3. INTRODUCTION
Approach to evidence-taking and confidentiality
3.1 It was recognised when the Inquiry was set up that encouraging former Kerelaw employees and residents to give evidence was likely to be a challenge. For many, the prospect of giving evidence again, having already done so to internal investigators and the police, was likely to be daunting. It also seemed probable that individuals would be more forthcoming with information if they could be assured that their names would not appear in the Inquiry Report and if evidence could not be traced back to them.
3.2 It was therefore decided at the outset that the Inquiry would take place in private, and that the report at its conclusion would be anonymised. The terms under which information would be gathered in evidence were summarised in what we called by way of short-hand "rules of engagement" and were provided to those who were willing to give evidence, as well as to those whom we had hoped to interview, but who declined or did not respond. The terms under which evidence was gathered are reproduced at Annex B.
3.3 We also decided that we were more likely to have productive engagement with those who were willing to give evidence if we followed the example of the Edinburgh Inquiry 1 by adopting an inquisitorial rather than an adversarial approach to interviewing. Our aim was to understand individuals' experiences of Kerelaw, and to address key themes in as open-ended a way as possible. This allowed those we interviewed to talk about their involvement with Kerelaw in their own way. It also allowed the Inquiry to consider a range of important matters, and enabled us to gain a helpful insight into a number of common themes.
3.4 It was anticipated that most interviews would be held in Glasgow and so it proved. Some took place in the Inquiry's office in Edinburgh, or at the premises of organisations with a locus in the Inquiry. Some interviews took place in private homes. One interview took place in England.
Early work
3.5 Accommodation and services having been obtained in Edinburgh and Glasgow, work began in early 2008. Initial activity included the creation of a website, registration for compliance with the Data Protection Act, background reading and research, consideration of previous reports of inquiries into abuse, and contact with a number of organisations and individuals with an interest in, or experience of, the issues concerned. Some of those individuals became part of an informal expert advisory group and their advice was of considerable assistance to the Inquiry. We are grateful for their counsel. Thanks are also due to the Scottish Institute for Residential Child Care ( SIRCC) for its helpful offer of access to its library resources. As part of our preparations, the Inquiry team visited the Kibble Care and Education Centre in Paisley and Ballikinrain residential school at Balfron, and we are grateful for the welcome we received.
Files and records
3.6 Cooperation and access to Council files were pledged by the Leader of Glasgow City Council, and early contact was made with senior officers to make the necessary arrangements. An employee of Glasgow City Council who was familiar with the Kerelaw files was identified, both as a facilitator of access to the records, and as the single entry point to Glasgow City Council for internal contacts, including contact with former Kerelaw employees.
3.7 While we were able through that route to access a large number of files, not all the records of senior management meetings or of communications between Kerelaw and Glasgow City Council Departments were traceable, and some took a considerable time to be unearthed. As a consequence of the closure of Kerelaw between 2004 and 2006, and of the lengthy investigations, files were kept in a very large number of boxes in Centenary House, Glasgow. Those files had been used by Council investigators, the police and legal representatives, and had to a large degree been disturbed, which made retrieval and systematic examination difficult. Some of the records were on "floppy" discs and zip files, which required to be accessed through non-standard computer hardware.
3.8 We were concerned about the quality of some of the information provided by Glasgow City Council. We had expected that statistics showing, for example, a breakdown of residents by age, length of stay, and placing authority would be readily available to enable the Inquiry to consider trends and validate a generally held view that the proportion of residents from Glasgow increased substantially in 2002 and 2003. We did receive raw data showing dates of birth and admission data, but were not able to draw safe conclusions from the figures.
3.9 The Inquiry read records of interviews by Council investigators with over 90 residents or former residents of Kerelaw, and over 100 employees or former employees, plus reports of investigations and records of subsequent disciplinary proceedings. A number of documents were made available electronically. As indicated in the Terms of Reference, the Inquiry did not have access to Crown Office or police files or statements, although meetings did take place with Strathclyde Police in Ayr and the Procurator Fiscal from Kilmarnock.
3.10 The Inquiry examined files held by HMIE, the Social Work Inspection Agency ( SWIA) - the successor to SWSI - and the Care Commission. We obtained copies of reports of inspections of Kerelaw undertaken by North Ayrshire Council.
Oral evidence - former Kerelaw employees
3.11 We were aware at the outset of the strength of feeling among many former employees at Kerelaw about Glasgow City Council's investigations into the allegations of abuse which erupted in 2004 and later, and about what the Council subsequently put into the public domain about its findings, as well as how these were portrayed in the media. Some former employees or their supporters made early contact with us to put their point of view, as did a very small number of ex-residents. Some former senior Kerelaw managers maintained a regular flow of information to us throughout the Inquiry.
3.12 Contact with former managers or staff at Kerelaw who were still employed by Glasgow City Council was made through the latter and individuals were encouraged to give evidence to the Inquiry. Some elected not to do so, or simply declined to respond. We learned that some may not have received our invitation to be in touch, and where we were able, we sought to reach them by other means.
3.13 As data protection requirements prevented the Council from passing on private addresses of its former employees, it was agreed that the Council would send letters to about 200 people at their last known home address, enclosing a letter from the Inquiry inviting them to contact us. Again, this had mixed results, with some former employees reluctant to give evidence while others were no longer at the address to which letters were sent. In total, we interviewed 11 former managers, 32 former care workers, 6 former teachers, plus several administrative staff and others.
3.14 North Ayrshire Council identified on our behalf 15 former domestic staff which it employed at Kerelaw and wrote inviting them to contact the Inquiry, but unfortunately we had no response. Other contacts were pursued directly by the Inquiry team. Overall, the Inquiry interviewed 55 former Kerelaw employees, including 5 former Principals or former acting Principals, and other ex-members of its senior management team.
Oral evidence - Glasgow City Council
3.15 The Inquiry also received oral evidence from one former and two current Glasgow City Councillors, and former senior managers in the Council's Social Work Department, including people directly and indirectly involved with the external management of Kerelaw from 1996. We interviewed former and current senior corporate managers in the Council, including the current Chief Executive. We interviewed all but one of the joint investigation team plus those who carried out the Millerston investigation (paragraphs 7.17-7.20) in the Spring of 2004.
3.16 Discussions took place with a focus group of current residential managers in the Council, and with a group of placing social workers. We interviewed a number of people in the HR, Finance, and legal functions in the Council, who had involvement with Kerelaw in relation either to policy or to the Council's investigations and/or disciplinary actions against staff. In total, we interviewed 35 current or former Council managers, including 5 who chaired disciplinary hearings.
3.17 We were disappointed not to be able to obtain evidence, even in written form, from one ex-Director who during the period covered by the Inquiry had at different times been both Director of Social Work and Director of Education at the Council and who had been involved in the decision to close the school.
Oral evidence - former Kerelaw residents
3.18 Various approaches were adopted for contacting former residents. At the outset we received advice cautioning us that writing to them, even if it were possible to obtain the correct addresses, would in all probability be unproductive. We were aware that many people who had been in care were likely to wish to put the experience behind them. We were also aware that, even if that were not the case, many would find it difficult to re-live what may have been a difficult time for them.
3.19 We were further advised that Glasgow City Council's joint investigation team had themselves found it difficult to get some young people to talk to them. Although, prior to the investigations, some existing residents' reluctance was because they were fearful of the consequences of complaining while still at Kerelaw, a later problem arose from the fact that many would have been asked to go over ground they had already covered in interviews with the police, and could not understand why information already given to the latter was insufficient (statements to the police were not provided to the Council's investigators).
3.20 This became still more of an issue after the Crown decided to not proceed against most of the 20 staff members who had been subject to police investigation and on whom reports had been submitted to the Procurator Fiscal. Although the Procurator Fiscal offered to meet with each of those who had made allegations and given police statements, to explain the reasons for the decision not to proceed, only one meeting was actually requested. The person concerned ultimately changed his mind at the point when the Procurator Fiscal attended to speak to him. The Inquiry learned that it is the practice of the Procurator Fiscal in such cases to offer to meet with those alleging abuse and explain the decision. If the offer is not taken up, Procurators Fiscal will respect the wishes of the individual not to meet. However, the effect of the decision not to proceed is that some of those interviewed by the police may have thought that they had not been believed.
3.21 We were aware that we could not rely on details on the Inquiry website to encourage former residents to make contact, and writing to them was not a practical option. Data protection considerations apart, as Kerelaw Open School had been closed for over 3 years and the Secure Unit for 2 years, it was likely that many addresses would no longer be accurate. As it seemed possible that some former Kerelaw residents might still be in contact with social services, as a first step we sought the support of local authority social work departments around Scotland in identifying and encouraging people to get in touch.
3.22 We also wrote to key charities seeking their assistance with contact. We held discussions with Barnardo's, whose street team services had been engaged by Glasgow City Council to provide support to former residents cited as witnesses in the Court cases in 2006 involving two members of staff. We also asked local authorities and the charities concerned if they would carry on their websites a link to the Inquiry website.
3.23 Those contacted responded with a willingness to help at least with the web link, and some authorities noted that they had not at any time placed children at Kerelaw. Despite their co-operation, these efforts yielded few contacts overall. We also followed up leads through individuals who had given evidence to the Inquiry, and we commissioned from Radio Clyde in September 2008 an advertisement which was broadcast over 3 days encouraging former residents to come forward. This was followed by a Press Release issued to local newspapers mainly in the West of Scotland, and we also secured a short item on Radio Scotland's Good Morning Scotland programme. Although some former residents and staff did make contact as a result, the overall response was less than we had hoped.
3.24 In addition to advertising, a member of the team met with the Heads of Children and Families and Criminal Justice in each of Glasgow's 5 Community Health and Care Partnerships ( CHCP) to obtain their co-operation in a review of over 300 case files for young people who had been placed at Kerelaw by Glasgow City Council from 1996 until closure, with a view to identifying any live contacts who might wish to give evidence. This took some time, and over 70 young people were contacted and provided with the details of the Inquiry. Where there was significant ongoing live contact with social services, efforts were made to encourage engagement with the Inquiry process, but the response was disappointing.
3.25 By mid-December 2008, when the Inquiry closed its formal evidence-taking, a total of 22 ex-residents had provided oral evidence. A further 12 interviews which had been arranged did not go ahead because those concerned did not keep their appointments. We also interviewed the parents of 2 young people who had been in Kerelaw. The Inquiry received very useful evidence from Children's Rights Officers ( CROs) involved with Kerelaw over a number of years, from others who had relevant resident contact and, as noted earlier, we had access to a substantial number of notes of interviews conducted by Council investigators.
Oral evidence - others
3.26 Oral evidence was also provided by individuals in local authorities other than Glasgow which had placed young people in Kerelaw, by the Scottish Government and by a number of professional service providers at Kerelaw. Unison and the EIS also gave evidence. We were able to meet members of the Care Commission and representatives of HMIE. Unfortunately, we were not able to obtain oral or written evidence from a key former senior SWSI inspector with whom contact was made. A list of sources of evidence, in the case of individuals excluding their names, is given at Annex C.
Written evidence
3.27 Written evidence was provided to the Inquiry by a number of individuals, including former employees, and 2 former residents, and the partner of a former resident. Unison provided a written submission in addition to its oral evidence. There was also some input from academic researchers. Sources of written evidence are included in Annex C. The Inquiry is grateful to all those who gave evidence and everyone who otherwise gave generously of their time in discussion with us. It was apparent to us that, for many former managers, staff, ex-residents and investigators, talking about their time at, or involvement with, Kerelaw was a difficult and painful experience.
Confidentiality
3.28 In accordance with the Inquiry's undertaking to those giving evidence, we do not in the report identify which individuals told us what, although we do indicate the broad source, such as ex-employees, young people, managers, or external agencies and workers. Our terms of reference noted that our report would be anonymised as regards former members of staff and pupils at Kerelaw, and we have followed that approach, although it is necessary to refer to particular management positions both in Kerelaw and in Glasgow City Council. As at the time of writing one former employee is appealing against his conviction and sentence, we have taken care to limit any references to a statement of publicly verifiable fact as to the charges on which he was tried, and to how they arose.
3.29 We did not tape-record our interviews with those who gave us evidence and we did not write verbatim records. Where we highlight in italics views expressed by witnesses, we use the reported speech in which our notes of interviews were written. Throughout the report, we use the words "children" and "young people" interchangeably.