THE torture of two young boys in Edlington, South Yorkshire, has shocked the nation – but to what extent should the details of the case be made public?

Tory leader David Cameron has called for the Serious Case Review (SCR) to be published in full, arguing that releasing only a summary gives a sense of an “establishment stitchup”.

That has led to claims from Children’s Secretary Ed Balls that full publication would be “deeply irresponsible”

because of the risk of abused children being identified.

We believe passionately in greater public sector transparency wherever possible. For example, we find it unjustifiable for medical evidence relating to the controversial death of weapons inspector David Kelly to be kept secret for 70 years.

But in the Edlington case, with children involved in such horrific circumstances, we understand the need for some information to remain private.

Lessons must, of course, be learnt. The SCR identified multiple failings by nine agencies, with 31 opportunities to intervene being missed.

But we believe that the appropriate level of information to be placed in the public domain lies somewhere between the Tory and Labour points of view.

An executive summary comprising two pages out of the 150 in the full report may not be enough to fully expose the failings in the system.

But full, uncensored publication of every page is not the right way forward either. As much detail as possible should be made public – but not anything that might identify the youngsters subjected to such an abhorrent ordeal.