An MP today demanded that Bradford social services chiefs should "come clean" about their involvement with Child A - who is at the centre of the Ashworth Hospital scandal.

Bradford North MP Terry Rooney said a "catalogue of errors" led to the girl, now aged nine, being encouraged by her father to play with paedophiles on 151 visits to the top-security hospital.

He said: "Bradford Social Services should now come clean about what actually happened, what failings there were, and what they are doing to prevent it happening again.

"It's totally and absolutely wrong for Bradford Social Services to say they are innocent."

It has emerged that social workers knew that Child A's father was a convicted sex offender five years before they removed her from his charge in 1997 after Ashworth patient Skipton-born Stephen Daggett blew the whistle on what was going on.

The shock revelation has come as Bradford Council reopens its inquiry into its handling of the case.

Bradford social services had a tip-off in 1992 that Child A's father, who had been granted custody of her the previous year, had a conviction for the kidnap and serious sexual assault of a 16-year-old girl.

They also found out he was a former patient of Ashworth Hospital - which houses some of Britain's most dangerous sexual offenders - although they received no reply from Ashworth officials when they asked for more information about him.

At a case conference that followed it was concluded that Child A - then aged three - was not at risk from her father as his offence was against a much older girl.

Social workers did not put the child on the 'at risk' register - instead they merely recommended that her school keep an eye on her.

"I think she should have been on the at risk register," said Mr Rooney.

"Even if the girl was not at risk from her father, she was at risk from the people he associated with."

Director of Bradford Social Services, Liam Hughes, today confirmed that an inquiry by the Bradford and Airedale Child Protection Committee into the council's handling of the case had re-opened. It had been adjourned during the Fallon inquiry into the hospital but the report would go to the Social Services Inspectorate.

Mr Hughes said: "As soon as Ashworth Hospital made us fully aware in January 1997 of the dangers posed to visiting children, we immediately removed the child from the care of her father, by obtaining an Emergency Protection Order from the courts."

Councillor Mike Young, chairman of social services, said he was satisfied no fault lay with the authority.

He said officials had been let down by Ashworth Hospital which had failed to raise the alarm over Child A's visits made between 1994 and 1996.

"The real blame lies at Ashworth where there was an enormous breakdown of communication, and quite blatant lying," said Councillor Young.

"They should have alerted us if there was any concern."

Mr Rooney also spoke of his concern that Child A's father was granted custody of her in 1991 when it is believed the judge was unaware of his criminal record.

Today, protection is afforded by the Children's Act which radically changed the system in October 1991. In addition, paedophiles are now tracked more effectively, via the Sex Offenders' Register.

"This man was still under probation supervision as a released offender at the time of the custody hearing," said Mr Rooney.

"It strikes me as a major flaw in the court welfare system. You wonder how many other children were put at risk by lax court procedures. I am staggered this could have happened in the first place."

Family law specialist Lyn Ayrton, a partner with Bradford solicitors' firm Gordon Wright and Wright, said: "By not disclosing his previous conviction, this man denied the court the chance to carry out a proper investigation. He denied the court the opportunity to request input from social services or from a psychiatrist. The hearing was probably all over in five minutes.

"Things changed in October 1991 when you had to fill out a much longer form which asked questions about other court proceedings."

Child A, who cannot be identified by law, is said to be thriving in her new foster home.

Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.