Proceeding contribution from David Laws (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 20 November 2008. It occurred during Ministerial statement on Safeguarding Children.
Safeguarding Children
I start by thanking the Secretary of State for advance sight of today's statement and for his letter this morning on serious case reviews. I understand his problem with publishing serious case reviews, but does he accept that the current situation is deeply unsatisfactory? When he considers the published executive summary, which has been made available by the local safeguarding children board, does he agree that in the light of what we now know about the baby P case, the executive summary is an extremely bland and incomplete assessment of the case that is of little real value? When a child dies in such a way, are we not entitled to more accountability and openness? Will he re-examine that particular issue? I want to ask the Secretary of State about the urgent joint area review, which he commissioned a week or so ago. Is that review really looking at what happened in the baby P case, or is it merely checking the effectiveness of existing child protection services in Haringey? My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) has been informed by people within the council that some local managers in Haringey are selecting the staff to whom the investigators can talk. If that is true, it is a matter of great concern. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether that is true? If not, will he investigate as a matter of urgency? Given that he cannot publish the serious case review and that he has been left with a very short inquiry of a couple of weeks, which will not get to the bottom of the issue, particularly in relation to baby P, is it not now obvious that we need a full, independent public inquiry? The Secretary of State has indicated that the nub of the case is not a lack of contact but a wrong judgment on taking the child into care. This week, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has said that"““It is legitimate to question whether the 'safeguarding' agenda might be giving professionals a mandate to give parents the benefit of the doubt…and not focus on the needs and vulnerability of the child””." Clearly, that should not happen following the Children Act 1989, which placed the protection of the child at the centre of all those agencies' work. Will he give us his views on that issue and assure us that he will review the concerns of the agencies, which have great expertise? I want to ask the Secretary of State about wider issues around child protection arising from this case and from yesterday's Ofsted report. A moment ago, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) mentioned thresholds. The Ofsted report states that"““thresholds are sometimes raised by local authorities…in response to workload pressures, staffing shortages and financial resources””." Ofsted first identified that concern three years ago. Will the Secretary of State tell us what has been done, because, given yesterday's report, it seems that not enough has been done? Will he tell us whether he is concerned that the number of children on the child protection register and its successors has fallen by about one third since the early 1990s? Will the Secretary of State comment on Ofsted's criticism that one third of serious case reviews were inadequate? Will he also comment on why almost all the serious case reviews, including this one, were not completed within the four-month target? This one took well over a year. The Secretary of State has already commented on the issue of higher court charges, which have increased significantly of late. I have heard his observations on the issue, but will he retain an open mind on it until Lord Laming has completed his inquiry? Finally, back in 2003, Lord Laming described as breathtaking the unwillingness of those at the top to accept responsibility in relation to the case that he was then considering. This week, the Secretary of State said that, in this particular case, he was"““deeply disturbed…by the failings of practice and management””—[Official Report, 17 November 2008; Vol. 483, c. 15.]" That is a damning judgment. In the light of it, why is Haringey borough's director of children's services still in her post when she is directly accountable under the Children Act 2004? Is it not clear that the borough needs new management, and that we need a full public inquiry into the issue?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 483 c378-9
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Children Abuse Inspections HM Inspectorate of Constabulary Infanticide Protection Offences against children Social services Healthcare Commission Haringey Local safeguarding children boards Ofsted
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 23:26:38 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_511141
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_511141
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_511141