---

Safeguarding Children

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, all of us were deeply shocked by the horrific images of Baby P. However, it is important to echo the part of the Statement which says that professionals in this country looking after children do a tough job, often in very difficult circumstances. That echoes the thoughts expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. It is also important to remember that since the 1970s, when we had the Maria Colwell case, we have been gradually tightening up child safeguarding procedures. The number of children killed in this country has fallen by about 50 per cent, compared to the United States, where it is up by 17 per cent. Indeed, today the UK has one of the best records in the Western world on childcare. Professor Colin Pritchard from the School of Social Care in Bournemouth has said that our child protection services have never been better. His work has revealed that most child murders are committed by mentally ill mothers, followed by mentally ill fathers, followed by mothers whose children are on the at-risk register. Baby P was of course one of those; he was on the at-risk register. A number of issues in this case raise concern, above all about the organisation of the services in Haringey, which was the centre of the storm around Victoria Climbié. When the same issues arise within a matter of a relatively few years, that raises concerns about the organisation and management of services in that area. There have been many changes since the Victoria Climbié case, most effected as a result of the Children Act 2004, with which many of us in this House were involved as it passed, not least the attempt to get joint working across health, education and social services, the setting up of children's trusts and the establishment of local safeguarding boards. However, I think that the case raises real questions about local safeguarding boards. The NSPCC has stated: "““It is legitimate to question whether the ‘safeguarding’ agenda might be giving professionals a mandate to give parents the benefit of doubt … and not to focus on the needs and vulnerability””" of children. Earlier this year, Ofsted questioned the variability of standards, remarking that, "““thresholds are sometimes raised by””—" local authorities— "““in response to workload pressures, staffing shortages and financial pressures””." Yesterday's annual report from Ofsted revealed that since April 2007, it had evaluated 92 serious case reports and found 38 of them to be inadequate. Why was this serious case review not chaired by an independent individual, as distinct from the director of the service being scrutinised? Why was the report delayed by more than a year, instead of being completed, as required, within the four-month target? Why, now it has been published, can we not see the full report; why have we seen only the executive summary? Is it surprising, given that it was chaired by the director of the service being scrutinised, that the executive summary seems so bland and worthless? To what extent are the higher court charges to be paid by local authorities in child protection cases deterring local authorities from acting in such cases and, in particular, from taking children into care? Is it true that applications across England to take children into care have fallen by 20 per cent since the dramatic rise in court fees to be paid by local authorities? Is it true that since the Baby P case came to light, applications to take children into care in Haringey have more than doubled? Finally, if, as the Secretary of State said earlier this week, he was so deeply disturbed by the failings of practice and management in the Baby P case, why has he resisted calls for the publication of the full serious case review? Why has he not set up a full public inquiry? Does the Minister think that the urgent joint area review that the Secretary of State has set up, which is to report within two weeks, will be adequate? Can she confirm what my honourable friend in the other place, the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, Lynne Featherstone, has been told: that local managers in Haringey are selecting the staff to be interviewed by the investigators in that quick joint area review? Why, if there have been such failings in management, is the director of children's services still in her post, when she is directly accountable under the Children Act 2004 for what has occurred? It is not obvious why the serious case review is still secret; nor clear that the quick, two-week review that has been set up will get to the bottom of what has gone wrong in Haringey. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, we have great faith in the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and look forward to hearing what his deeper inquiry will reveal, but that still leaves many questions about this case which both Haringey and the Secretary of State have to answer.