---

20 Oct 2003 : Column 411W—continued

US Ships (Dismantling)

Norman Baker: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the plans by Able UK to dismantle ships from the US Reserve Fleet and the relevant planning permission needs in respect of dry dock facilities. [133293]

Keith Hill: The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister understands that Able UK has entered into a contract with the US Marine Administration to dismantle ships from the US Reserve Fleet. The decision on whether planning permission is needed for this operation, and for any associated development, and the determination of any planning applications, are, matters for Hartlepool Borough Council, in accordance with their local planning responsibilities.

HOME DEPARTMENT

Criminal Records

Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long on average it took to process an application for screening for criminal records of care home workers in (a) July 2002, (b) October 2002, (c) January 2003, (d) April 2003 and (e) July 2003. [127463]

Paul Goggins: Information is not available in the form requested. There are no IT procedures at present to extract this information from the Criminal Records Bureau database. It is expected that, as systems develop, this information will become available at some point in the future.

However, average turnaround times for Standard and Enhanced Disclosures during the periods specified are shown in the table:

Days

	Standard	Enhanced
July 2002	16.71	21.04
October 2002	16.75	32.00
January 2003	26.00	47.72
April 2003	12.27	23.18
July 2003	19.25	25.91

The turnaround times for January are higher than usual because of lost production days between Christmas and New Year due to staff holidays, and a training and consolidation exercise of new PNC procedures.

The Criminal Records Bureau has been steadily improving its performance and output since October 2002. The increase in July can be attributed to a surge in applications during the last two weeks in June in advance of an increase in fees coming into effect on 1 July. Approximately 50,000 additional applications were received above the Bureau's normal intake at that time of about 43,000 applications per week. While this

20 Oct 2003 : Column 412W

increase in applications temporarily increased the turnaround times for applications, the Criminal Records Bureau nevertheless continued to meet its service standard targets.

Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will exempt voluntary organisations from the recent increase in the level of charges to the Criminal Records Bureau for the remainder of financial year 2003–04 in respect of checks for paid staff; [127306]

(2) what estimate he has made of the cost to voluntary organisations in financial year 2003–04 of the increase in the level of charges for checks by the Criminal Records Bureau in respect of paid staff. [127398]

Paul Goggins: We have no plans to exempt paid employees of voluntary organisations from paying the higher rates of fee which came into force on 1 July. Responsibility for paying the fee rests primarily with the individual applicant, although it is open to the employer to reimburse the charge. Charging a lower rate in some cases would mean adjusting the charge for others, who may be not better-placed to pay. Checks remain free to volunteers, saving the voluntary and community sector an estimated £10 million in the current financial year.

I have placed in the Library a Regulatory Impact Assessment which assesses the impact of the fee increase across all sectors.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the changes to the disclosure levels regarding information which the Criminal Records Bureau will be required to provide to local authorities when they check on the suitability of persons to become Hackney carriage or private hire drivers; and if he will make a statement. [129184]

Paul Goggins [holding answer 11 September 2003]: At present, all applicants for licences as taxi and private hire vehicle drivers are eligible for a Standard Disclosure. Some—principally those whose duties regularly involve being in sole charge of unaccompanied children (for example, under a school contract) or vulnerable adults—are eligible for an Enhanced Disclosure. Earlier this year, as part of a wider consultation exercise about recommendations of the Independent Review Team appointed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to look at the operation of the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB), we sought views on a proposition that the criteria for levels of Disclosure should be set by Ministers, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, on the basis of risk assessment and that it would then be the function of the CRB to ensure that the criteria were observed. An analysis of the responses received was placed in the Library on 5 June. We have since received a number of representations on this matter, instigated by the National Association of Taxi and Private Hire Licensing and Enforcement Officers. These argue that licensing authorities should determine the level of Disclosure required. This view will be taken into account in arriving at a conclusion on the matter.

Mr. Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Criminal Records Bureau will issue a disclosure for Kau Bellah, CRB reference 2270071. [131176]

20 Oct 2003 : Column 413W

Paul Goggins: A disclosure was issued for Kau Bellah on 24 September.

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with colleagues from the Department of Health on the proposal of care home owners to seek a delay in the implementation of Criminal Records Bureau plans to require complete record checks prior to the employment of staff. [131324]

Paul Goggins: None. I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has received a number of representations from representatives of the care home sector in the light of the National Care Standards Commission's decision to withdraw its interim guidance on Criminal Records Bureau checks for care home staff.

The National Care Standards Commission, as the independent regulator, issued a press release on 22 September in order to make its position clear on this matter. It is available on the Commission's website at www.carestandards.org.uk.

Aylesbury Young Offenders Institution

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his response to HM Chief Inspector of Prisons' report on Aylesbury YOI, published on 14 August. [130540]

Paul Goggins: The Prison Service produces an action plan for each inspection report based on the Chief Inspector's recommendations. Action plans list every recommendation and progress towards implementing each one. I see the original action plan and subsequent progress reports.

The initial action plan for Aylesbury Young Offenders Institution should be ready by mid-October.

Child Abuse Investigations

Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to ensure that, when the police conduct a trawl in child abuse investigations, complainants are offered victim support services from an early stage of involvement in the investigation. [128353]

Paul Goggins: The Handbook for Senior Investigating Officers produced by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Government's Inter-Agency Guidance both detail steps to be taken to ensure that victims of historical abuse are offered victim support services as an initial step. The Inter-Agency Guidance says that "an unequivocal victim support strategy and protocol should be established at the outset" of investigations, including consideration and support for victims both during and after an investigation.

Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Government will reform (a) the law of similar fact evidence, as recommended by the Home Affairs Committee, to require a striking similarity in historical child abuse cases and (b) the law of severance to introduce a presumption in favour of severance in cases where the similar allegations are inadmissible on a similar fact basis. [128357]

20 Oct 2003 : Column 414W

Paul Goggins: The Government set out its position on these issues in its response, published in April this year, to the Fourth Report of the Home Affairs Committee (Session 2001–02) "The Conduct of Investigations into Past Cases of Abuse in Children's Homes":

"55. The Committee's recommendation [that the law of similar fact evidence is reformed to require a "striking similarity" in historical child abuse cases] would return the law on similar fact evidence (for these cases) to the position that applied following the case of Boardman in 1975. However, the test for admitting such evidence has developed since then to recognise that its value is not limited to cases of "striking similarity". For example, multiple accusations against an offender have a significance that derives from the unlikelihood that a person will be independently falsely accused of offences of a like nature, whether or not there is a particular degree of similarity. Whilst such accusations do not establish that an incident is true, and issues of collusion need to be considered carefully (as they would if the threshold were "strikingly similar"), such evidence is certainly relevant to assessing the cogency of a witness's account. Evidence of other incidents might also be relevant when considering an innocent explanation put forward by the defendant—what might credibly be explained as a mistake on one occasion becomes much less so in respect of repeated incidents. Here, too, the relevance of the other allegations does not depend on establishing a particular level of similarity between the events.


56. The Government is therefore concerned that reverting to the "strikingly similar" test would risk denying juries and magistrates a range of potentially highly relevant evidence. Our approach, as embodied in our proposals for reforming the law on evidence of bad character in the Criminal Justice Bill currently before Parliament, is to enable juries and magistrates to hear the widest range of relevant evidence that will assist them to reach a fair verdict. The admissibility of bad character evidence should therefore depend on its relevance to the issues in the case, rather than on a particular degree of similarity.


57. We are not, however, complacent that dangers cannot arise where evidence is admitted in these circumstances. However, there are safeguards to ensure that trials are fair. For example, in determining whether to admit the evidence, the courts must consider whether it would be more prejudicial than probative. The judge will therefore be able to direct that the charges be considered evidentially separate if necessary. And where this might not be sufficient to secure a fair trial, the judge can order that the various charges are tried separately, ensuring that the jury in each case is not aware of the evidence in the others. The Criminal Justice Bill also proposes that judges should be under a duty to withdraw a case from the jury where it becomes clear that seemingly independent allegations are in fact the result of collusion or other distortion and a conviction would be unsafe.


58. The Committee also recommends a presumption in favour of ordering separate trials where allegations cannot be heard as evidence in support of each other on a similar fact basis. In their judgement in the case of Christou (1997), dealing with the severance of charges for sexual offences, the House of Lords held that a trial judge should exercise his discretion to sever to achieve a fair resolution of the issues. This is buttressed by the Human Rights Act 1998, which makes it clear that the courts must act in a way that is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights including ensuring a fair trial. Given the centrality of fairness to the issue of severance, it is not clear what the proposed presumption would substantively add. The Committee is concerned that "sexual offences tend to engender greater prejudice than non-sexual offences" (paragraph 96). However, we do not agree that this warrants a special rule to deal with historic child abuse cases: the issue of prejudice will clearly be an important aspect of deciding whether severance is required and to the extent that there is a greater risk of prejudice in any particular case, whether of historic child abuse or any other, the argument in favour of severance will clearly be stronger."

20 Oct 2003 : Column 415W

---