HL Deb 22 June 2004 vol 662 cc1123-36

3.19 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on the Bichard inquiry report.

"Last December, following Ian Huntley's conviction, I asked Sir Michael Bichard to conduct an inquiry into the events leading up to the murder of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells. I am today publishing his report in full. The families have shown great courage and dignity. We extend again today our most heartfelt sympathy to them.

"I am grateful to Sir Michael for the speed and thoroughness of his inquiry. We accept his critique. In doing so we must not forget, as he states, that, 'Huntley alone was responsible for these most awful murders. None of the actions or failures of any of the witnesses or the institutions they represented led to the deaths of the girls'.

"His report uncovers serious failures in recording and managing information.

"These failures include local systems for recording, retaining and accessing data. They include national frameworks for inspection and information exchange, and the systems that underpin them.

"As a consequence, the report is wide-ranging in its recommendations. These apply to a range of public services and government departments. I am therefore responding on behalf of the Government as a whole.

"We are, in principle, accepting Sir Michael's main recommendations and will act on them immediately.

"It is the Government's task to ensure clear national standards as well as providing strong leadership. But other national bodies and local agencies also have a key role in strengthening the system.

"Let me turn to the specific recommendations.

"Sir Michael recommends the introduction of a national intelligence system. Information collected should be shared and acted upon before an individual is employed in a sensitive post. Let me describe how this will operate.

"The police national computer is the cornerstone of police information systems, but its task is to register recorded crime. It holds basic information—for example, names and addresses of offenders. We are working with forces to improve the quality and timeliness of data. It is necessary for them to keep up with the growing and changing demands on the police service.

"But the police national computer does not hold intelligence information—for example, where someone has been questioned in relation to repeated allegations of sexual assault.

"Until now, all 43 forces in England and Wales have operated individual systems for handling this kind of information. This should no longer be the case. As Sir Michael puts it, we cannot have a situation where, and I quote, 'local accountability will be used to defend ineffective local systems when a national system would be more appropriate'.

"This report marks a watershed in how police forces and authorities will work together to procure intelligence and information systems needed to do the job. No longer can the historic justification of operational independence take precedence over the imperative of being able to track and deal with offenders effectively.

"We are therefore now introducing the first national police intelligence computer system—entitled 'Impact'.

"'Impact' will ensure that all forces use the same system to manage and share intelligence information.

"As an interim measure, we are bringing forward the nationwide introduction of the police local exchange. It will begin this autumn and be complete by next spring. It will provide an easily searchable index of all those on whom any police force holds information. Sir Michael commends this.

"But systems are only as good as the information they hold. In this case, because records were handled so badly and deleted, a national intelligence system could not have identified the concerns. Sir Michael therefore concludes that the police need clearer, more soundly based rules, for recording, retaining and reviewing, as well as deleting information.

"Before the inquiry was established, the Data Protection Act was criticised as a contributory factor. While it is no doubt complex, it embodies important principles. Sir Michael concludes that the loss of intelligence cannot be blamed on the Act. He does not believe that radical revisions are necessary.

"It is crucial that rules on managing information are clearly understood.

"I am therefore introducing, by the end of this year, a statutory code of practice on police information handling. All 43 forces will deal with intelligence information in the same way. This will be backed up by detailed operational guidance. Effective training, management and inspection will ensure that it is fully understood and consistently applied.

"This will link closely to the police national intelligence model. This sets out how forces should collect and handle intelligence. It is already providing a more consistent structure. The code will ensure that all forces are required to make the most effective use of this structure. Those few forces still not operating this model must now do so.

"But these recommendations apply substantially beyond policing. The report recommends social services should routinely notify the police when a crime against a child is committed or suspected. Sir Michael concludes that this is not always done.

"The social services database needs to hold details of all alleged sexual offenders involved with named children and should be easily searchable.

"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills is working urgently on this. The department will shortly receive a serious case review report from Sir Christopher Kelly on other specific lessons for social services.

"Sir Michael has highlighted the importance of robust selection and recruitment. He has recommended that those recruiting staff in schools must be properly trained in safeguarding children. My right honourable friends the Secretary of State and the Minister for Children have agreed that selection panels should contain at least one panel member properly trained in this work.

"He also calls for stronger, more consistent vetting, and a new system for registering those working with children and vulnerable adults.

"We will therefore urgently consider his recommendation that a register be created to bring together all the relevant information held on individuals in a way which is easily accessible.

"We need to consider how this fits with and enhances the service already provided by the Criminal Records Bureau. We will also need to make the link to proposals for identity cards.

"Let me now turn to concerns about the two forces involved.

"Sir Michael highlights deficiencies by Cambridgeshire on the checks into Ian Huntley's suitability. Sir Ronnie Flanagan's parallel report for Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary into the investigation, which is being published today, also highlights concerns about processes and the actions of individuals.

"However, Ian Huntley is behind bars. Cambridgeshire acted effectively to achieve this. It also asked the Metropolitan Police to review its procedures at the time of the investigation.

"Failings were neither systemic nor corporate. I should also add that mistakes have been fully acknowledged and actions have been taken to ensure they do not recur.

"But much graver concerns are raised about the senior management of Humberside. There were, and I quote, 'very serious failings', some of which the Chief Constable became aware of only when hearing evidence to the inquiry. Sir Michael finds the lack of awareness of the scale of these failings over such a long period of time to be 'deeply shocking'.

"It is Sir Michael's view that the, 'final responsibility for these serious failures rests with Chief Constable David Westwood'.

It is difficult to disagree with this.

"Paragraph 2.94 could not be clearer. It says of Mr Westwood, and I quote, 'he was Chief Constable from March 1999 and, as such, became ultimately responsible for information management and information technology systems. The wide-ranging & systemic failures … existed in March 1999 and therefore predated him becoming Chief Constable. However, they were not identified and continued for a considerable period thereafter. Chief Constable Westwood must take personal responsibility for the continuation of those failures. From 1 September 1997, he had been Deputy Chief Constable, the second most senior officer on the force'.

"The role of any Chief Constable has to be one in which the public have confidence. In the face of serious criticism, it is my responsibility as Home Secretary to question whether people in Humberside can continue to have that confidence. Mindful of our duty of care, I asked Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Sir Keith Povey, to discuss Sir Michael's findings with the Chief Constable yesterday.

"The strength of the report's criticism of him has led me to conclude that, using the powers available to me under the Police Act 1996, as amended by the Police Reform Act 2002, I should require Humberside police authority to suspend Mr Westwood as Chief Constable forthwith.

"I have also invited the police authority to consider what steps it should take, having regard to its statutory duty under Section 6 of the 1996 Act to maintain an efficient and effective force. I have asked it to report to me by 6 July.

"I have also asked Sir Keith to ensure that the professional judgment of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary is available to the police authority. When I receive the authority's report I will then decide whether to initiate the process which could lead to the retirement or resignation of the Chief Constable.

"Finally, let me repeat my thanks to Sir Michael for his work. I believe that he is right to suggest the discipline of reconvening his inquiry in six months.

"We know that this must be yet another unbearable day for the families of Jessica and Holly. We owe it to them to make substantial progress, as rapidly as possible, in ensuring that these failures are not repeated. I commend the report to the House".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

3.30 p.m.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made a short while ago in another place by her right honourable friend the Home Secretary. I am aware that the Home Secretary gave my right honourable friend David Davis unusually early sight of both the report and the Statement. This is not just the normal courtesy. It reflects the fact that this is a question of public safety and that will be recognised in my response today.

I wholeheartedly endorse the Minister's remarks about the dignity shown by the families of Holly and Jessica in the past few months. Our thoughts are with them and I have no doubt that all Members of this House share a determination that these failures should not be repeated. We welcome the report of Sir Michael Bichard. It is exhaustive and we agree with most, but not quite all, of it. We consider his decision to reconvene in six months' time to review progress not merely a good idea, but one that should perhaps become standard good practice in reports such as this.

The report makes it clear that Cambridgeshire Criminal Records Bureau was so focused on the introduction of new systems that it failed to carry out crucial checks into Ian Huntley's background. We must ensure failures such as this never happen again. However, Sir Michael says that even if Cambridgeshire had got it right Ian Huntley's record would still have been missed because of other failures, most notably in Humberside Police.

There were two failures in Humberside Police: one relates to IT, and the other relates to the handling of the Huntley case. Even before the weeding of records took place, Ian Huntley's record of behaviour should have led police to act. We should consider the following facts. In August 1995, there was an allegation of unlawful sex with a 15 year-old; in May 1996, there was an allegation of unlawful sex with another 15 year-old; and, also in May 1996, there was an allegation of unlawful sex with a 13 year-old. That is not an IT failure. It is a failure of policing. These offences were known at exactly the same time, before they had been weeded by Humberside police. Is it any wonder that PC Harding concluded in his report, reproduced on page 52, section 1.229 of the report: It is quite clear that Huntley is a serial sex attacker and is at liberty to continue his activities"? Sir Michael says that no one thing could have prevented what happened. In fact, if the police had acted on this sequence of events, Ian Huntley would presumably have been locked up. Incidentally, this failure preceded the current chief constable's arrival in post. His failures relate to the failures of the IT system and the consequences that flowed from that. In view of the fact that the Home Secretary has today initiated a quasi-judicial process under the Police Act 1996, as amended by the Police Reform Act 2002, over David Westwood, which I do not wish to prejudice, I will say no more about his role today.

The report states that social services should report incidents of sex with minors to police. I agree. However, the report also says there are "exceptional circumstances" when the police should not be notified. What exactly are those exceptional circumstances? When an adult is engaged in a sexual relationship with a child, surely there are no circumstances where the police should not be informed.

We now know that in 1995 social services knew of an allegation that Huntley was having sex with a 15 year-old girl but apparently chose not to inform the police. This was at exactly the same time as the cases I cited a moment ago, about which social services would not have known. They were not, and could not be, in possession of all the facts relating to public safety. Therefore, they should not make the decision. Will the Government review this aspect and consider the option of making it an absolute requirement to notify the police of such offences?

Much of the report very properly focuses on the failure of information handling, primarily by Humberside, but also by Cambridgeshire Criminal Records Bureau, and generic failures by the Police Information Technology Organisation, ACPO, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Home Office. I agree with most of what Sir Michael says but issues arise on which I seek the Minister's opinion.

The report properly criticises the Humberside police IT practices and the lack of a national police IT system. It calls for the introduction of such a system as soon as possible. It does not say whether the problems of Humberside are replicated in other forces, although naturally I suspect that they might be. Neither does it deal with a problem we all know about—namely, that Whitehall, in general, and the Home Office, in particular, have a very poor track record of implementation of computer systems. So I welcome the Minister's comments on the police local exchange system. I also welcome the announcement on the police national intelligence computer system, the so-called "impact" system.

However, I shall make two suggestions to the Government. First, will they commission Sir Michael Bichard in the next six months to review all the IT systems in the 43 forces in order to establish the extent of the problem? Secondly, to minimise the risk of another computer disaster, will they use either the best practice that he identifies, or the already operational Scottish system, as the basis for the new national system?

The failure to implement such a system should have been identified much sooner. Sir Michael Bichard states in his report, at paragraph 2.131, that: HMIC could and should have been more proactive. Information systems are of obvious importance to policing and they could have been inspected effectively with relative ease". Do the Government have any proposals to reform or improve the capability of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary in IT review?

Sir Michael also recommends a registration system for all those working with children. Will this system apply to people who work in charities and voluntary groups, such as the Scouts, which often add great value and enjoyment to the lives of children?

We must remember that while child protection is clearly the paramount matter, a balance of justice must be established. A series of false allegations can effectively destroy an innocent person's career. Sir Michael envisages an appeal process for applicants who were refused registration. Sir Michael is absolutely right to do so. But how do the Government believe the appeal system will work? Will people know who is making the allegation against them—and, if not, how can it be challenged? Who will decide what information is held on record and how can this be challenged? Will the process be judicial? We recognise that these are difficult issues, but naturally they do need to be addressed.

The Minister will of course appreciate the burden that all this will place on the police. Humberside police will process 50,000 information requests this year. Across the area of England and Wales, that implies 2 million requests. How do the Government intend to progress work on that?

It is not just Humberside and Cambridgeshire who should read this report today; every police force and every social services department should read and learn the lessons of the report. If we fail, it will be a catastrophe measured in human tragedies.

3.40 p.m.

Lord McNally

My Lords, I thank the Minister and the Home Secretary both for making the report available at an early stage and for the prompt response to it today. Reading it this morning my mind went back to just over 20 years ago when I was in another place and we were debating the lessons to be learnt from the Yorkshire Ripper case. I remember people saying then, "If only we had computers"—because the Yorkshire police had been using card indexes to try to track the assorted information. Sadly, we need not only computers but the training and expertise to use them properly.

The report must make heartbreaking reading for the parents of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells, for it contains in meticulous detail the "ifs" and "might have beens" which might have saved their daughters' lives. Our thoughts must be with them today. I think that they and we should be grateful to Sir Michael Bichard for a report that pulls no punches and makes very specific recommendations which must now be pursued with all vigour and urgency.

We can never say "never again" because, as the report says, the harsh reality is that if a sufficiently devious person is determined to seek out opportunities to work their evil, no one can guarantee that they will be stopped". Human error happens in all walks of life. There will be many individuals and organisations who feel a terrible weight of responsibility in the light of these findings.

We welcome the fact that Sir Michael does not blame any individual for the murders other than Huntley himself. But that does not mean that there are not hard lessons to learn and personal responsibilities to be taken. Does the Home Secretary, in accepting Sir Michael's critique, accept that the Home Office bears its share of responsibility for some of the slipshod working and culture that the report reveals? Does he accept that there are frequent references to lack of training, lack of expertise and lack of guidance, pointing to failures right up the line of management to the Home Office itself?

How could the failures of the Humberside force go undetected or unremedied for so long? As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, rightly said, the specific case of Chief Constable Westwood is under review. However, what part in the failure to detect those failures should be shared by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary and by the local police authority? We take great pride in this country in local control of police, but if over a period of 10 years failures of this magnitude have occurred, then that responsibility also is with that police authority. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, rightly said, how can we be sure that the spotlight that has shone so harshly on two police authorities and showed such glaring weaknesses would not reveal similar weaknesses in other authorities?

I wonder how much nearer this moves us to a national police force and how we are going to balance the kind of efficiencies to which the Minister referred in the Statement with the very strong local ethos in Britain of local accountability and local control.

The report refers to the fact that Cambridgeshire called in the Metropolitan Police at Scotland Yard at an early stage to review its procedures. When I was a lad it was almost customary to call Scotland Yard in for major cases. One wonders whether the necessary expertise, and not only that of Scotland Yard, is being brought in quickly enough, or whether local jealousies, turf wars or, dare we say it, budgetary controls from one police authority to another are preventing it.

I have just one comment on the social services, as this report awaits another one. I hope that we are not in for another outbreak, particularly in the tabloids, of social worker whipping. Social workers do society's dirty work. They have to deal with everyone from the dysfunctional to the criminally dangerous. Sometimes we have to appreciate that the support they receive from society as a whole is lacking. Of course they must learn the hard lessons as well, but it well behoves us to understand the difficult circumstances in which they often have to operate.

I was interested in the points on data protection and it was reassuring to hear what was said. It is important also to ensure that the reforms which we have supported, such as data protection and the Human Rights Act, are not being used to justify inaction or the failure to share information.

A question-and-answer session following the Statement is an inadequate response in view of the report's importance. I hope that the Government will give a full day at least in this House for a debate on the report, not least to draw on the considerable experience that exists in this House on the matters that it reviews. I share with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, the welcome of Sir Michael's commitment to a review of progress and believe that it should be standard.

I know that nothing can assuage the parents' grief and that no new laws, guidance or systems can make sense of their daughters' deaths. However, whatever level of responsibility belongs not only to police forces and social services departments but to every one of us as individuals when we accept a reference, check a fact, ask a question or follow a set procedure, let us all remember Soham. In so doing we may save others. Our thoughts are with the parents. I think that the whole country has a debt of gratitude to Sir Michael Bichard for a job well done.

3.48 p.m.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for the sentiment and tone of their remarks. It is absolutely true that this is an incredibly sad and sobering day for everyone. No one comes away from the report without feeling a sense of responsibility and obligation to do better. I say to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that it is absolutely accepted that there are lessons here to be learnt by the Home Office and by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. None of us should forget those lessons.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked for a full-day debate on the report. As he will know, that matter could be settled through the usual channels. I am sure that if his sentiment is felt by all Benches, the usual channels will undoubtedly pursue the matter with great commitment.

Public safety is of course a matter of huge concern to us all. I endorse what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay; namely, that it is a very good thing indeed that Sir Michael Bichard will have the opportunity to review his report in six months' time. We are immensely grateful to him for that. I do not know whether he would be entirely grateful if we were also to burden him with reviewing all of the IT proceedings. I think that even his generosity has a certain limitation.

The noble Baroness was right to mention the IT procedures. Of course, I hear what she says but I hope that she will accept that we have made an enormous contribution to improving those IT systems. Indeed, there are some things about which we should feel a modicum of satisfaction; for example, the way in which we have implemented the DNA database and the other systems. We have invested more than £1.3 billion since 2002 on those systems simply because we understood the enormous importance of having a really good and effective method of communication.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, highlighted the question of where the balance should rest between national and local responsibilities. There is a natural tension in that balance. We shall seek to preserve a sense of balance and fairness. The steps that we are taking to bring in a code and to make a method available to all 43 police forces so that they will have a similar template and operate in the same way may well help us to address the difficult issue of where that tension should properly lie.

The noble Baroness properly mentioned the Scottish system. It is a good one and we shall wish to look at it very carefully. The noble Baroness will know that the system was adopted on a consensual basis. The chief constables in Scotland decided that they would undertake both the intelligence sharing and the IT work together. The noble Baroness will know that we as a government have not resiled from that commitment. We have advocated and supported the tripartite approach to problem resolution between ACPO, ourselves and the police authorities. Part of the solution involves working in partnership, spreading good practice and therefore working together. We shall continue to look at those issues.

The noble Baroness asked a number of specific questions about the appeal system and how matters would be reviewed. In repeating the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, I made it absolutely clear that we shall look urgently and energetically at these issues. It is absolutely right that Holly and Jessica's tragedy should at least enable us to do better than we have done hitherto. There is hope that the highlighting of faults will enable us to do better in future. The police authorities and HMIC could have picked up problems. I have made it absolutely clear that they acknowledge that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked a specific question about the direct reporting of each and every unlawful sexual contact with an underage person. She is absolutely right as regards what she said about adults. The issue that was raised—there is by no means a definitive position—is whether 14 and 15 year-olds participating in certain sexual exploration with each other should be included in the prohibition; that is, when two children of comparable ages are involved. We shall need to consider those issues. These are difficult issues and we shall have to be very careful that in wanting to respond with vigour and energy to improve the situation we are not over zealous in the way in which we seek to implement provisions as we need to take into account very important issues.

3.54 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I hope that I may ask a very short question on the sharing of information. Is it not implicit that a statutory code of practice to establish clear national standards in this context should have legal efficacy?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

My Lords, the noble Lord will know that a statutory code will have great force because each and every police force will be obliged to adhere to it. One of the difficulties that this case has highlighted is the ability of the 43 forces to have slightly different approaches to the way in which they deal with these issues. We have learnt the very painful lesson that in this area that degree of local autonomy is not one that we can continue in the future.

Viscount Simon

My Lords, I think it was a debate on 1 May 1996 in which I took part that I drew attention to the fact that police forces were not sharing information and that an individual who had committed a criminal offence could pass from one constabulary area to another undetected. Had those observations been taken into account following that debate, would these murders have taken place? Would the inquiry have been necessary? Would we be debating it now?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

My Lords, I say to my noble friend that those issues were taken into account. It was appreciated that we needed to have a joint sharing of intelligence. A number of issues arose concerning how we should do that and whether the intelligence issue should be dealt with before the IT issue or vice versa. As I say, we have learnt some very painful lessons. I absolutely accept what my noble friend says in that perhaps the sharpness of that work was not properly understood. I reassure the House that it is absolutely understood by all of us. We shall seek to do all we can to ensure that this lesson does not have to be learnt again.

Baroness Sharples

My Lords, can we be confident that the proposed new national computer system will work in view of the fact that a number of previous systems have not worked? Is it merely a matter of training?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

My Lords, we are more confident now than we have been hitherto because of the changes that we have made in the development of practice as a result, frankly, of other systems not working. Noble Lords will be familiar with the way in which we have piloted certain developments to test them out to ensure that they can work appropriately. We have tried to improve them. As I said, we have tried to learn from the lessons of the past to ensure that any future development has the maximum possibility of working successfully and smoothly.

Baroness Greengross

My Lords, will the Minister clarify a point about POVA, the Protection of Vulnerable Adults scheme? I was pleased to hear about the recommendation concerning a register. However, I wonder whether we are focusing enough on vulnerable people, whether or not someone working with them has a criminal record. Does the Minister agree with me that Huntley should have been on a POVA style list even though he did not have a relevant criminal record? Can we be certain that the Bichard recommendations will cover such vulnerable people in the future and protect them?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

My Lords, we absolutely understand the point that the noble Baroness makes about vulnerable people. When we review the systems, we shall ensure that they are very much borne in mind, together with all the other vulnerable individuals. The noble Baroness says that Huntley should have been on a list. However, that is reliant on the fact that someone retains the relevant information and puts it on such a list. Tragically, we have learnt that human failure in that regard is as important as IT failure.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate

My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that a rather simplistic solution would be simply to have heads on platters? I agree somewhat with—I nearly said my noble enemy—the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that obviously police authorities and, indeed, the inspectorate of constabulary have some responsibility in this matter. We have the National Criminal Intelligence Service. If that body does not keep national criminal intelligence, what does it keep? It runs the football hooligans register which seems to work extremely well. I wonder why we need the new Impact computer when we have a National Criminal Intelligence Service.

Does the Minister also agree that false intelligence can lead in some cases to extreme injustice, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said? One allegation against an individual who applies for a job can be totally different from five allegations from different sources. Therefore, the quality of intelligence is absolutely critical, and we should not take the risk of extreme injustice in some cases.

Perhaps we should think outside the box and consider not only a national intelligence service, but a Europe-wide one, bearing in mind the reduction of barriers and the rights of people to travel. Criminal activity takes place across borders and, given the circumstances in France recently with the young Dickinson girl and the case with Marc Dutroux in Belgium, we clearly need to think wider than our own borders and perhaps develop a Europol criminal intelligence system.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

My Lords, my noble friend raises a very interesting point in relation to a Europe-wide intelligence service. Noble Lords know that we are working as hard as we can with our European colleagues. It is right that not all European countries have the same system in terms of identifying perpetrators and targeting them in a way that we would recognise. We continue that work.

This is certainly not a case of heads on platters. I hope that noble Lords will find that we have been judicious and have tried to be proportionate in the way in which we have approached the issues. The decisions to which we have come have been come to painfully and very carefully, after proper consideration of the discoveries made by Sir Michael Bichard in his report.

The Earl of Northesk

My Lords, I associate myself with the heartfelt expressions of sympathy with the families of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells from the respective Front Benches.

Obviously, I have not had the opportunity to read the report in full, but I draw the Minister's attention to paragraph 23 of the introduction, which states: I suggest … that better guidance is needed on the collection, retention, deletion, use and sharing of information, so that police officers, social workers and other professionals can feel more confident in using information properly". I also draw her attention to the Home Secretary's insistence that a national system across all relevant services, allowing more effective sharing of information and intelligence, is urgently needed. Will the Minister accept that that gets to the core of the problem facing us, and that the legislative opportunity to address it exists in the form of an appropriate amendment to the Children Bill? That being so, and bearing in mind the tenor of Sir Michael's comments, will the Government seize that opportunity?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

My Lords, I am always attracted by such seductive lures cast to me at the Dispatch Box. However, it is important that we get things right. My noble friend Lord Mackenzie indicated that we should not be precipitate. We have to be balanced and make sure that the systems that we put in place are fair and proportionate, and that we might not regret them later. I know the attraction of the Bill; it is like a passing bus on to which the noble Earl asks me to jump, but that may be a precipitate move. We will of course give all issues very careful consideration.

Lord Elton

My Lords, there is greater need for impatience than the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, suggests. It was in the 1970s that the necessity of transferring information across county borders in relation to children at risk was first raised, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Northesk that the matter is relevant to the Bill, on which the noble Baroness takes no part. However, I hope that her colleagues will note the matter.

Because of the anxiety about the transfer of information, and because the case has so clearly shown that one individual moving from place to place can strike again and again with impunity without it, I was rather distressed to hear in the Statement that only England and Wales were under review. I am not sure that I go so far as the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate—we want to think carefully before we start a monster machine to cover the whole of Europe—but the United Kingdom as a whole should be in the frame, not simply England and Wales. That is a comment and a question; I invite the noble Baroness to say that the Government will consider embracing Scotland and Northern Ireland as well.

My second question is on whether the statutory code of practice, when introduced, will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Will a means of discussing it be found, in the same way as codes of practice were discussed in parallel with the passing of the then PACE Bill in this House? In that context, what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said about the dangers of false information is very relevant, because there has to be a means whereby someone wrongly identified or accused can clear their name. At the moment, there is no reason for them to know that it needs to be cleared.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

My Lords, no decision has been made on whether the code of practice should have the negative or affirmative resolution procedure attached to it. We will obviously have to consider the merits of that in due course. Noble Lords will know that England and Wales has one legal judicial system and that a different system prevails for Scotland, with a slightly different system for Northern Ireland. Therefore, when we expressed our views in the Statement, that was obviously in relation to England and Wales. However, there is a huge job of work to do in co-ordination and co-operation right across the United Kingdom. We will certainly look at that very carefully and talk to colleagues to ensure that that synergy takes place.

Lord Ezra

My Lords, although I welcome very much the positive response of the Government to the report on establishing a national system, I am somewhat concerned about the size of the problem. I was impressed with the statistic cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that 50,000 queries a year are addressed to Humberside alone. That seems to put substantial additional burdens on the police force. Therefore, the question arises of whether there should not be a separate agency to deal with such matters, so that the police would not be diverted from their other activities in following up those inquiries.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says, but he will know that there is an issue in terms of the proliferation of agencies involved in such activity and making sure that the practitioners that collate the information actually participate in the system. When we look at creating something more fit for the purpose than what we have now, all those issues will of course be very much to the forefront of our minds.