---

Safeguarding Children

I thank the Secretary of State for prior notice of the statement, and for the co-operative approach that his office has taken in helping to resolve the delicate questions to which this tragic case has given rise. The horrific circumstances of baby P's short, agonised life and terrible, pain-wracked death are imprinted indelibly on all our minds. The ultimate moral responsibility for the child's suffering rests with the three adults found guilty of allowing his death. I am sure that the Secretary of State would agree with me that we must never shift our focus from preventing such evil from being inflicted on another innocent. That is why it is important that we ask serious questions now, to ensure that we give children the greatest possible level of protection. I appreciate that the Secretary of State has been working hard to get answers, and the questions that I ask today imply no criticism of him personally. Indeed, I thank him for so speedily ordering an independent inquiry into Haringey council. But would he now acknowledge that the inspection regime that was supposed to monitor child protection in Haringey was flawed? We know that when a former social worker rang the alarm bell six months before baby P died, her concerns were passed on, in accordance with the procedures in place, to the Commission for Social Care Inspection. The commission met representatives from Haringey in March 2007 and asked for improvements to be made. Two weeks later, responsibility for inspecting Haringey's children's services passed from the commission to Ofsted, and there is no evidence yet that Ofsted or anyone else pursued the demand that Haringey improve its child protection. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that that was wrong, and does he share my concern that other child protection cases may have slipped through the cracks in that handover? We know that Ofsted inspected Haringey's children's services department in October 2007 and gave it a three-star rating, saying that it provided a good service for children. We also know that that report was based on desk research and was conducted by an inspector who had served as an official under Haringey's director of children's services. The inspector was, in fact, a former head of school standards in Haringey. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that that was wrong? Given the importance of getting child protection right in Haringey, should not a totally independent person have been appointed to conduct that inspection? The Secretary of State has rightly insisted on urgency in the current inquiry into Haringey, and one of the principal issues at question is the threshold for taking a child at risk into care. We know that medical professionals believed in December 2006 that baby P had suffered non-accidental harm, and we know that in June 2007, medical professionals warned that baby P had probably been physically abused. The police were anxious that he should be removed from an abusive environment, but the council's lawyers refused to apply for a care order. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the legal advice given by Haringey's lawyers is published in full when the inquiry reports, so that we can all see just what went wrong? I agree with the Secretary of State that it is crucial that we ensure that in future there is clarity on when and how children can be taken into care. Does he agree with me that there is an absolute need to ensure that the child's interests are paramount, and does he also agree that the increase in the costs of taking a child into care imposed by the Ministry of Justice this year now need to be reviewed? Looking at current systems will be at the heart of Lord Laming's inquiry, which we welcome. The Secretary of State will be aware that when social workers deal with new child protection cases, current targets monitor how quickly they fill in the common assessment form; they do not monitor child protection outcomes in the same way. Will he specifically ask Lord Laming whether we should consider changing the system to ensure that it is child protection, not bureaucratic compliance, that the system prioritises? The Secretary of State knows that the hon. Members for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), and I have asked to see the serious case review of the handling of baby P's case. Regrettably, the Secretary of State's hands are tied, because the Information Commissioner has ruled that serious case reviews cannot be released to Opposition politicians because of the risk of identifying the professionals involved, and the fear that the professionals who made a mistake may not therefore co-operate with reviews. Does he not agree with me that it is quite wrong to put the interests of a bureaucracy that has failed ahead of proper scrutiny? Is it not wrong that the law as it stands prevents the constituency Member from finding out what happened in the case? Does he agree with me that the law needs to change? Does the Secretary of State also agree with me that whatever legal or procedural changes follow, the most important change is a change of culture? The public are tired of hearing that the correct procedures have been followed, when a child died in agony. The public are astonished that a director of children's services can say, after the death of a child, that"““In the light of the good performance, a full scrutiny review would not be beneficial or add value to the service.””" The public are rightly insistent that we act swiftly and comprehensively to hold those responsible in this affair to account, and to make the changes necessary to improve child protection across the country, which is why we will give every support that we can to the Secretary of State in his work.