phrase I would use
AP – because you’ll know that is not a neutral act…it’s implying you’ve noted what they’ve done and you’re watching them
DS – I have nothing else to say

AP – you wld have been insisting against two HR advisers
In final para you warn her that if there are further reports you might have to investigate formally?
DS – it’s my choice of words, nothing more sinister than that

AP – if you’d genuinely been accepting SA’s word, you would have used the word ‘allegation’ not ‘report’
…put to you if you’d actually gone through an investigation process, she wld have had a right of appeal wouldn’t she and letter wld stay for 12 months?

DS – I believe there is a process.
AP – but with your process she gets a warning from you, a letter on her file indefinitely, and no right of appeal
DS – this is not a warning letter. I agree the letter lies on her file
AP- indefinitely?

DS – as a record of an informal meeting, yes. Not as a warning
DS concedes there’s no right of appeal
AP – it’s definitely a detriment to her isn’t it
DS – I don’t agree

DS – I completely disagree. This was not the most adverse consequence, there could have been a formal investigation - and in other examples I’ve given you in one case there was a formal investigation

Ap – There couldn’t have been a formal investigation because you were repeatedly advised against it by HR – but that’s what you wanted to happen
DS – No.

AP suggests it’s completely different to take a note of the meeting versus a formal letter jointly drafted by HR to sit on a person’s file.
AP reads from letter a warning that SA not cause offence to any colleagues…
DS – I’m not warning her, I’m advising her

AP – you refer to a duty of care to address the JS allegation – to whom is that to?
DS – to safeguarding, where I felt there was risk if people couldn’t work well together
AP – What about your duty of care to SA where she’s warned about something she says she didn’t do

DS disagrees with word ‘warn’… I want there to be supportive, respectful relationships – that’s what I want to make clear
AP – but you don’t give SA the benefit of the doubt or treat her respectfully
DS – I disagree… I could have insisted on a formal investigation

...outside of training, even in conversation with GIDS’ s/g link or lead, who is a senior social worker, in a conversation about safeguarding
DS – If you look at what GR said, I did not think it appropriate

AP – I put to you her assertion that it’s absolutely nec to talk about JS in training… I said are you suggesting she shouldn’t talk about it outside of training. You said GR describes a context outside training… (repeats her questioning)

DS – I’ll clarify – what was being reported by GR – I’m not picking up context of conversation, I’m picking up content of the comment -and that is why I sought advice on that

AP… so you accept it doesn’t have to be in the context of training to talk about JS
DS – Yes

AP (DS statement 157 WB) talking about political context and divisions in gids team… yet you seem to take the allegation at face value, even though GR at same time suggests she in acting in bad faith and has ulterior motives

AP – you know what it means to put on a letter on someone’s file
DS – in this context it’s fairly standard practice to put an informal letter on someone’s file
AP – claimant says to you - “are you saying to me, that I had said that the GIDS service is akin to a
paedophile?”

DS – I absolutely don’t remember that.
AP – (p368) – do you agree with SA’s judgement?
DS – I agree that I asked her to be mindful about language

AP – SA says “It is absolutely necessary for me to talk about Jimmy Savile within the context of managing allegations about individuals who perpetrate physically, sexual and emotional abuse against children and adults.”
Do you accept that?

DS – I have no objection to her talking about JS in the context of training and it is entirely appropriate…
DS says in the context GR suggests it was not appropriate

AP – you accept that the context was a conversation about safeguarding… are you seriously suggesting that the s/g lead for the trust is allowed to talk about JS in the context of training, but it’s inappropriate to talk about it ...

DS – yes
AP – And you don’t ask why he hasn’t raised this before? (1393)
DS explains that he was ‘repeatedly told’ by two HR officials that GR comment in review wasn’t sufficient for a formal investigation
Ap – you didn’t ask him when this conversation took place?
DS – NO

AP – because if you had and found it many many months ago you might have asked why he didn’t raise it before
DS – I assumed everyone speaking to the review was doing so in good faith

AP – SA statement (p57WB) – “I asked him whether he had spoken directly to the person who had allegedly expressed these concerns and he said: “no”.
DS – I cannot agree with that.

AP quotes SA’s statement – “He told me that what he was planning to do was put a letter on my
file and he wanted to know what I thought about it. I told him that I thought that he was wrong
to effectively outcome the matter before investigating it.”
DS – I don’t agree with that.

DS says he did say he would put a letter on file – and it was HR that actually said that
AP – SA says HR didn’t speak a word…
DS – I don’t remember SA’s exact form of words, but I do remember her being unhappy that a letter was going on file

Asks DS whether he agrees that there is nothing wrong with this formulation
DS – Not at all. But my understanding of these particular comments is that it had nothing to do with training but in relation to GIDS. And you’ll be speaking to Garry Richardson about that

AP – and there is another person you spoke to who says this (1321) – we don’t see you ask any follow up question to get additional information/context.
DS – again – I saw this as an individual matter

AP – but you say you know this didn’t appear in training context, but you didn’t ask any questions about it
DS – no, I referred to GR’s statement.
SA – and you’ll be aware that SA refutes his allegation entirely.

AP moves to the meeting itself. Suggests it’s understandable that SA wouldn’t want to ‘prolong the agony’ by putting the meeting back
DS – says he can’t comment on others’ feeling two and a half years on

AP – SA says “Dr Sinha proceeded to tell me that somebody had told him during the review that clinicians were concerned I was discussing Jimmy Savile and linking that to the GIDS service.” Is that right?

DS wants to check what he said in his witness statement. Agrees it closely matches.
AP – I’m puzzled – when did you produce this witness statement?
DS – it’s been in production at various stages even from last year – since November 2020

AP – and this is a meeting in July 2019, so how did you produce the witness statement, if not from your personal recollection?
DS – I haven’t said I don’t remember it, I’m trying to be as accurate as possible

AP – do you remember her saying she refuted linking JS to the gids service?
DS – I do
AP says SA said she mentions JS in training in a different context … Kirsty Entwistle says she attended training given by SA in march 2018 – and has provided notes of that training...

AP – is it actually the case that HR drafted the letter and you signed off on it
DS – no.
AP – you didn’t think it fair to warn the claimant that the meeting was to discuss an alleged complaint?

DS – I did say it would be an informal meeting with HR there, but at the beginning of the meeting I did give her a chance to withdraw or continue
AP – the question is didn’t you think it was fair to warn her that this was to discuss an allegation against her

DS – no. that was the purpose of the meeting to explore the allegation, rather than an investigation into it
AP – you decided to have an HR colleague to help you not be misrepresented, but you didn’t give her the opportunity to have a colleague to help her?

DS – my recollection is that the member of HR was for both our benefit…
AP – quite clear from SA’s view that to turn up to a meeting to find HR when she wasn’t expecting it
DS – yes, she was shocked by it. But I was surprised by that because it was in an email

Ap – that email was withdrawn
DS – yes. But I was surprised to see that.
DS says he might have asked his PA in person to cancel the meeting, but he’s unsure

AP moves to SA disciplinary proceedings. You speak to HR colleague for advice on how to deal with alleged comments made by SA? Asks when was this?
DS does not recollect but says these were face to face meetings.

DS says colleague is on maternity leave and hasn’t asked her if she may have any notes of those conversations.
AP suggests that having representative of HR present indicates that this was not an informal process

DS – my experience was often what SA had memorialised was not how I had recollected the discussions and conclusions were not what I had believed…
AP – It’s always open to you to respond with a clarification as to what is wrong
DS – it was perfectly reasonable to have HR there

AP – I’m saying it’s perfectly reasonable to SA to memorialise meetings, and then reasonable for you to respond?
DS – No, I consider that fairly laborious
AP – why have notes of this discussion, with HR present, not been disclosed?

DS – says he doesn’t know what happened to those notes
AP – so what’s your recollection?
DS – that i drafted a letter using the information that was available
AP – does that include the notes?
DS – I can’t remember

AP – she wasn’t aware of it at the time, that’s precisely why when you receive this information from three different people you should have addressed it
DS – SA said last week she had concerns much earlier… So I don’t agree with you

AP – YOU say “The recent appointment of a safeguarding lead for the service has been a significant step forward and it is important that the continuing enhancements in safeguarding framework within the
service are accompanied by...

"respectful support from central safeguarding resources.” Safeguarding lead was GR?
DS – that’s my understanding
AP – you’re saying SA should not step on GR’s toes aren’t you?

DS – No. I think there’s a lot that individual people have read into the review report and thought it applies to them – it does not.
AP – the clear implication is that SA has been disrespectful in the past
DS – I disagree
AP – And not surprising she took offence

AP quotes further - 1502 "As stated previously, there was a persistent theme of reported difficulties in internal communication that made concerns from clinicians more difficult to manage and seemed connected with perceptions about the leadership”...

AP - if anything that suggests that you saw concerns from AH, AS, MB as a management issue that needed to be contained rather than a s/g issue that needed to be addressed

DS – no I found various places where there needed to be improved, and that included with the management of risk and safeguarding… and I point out that SA never came to me and said people were not bringing cases to her