THE tragic death of four-month-old Emma Dyson, who was killed by her mother, raises a whole catalogue of questions.

Health bosses and Social Services are carrying out an inquiry but they are remaining distinctly tight-lipped about crucial aspects of this case.

It seems inconceivable that Emma was not placed on the children at risk register when her mother, Rabina Hashim, had already received a prison sentence for a violent attack on a two-month-old boy in Manchester.

And why was a woman with Rabina Hashim's record allowed to leave the mental health unit of Rossendale General Hospital, where she was being treated for post natal depression, only weeks before she threw her daughter into the canal?

Even after she left hospital she received daily visits from Social Services workers. But still the symptoms that were to lead to Emma's violent death were not picked up.

Rabina Hashim's background and her current difficulties should have been clear pointers to the risks little Emma faced.

Hindsight, inevitably, comes up with all the right answers and it would be wrong to pass judgement on hospital and social workers.

But you do not have to be a cynic to make the assumption that the position in which Emma was placed was avoidable.

Gill Rigg, chairman of the Lancashire Area Child Protection Committee, said that the review was nearing its conclusion "and if there are any actions identified as a result of this, these will be put into place."

That is all very well. But it is imperative that we are told -- and quickly -- what safeguards are to be introduced.

Anything less will smack of a cover-up.

The existing system clearly has not worked in this case and we have a right to know what is being done to make sure there is no repeat of these tragic circumstances.

The case has created enormous public interest and there must be firm assurances that children at risk receive adequate protection.