The death of Baby P and the kidnap of Shannon Matthews ought to provide a wake-up call, not just to social services but to the police, schools and health services too (Letters, December 9).

Frontline social workers have a tough job. They often have too many cases and, sadly, too little experience to deal with some of the situations in which they find themselves.

They are beset by a politically correct system bedevilled by a lack of common sense.

Too much time is taken up by courses teaching staff not to use terms like “love” and “dear” and how to use the latest jargon to describe – among other things – clients, customers, service users or whatever the latest buzzword is.

Some of this jargon is related to the form-filling which is linked to funding for their employers.

And they have been asked to use computer software which is so time-consuming and clunky it represents a technological step backwards.

This comes at a time when the “common assessment framework” – introduced under the Government’s “every child matters” policy – is demanding ever more detailed information even on children who are at no discernible risk. Your children and mine.

Put simply, social workers are becoming a tool to gather masses of information on our children, as are teachers and many others employed by the State.

As a result, less time is available for frontline duties.

Many social workers realise this and are giving up in despair and choosing other jobs.

Others keep their heads down and hope they don’t miss a Baby P on their watch – because they don’t have the time to properly get to know those they are supposed to care for.

What can we do? We need less indiscriminate surveillance by the State and more targeted monitoring.

We need greater openness, which is a challenge in an area where confidentiality is quite properly a contradictory necessity. A balance has to be struck and at the moment the balance is not right.

The courts must be more open as they are in most criminal cases. This is vital in family cases, adoption hearings and care proceedings.

Reporting restrictions may be advisable but the Press should be able to attend – as they do in the youth courts.

And, as with inquests, people who have a recognised and legitimate interest should also be allowed to attend.

These moves would help safeguard against injustice.

The secrecy surrounding child protection in this country has proved counterproductive for too long. The Soham murders exposed some of the dangers. The Data Protection Act and similar secrecy laws are a fig-leaf to protect shoddy professionals or poorly performing councils. They do not protect vulnerable children. In fact, they do the opposite.

The law must be reformed to increase openness, transparency and accountability.

D Kelly
London Road, Brighton