Fostering panel failed to conduct vital checks

Five other revelations and accusations concerning abuser Paul Martin:

1 – He was initially asked to take two boys on respite before even being approved as a carer.

Assessment and checks had been completed and the panel meeting responsible for considering his approval was imminent.

But the go-ahead was given when there was nothing formally in place.

Ms Pepper, who became PKC’S chief social work officer in May 2017, said: “There was a pressing need to place these youngsters and there was a willingness and an availability of Mr Martin to receive those children into his care.

“But in terms of that registration not being in place, it does mean that there are issues around the legality of that placement and the checks and balances and the protection that that might afford.”

Lady Smith said: “The fostering panel could have said no.”

She stressed that the decision “could be a serious risk... which might tell you something about the way that part of the council was operating at that time.”

Ms Pepper responded: “The fostering panel would be a multidisciplinary panel including medical expertise, perhaps psychologist expertise or whatever, so it was preempting the decision of the panel.”

2 – There was no corroboration of Martin’s claim about a partner.

Martin claimed in his 1993 application that his partner had worked in Australia for the past two years. But there was no corroboration in any of the documentation.

The report said: “Although recorded as a single male, he suggested his partner worked in Australia and had done for approximately two years.”

It then added: “There was no assessment in the file or means to clarify whether information regarding his partner was checked or provided again.”

3 – Social workers were “friendly” with Martin.

Lady Smith said that one of the victims was under the impression Martin was “very friendly” with some of the social workers.

Ms Pepper responded: “That’s not the impression that I would take from the files, because it’s difficult to gauge friendliness from a written document.

“My impression would be that his explanations would be taken at face value. That there was perhaps a reluctance to probe into some of his explanations for certain events, which on the face of it were quite concerning.”

4 – Martin’s information

and views were “rarely questioned”.

One of the startling revelations from the report was that the social care department held a high opinion of his care.

A section read: “In the case of Mr Martin his care on the surface appeared exemplary.”

Responding, Ms Pepper said: “I can’t answer for Mrs Conway (independent consultant Jacqueline Conway), but I think on reading the files there’s an assumption that his care was good and he was doing the right thing with the right motivations for young people and trying really hard with the most difficult young people .

5 – Martin resigned amid greater scrutiny.

Towards the end of the 20th Century more stringent measures were being put into place, according to Ms Pepper.

This eventually led to Martin’s resignation in 1999.

According to the report, he displayed “a level of resistance” to undergo a medical.

Lady Smith is overseeing the child sex abuse inquiry.