Nineteenth Report
Instruments drawn to the special attention
of the house
The Committee has considered the following instruments
and has determined that the special attention of the House should
be drawn to them on the grounds specified.
A. Draft Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland)
Order 2008
Draft Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland Consequential
Amendments) Order 2008
Summary: These Orders consolidate for Northern
Ireland legislation on sexual offences following similar legislation
for England and Wales in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Until police
and criminal justice matters are devolved to the Northern Ireland
Assembly, such legislation is made by Order in Council following
consideration by the Assembly under section 85 of the Northern
Ireland Act 1998. The Assembly and other consultees were broadly
in favour of the legislation but opposed to the lowering of the
age of sexual consent from 17 to 16. The Secretary of State has
none the less decided to lower the age of consent for the sake
of consistency across the United Kingdom.
These draft Orders are drawn to the special attention
of the House on the ground that they give rise to issues of public
policy likely to be of interest to the House.
1. The Northern Ireland Office (NIO) have laid
these draft Orders under section 85 of the Northern Ireland Act
1998 together with an Explanatory Memorandum (EM). Under that
section, the Northern Ireland Assembly has the right to consider
and report[1] on the Secretary
of State's proposal for a draft order. A summary of the representations
made to the consultation exercise, which includes a list of the
recommendations made by the Northern Ireland Assembly, has been
published on the Northern Ireland Office website.[2]
Of approximately 370 replies to the consultation exercise, 340
related to the age of consent. We too have received written evidence
on this subject from the Christian Institute, printed at Appendix
1.
2. These Orders replicate for Northern Ireland
legislative provision which already exists in England and Wales,
chiefly in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, in setting out the interpretation
of, and appropriate penalties for, sexual offences. The Orders
draw together other legislation on the subject to consolidate
it into one statute. The Orders gender-neutralise all offences
and lower the age of sexual consent for both sexes from 17 to
16.
3. Until police and criminal justice matters
are devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly, such legislation
is made by Order in Council following consideration by the Assembly
under section 85 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. An Assembly
Select Committee considered the proposals for these instruments:
the Committee generally welcomed the adoption of the same rules
as for England and Wales, with the exception of certain specific
issues. In particular, the Committee wished to retain 17 as the
age of consent and have sports coaches included in the definition
of "position of trust". The Assembly endorsed the Committee's
conclusions and so reported to the Secretary of State.
4. In the draft Orders before the House, the
Secretary of State has retained the proposal to lower the age
of consent to 16, overruling the Assembly's views on the ground
of making sexual offences legislation consistent throughout the
United Kingdom.
5. On whether sports coaches should be included
in the definition of position of trust, the department report
that this issue was raised in the consultation which preceded
the English legislation. The Department for Culture, Media and
Sport and the Home Office took evidence on the issue, but decided
that there was insufficient evidence of abuse to warrant a change
to the legislation.
B. Bathing Water Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/1097)
Summary: These Regulations implement the revised
Bathing Water Directive. In consultation, the Government sought
views on alternative approaches: either to meet the minimum requirements
of the Directive, or to go beyond the minimum. While a majority
of respondents supported the more ambitious alternative, the Environment
Agency and the water and farming industries argued for meeting
the minimum requirements. The Government have been persuaded by
the arguments of the latter group, not least because of the priority
which they place on keeping water and sewerage charges affordable
and on the viability of agriculture. It will be important that
the Government set out clearly what their chosen approach means
for the quality of bathing waters in this country.
These Regulations are drawn to the special attention
of the House on the ground that they give rise to issues of public
policy likely to be of interest to the House.
6. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (DEFRA) have laid the Bathing Water Regulations 2008 under
section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. An Explanatory
Memorandum (EM), Transposition Note and Impact Assessment (IA)
have been provided.
7. The EM states that the Regulations transpose
the requirements of the revised Bathing Water Directive (agreed
in 2006),[3] and that they
revoke the legislation transposing the current Bathing Water Directive
(agreed in 1976).[4] The
Regulations primarily place a duty on the Environment Agency ("the
Agency") to use its powers to achieve compliance with the
revised Directive, in particular, to meet the new bathing water
quality standards by the end of the 2015 bathing season. Obligations
are placed on beach operators to display bathing water quality
information on beach signage during the bathing season and to
work with the Agency, local authorities and sewerage undertakers
during pollution incidents, and for each party to take adequate
measures to protect bathers' health.
CURRENT BATHING WATER DIRECTIVE (76/160/EEC) - "CBWD"
8. The EM explains that the cBWD, which came
into force 30 years ago, requires Member States to identify popular
bathing areas and to monitor water quality at these bathing waters
throughout the bathing season, which runs from mid-May to September
in England and Wales. The cBWD sets a number of microbiological
and physico-chemical standards that bathing waters must either
comply with (the "mandatory" standards) or endeavour
to meet (the "guideline" standards).
9. The EM notes that it was only in the early
1990s that the UK undertook formal transposition of the cBWD.
As a result, water companies in England and Wales have invested
over £2 billion to improve sewerage infrastructure and, in
turn, to secure significant improvements in bathing water quality.
The EM states that in 2007, 97.8% of bathing waters in England
and 97.5% in Wales complied with the mandatory standards, compared
with 79.0% and 78.0% in 1992, respectively; and that in 2007,
72.5% of all bathing waters in England and 86.3% in Wales met
the guideline standards compared with 28.7% and 26.0% in 1992,
respectively.
REVISED BATHING WATER DIRECTIVE (2006/7/EC) - "RBWD"
10. The EM states that, whilst the overall objective
of the rBWD remains the protection of public health, it has provided
an opportunity to improve management practices at bathing waters
and to standardise information provided to bathers across Europe.
The rBWD takes a new approach to assessing water quality, using
fewer but more stringent standards than at present.[5]
It establishes four new standards of water quality ("excellent",
"good", "sufficient" and "poor")
and all bathing waters are to achieve at least the "sufficient"
standard by the end of 2015 (with limited exceptions).
11. DEFRA have provided the following correlation
between the new, and the existing, bathing water standards:
- excellent: approximately twice as stringent as
the current guideline standard;
- good: similar to the current guideline standard;
- sufficient: tighter than the current mandatory
standard;
- poor: normally non-compliant water.
CONSULTATION
12. The Government consulted on proposals for
the implementation of the rBWD in England and Wales from November
2007 to February 2008. The consultation paper[6]
sought comments on three possible scenarios:
1A: meeting the minimum rBWD requirements, with all
bathing waters achieving at least the "sufficient" classification
by 2015;
1B: meeting the minimum rBWD requirements as in 1A,
but with the use of a prediction and discounting system at some
bathing waters to alert and advise bathers when bathing water
quality might be "poor";
2: exploring the costs and benefits of going beyond
the minimum rBWD requirements by, for example, increasing the
number of "excellent" bathing waters in England and
Wales to increase/maintain the potential for Blue Flag beaches
(assuming compatibility with future Blue Flag criteria).
13. The consultation paper set out the way in
which a system of prediction and discounting might work. The Agency
would need to establish procedures to predict water quality at
bathing waters subject to short-term pollution (i.e., periods
of "poor" water quality not expected to last more than
72 hours) and to advise the public against bathing during such
events. Where such advice had been provided, the Agency would
be able to discount samples taken during this period, since the
public would not be bathing, and this would allow the possibility
that the bathing water could achieve a higher classification than
would otherwise be the case. Use of prediction would be limited
initially to a small number of bathing waters, but as the Agency's
experience increased, it might be used more widely.
14. Forty-two responses were received to the
consultation paper. They came from: the water industry (10), academic/research
organisations (6), private individuals (6), environmental/social
NGOs 5), local government (5), recreational sports associations
(3), commercial businesses (2), Government Agencies (2), the National
Farmers' Union and another Government Department.
15. DEFRA say that, while on the whole the Government's
proposals were supported by stakeholders, "comments were
made in relation to the Government's level of ambition and in
[the] light of these, it was concluded that England and Wales
should only aim to do the minimum that the rBWD requires (with
the use of a prediction system where appropriate) prior to the
first bathing water classifications being made at the end of the
2015 bathing season". The EM also says that, in response
to consultation comments, costs and benefits associated with the
implementation options have been revised: the costs have roughly
doubled and the benefits associated with providing better information
on beach signage are now approximately one-third of their original
value. "In spite of these adjustments the benefits still
significantly outweigh the costs and support the decision to aim
to do the minimum (with the use of prediction) prior to 2015."
16. DEFRA have advised the Committee that the
majority of respondents (25 out of 40) who offered views on the
alternative approaches to implementation of the rBWD were in favour
of going beyond the minimum prior to 2015. "However, those
recommending a less ambitious implementation approach tended to
be the organisations/businesses with the best understanding of
the potential cost associated with achieving water quality standards
beyond the Directive's minimum requirements (e.g. the Environment
Agency, water and farming industries) ... Ministers place a high
priority on keeping water and sewerage charges affordable, particularly
for those on low incomes. They also place a high priority on the
viability of agriculture. For those reasons and in view of the
comments described in the preceding paragraphs, DEFRA and the
Welsh Assembly Government have decided to focus initially on scenario
1B." For this scenario, DEFRA now project annual costs of
between £11.6m and £14.8m, and annual benefits of between
£52.7m and £118m.
17. It is noteworthy that the Environment Agency,
in confirming its support for Scenario 1B, has stressed the importance
of providing clear explanations to the public of the way in which
the rBWD is to be implemented, in order to dispel any impression
of falling standards. The Agency has commented that this impression
might result from the more stringent standards required by the
rBWD, and from the requirement for beach operators to advise against
bathing at waters that did not meet the "sufficient"
classification, and might be strengthened by the resulting media
coverage.
CONCLUSION
18. The Regulations implement the revised Bathing
Water Directive. In consulting on implementation, the Government
sought views on either meeting the minimum requirements of the
Directive, or going beyond that minimum. While a majority of consultation
respondents favoured a more ambitious approach, those responding
for the Environment Agency, and for the water and farming industries,
supported meeting the minimum requirements. The Government accept
the arguments put forward by the latter group of respondents,
not least because of the high priority which they place on keeping
water and sewerage charges affordable, and on the viability of
agriculture. As the Agency have commented, it will be important
for the Government to set out clearly what their chosen approach
means for the quality of bathing waters in this country.
1 http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/adhocs/2007mandate/sexual_offences/sexual_offences_report.htm
Back
2
http://www.nio.gov.uk/sexual_offences_(ni)_order_2008_-_statement_containing_a_summary_of_representations.pdf
Back
3
EC Directive 2006/7/EC of the European Council and of the Council
concerning the management of bathing water quality and repealing
Directive 76/160/EEC (OJ L64, 4.3.2006, p.37). Back
4
EC Directive 76/160/EEC concerning the quality of bathing water
(OJ L31, 5.2.1976, p.1). Back
5
The EM states that the Regulations require the Agency to monitor
two types of bacteria (intestinal enterococci and Escherichia
coli) as indicators of the risk of mild gastrointestinal illness
in bathers, and adds that under the cBWD regime the Agency is
required to test for ten parameters. Back
6
"Consultation on the implementation of the revised Bathing
Water Directive", November 2007:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/bathingwaters/consultation.pdf
Back
| 
