Safeguarding Children

14:03:00

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Children, Schools and Families (Baroness Morgan of Drefelin)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place. The Statement is as follows:

“Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to make a Statement on the actions I have taken over the past week since I received the serious case review last Wednesday morning into the tragic death of Baby P. As I said to the House on Monday, the whole nation has been deeply shocked, appalled and angered by the terrible suffering this little boy endured.

“Since the jury reached its decision on 11 November, we have all read of the abuse he suffered at the hands of adults he lived with, something I know we all struggle to comprehend. This case has also raised serious questions of public concern about how this could have happened again despite numerous contacts with social workers, police and health professionals, and in Haringey, too, the same borough where Victoria Climbié died eight years ago; about what actions are urgently needed in Haringey to ensure the safety of other vulnerable children in that borough and proper accountability for what went wrong; and about what further steps are needed to ensure that all children are safe across the country.

“It is our collective duty to do what we can to prevent such a tragedy happening again. I am grateful to the honourable gentleman and to Members opposite for the support they have given me over the past eight days for the action we have taken so far.

“Let me start by setting out the background. Following the death of Baby P on 3 August 2007, and consistent with the statutory requirements set out in Working Together to Safeguard Children, a serious case review started immediately to discover what happened and why. Serious case reviews are carried out whenever a child dies and abuse or neglect is known or suspected to have been a factor. They are instigated by the local safeguarding children board, independent of government. The report should be independently authored. Local agencies should implement any interim lessons immediately while the serious case review is still in progress and working drafts of serious case reviews may be shared with government officials.

“Since April last year, Ofsted has evaluated each serious case review to help strengthen the system. However, in all cases, Ministers are not involved in any part of the process of undertaking and completing the serious case review process and do not see draft reports. In this case, the executive summary of the serious case review was published on the afternoon of 11 November and the children’s Minister and I received the full confidential report on the morning of 12 November. Having studied it, we concluded that there was clear evidence that agencies had failed, singly and collectively, to adhere to the statutory procedures for the proper management of child protection cases. This raised serious concerns about the wider systems and management of services for safeguarding children in the borough.

“Our immediate priority was to ensure the safety of children in Haringey. So, that afternoon, we arranged for the director of children’s services in Hampshire, John Coughlan, to be immediately seconded to Haringey to help ensure that proper procedures for safeguarding children were in place and being applied. He began his work the following morning. At the same time, I decided that Ofsted, the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and the Chief Inspector of Constabulary should carry out an urgent inspection in Haringey under Section 20(1)(b) of the Children Act 2004. In particular, I asked the inspectors to look closely at the quality of practice and management of all services that contribute to the effective safeguarding of children in Haringey. The work of the national inspectors is under way and I will receive a first report by 1 December. As soon as I have studied their findings I will publish their report and the actions we will take.

“This tragic case also raises wider issues about child safety. It is now just over five years since we published Every Child Matters in response to the Victoria Climbié inquiry chaired by Lord Laming. Both the joint chief inspectors earlier this year and Lord Laming himself have said that these reforms have significantly strengthened the framework for safeguarding children and that, in local areas across the country, much good work is being done that is keeping children safe. But as the joint chief inspectors also said in their July report, there is still much work to do to ensure these reforms are being implemented systematically by all local agencies so that children in every part of the country receive the protection they need, a view that was repeated and reinforced yesterday in Ofsted’s annual report.

“That was why we began a stock-take of local safeguarding children boards last month, including the governance and accountability arrangements, the independence of local safeguarding children board chairs and whether the statutory guidance needs to be revised. At the same time we also started work to establish what more can be done to improve the quality, consistency and impact of serious case reviews.

“As I explained to the House on Monday and immediately following the legal verdict on 11 November, the children’s Minister and I asked Lord Laming to provide us with an urgent report of progress made across the country in implementing effective arrangements for safeguarding children. In parallel, we have also set out legislative proposals to improve children’s trusts that will provide stronger area-wide accountability for the well-being and safety of children across all children’s services.

“I met Lord Laming on Monday to agree the scope of his report, which will be ready early in the new year. He will report on the key features of good safeguarding practice and whether they are being universally applied across the country, including the development of the professional workforce, interagency working and effective systems of public accountability. He will also report on the key barriers, including in the legal process, that may be impeding children’s professionals in their work and stopping good practice becoming common practice, including whether the right balance is being struck between the correct application of processes when taking a child into care and the child’s needs, and what specific actions should be taken by national government and local agencies to overcome these barriers and accelerate systematic improvement across the country. I have also decided to bring the stock-take of local safeguarding children boards and the work on serious case reviews which we announced last month under the remit of Lord Laming’s work.

“I am pleased that Lord Laming has now begun his work. He has today written to experts and interested parties setting out how they can inform his findings. I have also placed a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

“Professionals working with children in this country do a tough job, often in difficult circumstances. They have a great responsibility and they make difficult judgements every day. But where serious mistakes are made, there must be accountability. We must never forget that our first duty is to make sure that all children are safe and protected from harm, and we will not rest until we have the best possible child protection arrangements to safeguard our most vulnerable children.

“The case of Baby P is tragic and appalling. We have a responsibility to take whatever action is needed to ensure that such a tragedy cannot happen again and that all children are able to grow up safe in Haringey and across the country. I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

14:12:00

Baroness Morris of Bolton
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for repeating this Statement on safeguarding children made necessary by the distressing details of child protection in Haringey. The horrific images on our television screens and the tragic story of Baby P’s short and brutal life have shocked the whole country. The understandable sense of outrage that this trusting little boy could have been seen so many times by one professional after another and still be failed by a system designed to protect him has left us all asking how this could happen in modern Britain. So we welcome the fact that the Government have ordered an inquiry into the practices in Haringey, and we will expect them to act on the findings.

It is all too easy to point the finger of blame at the social workers, who are at the sharp end of some of the most difficult and complex cases imaginable and who are submerged by mounds of paperwork. No amount of child protection legislation is a substitute for properly trained and resourced professionals. The number of cases they are looking after, and the mix of those cases, also is crucial if they are to do their job properly. However, you have to question the particular pressures that social workers are under in Haringey given that almost a quarter of the posts are vacant. You also have to ask who is going to want to work there. Can the Minister say what the Government are doing to address the problem of a critical shortage of children's social workers, particularly in some of the most deprived areas of London?

A more urgent question is: why are we still in the dark over who had ultimate responsibility for this case, and where does the buck stop? After the tragic death of Victoria Climbié, the Laming report called for clear lines of accountability; and yet here we are again, eight years later in Haringey, and none the wiser. Can the Minister say who is accountable? And what about the legal services? They told police and social workers that there was not sufficient evidence to apply for a care order, but were they aware that three separate doctors had reached the conclusion that Baby P was probably suffering from non-accidental injuries?

I am sure the Minister will probably tell me that all this will be subject to the findings of the independent inquiry, but perhaps she could help me on the question of the inspection of social services. In between the death of Baby P and the subsequent court case, Haringey Council and its children’s services were awarded three stars—the highest award available from Ofsted. Does the Minister agree that when serious cases are pending, that should raise a note of caution? If the basis of testing the quality of the system is flawed we will never be able to judge its true efficiency.

We have the greatest admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and welcome his review into the key features of good safeguarding, the key barriers that may be impeding children’s professionals in their work, and the action that needs to be taken. However, the implications of what happened in Haringey and the problems facing children’s professionals across the country go much wider than this and the Government will find it difficult to solve the problems unless they look at family breakdown. My right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith is so right to focus on the chaotic life that is, sadly, the normal picture for so many children. One of the chilling statistics that he highlighted from recent research carried out in the USA is that children living with non-biological parents are 50 times more likely to die from inflicted injuries than if they live with their biological parents. We must do all we can to bring much needed stability to the lives of these vulnerable children.

It is impossible for us to imagine how grown-ups can inflict such damage on an innocent, trusting child. Sadly, some people are simply wicked. But others have serious mental health problems. There is still too large a gap between child and adult services. I hope that this is an area where the noble Lord, Lord Laming, might apply his considerable expertise. The Government have our full support in ensuring that we have the best possible child protection arrangements to safeguard our most vulnerable children. For our part, my honourable friend Tim Loughton, shadow Minister for children, following an urgent consultation with Conservative councillors in the immediate wake of the Baby P tragedy, has written to all Conservative lead councillors asking them to make changes to the structure of local safeguarding children boards so that in future they will be chaired independently.

Writing this weekend about Baby P, my great friend Nadine Dorries MP said:

“Chocolate may have been smeared on his face, but his eyes were surrounded by red and swollen tissue ... If there is one Baby P who has died how many babies are out there waiting for someone to notice before sad red rimmed eyes become a broken bone or worse?”.
 

That is why the findings of these inquiries and the subsequent actions cannot come a day too soon.

14:19:00

Baroness Sharp of Guildford
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.

14:25:00

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
My Lords, I start by thanking both noble Baronesses for their support in dealing with this extremely tragic case and the constructive all-party tone, which I heard in another place as well. It is very much in the interests of children and young people that we can discuss the issues frankly and openly and bring them under close scrutiny in this House and the other place. I very much welcome the tone and support from the noble Baronesses.

I hope to be able to deal with a number of questions in the time that I have. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, rightly asked about social workers. She asked what the Government are doing to promote the uptake of social work positions, given the worrying numbers of vacancies. The Government are investing £73 million in social care workforce development, and our children's workforce review, which was announced in the Children's Plan and which we are currently working on, will address the important issues, such as recruitment, retention, the training of social workers and the support that they need, especially when they are new in the profession. Since 1997, there has been a 29 per cent increase in the number of social workers in children's services. I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness that this is a key area of concern for us all.

We have a new, rigorous process of inspection through the joint area reviews, which now take place every three years, and the annual area performance assessment, to which the noble Baroness referred, which took place in Haringey in 2007. That was carried out when a serious case review for Baby P was just beginning, so it was not possible for it to take that into account, but when serious case reviews are undertaken, it is expected that learning from them is fed into the system immediately. Although there are sometimes delays in serious case reviews because of pending court action, we do not see it as acceptable to wait, because that knowledge is important and must be applied. In fact, it is the role of safeguarding advisers in government offices to work with local authorities and ensure that they put the early findings of serious case reviews into practice.

Joint area reviews take account of serious case reviews as a matter of standard practice. The review taking place in Haringey will take account of this serious case review and will look at whether it is adequate. That will be addressed when they report to the Secretary of State on 1 December.

The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, made an important point about the remarks of her right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith who has talked about the importance of stability and, I think, about the importance of early intervention, which we all agree are key aspects of the Every Child Matters agenda and safeguarding children globally. I very much welcome her drawing attention to those comments.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, talked about the review being undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, which is looking at the implementation of the Every Child Matters agenda. We absolutely want his report to tell us whether we doing well enough, whether we are going far enough and what changes need to be made now in the light of this tragic case. Publication of the comprehensive serious case review report is not a matter of rule. The Information Commissioner ruled on that recently and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has looked at that. In order to ensure that Opposition spokespeople in another place have the information that they need to think about and to scrutinise the way in which the joint area review is being undertaken, he has offered to allow them to see that report at the earliest possible stage. I hope noble Lords opposite will understand that we are doing everything we can to make sure that the information is available for people to make their judgments.

The selection of staff for the joint inspectorate to speak to is absolutely unacceptable. My right honourable friend in the other place has made it clear that he would not expect this to be the case. We have been clear that we need action now. The tragic case of Baby P has led to convictions. The serious case review was reviewed by Ministers in the department. As soon as we received it, we sent in the joint inspectors. We will have their report and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will take action, along with the children’s Minister, urgently and promptly.

14:32:00

Baroness Pitkeathley
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former social worker as well as chair of CAFCASS. Wearing my professional hat, I am grateful for what the Minister and the noble Baronesses have said about the profession of social work and in recognising the tremendous burdens that such social workers carry. Does the Minister agree that this case is bound to have a serious effect on the morale of that already beleaguered profession? As well as the very welcome initiatives already being taken by the Government, will she consider that they might undertake the kind of promotional programme that they have undertaken so successfully with teachers to address the needs and resources required for social work?

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her question. Last year, under the Children’s Plan, we announced a commitment to develop a children’s workforce strategy, to look at all the professions working with children and to create a more holistic approach to workforce development. Central to that will be the focus that we place on intensive development for the social work profession. As my noble friend suggests, that will mean looking at the needs of the profession as regards child and adolescent social workers. Their needs will be looked at from their qualifications and professional development, right through to recruitment and retention, and the support that they need at various points in their careers. It is absolutely right that my noble friend should raise this issue, which we treat very carefully.

Lord Northbourne
My Lords, most of the Government’s comments so far seem to be related to procedures, reports, strategies and all sorts of things of that kind. My concern simply is about money. Will the brief of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, enable him to report on whether the borough of Haringey had in hand enough money or was it influenced by shortage of money in making the decision that it made?

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
My Lords, the report being prepared by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, will be wide ranging. His letter containing the terms of reference is in the Library. Specifically, he will look at the effective implementation of safeguarding systems and procedures, which is about inter-agency working, and the development of a professional workforce, including capacity. I have no doubt that the noble Lord will feel able to report on matters that he sees as important, including, I am sure, resources.

The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, while accountability is crucial, no additional bureaucracy will be placed on social workers and others than is absolutely necessary? Does she agree that if it were, social work and other social care work might be made increasingly unattractive? Does she recognise that some bureaucracy needs to be there, but that it should be as small as possible? I make no apologies for re-emphasising the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, that the Government have been very successful in raising the status of teachers over the past 10 years. It is an immensely encouraging achievement. They have taken many steps to promote the status of social workers. Can they repeat what they have done for teaching? In particular, will the Minister look at the model of the teacher development agency, which has been so helpful in promoting good quality teacher training, ensuring that the highest calibre of applicant is accepted on courses and has been a powerful voice for getting the best for teachers? Will the Minister look at the agency to see how that model can be applied to social work?

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
My Lords, we have been working hard to address the bureaucracy load of social workers through initiatives such as the integrated children’s system, which is very much about streamlining the administration and record-keeping with which social workers are engaged, and the development of the contact point online directory. As the noble Earl makes clear, it is important that professionals keep accurate and timely records, and that there are processes to facilitate them in doing so. On the children’s workforce strategy, of course we are looking at the experience of teaching and at what lessons can be learnt. Now, more than ever, we need to recognise the extremely challenging and important role that social workers play in supporting safeguarding children and young people. We need to look forensically at what specific initiatives we can develop to ensure that the profession develops comprehensively from the start, through professional development and so on.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former social worker, a previous director of social services and the deputy chair of CAFCASS, an organisation that employs around 2,000 social workers. I should like to ask several questions that are inter-related to what previous speakers have asked. First, how will we gather through the new review being undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, a different understanding of the matrix in which social workers function? They have to be responsive to local communities and to expectations of communities, which often press for children to remain at home, and they are continually criticised for removing children inappropriately—as against the pressure when something goes wrong and the media immediately hound social workers for not removing children. How is the social worker doing her job to marry that matrix of expectation with the complex demands of bureaucracy—there has to be some bureaucracy; records must be kept and information gathered so that we know how many children are of concern and where they are in order to make a comprehensive assessment? This is a workforce that for some time has been bowed by poor pay, the undermining of its professional standing in terms of decision-making, and the sheer horror of worrying about what happens to clients. That is because the person who will suffer emotionally and has to face the press as a result of this case is the social worker responsible for the child.

Faced with an extraordinarily complicated problem, how is my noble friend Lord Laming going to put aside the issues surrounding structures and get to the questions I have been asking recently? These include how to improve practice, the standing of the worker within the family so that advice is acted upon, and ensuring that the nation can be confident about the band of workers in whose hands the welfare of these vulnerable children is placed.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
My Lords, I am sure the noble Baroness will understand that I do not want to prejudge what the noble Lord, Lord Laming, will say in his report. In response to her eloquent explanation of the difficulties of striking such a delicate balance between the challenges faced by social workers every day of their working lives, I should say that it is very much about culture. We need people who are trained, confident and able to articulate their professional judgment in what are often difficult circumstances. Procedures and processes are all about providing a framework to support that, as well as good management and encouraging the right culture within the organisation. Those are the exact issues we have asked the inspectors undertaking the joint area review in Haringey to look at and report on as a matter of urgency. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, will consider whether the entire Every Child Matters agenda has been taken forward and implemented as fully as had been expected at the time.

Lord Mawson
My Lords, one of the reasons why I am in this House is to try to make connections between some of these difficult policy matters and the practical realities of what happens on the ground. As many noble Lords know, I spent 25 years working with a group of dysfunctional housing estates. I went on to develop the Bromley by Bow Centre, which arose out of the difficult circumstances of a woman called Jean Vialls, who died at the age of 35 of cancer, leaving two children aged two and 16. She fell through all the cracks of our social and healthcare provision.

One would hope that we had learnt the lessons and moved on, but in many ways we are in the same place. Two years ago I was asked by Christine Gilbert, now the head of Ofsted but at the time the chief executive of Tower Hamlets, to look at St Paul’s Way. Millions of pounds were being invested in a new school, in a new health centre and surgery and in housing, but the key professionals in each of those public sector bodies were not communicating with one another.

Perhaps I may share two thoughts with noble Lords that it would be good also to discuss with the Minister outside the Chamber. The first is the issue of culture shift and mindset. In my experience of working with partnerships on the ground, some people in the public sector do not see why they need to work in a more integrated way and still do not understand why they should have to work collaboratively with others outside their particular area.

Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I hate to interrupt the noble Lord because of his experience of these issues, but noble Lords are supposed to make a brief contribution and ask questions of the Minister.

Lord Mawson
My Lords, my question is to ask the Minister whether we could have a meeting to talk about the issues of culture shift and mindset, as well as the question of the skills and capabilities of staff. How do we enable these workers to relate to staff in other sectors in real and reasonable ways? I ask this because I fear that there are some real difficulties in this area that have nothing to do with bad people, but are to do with skills and capabilities.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
My Lords, the noble Lord has highlighted a key issue of concern for us. There is a lot of talk about integrated working and we have to be clear about what we mean by it. What skills and capabilities do we expect the children’s and the wider social care workforce to adopt in order to create a high-achieving workforce? I would be more than happy to discuss with the noble Lord and others if that is appropriate how we should bring about such a culture shift.

Baroness Northover
My Lords, I speak as a Haringey parent and without the expertise shown by others in our debate. From what I have been hearing, in Haringey there is a tremendous amount of concern about what people want to feed into an inquiry in this area, which obviously this more limited inquiry cannot embrace. Indeed, we have heard about the restrictions on it. My noble friend Lady Sharp asked the Minister about a full public inquiry, but I do not think that the Minister answered the point. Could she elaborate on it, because it seems that there are questions not only about this specific case—one in which a number of issues that people are talking about locally need to be explored—but also about several other instances that were brought to the attention of the leader of the council but on which no action was taken? For those reasons if for no others, I think that there is a tremendous loss of confidence in Haringey in this area of social services provision, which would definitely benefit from a full public inquiry.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her contribution. I want to be clear that we in the department are committed to taking action at this stage. Our concern about the approach being espoused by the noble Baroness is that an inquiry of that nature takes a long time to complete. Immediately on receipt of the report of the Baby P incident, my right honourable friend Ed Balls, the Secretary of State, sent in independent inspectors so that we could be clear on the appropriate action to take. That was done because urgent action is required. We are expecting a comprehensive review.

We sought advice from Ofsted about the most reasonable timeframe within which to achieve a report and an intensive two-week period, to 1 December, was agreed. It is the shortest timeframe within which to produce a comprehensive report for the department. The Secretary of State is uniquely focused on taking the right action and is not prejudging what needs to be done. We shall have a fully independent and comprehensive report on which to base our consideration for taking action.

I appreciate what the noble Baroness has said, but we have asked John Coughlan from Hampshire to work alongside the department for children’s services in Haringey to ensure that, as of today, we can be sure that the correct safeguarding procedures are now being followed for children and young people in that borough, since obviously these are matters of great concern to parents. That is our approach and we are not prejudging what steps might be taken later.

Baroness Howells of St Davids
My Lords, I know that everyone feels emotional about Baby P. Unfortunately, I am not so graced that I can keep my emotions to myself. I must ask seriously who was parenting Baby P. We know from the report that three brutes were responsible for the welfare of that innocent child, so my question is: what were the professionals, who are paid to look after the welfare of children in that borough, thinking when they failed to take action after receiving various reports? The case review said that there was strong evidence that agencies failed, singly and collectively, to adhere to the statutory procedures for the proper management of child protection cases. Can the Minister tell the House why those involved in the case are still being paid by the state? Report after report is produced whenever a child is treated in this way, so what does the country think when we produce yet another and say that we will get better? I wonder whether these things are not simply get-outs from the horror that some of our children suffer.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
My Lords, my noble friend speaks with the anguish that many in this country feel and asks questions that we all ask. The Secretary of State is set on taking the right course of action. I know that there is a sense that there are reports after reports, but we must ensure that we learn from this tragic loss of life. There are many ways of learning, but we need to ensure most of all that anything that is learnt from this tragedy is put into action. That is where we must be right now.