Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 22 January 2013.

Martin Caton (Labour, Gower)

Before we begin, I have a few preliminary matters to go through. Members may, if they wish, remove their jackets during Committee sittings. Please would all Members ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode during our meetings. The Committee will first be asked to consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, for which debate is limited to half an hour. We will then proceed to a motion to report written evidence, which I hope we can take formally.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 8.55 am on Tuesday 22 January) meet—

(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 22 January;

(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 24 January;

(c) at 8.55 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 29 January;

(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 31 January;

(e) at 8.55 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 5 February;

(f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 7 February;

(g) at 8.55 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 12 February; and

(h) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 14 February;

(2) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clause 1; Schedule 1; Clauses 2 and 3; Schedule 2; Clause 4; Schedule 3; Clauses 5 to 7; Schedule 4; Clause 8; Schedule 5; Clauses 9 and 10; Schedule 6; Clause 11; Schedule 7; Clauses 12 to 14; Schedule 8; Clauses 15 and 16; Schedules 9 to 11; Clause 17; Schedule 12; Clause 18; Schedule 13; Clause 19; Schedule 14; Clauses 20 to 31; Schedule 15; Clause 32; Schedule 16; Clauses 33 to 36; Schedule 17; Clause 37; Schedule 18; Clause 38; new Clauses; new Schedules; Clause 39; Schedule 19; Clauses 40 to 42; and remaining proceedings on the Bill; and

(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 14 February.

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton. Thank you for that dispensation as to what it is appropriate for us to wear, although dispensing with our overcoats might be our first priority this morning. I am also looking forward to serving under your co-Chair. I look forward to detailed discussions of the provisions in the Bill with my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Benches and with Opposition Members, including two former Ministers in my Department who will be familiar with much of the subject matter before us. I will be supported by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice and the Solicitor-General, who between them will cover the provisions in part 2 of the Bill.

I believe that the resolution before us provides more than adequate time to make possible proper scrutiny of this important and wide-ranging Bill. The resolution provides for up to eight days in total, on Tuesdays and Thursdays from now until Valentine’s day next month—a romantic conclusion to our deliberations. Judging by the contributions from Members on Second Reading, we can anticipate some lively and well-informed discussions around the provisions on the National Crime Agency, community sentencing, self defence and drug-driving, to name but a few. I do not wish to detain the Committee further, so I invite the Committee to agree to the resolution.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Caton, along with your co-Chair, Ms Dorries. You and I both represent constituencies in Wales, and Ms Dorries and I were both born in the city of Liverpool, six weeks apart, so I am sure that we are going to get on fine.

I am content with the programme motion. The informal Programming Sub-Committee met yesterday, and the Opposition have no objection. We will seek to be constructive in relation to this Bill. I am pleased to see that a number of right hon. and hon. Members who have expressed interest in some of the topics of the Bill are on the Committee; I know that we will have scrutiny. There may be some areas of division, but our purpose in many of the amendments tabled so far, and that we will table in the future, is to test the Government’s thinking on some of the key issues. I look forward to a constructive dialogue with the Minister and his colleagues in due course.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

On a point of order, Mr Caton. I hope that this will be helpful. Will you clarify something as to the status of the Bill Committee today? I know that all right hon. and hon. Members have received cards notifying them of today’s sitting and the Committee’s membership, but it is normal practice for a Public Bill Committee to be mentioned on the Order Paper of the House of Commons. This morning I looked at today’s Order Paper, and there was no mention of this Committee sitting at either 8.55 am or 2 pm today. I mention this not to be difficult, but simply to ensure for clarification that the absence of notification of this sitting on the Order Paper does not affect our deliberations today and make them invalid.

I would like clarification of that in case, at some point somewhere else, perhaps on the Floor of the House, any Member who is not on the Committee raises the fact that this sitting was not on the Order Paper. I will have been in this place for 21 years in April, and I cannot remember a time when a Bill Committee has not appeared on the Order Paper. I appreciate that it may be an oversight, but I just want your clarification, Mr Caton, that all is in order and that we will not waste our time today with any comeback in due course.

Martin Caton (Labour, Gower)

Thank you, Mr Hanson. Your eagle-eyed observation is absolutely correct. I am assured that it is a one-off error and will not happen again. It certainly does not affect our deliberations today in any way.

Martin Caton (Labour, Gower)

Before we begin our line-by-line consideration of the Bill, some brief explanation may be useful to those relatively new to Public Bill Committees. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the amendments that have been selected for debate have been grouped together. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same, or a similar issue. A Member who has put their name to the leading amendment in a group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on the amendments in the group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate. At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I will call the Member who moved the leading amendment again. Before they sit down they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or whether they seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote, they need to let me know. I will work on the assumption that the Government wish the Committee to reach a decision on all Government amendments.

Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order in which they are debated, but in the order that they appear on the amendment paper. I will use my discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses and schedules following the debates on the relevant amendments. I should like to tell Members that, as a general rule, I and my fellow Chair do not intend to call starred amendments, which have not been tabled with adequate notice. The required notice period in Public Bill Committees is three working days. Therefore, amendments should be tabled by the rise of the House on Monday for consideration on Thursday, and by the rise of the House on Thursday for consideration on the following Tuesday. I hope that is helpful.

We now begin our line-by-line consideration of the Bill.

Clause 1 - The National Crime Agency

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out from second ‘the’ to end of line 7 and insert—

‘strategic direction and control of a board to be known as the NCA Board.

( ) There shall be a Director General, who is to be one of the NCA officers, and shall be responsible for the exercise of the NCA’s operational and administrative functions.

( ) Schedule “The NCA Board” has effect.’.

Martin Caton (Labour, Gower)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 37, in schedule 1, page 45, line 0, after second ‘the’, insert—

‘Home Secretary, the NCA board and the’.

Amendment 10, in schedule 1, page 46, line 23, at beginning insert ‘Ministers in’.

Amendment 11, in schedule 1, page 46, line 32, before ‘The’, insert—

‘The Director General is to be employed by the NCA Board and’.

Amendment 12, in schedule 1, page 47, line 10, at end insert—

‘( ) the Chairman of the NCA Board; and

( ) the Association of the Police and Crime Commissioners.’.

Amendment 13, in schedule 1, page 47, line 18, at end insert—

‘( ) send a copy of the written explanation to the Chairman of the NCA.

( ) publish a copy of the written explanation in a written ministerial statement to Parliament’.

Amendment 2, in clause 3, page 3, line 38, leave out from second ‘the’ to end and insert ‘NCA Board’.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Once again I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Caton. Clause 1 establishes the National Crime Agency. I should say at the outset that the Opposition are not opposed to the principle of the National Crime Agency. The Government state:

“The National Crime Agency…will be a powerful new body of operational crime fighters with a clear focus on public protection.”

When the Bill was introduced in another place in May 2010, the Government expressed clearly their view about the future of crime fighting, and they set out the role of the National Crime Agency.

The National Crime Agency will have four main areas of activity: it will tackle organised crime, strengthen our borders and tackle border force issues, fight fraud and cybercrime, and protect children and young people. The National Crime Agency will build on the excellent work of the previous Government, who established the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. It will also take on some of the major functions of the National Policing Improvement Agency.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend so early in his speech. He touched on the record of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. Does he share my frustration that, during the Second Reading debate and earlier debates, the Home Secretary and Ministers seemed to downplay and underestimate the achievements of the Serious Organised Crime Agency? Will he say a little more about what he considers to have been the key achievements of SOCA and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre since 2006?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. Clause 1 will establish the new body, the National Crime Agency. However, we need to place on record, as my right hon. Friend has done, a tribute to the work of the staff and officials of both the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. Over the past 15 to 20 years, many new challenges have come forward in the world of serious organised crime. We have had the emergence of internet child grooming and exploitation and the advance of serious organised crime in general. The previous Government’s efforts in sorting the establishment of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre recognised the issue, and we took steps to ensure that we tackled it effectively. The Serious Organised Crime Agency, which Members on both sides praised on Second Reading, established some key benchmarks in tackling serious organised crime on an international basis, on issues that were unthought-of and untackled 15 to 20 years ago, such as drugs, confiscation of assets and human trafficking. While we are discussing the establishment of the National Crime Agency today, we should not overlook the fact that it is a successor to precursor bodies and organisations.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

My right hon. Friend mentioned the recovery of criminal assets, something that was barely touched on on Second Reading. He will know that the previous Government introduced legislation—the first Government to do so—to set in place a framework for the civil recovery of criminal assets. We established the Assets Recovery Agency, which became part of SOCA. Will he underline the importance of that approach to assets recovery?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I certainly will. I know that my right hon. Friend has held positions in both the Home Office and the Northern Ireland Office; in fact, we have mirrored each other in that path over the past few years. The work of SOCA on the recovery of assets has been extremely important. I know that we will turn to some amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend to focus on some of those issues.

The NCA will be an important feature in crime-fighting and the Government’s ability to tackle serious organised crime in the next few years. We certainly need it, because organised crime is estimated to cost the UK Government between—this is a big gap between the figures— £20 billion and £40 billion. Organised criminal groups cross boundaries and do not take any interest in or concern themselves with what national Governments do. There needs to be co-operation between internal crime-fighting agencies in Scotland, in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales, and with European and international crime-fighting agencies. I believe that the NCA will deliver that, and therefore we are not opposed in principle to the NCA.

Indications are that the NCA will operate with four commands; again, we will return to them in due course. At the moment, Ministers have indicated that there will be an organised crime command, tackling organised crime groups across local, national and international borders and working with police forces; the Border Force, which will move from the Border Agency to the NCA to look at border work, mutually agreed priorities, illegal goods, illegal immigration and the work of organised criminals in ports up and down the country, which could be a sensible suggestion; an economic crime command, looking at improved capability to deal with the growing areas of international fraud and economic crimes committed by organised criminals; and CEOP, which will look at the growing issues of protection of children from sexual abuse, bringing offenders to account and dealing with a whole range of issues in areas already tasked by the Government, such as the north Wales child abuse inquiry in my area, the type of events that led to the allegations regarding Jimmy Savile’s behaviour, and organised paedophile rings.

Those issues are all important. We will debate and discuss them, but in broad principle, if the NCA means that we will have a more effective crime-fighting capability and co-ordination between the Border Force and people fighting against serious organised crime, child exploitation and economic crime, I will give it a fair wind and say to the Minister that it could be a valuable contribution to crime-fighting capability.

The Minister knows that Mr Keith Bristow has been appointed as director general of the National Crime Agency. Again, any comments that I make about the work of the agency and its accountability will not reflect on Mr Bristow’s abilities as a police officer. I worked with Keith Bristow when I was a Minister in the Home Office and he was a chief constable in Warwickshire. He has a long history in policing. He has been appointed to the National Crime Agency and in my view he will do a good job. I welcome his appointment and I wish him a fair wind in developing the agency. Any subsequent comments that I make about governance issues are not related to his ability to do the job. He has my full confidence in being able to blend together this important mix to increase our crime-fighting capability.

Amendment 1 relates to governance of the National Crime Agency. That is an important matter because clause 1(2) establishes the agency under

“the direction and control of one of the NCA officers, who is to be known as the Director General of the National Crime Agency.”

So the powers of the NCA are vested in the director general. In governance terms, the director general reports directly to the Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who will have sole direction for setting the strategic responsibilities of the NCA.

My arguments will not be new to the Minister, given that the Bill was introduced in another place, where the arguments on governance were rehearsed extensively by my noble Friend the Baroness Smith of Basildon. As I have said, the Serious Organised Crime Agency currently deals with drugs, money laundering, fraud, human trafficking, organised crime groups, people smuggling, identity crime, and firearms. The National Policing Improvement Agency—some of its functions have been split off and repatriated to the Home Office—was dealing with big issues such as the police national computer; the national firearms licensing management system; the National Ballistics Intelligence Service; crime operational support deployment; uniform support deployment; support for chief constables and police authorities; Airwave communications digital radio; firearms codes of practice; and proceeds of crime. All those are important issues.

Under clause 1, the director general of the National Crime Agency, Mr Keith Bristow, will have executive power to deal with whatever areas—we need clarification from the Minister—end up under the responsibility of the agency. He will report directly to the Home Secretary, who, under clause 2, may “determine strategic priorities”, and under clauses 3 and 4 will have a relationship with the director general of the National Crime Agency to look at the matters.

I have tabled amendment 1 because it is important to establish the concept of scrutiny of such important work. Under the Bill, all the important areas of serious organised crime that I have mentioned will be the responsibility of the director general, and the Home Secretary will set, potentially through Home Office Ministers, a direction of travel. We need to look at the current governance and scrutiny of that work. Amendment No 1 would establish a strategic direction and control of a board to be known as the National Crime Agency board. It would allow a director general who will be one of the National Crime Agency officers to be put in place as the operational head of its administrative function. The idea of that amendment and our initial amendments is to ensure that a National Crime Agency board will give greater scrutiny, transparency and accountability to the running of a National Crime Agency.

Our amendment would allow a board to sit between the National Crime Agency and the director general, meaning that the strategic direction and implementation of the strategic priority was handled and contributed to by a range of experts who would help to oversee the work of the National Crime Agency.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I find the Member’s proposal interesting. Will he explain the position further and say whether the oversight would simply be oversight or would go beyond that and tell the agency what it and the director general had to do? Where would the ultimate power rest?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Ultimately, the director general, rather like the chief constable of a police authority, as was, and now the police and crime commissioner, will have the independence to determine how overall strategy is implemented. It is important that Ministers and a board—a matter that I shall come back to in a moment—have an opportunity to question, check, monitor and to look at performance. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) to the Committee. Given his experiences in Northern Ireland, he will know that the Northern Ireland Policing Board fulfils that function by setting a strategic priority and direction of travel while, at the same time, checking performance on matters such as budgets and outputs, and could give a level of scrutiny to the work of the National Crime Agency.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way again. Scrutiny and accountability, the role that he is outlining, is actually the role of Parliament. He mentioned Northern Ireland and, while there is a Policing Board, that has now been juxtaposed with a Justice Committee and there is tension between those two organisations as to who really holds who to account. Perhaps the real place for accountability is at Parliament, not on a board.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

My hon. Friend, if I may call him that—

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I expect it.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Indeed. My hon. Friend has made a strong point. Ultimately, all aspects and avenues of government, including the work of the National Crime Agency and the Home Secretary’s role in monitoring it, are subject to Parliament. He and I can table parliamentary questions; we can debate and raise particular issues, and we can legislate. I speak from experience of being a Minister at a Department that we are now scrutinising. We will have an opportunity as Ministers to meet, discuss and monitor the work of the agency because we will be accountable to Parliament for its work, even with co-operation and independence of the director general of the agency.

I refer my hon. Friend to the fact that we are not just creating a new National Crime Agency with a direct structure, with the Home Secretary being accountable for the work of the agency and its director general reporting to the Home Secretary, but removing the current structure of the NPIA and SOCA. For example, the NPIA has a board of members with experience who challenge the chief executive of the NPIA about budget control, priorities and implementation, and who intervene and engage in discussions about such issues on a regular basis.

The Serious Organised Crime Agency has a board. The Government’s drive was to remove quangos. It could be argued that they are not going to the wall defending quangos, but the SOCA board and the NPIA board are quangos that the Government wish to remove. The Minister might bring forward a mitigating defence in due course, but I want to explore in detail the current role of those boards—that important point was raised by my hon. Friend—and why the Government feel they need to remove them.

I will put my cards on the table: it may be that the Government are right to remove the boards. We will test that during our debate today and we will hear from the Minister. It is important that we, as the Opposition, do not just allow the Minister to say, just like that, “We will abolish the boards of the NPIA and of SOCA and we will bring the Border Agency aspect in-house into the new National Crime Agency, and that will report to the Home Secretary.” It is important that we test what the role is of the boards that monitor two of those three agencies, what they do, who does it and why the new proposals will be better, although still accountable, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, to Parliament in due course.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

Surely what we need is some insight into Government thinking and the consistency of Government thought. If we have all the paraphernalia of police and crime commissioners and police and crime panels to bring democratic accountability, we cannot at the other end have a national policing agency that does not seem to be accountable to anyone other than the Home Secretary.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

My hon. Friend has hit a very strong nail very firmly on the head. One of the contradictions that I want to test in this short debate is that, while policing in England and Wales was localised in November through the election on an abysmal turnout of police and crime commissioners—they are accountable locally to their electorate, but are checked and balanced by local panels made up of individuals from local authorities and independent sources—some of these issues are being nationalised through the merger of SOCA, the NPIA and the Border Agency under clause 1’s proposal of a National Crime Agency. Also, the challenge boards for SOCA and the NPIA are melting like the snows of winter outside this door and being sucked into the Home Office under the direct control of the Home Secretary.

The Minister can do that. We may yet not vote on this—I am not giving any indication, because I do not know; we want to hear what he says—but he has to justify to the Committee in due course why that model is appropriate for the Home Secretary and how it is accountable, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim has said, to Parliament. The Minister and I both know that being accountable to Parliament means many things. The Government can and do sometimes not answer questions in the fullness of time, as they would wish to do. They can give information differently and be subject to scrutiny, but scrutiny is also subject to information and Parliament does not always get as much information about some issues as a board member may get. It is important that the Minister begins to justify the change.

Let me, if I may, run through some of the people who were on the NPIA board before it was abolished late last year. These are people who were given the task by Ministers in both this Government and the previous Government to scrutinise the work of the NPIA, dealing with many of the issues that now fall within the remit of the National Crime Agency. For many years the chairman of the NPIA board was Peter Holland, managing director of Reuters Europe. He was on the board of the Police Information Technology Organisation, a member of Hertfordshire police authority, vice chairman of the Association of Police Authorities, where he led on IT matters, an independent member of the telecommunications ombudsman service and chairman of the audit committee of St John Ambulance. Peter Holland’s experience of police authorities, business, telecommunications and IT presumably brought something to the work of the NPIA.

Another member of the board was Nick Gargan, who was recently appointed chief constable of Avon and Somerset, so congratulations to him. At the time he was chief executive officer of the NPIA—a senior police officer, dealing with senior matters. Stephen Webb, a Home Office member, was director of finance and performance directorate in the crime and policing group at the Home Office; he has executive responsibility in the Home Office and is accountable to Ministers and is bringing that executive responsibility in a formal sense to the board of the National Policing Improvement Agency.

Vic Hogg—good old Vic—has been working hard at the Home Office for many years on these matters and was a Home Office member until May 2010. He is deputy director general of the crime and policing group at the Home Office, responsible for policing and crime reduction, and a civil servant of long standing. On the board, he exercises powers on behalf of the Home Secretary in an open and transparent way.

Sir Hugh Orde, OBE, QPM, will be well known to my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East. As the current president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, and previously Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, he has a lot of serious policing experience. Sitting on the board of the National Policing Improvement Agency, he deals with a lot of issues and brings his experience to the work of the agency.

Tim Godwin, OBE, deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis until August 2012, was working from the Metropolitan police on those key issues. Councillor Rob Garnham, who is not a member of my party, is a Conservative councillor from Cheltenham, and was for a while chair of the Association of Police Authorities.

The previous Government, and indeed, until they abolished the National Policing Improvement Agency, this Government, determined that the Association of Police Authorities had a role in helping to provide part of the governance and experience of how policing is delivered, by putting the leader of that organisation on the board of the National Policing Improvement Agency. Rob Garnham brought to the board not only his own experience but also that of all the chairs of police authorities across England and Wales, who had various issues about serious organised crime, child exploitation, and other NPIA concerns on their desks. There was a direct link in terms of input into both the strategy and some of the operational discussions. It did not interfere with operational accountability, but they could say to the chief executive of the NPIA, “You said you are going to do this, but what does it mean? How is it accountable? What happens?” They were getting reports back and having an interface with officials.

I put this on the table because under the Bill none of those people will have any direct input into the work of the National Crime Agency. It will be the executive responsibility of the director general, who reports directly to the Home Secretary. That interface has gone. It is incumbent on the Minister to say why the model he is proposing—or the Government are proposing—is better. We need to examine the issues in detail.

It is not only Rob Garnham. Mark Burns-Williamson, who was recently elected as the police and crime commissioner for West Yorkshire, sat on the NPIA board, having been chair of West Yorkshire police authority for 10 years. Again, the Government have chosen to discard that model; there will be no board members under their proposed model. The Minister needs to justify to me and to the Committee why that is the best way forward.

I could go on: Alan Edwards, independent member until June 2012, director general of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy; Chris Hughes, independent chair of the Learning and Skills Network; David Marshall, fellow at the Centre for Leadership Studies at the University of Exeter. Those people brought things to the table of the NPIA board. There was also a board of SOCA, as there still is at the moment, from September 2012. The previous but one chair of SOCA was Sir Stephen Lander, who served as director general of the British Security Service, MI5, from 1996 to 2002. He retired a couple of years ago and was replaced by Sir Ian Andrews, who was permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence. They are serious individuals who bring serious experience to tackling serious and organised crime. The post of director general of MI5 brings with it a level of experience that adds value to the work of tackling serious and organised crime. A permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence, even though that particular appointment caused a frisson of discussion in the Select Committee on Home Affairs at the time, is a serious appointment.

The current board members of SOCA include Peter Clarke, a trustee of Crimestoppers and former Metropolitan police officer; Sue Garrard, senior vice-president of Global Communications and former non-executive board member of Directgov UK; Francis Plowden, a former commissioner and chair of the audit committee at the Judicial Appointments Commission and former head of government sector at PricewaterhouseCoopers; and Martyn Thomas, a non-executive director of the Health and Safety Laboratory and of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, with 40 years’ experience in the computer industry.

The model in clause 1 will discard that level of oversight. Is that simply about culling quangos, or is it that those people, who include a director general of MI5, a senior police officer, a permanent secretary at Defence and people with business and outside interests, have had no input of any value to the previous work of SOCA or the NPIA? If that is the case, I return to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East at the start of the debate: did they do a good job? Those individuals have not been included in clause 1, and I ask the Minister to justify that.

I speak from my own experience as a Home Office Minister. I was Minister for Policing and Counter-Terrorism in the last year of the previous Government, and have worked in Justice and Northern Ireland over many years; in total, I was a Minister for 12 years. Part of my responsibility in that final year was to have oversight of the NPIA’s work. So much work was there that not only was I dealing with that and other matters, but my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), who was Under-Secretary, had oversight of SOCA’s work. We spent time meeting the chair of each of those bodies individually. As Ministers we had regular meetings to deal with them, and we set strategic directions for those bodies.

However, I was not able to spend every day of every week, or every week of every month or year, overseeing how the agency was performing. While the NPIA was an important aspect of ministerial responsibility, and while, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim said, I accounted to Parliament for its activities, the pressures of ministerial life meant that I did not spend every week sitting on the chief executive, asking, “What is your budget? Are you meeting your objectives? How are you progressing a particular issue? How are we going with strategic challenges? What are the strategic issues you are facing this week? What are the main operational challenges?” I was also dealing with police and crime authorities and legislation in the House, accounting for a crime reduction budget, and dealing with international terrorism issues.

If the boards are removed from SOCA and the NPIA, as is proposed by the Bill, what assurances can the Minister give the Committee, by dint of my question, regarding the challenges that Keith Bristow will face in relation to the operational budget and strategy? Under the Bill, Keith Bristow will report to the Home Secretary, who is responsible for issues relating to terrorism, national crime, police and crime commissioners, immigration and every other aspect of Home Office business.

I want to know from the Minister how the Home Secretary intends to deal with those challenges and get those levels of scrutiny and direction in the absence of the wide-ranging experience that the boards bring to discussions. We are not just talking about this Home Secretary, but about future Home Secretaries, so it is important that we get that flavour from the Minister. When he proposes a new structure, it is his duty to explain to the House what it will mean.

We have tabled other amendments. Amendment 10 is particularly important because it mentions the dreaded words “police and crime commissioners.” It is no secret that the Labour party did not support the introduction of police and crime commissioners. [Interruption.] There is some feigned surprise from Government Members on that point. It was not one of our manifesto commitments, and we argued against it during the passage of the Bill. But like the good democrats we are, when it was agreed we took up the baton, we picked candidates, we fought the election—we fought it hard—and we tried to increase the turnout. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield says that, thanks to the Labour party, the turnout probably doubled; it reached the massive levels of between 13% and 15%, depending on the area.

At the end of the day, police and crime commissioners were elected, and I am pleased to say that there are 13 Labour commissioners, predominantly for large forces such as the West Midlands, which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak represents, Greater Manchester, Cleveland, and Durham. We did not quite manage to win in north Wales, but most of my colleagues on the Committee had police and crime commissioners elected.

The reason I mention the issue is that police and crime commissioners are an important part of the delivery mechanism for tackling serious organised crime, and partnership is an issue later in the Bill. Clause 4 enables relationships between the NCA and other agencies to be established.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

Does my right hon. Friend share my view that one of the concerns about police and crime commissioners is that the Home Secretary, after establishing them, appears not to wish to take any further interest in them? As a result, there are no Home Office plans to review their performance in the years ahead. There is no automatic reporting mechanism to the Home Secretary about their behaviour. There is not even a national register of their interests. Were the same approach to be applied to the Bill, we would set up the National Crime Agency and the Home Secretary would simply wash her hands of all responsibility for its performance.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There is still time for us to explore the issue in Committee. I feel for the Minister on this issue. Between us—it is our secret, Mr Caton—I know that the Minister’s party did not really support police and crime commissioners either.

Shailesh Vara (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

May I just say that there is a process of accountability? It is called the elections, in which the PCCs will have to stand in due course.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

There is indeed. The hon. Gentleman will accept that, for all our faults, the Labour party threw ourselves into those elections, fought them seriously, and we increased the turnout—marginally. There may or may not be a chance for police and crime commissioners to go back to their electorates in 2016. I say that because there will be a general election before 2016, and we still have to examine governance options for policing.

Let me return to the point. The Minister’s party did not really support police and crime commissioners. The Liberal Democrats did not put up candidates in a large number of areas; they were slightly frit of being smashed. General nods of agreement from some Government Members suggest that would have been the case. They did not get any commissioners elected. That aside, it is a Government policy, and the Minister speaks for his colleagues in the Home Office as a whole. The point that I am making in relation to amendment 10 is that there is no mention in the governance arrangements of the role of police and crime commissioners. There is no discussion of their role, except for a cursory mention in small parts of the Bill. With amendment 10, we want to ensure not just that the appointment of the director general of the National Crime Agency is a matter for the National Crime Agency board that we hope to establish, but that the association of police and crime commissioners is embedded in the national organisation. If, having listened to the debate, the Minister wants to bring back proposals on Report, I am happy to discuss what the board would look at.

Tomorrow, the association of police and crime commissioners will take a decision as to what form it decides to operate in. All the police and crime commissioners will meet, and the independent, Conservative and Labour members will decide how they want to take forward their involvement as a national body. If the association is established—I do not know whether it will be—there would be a role, rather as Rob Garnham and Mark Burns-Williamson had under the National Policing Improvement Agency, to engage with the Home Office on key issues of strategy, governance and the direction of travel. Under clause 1, the director general of the National Crime Agency has direction and control and, under other clauses, reports directly to the Home Secretary, so again there is no element of the local being married to the national. The partnership itself, under later clauses, does not really reflect that. I hope that the Minister can reflect on those issues accordingly.

Amendment 12 would ensure that the Secretary of State has to consult the chairman of the NCA board—if it was appointed—and the association of police and crime commissioners before calling upon the director general of the NCA to retire or resign. The Bill gives tremendous powers to the Home Secretary not just to appoint and set strategic direction, but to remove. If we are serious about fighting organised crime, we need more involvement from agencies in the appointment of the director general, which our amendments would ensure, in the strategic direction of the director general’s team, in challenging the system on day-to-day activities concerning budgets and other issues, and in the removal of the director general from post.

Under the Bill, the Home Secretary can remove the director general from post with no reference to anyone else. That may be a good power, but let us hear the Minister justify it. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim mentioned, that removal would be accountable to Parliament. We could have an Adjournment debate on why the director general had been removed and ask questions, or we could have a Select Committee hearing; but it would always be post the event. Amendment 12 seeks to put in a little challenge and break, so that the association of police and crime commissioners and/or the board would have to be consulted by the Home Secretary before the director general was removed.

Amendment 13 would ensure that before issuing an annual plan, the director general must obtain the consent of the NCA board. That would give the proposed NCA board the opportunity to comment on and contribute to the strategic direction. I come back to my original point: as the Bill stands, the Home Secretary will set the annual plan in conjunction with the director general. The Home Secretary and the Home Office will take the defining strategic operational decisions about where the strategic directions lie. Although the Home Secretary may consult police and crime commissioners or outside bodies and may have some external interest, none of those things is guaranteed. Amendment 13 would ensure that an NCA board would be able to contribute to the strategic direction.

If, as I have tried to indicate, an NCA board had among its members someone representing Northern Ireland or Scotland, as well as national figures from England and Wales, there would be an opportunity for a wide discussion. I accept that in later clauses there is an attempt to formalise consultation and annual plans, but we need to examine in detail the need for a board that offers challenge and some establishment, and gives some direction to Keith Bristow as the new chair.

Those are my initial comments on the amendments. The Minister knows, as he gently titters at the thought of discussions, that Oppositions challenge; it is our job, statutorily, as Her Majesty’s Opposition, to test what the Government do. It is only fair that we try to do that in relation to the Bill. The Minister is sitting where I have sat, and I have sat where he is sitting. We know what this business is about. Our job is to ensure that he justifies to the Committee why the Home Secretary should have direct control of these matters, given their importance.

I might refer to other points later, but I would appreciate hearing from the Minister or indeed from any of my hon. Friends.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton. I look forward to our deliberations in the coming days. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn, who made a fine speech. He has great experience. He says it is the job of the Opposition to test Government thinking, but he has done more than test; he has posed relevant and important questions. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s response to the sensible—indeed, modest—suggestions that my right hon. Friend made.

May I reiterate the point made by my right hon. Friend? Any criticism of anything in the Bill is not at all a criticism of Keith Bristow. He is chief constable of Warwickshire police and a very able and experienced police officer. He is ideally suited to take on this demanding role to lead the fight against organised crime in our country. I pay tribute to him and I wish him nothing but the best in the role that he will play. It is a huge responsibility.

Clause 1(2) states:

“The NCA is to be under the direction and control of one of the NCA officers, who is to be known as the Director General of the National Crime Agency.”

That is it. He is then accountable to the Home Secretary. We need to think about the enormity and complexity of the task. My right hon. Friend’s amendments and suggestions that a board be put in place are sensible. A board of experienced people can bring their experience to bear. Their strategic thought and their experience of other aspects of government, and indeed other aspects of business and society in general, can be brought to bear in thinking through the approach that the National Crime Agency will need to take.

It is worth reflecting that when SOCA was established in 2006, it was a very complex organisation that brought together the National Crime Squad, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and elements of Customs and Excise and the immigration service. I pay tribute to those who brought together those disparate organisations and formed them into one body, but we must remember that the National Crime Agency will still be a complex organisation that will have to deal with police forces throughout the United Kingdom. The breadth and complexity of such relationships require a body at the top of the organisation that has the capacity and experience to support the director general with strategic thinking and planning. I hope that the Minister will reflect on the complete absence of such a board in his current plans.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I am starting to be taken more and more by the idea of a board. I have served on the Northern Ireland Policing Board. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the only way such a board can work is if the director is accountable to the board ex post facto? The director must have the power, and must take the decisions; the buck has to stop with the director, so that he cannot pass the blame to the board.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I pay tribute to his role as a member of the policing board in Northern Ireland over many years and to his great and active support of law enforcement in Northern Ireland. He puts his finger right on it: the director is there to direct. In the end, it is his responsibility, as with the Chief Constable in Northern Ireland. Yes, the policing board is there to hold him to account, but in the end he is operationally responsible for what happens, and the same will be true for Keith Bristow as the director of the National Crime Agency. Nothing that I am saying or that my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn suggested detracts from that. Having a strategic board will help develop thinking and strategy and help to ensure that the director general has proper support, from people with real experience.

One of the things that puzzled me about the Government’s approach is not the switch they want to make from a non-departmental public body to a non-ministerial Department, which is in effect what they are doing—it is the difference between the National Crime Agency and the Serious Organised Crime Agency—because we know that the Government wanted a bonfire of quangos. It did not turn out to be the bonfire they predicted, but it is what lies behind the change. Although we do not necessarily agree with all the decisions that they have made, we understand where they are coming from.

What is very interesting is that just because the National Crime Agency is a non-ministerial Department does not mean that it should not have a board. I am sure the Minister is well versed in the guidance from the Cabinet Office published in April 2011, “Categories of Public Bodies: A Guide for Departments”, which makes it clear that non-ministerial Departments are usually headed by a statutory board. The Minister needs to offer us a convincing explanation why, although the organisation has changed from a non-departmental public body to a non-ministerial Department, it is doing without the board that another Department of his Government is recommending it should have in most cases. We need the Minister to give us a proper explanation of that.

My final point supports amendments 10 and 12, which were tabled by my right hon. Friend and would give the association of police and crime commissioners a consultative role. I find it somewhat ironic that on the same day as the Home Secretary announced plans for the National Crime Agency, she stood at the Dispatch Box and announced plans for police and crime commissioners. That was to be the new policing plan from the new coalition Government, yet here we have a Bill that does not even mention police and crime commissioners. Indeed, I find it somewhat ironic that the Opposition, who opposed police and crime commissioners, are bringing that point to the attention of the Minister and the Committee and are trying to add them to the Bill.

The fact of the matter is that police and crime commissioners are now the head figures of local policing in terms of strategy and accountability. The idea that the National Crime Agency, which is to head the fight against organised crime, will have no relationship with police and crime commissioners is beyond belief. The Minister needs to address that in his response to my right hon. Friend. He would do well to breathe deeply, reflect carefully and, if not through these amendments, find some other way of putting the role of police and crime commissioners in the Bill. Through legislation brought forward by the Government, police and crime commissioners are part of the policing landscape. They are very important. Their national association will give them strategic importance and the idea that they will have no relationship whatsoever with the fight against organised crime is preposterous. I urge the Minister to give serious thought to my right hon. Friend’s suggestions.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

My right hon. Friends the Members for Wythenshawe and Sale East and for Delyn have already drawn attention to the work of SOCA. That attention was sadly lacking when the Home Secretary made her Second Reading speech.

One thing that struck me as a member of the Home Affairs Committee is how highly regarded SOCA is by police and crime agencies in other parts of the world. I hope that as the Minister attempts to put these measures into effect, he will do his level best to ensure that the reputation that SOCA has acquired will not be lost in the reorganisation. Will he give serious thought to the SOCA brand abroad and whether there is some way that it can be kept? If external crime agencies identify with the brand, it would be a mistake to throw away the opportunity of retaining it.

I am worried that although the National Crime Agency will have four commands, its budget will be similar to that of SOCA. It will be asked to do considerably more with much less, perhaps more than £100 million less. On that basis, the Committee needs to know much more about the measures that will be used to judge the performance of the NCA as well as knowing much more about the accountability measures about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn has already spoken.

As we heard, there are some real questions to be asked about police and crime commissioners and their relationship with the NCA. The posts were mainly invented to give people a say over local policing, but it now seems as though police and crime commissioners will be overruled by the NCA. They will be directly bypassed by the director general of the NCA.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Is that not even more reason why, if the Bill remains as drafted, the police and crime commissioners through a board should have a voice in helping to appoint the director general, look at the strategic plan and monitor performance on a regular basis?

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

Yes, that is absolutely the case and why it is really important to identify and probe the Minister’s intentions. Under the Bill, the director general will bypass police and crime commissioners by directly commanding the actions of chief constables. Irrespective of the local policing plan, if the director general determines that he wants x amount of resource and activities, he can simply bypass the locally elected commissioner and command the chief constable to comply with his wishes.

Finally, because there is so little detail, can the Minister tell us whether we will see the NCA framework before the Committee concludes its business? It has been promised for some time. The shadow Home Secretary made little of the modified version on Second Reading, but the Government have promised that framework as a source to fill in some of the detail.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

Although I recognise the premise of the points made about the successes of SOCA, should we not have the humility to recognise the problem? Given that in 2009 Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary said:

“There is a need for a more coherent and consistent approach to the attack on organised crime across England and Wales”,

should we not recognise that there is still a problem and that it needs to be tackled? Is there recognition, understanding and support in principle that the NCA is an answer?

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

Let me be clear. I am not opposed to the development of the NCA. It should build on the successes of SOCA rather than engage, as we saw with the health service, in a wholesale reorganisation for the sake of it. I am sceptical about whether we could do more with less, and I am cynical about whether the Government’s intention in not bringing forward proper performance measures is that that they realise that, too, which is why they have created the agency in such a way.

Will we see the framework before the Committee concludes its business? Will we see it in time for us to consider it? That is one of the absent pieces from the Government’s plans today.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

Many people might regard me as unfortunate, neither representing a Welsh constituency nor having been born in Liverpool. I am grateful to you for your impartial chairmanship, Mr Caton, and for giving ample opportunity to the right hon. Gentleman to raise all the constructive points he wished to under the group of amendments that we are discussing.

Before I get on to the amendments, let me also recognise the significant contribution to national security and crime-fighting that SOCA has made to this country. Although I am one of, I think, three people who have been a Home Office Minister currently in the room, I am the only person in the room who has been a Foreign Office Minister. As well as seeing SOCA’s role here in the United Kingdom, I had the opportunity, during my two and a half years as a Foreign Office Minister, particularly covering Latin America, to see a lot of its international work and the high regard with which it is held in many of the countries where we assisted the domestic authorities in their crime-fighting arrangements, and in international partnerships.

I meet regularly with Sir Ian Andrews, Trevor Pearce and others in SOCA, and I recognise the contribution that many distinguished figures have made to public life through SOCA and the NPIA, which was also mentioned in some of the earlier speeches. One can think that there are better organisational arrangements for tackling serious and organised crime in the United Kingdom and internationally, while at the same time recognising the significant contribution that has been made by many distinguished individuals over a number of years.

I will not be drawn into speaking at length about the NPIA, because not all of its functions are transferring to the NCA. It will be dealt with specifically under clause 14. Given that there is rather a lot of material in the amendments about the governance of specifically the NCA, perhaps that is the subject to which I should devote some fairly lengthy comments, to reassure members of the Committee that the Government are going in the right direction.

As the right hon. Member for Delyn explained, his amendments seek to provide for a National Crime Agency board, in effect replicating the governance arrangements of SOCA, which he was extolling on behalf of the Opposition. The Government considered carefully what the right governance arrangements for the agency should be in order to maximise its effectiveness and democratic accountability and minimise bureaucracy. The arrangements must be appropriate for an operationally-focused organisation, with a demanding mission to fight serious and organised crime and protect the public. We believe that the Bill as it stands gets that balance right, allowing for strategic oversight by the Home Secretary and effective operational leadership by the director general.

The director general will lead and direct the agency. I am grateful for the tributes paid, particularly by two former Ministers of the Department, to Mr Keith Bristow, in whom we have great confidence in performing that role. He will be directly accountable to the Home Secretary and, through her, to Parliament. That is entirely consistent with the tried and tested arrangements in place in many non-ministerial Departments, including law enforcement agencies such as the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service. I hope that I will reassure members of the Committee who are nervous about adventuring into unfamiliar territory that the arrangements are a tried and tested model.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

I accept that the model is tried and tested; it is the traditional model. However, is it not the whole thrust of this Government’s approach to policing that they want a different model of accountability? That is what the whole argument about police and crime commissioners revolved around.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I am grateful for the intervention and I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. I will get to police and crime commissioners, but a person wandering into the Committee’s deliberations or watching us on television could be forgiven for believing that with the NCA we are setting up an organisational structure that is without precedent, and that the board model that SOCA has, which was championed by the right hon. Member for Delyn, is the only tried and tested model. Other Government bodies, however, including some in the field of law enforcement, such as the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service, have a governance model in line with that which we are proposing for the NCA.

Amendments 1 and 11 would instead create an NCA board to lead and direct the agency in a similar way to SOCA, with the director general employed by and accountable to the board, rather than directly to the Home Secretary as we are proposing. That is of course the traditional quango structure for a public body, and SOCA was set up with such a structure by the Labour Government under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. The right hon. Gentleman is effectively arguing that SOCA’s structure should be recreated for the NCA, instead of the simpler and more straightforward structure that we have proposed, which, as I said, works well for organisations such as the CPS.

I recognise that the SOCA chair and board are excellent individuals who have done a good and professional job. I have had the opportunity to see their good work throughout the world, and no doubt the right hon. Members for Delyn and for Wythenshawe and Sale East can, from their time at the Home Office—they have reminded the Committee this morning of their exposure to the work of SOCA—similarly vouch for their predecessors’ good work. We believe, however, that SOCA’s structure is not the ideal one for a law enforcement agency. Instead of the clear and direct accountability of the director general to the elected Home Secretary, SOCA’s director general reports to the SOCA board and chair, who then account to the Home Secretary for progress. That arrangement has led to more bureaucracy and less accountability than would be the case with the proposal in the Bill.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

May I say at the outset that I was grateful to hear the Minister’s generous remarks about those who have been part of SOCA over the past six years? They have played an important role and it was good that he made such an unequivocal statement about that from the beginning.

The Minister is talking about the model proposed for the National Crime Agency as a non-ministerial Department. He is explaining why there is no board and praying in aid the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS, however, has a board with four non-executive directors. How does he explain that? How will that be replicated in the model for the NCA?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I will come to that very point so, if the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will address it directly.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am interested in whether the Minister can give us some idea of how the Home Secretary will provide the challenge, the scrutiny and the oversight of a board that was reporting to him or her. As Ministers—myself and in due course my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth—we gave such a challenge to the chair of the board, so the board was doing that day to day, with expertise brought in effectively to give that level of challenge some intensity. Will the Home Secretary give the same level of scrutiny and challenge as the existing board does for both bodies?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

This is the crux of our deliberations. The model that we are proposing is, essentially, the model that seems to have become more attractive to Opposition Members, which is that there is an elected leadership figure who sets the strategic direction—in police forces that is the PCC, in the new NCA that is the Home Secretary. Then, serving under that strategic direction, there is a crime-fighting leader. In the police force it is the chief constable, and for the NCA it will be Mr Keith Bristow, whom we have just been talking about.

I will come to the provisions for greater oversight. The question is whether the crime-fighting leadership of the NCA reports to a board, or whether—as is our view—it has the cleaner and more accountable reporting structure of reporting to an individual, the Home Secretary, who is an elected Member of Parliament and accounts to Parliament almost daily, either directly or through her ministerial team. The Government strongly believe that the NCA should be led by an operational crime fighter, not a non-executive chair and board, as is the case with SOCA. Police forces are led by chief constables, the Crown Prosecution Service is led by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the National Crime Agency should be led by its director general.

Of course, it is vital that chief constables and other leading crime fighters are held properly to account on behalf of the electorate, but people want to see effective accountability, not bureaucratic accountability. That is why we have ensured that chief constables are directly accountable to a single directly elected police and crime commissioner in their force area, who is visible and can be held to account and removed by local communities if they so wish, in the same way that the Home Secretary is a visible, elected leader who holds her office at the discretion of the electorate. The director general will be accountable to the Home Secretary, who has the democratically elected mandate to ensure that the public are protected from crime at a national level. They will be held to account by the taxpayer, the electorate and Parliament. In our view, this is more straightforward, less bureaucratic and will provide more real democratic accountability.

Naturally, we agree that the NCA should have sensible, transparent internal governance arrangements in place. Although it is right that the director general is ultimately charged with leading the organisation, in doing so he will want advice and challenge from other experienced leaders, both inside and outside the NCA—a point that was raised by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East. The NCA will have a non-statutory management board—that has been usual practice in government for many years—to advise the director general on the strategic direction of the organisation. It will oversee good governance, for example by ensuring that proper audit and risk arrangements are in place.

To avoid confusion, the director general will not report upwards to a board, but will himself chair a board that will have senior internal members of the NCA on it, as well as outside members who will be able to ensure that proper audit and risk arrangements and good governance are in place. The outline of the NCA framework document clearly provides for such a board to be established under the chairmanship of the director general, rather than above his head. We see no reason for that management board to be set in statute, particularly since other non-ministerial Departments such as the CPS function very well with non-statutory arrangement.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for contributing those great thoughts. Will he explain to the Committee where the framework document is, so that we can look at these matters? My understanding is that it has not even been published yet. I am grateful to him for shedding light on these matters, but it would be helpful if he publishes the framework document so we can see who comprises this so-called non-statutory board.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for saying my deliberations are great. I did not think that they had quite reached that level—I was just warming up. Sarcasm does not show in Hansard.

It is my understanding that the framework document can only be published in full once the Bill receives Royal Assent. The Bill establishes the mechanics and the detailed organisational arrangements for the NCA. We do not seem to have a shortage of issues on clause 1 alone to get our teeth stuck into, so the Committee will not be deprived of an opportunity to gain a full understanding of how the NCA will work in practice.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

With due respect—and I hope that what I am about to say does not appear strange in Hansard—I am not psychic. I cannot see the future in relation to what the framework document may or may not say. My noble Friend Baroness Smith of Basildon asked in another place for the publication of the framework document. If the Minister were referring to what the document might contain about governance arrangements, it would be helpful to all members of the Committee if we had sight of it. Such matters are critical to what we are worried about, which is oversight and governance of what will be a strategic role in delivering major public services in the fight against crime.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I am grateful again to the right hon. Gentleman but, at the risk of repeating myself, the NCA framework document can be published only following Royal Assent of the Bill. I am holding in my hand a substantial Bill, which outlines under clauses and schedules how the NCA will be structured. We are deliberating those issues this morning, including the governance arrangements. I am being open by saying that the NCA will have different governance arrangements, assuming that it receives the support of the Committee and Parliament more generally, than exist currently with the Serious Organised Crime Agency. I have explained why we consider that those more streamlined, efficient, accountable arrangements offer better value for the taxpayer and better prospects of direct and effective leadership.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

May I help the Minister? I accept that the Committee is not discussing schedule 2, but that schedule refers to the framework document and annual report, and states that the Secretary of State must “issue a framework document”. I accept that that can be done only after Royal Assent, but would it help the hon. Gentleman if he were to issue a document with the word “draft” written on it, so that members of the Committee who are worried about governance arrangements may examine it to see whether clauses 1, 2 and 3 meet the proper governance objectives of serious issues?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

The right hon. Gentleman is seeking to create the impression that a great act of concealment is taking place, but not only is the Committee considering a substantial Bill, which the right hon. Gentleman has clearly read carefully and diligently, but an outline framework document has been provided to Parliament. It includes various undertakings, such as on the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, which he mentioned earlier in his deliberations.

The right hon. Gentleman says that he does not have the knowledge to enable him to scrutinise the Government’s arrangements for the NCA, yet he has made a detailed 45-minute speech on a whole series of amendments that he has tabled on the precise arrangements that the Government are proposing for the governance of the NCA. A finalised framework document will be provided in due course, following Royal Assent—assuming, of course, that the Bill receives it. However, it is not reasonable to say that the Bill does not provide sufficient detail for our deliberations.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

Will the Minister give way?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I was hoping to turn my attention to the amendments that all other members of the Committee, except me, have had the opportunity to discuss.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

Given what the Minister said about the framework document, I am not clear what has to be determined after Royal Assent. Presumably, the Committee is sitting to scrutinise the detail of the Government’s proposals. It is reasonable for the final framework document to be published after Royal Assent, when everything was agreed and considered, but we are being asked to legislate purely as an act of faith when details are being withheld that are crucial to the understanding of how the Bill will operate.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

Let me have one final go and then I will move on to the amendments. I do not accept that, if the hon. Gentleman holds this substantial green document in his hand and looks at the outline framework document, he is being asked to legislate on faith alone. There is plenty of material for him to get his teeth stuck into. That is why we have a group of amendments on clause 1 alone, which I will now turn my attention to.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Minister give way?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

Let me make a little progress and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Amendment 3 provides that the NCA board would need to give its consent to the NCA’s annual plan. Clearly, that requirement falls away if there is no NCA board in statute—I am recommending that there should not be—and the director general is the clear, sole leader of the organisation. I fully expect that the director general will discuss the annual plan with his management board, as happens routinely in other non-ministerial Departments. Indeed, it would be odd if he did not draw on their expertise in that regard, but that is not a concern for statute. We do not wish to micro-manage him through law. Ultimately, it will be the director general as the operational leader who bears the responsibility for determining the final plan and is best placed to do so on the basis of his or her crime-fighting experience.

Amendments 10 and 12 seek to revise the arrangements set out in schedule 1, which confer on the Home Secretary the responsibility for appointing the director general and, if necessary, calling on him or her to resign. In the first place, the amendments require the Home Secretary to consult the NCA board about the appointment or dismissal of the director general. I think we can dispense with this point, because, at the risk of repetition, we do not regard the NCA board as a suitable model. If the Committee agrees that we should not have an NCA board, obviously the Home Secretary would not be able to consult a board.

Secondly, amendments 10 and 12 also call for the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners—a body of men and women now greatly admired by the Labour party and its leadership—to be consulted on the appointment or proposed dismissal of the director general. The Bill as drafted provides for the Home Secretary to appoint the director general in consultation with the devolved Administrations, and similarly provides that she may call on him or her to resign, subject to clear safeguards and, again, consultation with the devolved Administrations.

It is right that the Home Secretary, who ultimately has responsibility for public safety and protection from crime, should make the final decision about who should hold this critical position in leading the national fight against serious and organised crime. Equally, it is important that she should seek the views of the devolved Administrations to reflect their interests, because the agency’s work will deal with a mix of reserved and devolved matters.

However, it is not the view of the Government that the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners should be added to the list of consultees. The Government have championed the need for more responsive, democratically accountable local policing, and we have implemented fundamental systemic reform to make that happen in the shape of the new locally elected police and crime commissioners. On the other side of the coin there is a need, which we have always stressed, for the Government to have a firm grip on tackling serious and organised crime at a national level. It is the Home Secretary, not police and crime commissioners, who has the national-level responsibility and who should therefore choose the right person to lead the UK’s fight against serious and organised crime.

Clearly, police and crime commissioners will be key strategic partners for the NCA, and the director general will want to engage with them both as individuals and collectively via the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, but it does not follow that they should have a say in who gets his job.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I agree that the director general should be the sole leader of the organisation. Indeed, he should feel emboldened in that role to do it right, and I do not think that anyone would disagree with that. I welcome the fact that there must be consultations with the devolved regions. I assume that the structure of the consultation will be flexible to allow the director general to consult, for example, the Justice Minister or the Justice Committee in Northern Ireland, or the Northern Ireland Policing Board, depending on what is appropriate in the circumstances.

On the point that the Minister has made about the framework, there is going to be a board in that framework to address the different and unique governance arrangements that he has now identified. Would it not make sense to put that board in the Bill?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not giving way earlier.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I am a forgiving soul.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I wanted to move on, but as that was the first time that the hon. Gentleman had sought to intervene, after saying that I would not give way I felt rather lacking in charitable spirit, so I am grateful for his contribution, and I endorse the need he spoke of for the NCA and its leadership to consult all parts of the United Kingdom.

I am not sure what I can add to what has been said already on the framework document. The legislation puts into effect the arrangements for a new national crime agency. Some of the practical nuts and bolts will obviously be introduced once we know that Parliament endorses the concept of a national crime agency. There is plenty of detail in the Bill, which is why we are spending Tuesdays and Thursdays for the foreseeable future discussing it. There is also an outline framework document, so I do not think that there is a lack of material for Members to get their teeth stuck into.

Andy McDonald (Labour, Middlesbrough)

That is the point on which I rise. I have not seen the draft framework document—does it exist and may I have sight of it?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I trust that if the hon. Gentleman were to make his way once the Committee has finished—or, indeed, now if the Whip will permit him—he would be able to get a copy from the Vote Office.

Amendment 13 would require that the Home Secretary’s reasons for calling upon the director general to resign be shared with the NCA board and with Parliament. The NCA board requirement falls away if the Committee agrees that there should not be a board, as I have recommended. She would obviously not be able to share her views with an organisation that did not exist.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

As my hon. Friend knows, I am not supposed to speak on this part of the Bill. However, I was enjoying his rhetoric so much that when he mentioned the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service I was reminded that it is the Attorney-General who superintends the Director of Public Prosecutions and the director of the Serious Fraud Office. Would my hon. Friend agree that colleagues in this place seem to find no difficulty in asking questions about the way in which these Departments work at Attorney-General’s questions, in debates on the Floor of the House, and so on? There seems to be a very clear governance structure there.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I am not a stickler for parliamentary convention, particularly when the Committee is so enlightened and well informed by interventions of that type. I wholeheartedly endorse my hon. Friend’s observations, which I am sure will reassure Opposition Members who may not otherwise have been minded to enthusiastically endorse this section of the Bill.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

On a point of order, Mr Caton. The Minister has referred several times to the draft framework document, and he has just advised my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough that if he is fortunate enough he may just be able to get hold of a copy from the Vote Office. Should the Committee not have copies available with the other documents that we have, and are there copies of the draft framework document in the room that my hon. Friend and others could see in order to check what the Minister is saying against what is actually written down?

Martin Caton (Labour, Gower)

I think it would useful if the Minister could clarify the situation with the draft framework document.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

My understanding is that the Home Office website has the document, and although I have not this morning been to the Vote Office and asked for a copy, I see no reason why we should not make it available to everybody. However, I am not able to do that and simultaneously address amendment 13 if it requires me to leave the room, Mr Cator.

Martin Caton (Labour, Gower)

It is not a point of order whether it is in the room or not, and it is the decision of the Government which of their own papers they make available to the Committee.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

This is not a secret document—everybody is getting far too excited. I will ensure that copies are available for this afternoon’s sitting. I am sure that Members who wish to read the document before then will be able to find it easily.

As I was saying, amendment 13 would require the Home Secretary to share her reasons for calling on the director general to resign with the NCA board and with Parliament. Of course, if there is no NCA board, she will not be able to share her thinking with it. More generally, it is clearly the Home Secretary’s role to ensure that the right person holds the post of director general. If she has serious concerns about the incumbent’s efficiency or effectiveness, or believes him or her to be guilty of misconduct, it is right that she should set those concerns out in writing to the director general and offer him or her the right of reply. That is the same power that the Home Secretary holds at the moment with regard to the director general of SOCA.

The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, passed by the previous Government, includes a similar safeguard, requiring the Home Secretary to set out her reasons in writing, but does not mention reporting them to Parliament. Evidently, the Opposition did not consider that necessary when setting up SOCA. We agree with them and do not regard that to be a necessary requirement for the NCA. Such a requirement would be unfair to the director general, given that he or she would not, at that stage, have had the chance to exercise the right of reply. If the Home Secretary did decide, following any representations made by the director general, to call on him or her to resign, she would obviously inform Parliament swiftly in the usual way and set out the reasons for the decision at that point. I have no doubt that there would be plenty of opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise the Home Secretary’s decision.

Schedule 1 will place the director general under a duty to ensure that resources are allocated in the most efficient and effective manner. Amendment 37 proposes to extend that duty to include the Home Secretary and the NCA board. Of course, as I have just said, if there is no NCA board, that part of the amendment will not apply. However, on the proposal that the Home Secretary should be subject to the duty, I remind the right hon. Member for Delyn and others who tabled the amendment that it is not for the Home Secretary to interfere with the day-to-day running of the NCA. I have tried to draw a parallel between police and crime commissioners and chief constables in police forces, and the Home Secretary and the director general in the NCA.

The role of the Home Secretary is to set the strategic priorities for the agency, whereas the director general is best placed, as the agency’s operational head, to implement those priorities in the most effective and efficient way possible. It would both undermine the operational independence of the director general and lead to confused lines of accountability if the duty set out in paragraph 2 of schedule 1 were to be split between the director general and the Home Secretary.

I have argued that the National Crime Agency should be led by an experienced crime fighter, not a committee, and that he or she should be directly accountable to the elected Government of the day. Furthermore, I have stressed that the arrangements for appointing and dismissing the director general are a matter for the Home Secretary, with appropriate safeguards already in place and a requirement to consult the devolved Administrations.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

For the avoidance of doubt, however, there will be a board—the Government are putting it into the framework document. Is that not what the Minister is saying? It will not be called the NCA board.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

The director general will have a board in the same way that chief executives of lots of organisations have a board or committee that includes the senior management of the organisation and outside representatives. However, the director general will chair that board; he will not be accountable to it. The board will sit below rather than above him. He will be accountable to the Home Secretary, not to a board under a chairman, as exists currently with SOCA and Sir Ian Andrew’s chairmanship. An organised group will advise the director general, and that will include outside representatives as well as the departmental leaders in the NCA.

I hope that I have dealt with all the amendments in sufficient detail. I encourage the right hon. Member for Delyn and the Committee not to support the amendments and to leave the Bill unamended.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I appreciate the Minister’s contribution. He has tried to defend the proposals in clause 1, but I am not convinced, because these are strategic matters of great importance to national security. While I have great faith, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have also indicated, in Keith Bristow—this is no criticism of him—and while I may have great faith in current and future Home Secretaries to be able to direct and interface with the director general, wider experience needs to be brought to the table. We need to make the issues of organised crime feel shared and owned by stakeholders in the community at large. We also need to ensure that the Home Secretary, whoever he or she may be, has the capability, time and commitment to offer the challenge to the National Crime Agency—for as long as it exists—that is being done by a board to SOCA and was being done by a board to the NPIA. That was not the case for the Border Agency.

I expect the Minister to listen to what we have said, but not necessarily to share my aspirations on these matters, because that is the nature of our debates and discussions. If he will not listen to me, however, will he listen to Lord Condon, former Metropolitan Police Commissioner? In the other place, in the debate on this clause, he said:

“It would be good to have reassurance around the notion of a management board, a supervisory board, an advisory board or some board mechanism that allows both stakeholder interest and independent voices to contribute to the health and well-being in the future of the NCA so that issues such as value for money, good governance, priorities and so on could somehow be part of a wider debate within that family than just between the DG and the Home Secretary.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 June 2012; Vol. 737, c. 1563.]

That was a former senior police officer, independent of political parties, saying in the Lords that there is a case for the type of board that we have proposed.

If the Minister will not listen to the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, perhaps he will listen to the Association of Police Authorities, which has 13 Labour members, 16 Conservative members and 12 independent members. It does not have a Labour majority. As part of the discussions, it has said that it believes we should have a board and that the board’s function should be to link the local with the national. Police and crime commissioners are elected locally and have the ability to do what they want, but they also have a role to feed in their concerns on serious organised crime. Keith Bristow of the National Crime Agency has been charged with looking at the historic child abuse issues in my area in north Wales and is working closely with local police forces there. Does the Minister not want the police and crime commissioner to have an input as a part of these proposals?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

To clarify for the Committee, the police and crime commissioners will be key strategic partners of the National Crime Agency. The right hon. Gentleman is rather giving the impression that the police and crime commissioners will be completely dislocated from the NCA. They will be consulted on the strategic priorities and the annual plan, which is in clause 3, and are included in the definition of strategic partners. That consultation, however, is different from requiring the director general of the NCA to account to a wide-ranging committee for strategic leadership. Clearer accountability is provided by the elected Home Secretary, who is accountable to Parliament.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

There is the nub, because when the NPIA was in place—the National Crime Agency will take over a number of its roles and responsibilities—the Government were happy for Councillor Rob Garnham, a Conservative member, to sit on the NPIA’s board and contribute to its discussions on what the strategic plans should be and also on holding the director general to account on the delivery of that strategic plan. We are now expected to believe that the Home Secretary solely, the person incarnate, will both set a strategic plan under clause 2 and sit on—I will use that phrase—the objectives of that plan to ensure they are delivered. They will have to monitor the budgets, ensure that objectives have been delivered and interface with the director general on a regular basis. I think we are going to end up with less scrutiny of the role, not the same amount or more scrutiny.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

The problem with the Minister’s argument is that police and crime commissioners are directly accountable to the local electorate for the local policing plan and the use of local police resources, but they will have no say about parts of the policing plan or the local resources that are superseded by decisions of the director general. There is no obvious accountability for how that will happen.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will simply point out that clause 4(5) states:

“The Director General may direct any of the following persons to perform a task specified in the direction”—

and it specifies:

“The chief officer of an England and Wales police force.”

So there is the power for that to happen, although I accept that it would happen only in extremely unusual circumstances because there will be co-operation.

I am not committed to quangos, and I am not saying that we should have quangos all the time, but this is a serious matter. The National Crime Agency will exercise very serious functions. It will take on some of the activities of the Border Agency and the Border Force, it will take on aspects of the work of the National Policing Improvement Agency and it will take on the activities of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. Previously, Governments accepted—and the Opposition did not criticise this when I was a Minister—that a wide range of organisations should contribute to the governance of those bodies, and it is not for Ministers, who ultimately account for the performance of the board to Parliament, to be solely responsible for the undertakings of those agencies.

David Rutley (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns about accountability, but does he agree that the Home Affairs Committee has a role to play? I think the director general of the NCA has been before it, or could be before it in the future.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I was a Minister for 12 years, and I can say that Parliament is very important—written questions will be tabled, Ministers will have to appear before Select Committees and legislation will have to be justified in Bills like this. But Parliament scrutinises from a position outside the organisation. We in Parliament are not inside the Home Office. The Minister is, but the Home Affairs Committee and Back-Bench Members are not. Our questions are tabled on the basis that we do not have internal information. It is our job to stand outside the building and ask questions about what is happening inside the building. In the building is the Home Secretary, who is the political master of the organisation, and is able to hold the director general to account, ask questions, deliver things and give strategic direction.

The point of a board is to have an external challenge that gets information on a regular basis and can ask the Secretary of State and the director general for reports. The role of the board is not to be the director general. It is to hold to account, to give direction, to test budgets, to challenge and to do all that in much greater depth than a Minister can, with all due respect, given their wide range of responsibilities.

David Rutley (Conservative, Macclesfield)

But the external board members are not physically in the building, if I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point. They come from different parties, and perhaps even outside Government. They have the same sort of access to information as Members of Parliament and members of the Home Affairs Committee.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

No, that is not the case. The Serious Organised Crime Agency or the National Policing Improvement Agency have access to board papers that are not necessarily in the public domain. I think it is important that we have an effective challenge. Lord Condon, a former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, believes that. The Association of Police Authorities—which does not have a Labour majority—says that we should link the local with the national, facilitate relationships, enable tripartite relationships and provide public reassurance. Liberty, which I do not quote very often, said:

“We are concerned that the Bill provides for insufficient oversight and accountability for the work of a body which will have responsibility for a wide range of policing functions.”

The body must have public confidence. I accept that the Home Secretary can be responsible directly to Parliament but, on reflection, I shall not withdraw amendment 1.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I do not have a point to make that is specific to the Bill. It is much more general and about whether the right hon. Gentleman shares my observation that, in the past decade or two, there has been a trend for politicians of all parties to have diminishing confidence in themselves and their powers as elected tribunes of the people, but greater confidence in appointees who are not accountable to the people. We can put in place different management models, but I quite like politicians and Governments who accept leadership and responsibility, and do not try to push off all the tasks to people who the public generally do not know, have never heard of and have not had a chance to select.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

There is a slight difference between me and the Minister. I fully accept that argument, but Ministers in the previous Government who were responsible for SOCA and for the National Policing Improvement Agency did not sit back and say, “Over to you, guv: get on with it.” They talked to chairs of the boards and offered challenges; they set strategic directions and did so as part of a wider look at their responsibilities. The chair of SOCA or of the NPIA would have a much more day-to-day handle on matters and much more expertise to accept challenges on a regular basis.

I, as the Minister who was responsible for the NPIA, and my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth who was responsible for SOCA, accounted to Parliament, offered challenges, met the chairs, had discussions with the boards, approved the plans, published them for Parliament and set the overall direction, but we allowed the boards to have day-to-day management of issues and to report to us if performances were not satisfactory. The Minister is now saying that, under the model we are considering, the Home Secretary will undertake all such issues, presumably with officials from his or her department at the Home Office fulfilling the function of challenge. There might not be the same level of scrutiny and challenge with one Minister—the Home Secretary—who has myriad other responsibilities, as there would be with having someone else under his or her direction who he or she can sack, replace or challenge to do the job.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

It is indeed the Minister’s position that politicians should take more direct responsibility rather than shuffling it off to unelected officials. Does my right hon. Friend consider that he will have difficulty later in supporting the Home Secretary’s proposals to transfer responsibilities for dealing with extradition considerations to judges, rather than dealing with them herself and taking the responsibility directly?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Perhaps the Minister can tell me whether he will introduce a Bill to scrap the board of Ofgem, the board of the UK Statistics Authority or the board of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Indeed, perhaps he can say when he will scrap the board of the Home Office, which includes non-executive directors. I shall not put any comments on record to save certain members of the Committee from embarrassment, and I hope that I shall be returned the favour in due course.

Those organisations to which I have referred follow, as the Library notes, exactly the same model as SOCA and the NPIA did. The work of those organisations is important, valuable and impacts on our communities. Indeed, it impacts on all constituents of each member of the Committee. Given that he has a port in his constituency and the Border Agency that deals with crime, smuggling, people trafficking and other issues, I look forward, in particular, to hearing the hon. Member for Dover explain why he is willing just to allow a future Home Secretary, who—although he might not be here to see it—might be a Labour Home Secretary, to have direct power over such matters.

Charlie Elphicke (Conservative, Dover)

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the process of how the so-called independence of the organisations is set up. He gave the example of HMRC, which he seems to think is so wonderful. However, that independence has led to that organisation suffering greatly because it has not received the level of direction and support from which it could have benefited. Indeed, it was the creation of a botched merger by the previous Government of two organisations that used to work well and which together have been a complete disaster. He is arguing against his own case.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The provisions that the Minister has introduced under clause 1 effectively set a new model for governance on SOCA and NPIA functions, in direct contrast to the model that operates in similar bodies elsewhere in the Government. I am simply asking whether, if it is good enough for the National Crime Agency, the Minister will introduce the same model for other parts of Government?

Charlie Elphicke (Conservative, Dover)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I was trying to finish on that point, but, as the hon. Gentleman is so kind and is only going to be here for a short time, I will certainly give way.

Charlie Elphicke (Conservative, Dover)

The right hon. Gentleman is premature in his felicitations; I intend to be here to trouble him for some years, even decades, yet. He asked whether I would rather trust and question the executive decisions of the Home Secretary or some faceless bureaucrat. Of course I would trust the Home Secretary first, not least because, as a Back-Bench Member of Parliament, I can question her in this House at departmental questions, in debates and after statements. I cannot question a faceless bureaucrat in that way, which is why holding Ministers to account and ministerial responsibility is a really important principle.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I wish the hon. Gentleman well in his career, genuinely. However, if we had a board in place, nothing would stop him, as the hon. Member for Dover, questioning the Home Secretary. The board would be there to bring in advice, spread the involvement of the community in policing serious organised crime and give more challenge on a more regular basis than the Home Secretary could. The Home Secretary would ultimately still appoint the board and be accountable to Parliament for all those things. Nobody ever stopped Members who were then in opposition questioning Ministers in the Home Office about the work of SOCA because we had a board in place. Ministers still answered questions and debated.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

The right hon. Gentleman tempts me, because I was one of those who regularly asked questions about SOCA. One cannot hold it up as a paragon of complete openness and transparency, giving answers when questions were asked. I remember trying desperately to get answers. I eventually managed to get the privilege of a shrouded, cloak and dagger meeting with the head of SOCA, after seeking opportunities many times. It was very difficult to get answers, and I regularly had to rely only on an annual report, which did not wholly get to the truth of things. So let us hold on to a little caution as to whether there is complete openness, transparency and accountability in the present arrangements.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman’s customer experience of SOCA was not great; I am sure that we will look at improving that for him in the future, and perhaps the Minister will take on board what he said.

We seem to have reached one of these impasses that occasionally occur in Committees, Mr Caton. We have had nearly two hours of good debate on this topic. Although not always attached to quangos, I am fairly convinced that the way in which SOCA and the NPIA were governed had merit, and that we should attempt to replicate that for the National Crime Agency in order to give assurances to the public. I would therefore like to press amendment 1 to a vote to test the Committee and see whether Members have been swayed by the power of our arguments.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 1, page 2, line 9, at end add—

‘( ) The Secretary of State shall in consultation with the Director General of the NCA report to Parliament a definition of subsection 5(b) within 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.’.

The amendment probes subsection (5)(b). The provision is part of the establishment of the powers of the National Crime Agency. Subsection (5) states:

“The NCA is to have the function…of gathering, storing, processing, analysing, and disseminating information that is relevant to any of the following—(a) activities to combat organised crime or serious crime; (b) activities to combat any other kind of crime”.

Basically, I want to know what the Minister means by

“any other kind of crime”.

The purpose of the current SOCA and of the NCA as proposed is to ensure that we tackle serious organised crime. There is a focus on serious organised crime as a whole.

In the previous debate, I listed a whole range of SOCA’s functions that the NCA will, under clause 1, become responsible for: people trafficking, drugs, border work and a range of issues regarding policing, gangs, regional and national criminals and international crime. It is perfectly proper and right that they are reflected in subsection (5)(a), which will give the NCA the responsibility for gathering, storing, processing, analysing and disseminating information relevant to any of the activities to combat organised and serious crime.

My worry, however, particularly given later clauses, is that subsection (5)(b), which talks about activities to combat any other kind of crime, will give the director general the remit to look at any other type of crime. In my view, the purpose of the NCA is to focus on serious organised crime: people trafficking, border control, drugs, prostitution and a whole range of serious national crime issues.

The amendment is genuinely only a probing amendment, and I will not be pressing it to a vote, so Members can relax on that score. However, I want to hear from the Minister what

“any other kind of crime”

might be. What will the director general be doing on any other type of crime? In theory, the way the paragraph is phrased will give the director general, if he so wishes, the power to look at shoplifting, for example. There could be small, regional gangs of shoplifters committing retail crime across the country—yesterday it was reported that retail crime rose while reporting fell. Shoplifting is a big issue and matters to people in the community, but is it serious organised crime or serious crime? What are the Minister’s definitions of serious organised crime and serious crime? What is his definition of “any other type” of crime?

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that, as with other legislation—I suppose the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 springs to mind—there is always a danger that good intentions may be lost as people over-interpret the scope of the legislation? Subsection (5)(b) as it stands would be perfect for every media campaign or moral panic over any kind of crime that momentarily attracts attention to divert resources from serious and organised crime towards the whim of the day. Is there not a capricious potential to it and is that not something that we should be guarding against?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he makes the sort of point that I am trying to explore with the Minister. We need to examine the focus of the new National Crime Agency. To me, the focus is on combating organised and serious crime, not necessarily on, to quote subsection (5)(b),

“activities to combat any other kind of crime”.

I want to test what the Minister means by any other type of crime. It is particularly important, because of other clauses that I must refer to now since they relate to subsection (5)(b). For example, clause 4(5) on the relationships between the National Crime Agency and other agencies, which my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow will be dealing with, states:

“The Director General may direct any of the following persons to perform a task specified in the direction—

(a) the chief officer of an England and Wales police force;

(b) the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police.”

Again, I want to test the Minister. I believe that many chief constables would regard the

“any other kind of crime”

in clause 1(5)(b) as their responsibility. The Mayor of London, as I look to the hon. Member for Croydon Central, or the police and crime commissioner for Durham, as I look to my hon. Friend the Whip, or indeed the police and crime commissioner for Somerset and Avon, as I look to the Minister, would regard

“any other kind of crime”

as their day-to-day bread-and-butter issues. So, without dragging the matter out extensively, what does the Minister mean by serious organised crime and

“any other kind of crime”?

Where does the delineation arise?

Again, the key point is that the director general of the National Crime Agency may task or may ask. The director general may charge or may encourage. He may do all sorts of things. I simply want to get a flavour of where the boundary lies. The Government have what seems to be a localising police agenda, which we have discussed and heard views on. That is the direction of travel, yet at the same time the Government have a centralising tendency in terms of bringing the National Crime Agency under the control of the director general and under the direct management, since the amendment has been rejected, of the Home Secretary.

Under clause 2’s strategic priorities,

“The Secretary of State may determine strategic priorities for the NCA.”

Let us say, for example, that the Home Secretary is beset by a plague of shoplifting, which is a serious crime. It costs billions of pounds, but does it fall into the category of serious organised crime as defined by the work that SOCA currently does? It may or may not. The Home Secretary could, for example—under clause 2’s strategic priorities—direct that the National Crime Agency should look at shoplifting, and the director general may say, “Actually, in operational terms, shoplifting is another type of crime, but I have the power to deal with it.” I want to test where the dividing line is.

Are we talking about a national crime-fighting agency dealing with the serious issues of prostitution, people trafficking, drugs, major international crimes, fraud and cybercrime, or is it an organisation that, if it wants to, will look at any other types of crime? There may be a simple explanation. It may just be a catch-all. It may just be giving cover. However, it is important that the Minister explains to the Committee his view on the difference between (a) and (b) and why the director general, under the direction of the Home Secretary, should be dealing with (b) when it might properly be the responsibility of local forces and local officers.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the National Crime Agency is concerned with macro-level crime—I think he cited prostitution, people smuggling, drug smuggling, fraud or money laundering—or whether it is diffusing its responsibilities into areas of micro-level crime. The short answer is (a). It is concerned with big-picture crime. Let me explain how we envisage the role working in practice, and get to the nub of the right hon. Gentleman’s amendment. Although he says that it is a probing amendment, it raises an entirely valid question, essentially to test the meaning of the phrase, “other kind of crime” in terms of the criminal intelligence function of the National Crime Agency, what that could mean in practice, and why we included that phrase in the Bill. I am happy to explain why its function has been drafted so as to go beyond serious and organised crime.

For the avoidance of doubt, first I will explain our approach to the agency’s crime reduction and criminal intelligence functions. The terms of those functions have been drafted broadly to ensure that the agency has the necessary flexibility to respond to the changing threat picture. The National Crime Agency will be a crime-fighting agency tackling serious and organised crime, as set out in clause 1(4), and as such, it must be able to undertake the necessary operational activity to have the maximum impact on criminal gangs. Sometimes, the most effective route to tackling an organised crime group may be through disruption and through tackling lower-end activity, which stops the group operating or functioning effectively.

While the agency is being set up with the remit to tackle serious and organised crime, its activity can extend to other types of crime, if that delivers the agency’s function of tackling serious and organised crime. That is provided for in paragraph 5 of schedule 1. In other words, sometimes, it is the smaller crimes, or auxiliary activities, that can be most vulnerable to detection or disruption by the National Crime Agency, and so wider, more serious and organised crime can be thwarted.

The amendment is also linked to the criminal intelligence function of the National Crime Agency, which will underpin the important work of the intelligence hub. That function must be broad in scope so that the NCA can access all the intelligence that it needs to fight those criminals who commit serious and organised crime. It is critical that the information the agency can collect is not limited solely to such crime, so that it can gather intelligence on all criminal activities, even if it is low-level crime, because in some circumstances, such crime can create intelligence links to more serious, organised crime groups. We do not want to build in a dislocation between the two.

Organised crime groups are diversely arranged, and are often involved in crimes right across the crime spectrum. Seemingly stand-alone crimes can lead to links to wider organised crime networks. It is only by being able to gather information about any kind of crime that the full extent of criminal networks can be mapped, exposed and tackled. For example, intelligence related to crime that is not serious or organised can lead to important links to organised crime groups that otherwise would not be possible to spot. That may then identify other opportunities to disrupt and interfere with the activities of an organised crime group.

One of the strengths of the Serious Organised Crime Agency that the National Crime Agency will build on is its intelligence function. I am sure that will be welcomed by right hon. and hon. Members across the Committee. The National Crime Agency, however, will go further with its new intelligence hub, which will sit at the heart of the NCA, and will support and drive operational activity as it collects and oversees intelligence, identifies threats and develops targets.

The intelligence hub will house the single, shared national intelligence picture of serious, organised and complex crime, and it will generate an authoritative picture of the national crime threats to the United Kingdom by drawing on its access to intelligence from UK police forces and other law enforcement partners. It is important that we make sure that our efforts are targeted where they have the most effect in protecting the public and cutting crime. It is certainly not our intention that the NCA should concern itself with stand-alone micro-level crime. We want that breadth of function because, as I said, if we seek to map organised crime, to disrupt the auxiliary function and to get to the nub of serious and organised crime, it may sometimes be necessary to work out how the shoplifters are funding more serious aspects of crime, or how relatively minor fraudulent activities are funding more serious levels of crime. Without that complete picture and the ability to concern ourselves with issues that may not on first inspection immediately look like serious and organised crime, we will hamper the NCA’s ability to have the maximum impact on serious and organised crime that we all wish it to achieve.

Andy McDonald (Labour, Middlesbrough)

Is there not potential for conflict between what is delivered locally and the discharge of the NCA’s function, as well as the potential to tread on toes, if the director general has the ability to become involved in and direct tasking activities that appertain to any other crime? Where does supremacy lie?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

The hon. Gentleman raises an entirely valid point. We will get on to the tasking function later in our deliberations, because it will be an important power of the director general of the NCA. All I can say is that we did not set up police and crime commissioners and give greater freedom to individual police forces to solve the problems in their immediate communities only to second-guess what they were doing on a micro level. We are trying to give them greater discretion.

Hon. Members will recognise that serious and organised crime is not completely dislocated from other types of criminal activity. There may be a serious crime involving firearms, for example, and the getaway car may have been stolen or not taxed properly; there may be all kinds of related activities that in themselves would not qualify as serious or organised crimes, and through those routes we may be able to better understand the nature of the criminal group and its activities and better able to reach the source of the serious and organised crime and tackle it. We want to do that in conjunction with individual police forces or, in many investigations, across myriad different police forces.

Say we had, for example, weapons being smuggled in through the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover that were then used in armed robberies in London, Birmingham or Manchester. We might wish to have an NCA operation working in liaison with Kent police, the Metropolitan police, West Midlands police and Greater Manchester police. The NCA might be interested in the intelligence provided by all those police forces, including on relatively minor crimes that help facilitate the type of activity that ends up with a gun being discharged in an armed robbery in a big city. Some of that intelligence might provided by Kent police on minor crimes committed in Kent, which on first inspection did not look like serious and organised crime, but could help us to prevent serious and organised crime in Greater Manchester.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

The Minister makes a fair and reasonable point, with which I have no criticism. I am reminded, however, of the recent experience we have had with the police planting undercover officers in environmental groups and the questions that arose on the operation of that policy and the difficulty some of us had in uncovering details. The encounters of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate with SOCA seem mild in comparison. As the Minister rightly describes, low-level crime can lead to other things and there can be good reasons for the activity he describes, but how will we know that those decisions are valid and how will we find out exactly who made them and what they were based on?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his broad support for the analysis I was laying before the Committee. I will get to the nub of his question, but this is probably as good an opportunity as any in our deliberations to say something very briefly about crime.

Crime is evolving to quite a large degree. Our constituents are always concerned by the local, immediate, day-to-day crime, inconvenience and antisocial behaviour that blights their lives in ways that are immediately apparent to them. However, globalisation is happening in business and globalisation is happening in criminal activity. The internet is a very obvious manifestation of that, because it means that crime is not geographically contained to any practical degree. There is a lot of criminal activity around drug smuggling—cocaine and heroin are not produced in this country, so are by their nature smuggled in. There is gun smuggling and people trafficking, and there are other manifestations of the internationalisation of crime. We need a level of resilience to high-level macro-crime that matches the scale of the threat, in the same way as we need effective community policing that matches the scale of the threat to individual communities.

There is a link between the two, which we were discussing earlier. That is why we want the NCA to work with individual police forces. The teenager who is absenting themselves from school in order to sell contraband cigarettes in a community in one of our constituencies may not think of themselves as the end point in an organised crime chain, but they certainly are. They are probably the final part of a massive illegal smuggling operation, which is potentially funding other types of extremely dangerous and violent crime. We obviously want to do what we can to try to protect the public from that.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak asked about accountability. The direction of control of all NCA operations rests with the director general; he is the boss and it is his job to make operational decisions. The use of undercover agents is subject to oversight by the surveillance commissioner under RIPA, but as the hon. Gentleman said, such arrangements have not always been conducted to his and others’ satisfaction in the past. We are not dealing with a perfect situation, but the director general of the NCA will make operational decisions. I hope that the Committee is sufficiently reassured, and, more specifically, that the right hon. Member for Delyn is sufficiently reassured that he feels able to withdraw his amendment.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The Minister has helpfully delineated the difference between paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (5), and I am content with that. Before I withdraw my amendment I have one final question. There was some debate in the other place with regard to terrorism and the responsibility of the National Crime Agency. Will the Minister give an indication that subsection (5)(b), being

“activities to combat any other kind of crime”,

would not effectively negate the wish of the other place, which was that terrorism would not be the responsibility of the director general of the NCA? Given that there was a long debate in the other place about where the responsibility for terrorism management lies, will the Minister confirm that subsection (5)(b) could not be a mechanism whereby the director general of the NCA could undertake a role investigating terrorism? The other place has removed that responsibility from the Bill.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

It is not our intention that the phrase be sufficiently catch-all to include terrorism. The Home Secretary said that she is open-minded about whether, in time, the counter-terrorism function could be housed in the NCA, which may be a natural place for it, rather than the existing arrangements, but she is genuinely open to consideration once the agency has bedded in. No decision has been made on that, and no decision will be made until the NCA is up and operational. The reference in the Bill to “any other kind of crime” is aimed at the type of activity that I sought to illustrate with an example to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, rather than the counter-terrorism function that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The Minister has helpfully clarified both that point and the terrorism point. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I beg to move amendment 35, in clause 1, page 2, line 9, at end add—

‘(5A) The NCA is to have the following four commands—

(a) organised crime command;

(b) border policing command;

(c) economic crime command; and

(d) child exploitation and on-line protection command.

(5B) The Secretary of State may, by order, in the form of statutory instrument—

(a) close existing commands; and

(b) open new commands.’.

After our difference of opinion about the board we have clearly entered a period of more conciliatory consensus in the Committee’s deliberations. In that spirit, I wish to address amendment 35.

I simply want to put on the face of the Bill what Ministers have said about the way that the National Crime Agency will be structured. On the Home Office website, there is a clear statement from Ministers that the National Crime Agency will be made up of four separate commands. It lists those commands, and I have listed them in the amendment: the organised crime command, the border policing command, the economic crime command and the child exploitation and online protection command. That seems to be a sensible way to set out the work that the National Crime Agency will do. I will briefly run through those commands.

The organised crime command will target the organised criminal gangs that operate, as the Minister indicated, at the local, national, international and global levels. It requires a level of co-operation and co-ordination with local police forces, the police forces and law enforcement agencies of other countries, and Europol and Interpol. Those relationships will be formed and that work will be led from that command. While it is true, as the Minister said, that contraband cigarettes and other illegal products of organised crime are on street corners, the genesis of that criminality is often thousands of miles away in a different part of the world. We have to have an organised crime strategy that is able to confront that.

The second command, the border policing command, has already been touched on. It is increasingly important to have the ability to seize illegal drugs and combat illegal migration and the heinous crime of human trafficking. It is a very important command. The economic crime command deals with fraud and economic crime, and is something we welcome. Members on both sides of the House will see the fourth command, the child exploitation and online protection centre, as vital. It will protect children from sexual abuse and bring offenders to account.

I hope that the Committee will forgive my giving a little history, but as such an important step is being taken by the Government in moving from SOCA to the National Crime Agency, it is important to put some of these things on the record and, indeed, to hear the Minister’s response. When I was first appointed a Minister in 2003, I assumed responsibility for chairing a taskforce on child protection on the internet. It was an innovative way of getting to grips with an increasing problem and an increasing risk for our children and young people.

Young people were being targeted. Indecent and illegal images were put on the internet in a manner that was highly abusive to children. The internet and mobile telephones were being used to groom children and young people for sexual exploitation. At that stage, those problems were becoming increasingly high profile and we felt the only way we could deal with them was through a taskforce that brought together all the different elements of child protection. There were law enforcement agencies on the taskforce. The industry was represented; there were companies such as Microsoft and internet service providers and mobile phone companies. We had a range of children’s organisations, such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and Barnardo’s, which were able to bring their perspective to bear. We also had Government officials and representatives of other key agencies. It was a way to learn quickly and co-ordinate the initiatives that each of those different sectors was taking to protect our children. It did help, but it became very clear to members of the taskforce that more was needed, and that we needed a more robust organisational response to that increasing threat.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Before we commence, I want to say that it is fine for gentlemen to remove their jackets if they so wish. It would be helpful if everyone sat in the same seats in which they are sitting throughout the Committee.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

Welcome to the Chair, Ms Dorries. I look forward to serving under your chairpersonship—if that is the correct terminology.

I was moving amendment 35, which is intended to help the Government, as it simply seeks to put in the Bill what Ministers have already given by way of assurance in statements and what is on the Home Office website.

I was describing the command structure that will be in place for the National Crime Agency—four commands—and speaking specifically about the child exploitation and online protection command. I was going over how the Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre began, in work that I oversaw as chair of the taskforce on child protection on the internet as a Minister between 2003 and 2006. Eventually, the co-operative approach of that taskforce, bringing together industry, children’s organisations, law enforcement and the Government, led to the creation of a more substantial framework for delivering protection for children from the dangers that lurk on the internet. That is how CEOP was formed.

The centre opened formally for business in April 2006, at precisely the same time as the Serious Organised Crime Agency came into operation. It was, from the outset, part of SOCA. That was done deliberately. It was a time of great change—SOCA itself was an amalgamation of many different strands of work. Rather than place a huge organisational burden on what would be a modest part of SOCA, we decided to place CEOP within SOCA, so that it could get management support from SOCA and concentrate on the real and urgent job of protecting our children. That is what happened, although as Ministers we were always clear that we remained open to the possibility that at some point in the future, CEOP could become an independent organisation.

At that point, I moved on to other responsibilities, but I know that altogether three reviews were carried out into CEOP and its work, on the question whether it should become independent. Little by little, those reviews moved to the point of recommending that CEOP should become an independent organisation. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), who was Home Secretary before the 2010 election, had agreed in principle to give CEOP independent organisational status.

After the 2010 general election, the Home Secretary made a statement on the new National Crime Agency. She made it clear that CEOP would remain within the new framework of the NCA, which caused considerable disquiet, certainly among many of my colleagues, and among those working in children’s organisations and those speaking up on behalf of the victims of child abuse—online and offline, for that matter. Those who follow the issue closely will remember that ultimately, Jim Gamble, who was the chief executive of CEOP, resigned from that position because he felt that the decision was an indication that the Government were seeking to downgrade and undervalue the work of the centre.

I do not wish to dwell on that matter. I know that the Select Committee on Home Affairs conducted an inquiry that looked into the status of CEOP. A number of assurances were given, and I think the Home Secretary and Ministers have been at pains to confirm that CEOP would remain with its own identity, albeit within the NCA, and I welcome that. Part of what I am seeking to do today is to place that commitment firmly in the Bill.

I agreed strongly with the Home Secretary when she paid tribute to Jim Gamble; it is worth dwelling on that for a second. When he announced his resignation, she said that he had

“done a great job at CEOP and made a huge contribution to protecting children.”

There is no more important thing than protecting our children, and Jim did a great job. It was right that the Home Secretary acknowledged that in the warm comments that she made. My understanding is that Peter Davies has continued in that role and that, equally, he has done a fine job leading the organisation in its important work.

The annual review for 2011-12 gives examples of that work. Three things stand out for me. The first is the huge breadth of the partnership that CEOP now embodies, and the broad support therefore that it enjoys. From a range of companies such as Microsoft, Google, O2, Virgin Media and Yahoo, all the main players in the internet industry and in modern forms of communication are there, supporting CEOP in the work it is trying to do to protect our children. Law enforcement organisations—the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and the Association of Police Authorities—are giving their support. The principal children’s organisations such as Barnardo’s, Action for Children, the Children’s Society and a number of others are also supportive. There is a very broad, strong partnership in place supporting that work, which is very welcome.

When we look at the achievements of CEOP just in the year of that report, we find that more than 2.5 million children have seen the “Thinkuknow” resource, which is CEOP’s main educational tool to ensure that children are increasingly aware of the dangers of the internet. That is a tremendous achievement. It is very telling that 427 children have been subject to safeguarding or protection as a result of CEOP’s work. In the last year alone, 192 suspects were arrested after CEOP’s work: 192 people who posed substantial risks and threats to vulnerable children. CEOP is doing a great job.

Of course, the kind of risks that lurk within the internet are not confined to particular localities or even particular countries. They are global threats, and it is therefore very important that CEOP works and has credibility in partnerships in many countries around the world. I note from the report that in the last year CEOP took on responsibility for missing children, as well as its work on safeguarding children on the internet. That has been a high priority for many Members on both sides of the House over the last year or so, and as we face up to the Savile investigation and all the dreadful information we are finding out, and to issues very close to my own constituency in Rochdale, where children have been systematically abused. I am sure that there are other stories to come out about abuse in other towns and cities. One of the most important responsibilities of government is to ensure that our children are protected. We have all that for about £6 million per year. Given the reach of CEOP’s work, that is incredibly good value for money, as it leads the work in this area.

There is a third point from the report that I would like to dwell on for a second. It is the final paragraph of the foreword, written by the Home Secretary herself:

“I am committed to giving CEOP the ability to continue to create and sustain innovative partnerships, to add capacity and engage with the wider world, to maintain its multi-disciplinary workforce, to keep the independent CEOP brand, to maintain its operational independence within the NCA, to have clear delegated authority for its budget and to retain external governance. In short, I am committed to continuing to support CEOP in its vitally important work to protect the most vulnerable children in our society.”

I agree with every word that the Home Secretary wrote in that foreword, and I am sure that every member of the Committee will endorse it.

I simply want to try to help the Home Secretary and the Minister to make sure that those words are not just words, but are turned into substantial action. That is why my amendment would place the CEOP command and the other three commands in the Bill. In other words, the legislation would underpin those four commands; they could not be changed unless Parliament itself approved it. That is why I make it clear, in proposed new subsection (5B), that the Secretary of State can by order close down any one of those commands if she chooses, or, indeed, can open up new commands. However, she could not do it on a whim and it could not be done by people acting in an executive capacity.

The Home Secretary would have to come back to the House, justify her arguments and explain why she was choosing to close down CEOP or any of the other commands. Of course if she tried to close down CEOP she would face substantial opposition from both sides of the House, and I do not expect it to happen. However the matter is so significant and so important that Ministers should signal its importance by accepting my amendment, thereby making sure that the commitment to CEOP and the work of the other commands is firmly placed in the Bill, and that only Parliament could change it.

Andy McDonald (Labour, Middlesbrough)

I would like to speak to proposed new subsection (5B) of my right hon. Friend’s amendment. Having heard what he had to say about CEOP, I wholeheartedly endorse his comments and the need to enshrine the existence of that command within the ambit of the agency. We hear what he said about the closing of existing commands, but my concern is about the opening of new commands.

On Second Reading, we had a discussion about the way being left open to bring in an anti-terrorism command without primary legislation. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend would like to comment on whether any protection can be afforded in that respect, so that we do not inadvertently leave the door open to that coming about by these means.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I know about his concern in relation to the so-called super-affirmative order, which has now been taken out of the Bill. We await with interest any news the Minister may have confirming that the Government intend to leave it out of the Bill. That would be very welcome. However, my hon. Friend is asking whether my amendment could be a kind of back door enabling the Home Secretary to change a command and introduce counter-terrorism, making sure that the NCA becomes the lead on counter-terrorism, which of course would be a very significant step. She could not do that without the approval of Parliament, because she would have to open up a new command, the counter-terrorism command, and she could only do that, under my amendment, if she had the approval of both Houses through an order.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to respond to the amendment, Ms Dorries. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I hope you are looking forward to this extended period in isolated confinement, being surreptitiously filmed with a collection of people of dubious celebrity status, some of whom may even, in time, sadly be voted out of this very setting.

I could not resist that. The horrors of the amendments proposed by the right hon. Member for Delyn are nothing compared to what you have had to experience in recent months, Ms. Dorries.

Let me answer the amendment in two ways. Part of the purpose of tabling it was to demonstrate the commitment of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East to CEOP and to seek reassurances from the Government that we share his commitment, which we do, and I will expand that theme later. I also ought to address the literal applications of the amendment, were the Committee to decide to support it, because there are some wider implications that it is reasonable to bring to the Committee’s attention.

I understand that the amendment seeks to set the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, widely known as CEOP, on a firmer statutory footing, by putting it, and the other NCA commands, on the face of the Bill. While I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point, and I will turn later to the specific question of CEOP’s role in the NCA, I am not persuaded that this approach is necessary or appropriate.

Looking first at the amendment itself, the operational commands are an internal organisational issue; how the agency structures itself is not a matter for primary legislation. This is to ensure that the NCA is able to flex and adapt its structure, operations and priorities to the changing threat from serious, organised and complex crime. Indeed, the previous Government adopted the same pragmatic approach and there is no mention of CEOP or other structures in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005—legislation enacted when the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East was himself a Home Office Minister.

Although CEOP’s public profile is that of a distinct body, affiliated to SOCA, in terms of its legal standing it is part of SOCA, with the SOCA accounting officer being accountable to Parliament for the organisation as a whole. While I am pleased to see that there is some recognition of the need for flexibility by conferring an order-making power on the Secretary of State to enable her to abolish existing commands or establish new ones, this seems to me to be a strange proposal, not least because of the seeming absence of any role for the director general in the amendment. Similarly, there is no mention of other core aspects of the NCA, such as the national cyber crime unit or the intelligence hub, each of which will represent a significant component of the NCA’s overall crime-fighting capability.

Putting the commands in the Bill creates unnecessary rigidity in the NCA’s internal structure without providing any of the assurance that I believe the right hon. Gentleman is seeking. On the face of it, the amendment does no more than preserve the names of the commands, as there is nothing about their roles and responsibilities. So Parliament could accept the amendment and then, in theory at any rate, leave a hollow shell because the names themselves and not the organisational capacity would be all that would be required. It will not increase the ability of the NCA to protect children.

I will absolutely join the right hon. Gentleman in his praise for the important work of CEOP. I have had the opportunity as a Minister in the Home Office to visit CEOP and to talk not just to the leading members of staff but to members of staff at different levels right across the organisation. I was impressed not only by their professionalism, but by the obvious importance they attach to their work and the sense throughout the organisation that they were making a meaningful contribution to child protection. They are right to feel that strongly about their own responsibilities, which are significant and impressively discharged by them.

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Government’s strong and continuing commitment to CEOP. We want to build on its successes to date and ensure that children are even better protected in future. The Government have clearly and publicly committed to six principles to underpin the transition of CEOP into the NCA. These were included in the NCA plan and will be enshrined in the famous and widely available framework document, which all hon. Members who so wished will have already taken the opportunity to read. Both the Home Secretary and the NCA director general will have a statutory duty to have regard to that document. Within these principles there is, for example, an explicit commitment that CEOP will

“retain its operational independence, within the context of the NCA”.

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. May I ask the Minister whether all the staff from CEOP will go over to this new body?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

The short answer is yes; that is my understanding. I cannot vouch for every individual member of staff who has to decide whether to continue with that career, but the organisation will be transferred into the NCA and will not be altered or compromised in its existing forms. I suspect for a lot of staff on a day-to-day basis their work will continue largely as before. I hope that CEOP as an organisation within the NCA will benefit from what we regard as the greater reach and strategic capacity of the NCA. It will remain in that sense in its existing form.

I was saying that the role of CEOP is spelled out in greater detail in the draft framework document, including retaining its operational independence within the context of the NCA, having a clear delegated authority for its budget and so on, and that document is publicly available. There is a series of assurances that I hope will comfort right hon. and hon. Members who may inaccurately doubt the Government’s commitment to CEOP. It will be able to retain its multidisciplinary work force and its innovative partnerships and fund-raising work with the private, public and third sector. I wholeheartedly share the right hon. Gentleman’s desire to ensure that CEOP, within the NCA, continues to build on its work to protect children, but I do not agree that putting the commands on the face of the Bill is the right way to ensure that. I hope that I have reassured him and other members of the Committee that sufficient guarantees are already in place

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

I just want to try to understand how it retains operational independence. I thought that the NCA was under the control of the director general, who has operational independence. How can a branch or an arm within the agency have separate operational independence?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

As I was just saying, CEOP sits within the SOCA structures at present, but there does not seem to be widespread concern that CEOP does not make decisions that it regards as being in the interests of protecting children, either online or more generally, and we would believe and assert that that would still be the case within the NCA. It may be able to draw on what we would hope would be the greater strategic breadth of the NCA and perhaps the shared intelligence hub would be of greater value to CEOP than what it can draw on currently. It would be able to make its own decisions and the confines of its organisational structure would be protected in the way that is outlined in the draft framework document.

On that basis and with those reassurances, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I have listened carefully to the Minister’s assurances, and I welcome them, but I still have some difficulties and reservations. One thing that I do not doubt for a minute is that the Minister could come up with a better draft amendment than I. He has a great army of people to help him, and I would be happy were he to come forward on Report with a better amendment than amendment 35 that was properly thought through and fully filled out. I would be the first in the queue to support it. I hold that out as at least one option.

There are, however, two or three serious issues that, if not to be dealt with now, should give the Minister some further food for thought. One point is that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, who asked whether all staff would be transferred to the National Crime Agency. It is important to get that right, because some staff—this is certainly how it used to be—are not employed by SOCA but by private companies and children’s charities, and they are seconded to CEOP as part of the partnership arrangement. They will only do that provided that CEOP is clearly independent and able to do the job in the way that it sees fit. It is rather important in terms of resources that the independence is clearly spelled out and protected, because CEOP’s credibility rests on that.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

Maybe I should go in slightly greater detail through the six so-called guarantees on CEOP in the draft framework document, because No. 5 states that CEOP will

“retain its mixed economy of staff, from a variety of disciplines”

and No. 6 states that it will

“continue its innovative partnerships with the public, private and third sector and have the ability to raise and hold funds from donors.”

Guarantee No. 4 says that CEOP will

“retain its well-known brand”

and No. 3 states that it will

“continue to include external partners in its governance”.

The Government are mindful of the special status of CEOP; we think it would benefit from being within the organisational family that is the NCA. This is not such an abrupt departure because the centre sits loosely within SOCA’s structures, and we think it can benefit from being part of the NCA structures. However, it is a distinct organisation and it will continue to have the special status it currently enjoys.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I am very grateful for that clarification. We are all very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, who in the course of this morning’s proceedings asked whether we could see the outline framework document, which at that point none of us apart from the Minister seemed to have seen. We now have a copy of the document, and indeed the Minister was able to offer some assurances about the six principles spelled out in it. I have just been reading through it and have almost got to the end of that section.

The assurances the Minister offers based on that document are well received by the Committee, but there is still a nagging doubt—certainly on the Opposition Benches—that too many rather important things are being left to this or that document, and are not in the legislation. What we actually have in the legislation is a fairly cosy relationship between the director general and the Home Secretary; one runs the organisation and is then accountable to the other. We would not dream of it happening with the present incumbents, but at some future time with a different director general and a different Home Secretary, what is to say that one day they will not suddenly decide to abolish two of the four commands, and close down the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre? It might be unthinkable now, but the Bill would allow them to do it. I remain worried that it is not sufficiently robust to say that it is tucked away in some framework document that we may or may not have had an opportunity to read.

I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division, but I hope the Minister will take those concerns away and find an opportunity to table an amendment on Report that puts CEOP on the face of the Bill, to ensure that the words of the Minister and the Home Secretary are beyond any doubt whatever, because they are contained in the legislation, which could only be changed if Parliament itself decided to do so. However, for the purposes of our debate today, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

Ms Dorries, given that we had the opportunity in this morning’s sitting to discuss the clause at length, I do not propose to participate in a stand part debate unless it is the wish of the Committee.

Schedule 1 - The NCA & NCA officers

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I beg to move amendment 8, page 45, line 8 [Schedule 1], at end insert—

1A It is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the NCA is provided with sufficient resources to enable its functions to be discharged effectively and efficiently.’.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 23, in clause 2, page 2, line 40, at end add—

‘( ) The Secretary of State shall determine the budgets for the NCA on the basis of three-year forward budgets.’.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Dorries, in conjunction with your co-Chair Mr Caton. I hope that amendments 8 and 23 will not take too much of the Committee’s time, nor indeed some of the subsequent amendments we will come to later. They have been tabled as—again—a means of testing the Government on some key issues.

Amendments 8 and 23 seek to test the Government on the funding for the proposed National Crime Agency, which we have just agreed under clause 1. Amendment 8 indicates that it is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the NCA is provided with sufficient resources to enable its functions to be discharged effectively and efficiently. Amendment 23 indicates a wish that the budgets for the National Crime Agency are provided on the basis of a three-year forward budget, in accordance with normal commitments under the comprehensive spending review. Members will guess that both amendments are really a device to get the Minister to reveal what the funding is for the National Crime Agency, both for the first year of its operation and also for subsequent years. Helpfully, when I tabled a question to the Minister in November on what the budget is to be for the National Crime Agency for 2012-13, he indicated:

“The Government has committed to delivering the National Crime Agency (NCA) in 2013 within the combined budgets of its precursor organisations”—[Official Report, 27 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 185W.]

Now, that does not really say anything. With due respect to the Minister, it says that the National Crime Agency will not cost more than the organisations from which is formed. It does not say what the National Crime Agency’s budget will be. Given that we are on schedule 1, which deals with matters of some import about the role of the National Crime Agency, I felt it important to table an amendment that at least gives the Minister an opportunity to tell us what the agency’s first-year budget will be when this Bill receives Royal Assent. How does that first-year budget compare with the comparable parts of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the National Police Improvement Agency and the Border Force, which constitute the roles and responsibilities that the National Crime Agency now has? I want to know from the Minister, first of all, whether the budget has followed the functions that he has determined will transfer to the National Crime Agency.

Secondly, the second set of amendments simply says that year one is year one; but what proposals does he have for years two, three and potentially four, although I accept that those will go beyond the general election period?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

The right hon. Gentleman slightly anticipated my question. If this legislation is passed, what are his proposals for the budget in years two, three and beyond?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we are two and a half years from the general election and we do not know. This is a key point. The principle of this Bill and the amendment I have tabled is, first, how much resource is going into the National Crime Agency next year? The hon. Gentleman will be the Minister next year; he should be able to tell us what that budget is likely to be for the first year of operation. At the moment, it does not tell us that. Secondly, there will potentially be a further two years to the general election. He should be able to tell us what he thinks the former planning budget is for that period and whether he accepts, as the amendment indicates, that we should have in place a potentially sufficient budget on a three-year rolling basis—in principle, whatever that budget might be for future years—for the National Crime Agency to be able to plan its activities.

These are big issues. I say this for one simple reason. Already we are seeing the National Crime Agency being a port of call for first resource on significant issues of concern. The Home Secretary has indicated that the north Wales child abuse inquiry, in my constituency and throughout north Wales, will now be the responsibility of the National Crime Agency. I do not know what issues will arise in years one, two and three. We might find another Jimmy Savile, a human trafficking issue or another child abuse issue and it is important that we know in advance what the budget of the National Crime Agency is. In later clauses, the Home Secretary will potentially determine strategic priorities for the National Crime Agency over a number of years. To me, the word strategic does not mean next year, but potentially years one, two and three.

I do not want to have too much of a row about this issue, but I simply ask the Minister what the budget is next year, how it compares with the budgets of the constituent parts that make up the National Crime Agency, and whether he has given any thought to longer-term planning. I am not asking him to say what that long-term planning figure would be, but does he anticipate being able to announce on a regular basis what future years’ funding will be, so that we can test against the National Crime Agency what budget goes to meet the considerable responsibilities that, having just passed clause 1, the director general and the Home Secretary will have?

David Rutley (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I just wondered, given the right hon. Gentleman’s considerable experience with such Bills in the past, how many of them had similar provisions when he was a Minister.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I did 35 Bills in total during my time, so I cannot recall them all, but if anybody asked, I would undoubtedly have answered the question. I am sure that the Minister will do the same. For me, two issues are key. First, what is the budget for next year? That is a reasonable question to ask, given that we are establishing the National Crime Agency and given that we are abolishing two agencies and part of one agency and transferring them to the National Crime Agency. The Minister has not answered in parliamentary questions. Secondly, will he look at longer-term planning? Does he know what the budget will be for years two and three and will he give some consideration to stability for the NCA? Will the issues be considered, given that onerous responsibilities will be placed upon the director general and the Home Secretary in due course?

Also, will the Minister give some thought to what happens to the capital receipts that are accrued as a result of the abolition of the National Policing Improvement Agency and SOCA? I am thinking particularly of Bramshill police college. The Minister knows that the previous Labour Government invested £14 million in its last year and the Government have reduced that investment, but that investment is still there and the Bramshill college is for sale. As part of the three-year forward planning, what happens to capital receipts? Do they go back to the agencies or do they disperse to the Treasury?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I will give the right hon. Gentleman a full, frank answer, but let me give him some context before I get to the hard numbers.

As the right hon. Gentleman has explained, amendment 8 seeks to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to provide sufficient resources for the National Crime Agency to do its job efficiently and effectively. The Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament for public protection and therefore has a clear role in ensuring that the National Crime Agency has resources to deliver against the strategic priorities that she sets for it in relation to serious, organised and complex crime. Amendment 8 does not add or subtract anything from the well understood process of allocating resources across central Government.

The decision about what qualifies as sufficient resources to enable the agency to meet its strategic objectives is one for the Home Secretary to make, in consultation with her Treasury colleagues. Such decisions will, of course, be carefully scrutinised by the House and the other place in the normal course of Government business and budget setting. It does not make sense to impose such a novel statutory requirement on a single Department, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman, with his extensive experience of Government, will understand.

The Government have committed to delivering the important work of the NCA within the budgets of its precursor bodies in the first years of operation. The NCA’s budget constraints for the remainder of this Parliament are of course challenging, as they are for all Departments. Rather than simply giving the general answer, satisfactory though I regard it as being, let me be even more helpful to the right hon. Gentleman by saying that for the first full financial year of operation—2014-15, because the NCA as it is envisaged, subject to the Committee’s consent, will come into effect during the next financial year—the NCA’s indicative budget for planning purposes will be around £407 million, based on budgets agreed at the 2010 spending review, which is based on SOCA and NPIA budgets transferring.

The figure does not yet allow for the 2% reduction in the Home Office budget for 2014-15, which was announced in the Chancellor’s autumn statement 2012. The Home Office budget will be scrutinised during 2013 to determine firm allocations for 2014-15, with a clear priority to protect front-line operations as far as possible, but the indicative figure that I have given obviously needs to take account of those slightly altered circumstances of a few months ago. It is too early to say what the final budget will be, as there may be additional functions that transfer to the agency and other supplementary funding streams nearer to the time that will be identified. I cannot get more clear and honest than that. I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman telling me what the funding figures will be for subsequent years in the unlikely event that Labour is in a position to say.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He will soon learn never to ask a question that he does not know the answer to. It was £407 million. I am interested in why the SOCA budget in 2012-13 is £394 million and the NPIA budget is £360.4 million. Which bits of the NPIA and what actual resource is going into that £407 million, given that the SOCA budget is £394 million, and he is saying £407 million? Also, we have the Border Agency aspects going into the overall figure. So how much resource is going into this from the NPIA, SOCA and the Border Force, because £407 million seems at first glance—I am willing to be persuaded—a lot less than it should have been, had the same level of responsibilities and resources been transferred.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I am grateful for those interventions. As I said, the £407 million is the sum that will transfer from predecessor organisations. As I said in the previous debate on the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East, although SOCA, including CEOP, will transfer across, not all of the NPIA functions will transfer to the new NCA organisation. It is far too crude a calculation to add together the budgets of SOCA and NPIA and say that that figure is greater than the sum I have just cited for the NCA. Some of the functions will transfer to the College of Policing, and we will have the opportunity to discuss that at greater length during the passage of the Bill. There is a long and rather complicated list of what will transfer where, but some functions will transfer to the College of Policing, some will transfer to the police ICT company and some will transfer to a lead force. A number of different functions will be transferred to a number of organisations, and a back of an envelope calculation of adding a few numbers and working out that that sum is higher than the figure that I gave does not provide the Committee with accurate information on which to proceed.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The budget for SOCA in 2012-13 is £394 million, and he has just said that the budget for the new NCA is £407 million. That means £13 million extra, over and above SOCA’s budget, will go into the new NCA, according to the figures I have to hand. Of that extra budget of £13 million, how much of NPIA’s £360.4 million will transfer to the new National Crime Agency for areas of responsibility? We must also remember the transfer of UK Border Force from the UK Border Agency. If the Minister is telling me that that force, and the bits of the NPIA that are transferring in, are worth £13 million, let us have some transparency and have a true figure for the first year’s operation of the NCA compared with the figures allocated to those predecessor organisations for those same responsibilities.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

As I said, aggregating figures from predecessor organisations, whose functions are not transferring to the NCA, is too crude. The wider point is that the Government came into office in May 2010, and we were left a devastated financial landscape. Labour has only been in government twice in my lifetime and in both cases it has left behind it an economic catastrophe. I will not get too far off the beaten track, Ms Dorries, but last night the House voted on a pragmatic budget-saving measure, which will save annually what Labour was borrowing every single week, by the time it left office. Labour would need 52 such Bills to fill the black hole that it left behind for us.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Order.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

The answer on this narrow question of the NCA, and whether there is unlimited money to splash around, is, I am afraid, no, but perhaps the next time Labour is in office, if it left behind a budget surplus, rather than an appalling budget deficit, we would be in the happy position of just worrying about how to spend all the surplus money, rather than worrying about how to make the country live within its means again.

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)

I am really grateful to the Minister for the history lesson, but he was asked a simple question: what is the current budget? He has decided to add it up by using different organisations, but that does not quite come up to the same figure. For the sake of fiscal transparency, what is the figure?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I cannot be much more transparent than saying that the indicative budget is £407 million. I am sorry that I cannot round it to the nearest £100,00, but that is pretty precise. Labour seems to have no idea how much money it would allocate to this organisation, should the Committee decide to put it into effect in subsequent years. I have made the point that every part of Government has to live within the overall public spending decisions made by the Government and announced by the Chancellor in the Budget and autumn statement. It is precisely because the previous Government gave up that sort of discipline and just spent money that they did not have that we are in the national predicament that we find ourselves.

We are determined to ensure that law enforcement agencies have the resources they need to protect the public. At the moment it is worth noting in passing that we have seen a 10% fall in recorded crime in the past two years, at the same time as we have made some reductions in police budgets. That is because we have the police operating more effectively than they did under the previous Government.

Let me say this as a final broad lesson for hon. Members who doubt it: spending more money on a service does not guarantee the greater quality of that service. If that were the case, under Labour we would have had the best services anywhere in the developed world. As it is, we have quite a lot of services that need to be made more efficient, while we were still living chronically beyond our means under the previous Government, where for every £3 we raised in tax we spent £4 as a country. No wonder we found ourselves in a ruinous state with a budget deficit bigger than Greece when the coalition came to office and decided to stabilise the national finances to save us from absolute ruin.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

I am grateful for the Minister’s economic lesson, which I suspect is an attempt not to answer the question about how much the agency will have for all the additional responsibilities. I was struck by his comment about Labour’s profligate behaviour in government. Can he confirm as a matter of fact that the debt percentage of GDP when Labour came to office in 1997 was 42% and it was 35% at the onset of the economic crisis in 2008? How is that an example of profligate spending?

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Minister, can we keep the answer to the resources of the NCA, please?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

We can. Of course, we are all relieved that the previous Government ended boom and bust. They promised. I take the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, that we cannot possibly have a difficult environment at the moment, because the previous Prime Minister made sure those unhappy days were gone for ever under his careful stewardship of the Treasury.

Charlie Elphicke (Conservative, Dover)

I really must take the Minister to task. He has been far too generous to the Opposition in his remarks. It is not just about the issue of budgeting and the fiscal incontinence that characterised the previous Government, but that of productivity, particularly with reference to the organisation that we are discussing in the clause and amendments. What are the Minister’s views on increasing productivity in this organisation and more generally across the public sector? Does he think it would be a good idea to publish the figures rather than suppress them, as the Opposition did when they were in government?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I remember the previous Parliament as an Opposition MP and I do not recall new legislation coming with price tags that anticipated Budgets many years into the future. We were invited to endorse the basic principles of the legislation and then each successive Budget and financial review set those budgets into the future. If we knew in every piece of legislation exactly how much money would be allocated years into the future, the role of the Treasury would obviously be substantially diminished.

I am seeking to provide additional assistance to the Committee by giving the indicative figure that I have and by saying—

Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) rose—

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

Bear with me one moment. Some money will flow from organisations such as the NPIA, which are in part transferring into the NCA. The budget for the functions of the NPIA that will transfer into the NCA will be about £11 million of the NPIA funding. Other parts of the NPIA will not go into the NCA, and obviously it would not make sense for the money to go into the NCA from parts of the NPIA that did not go into the NCA. I am being completely up front and honest by saying that the Home Offices faces a constrained budget. If Opposition Members want to argue that the budget for the NCA should be much bigger than the figure that the Government finally arrive at, they can only do so if they are honest enough to admit that they would spend less on community policing, such as on grants to individual police forces, than the Government envisage spending. The problem that the Labour party has is that it considers that every budget should be bigger, which is how we got into such a dire situation in the first place.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

I am absolutely fascinated by the Minister’s appreciation of fiscal prudence, and I look forward to talking to him more about borrowing and debt, as it grows in this country.

The hon. Gentleman has set out clearly that he is referring to an indicative budget. He also referred to the transfer of some money from other Departments, and gave assurances that the National Crime Agency will have the resources that it needs to do all that is set out under the Bill. Does that mean that an additional £13 million is what the budget needs to make sure that it can cover all that it needs to do? If or when that indicative budget is realised and it is less than £13 million, does the hon. Gentleman think that it will not be able to do all the things that he promises it will do?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

We will have to make a decision. Anyone who runs an organisation, even an organisation with a budget of £10,000, has to make decisions about how it spends the money and decide on its priorities. We, as the Home Office, will have to decide—as we seek to make the country live within its means again—how we can best spend money most efficiently to protect the public from crime and other threats to their security.

Obviously, in an ideal, utopian world where money was unlimited, we could spend more and more money on all sorts of different functions, but the Labour party has to be honest enough to admit that it would reduce spending in other areas of the Home Office budget such as on community policing, or that it would perhaps take money out of the NHS. The Labour party did not give a commitment to safeguard the NHS budget so that it could reduce the money for cancer treatment, for example, and spend it on the NCA. That would be an honest argument.

Stella Creasy rose—

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

The hon. Lady could say that the Labour party would give less money to wounded servicemen in Afghanistan. Labour start £3 billion behind the starting line after last night’s vote in the House of Commons. There is a massive credibility shortfall. We have been left an economic catastrophe by the Labour party. We will ensure—as we are at the moment—that Britain is a safe country in so far as a Government can ensure that, and we will ensure the necessary resources to combat crime, but we cannot promise that money will be unlimited because we do not have unlimited money to give out.

David Rutley (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I wonder whether the Minister was aware of a statement made in the Chamber by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who, as my hon. Friend knows, is incredibly hard-working and assiduous. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he recognised that a previous Labour Government had spent a lot of money on the police but had not paid nearly the same attention to how that money had been spent and the organisational structures that were put in place. Is it not the present Government who are putting the most appropriate structures in place to achieve the best possible outcomes and not focusing on the money, as the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee outlined?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I accept that argument, but I do not accept Labour’s central analysis that the more money that is spent on a service, the better the service must be and the more that demonstrates how much politicians care about the people who rely on such services.

A fascinating picture is emerging of how the Government are managing to have an effective policing environment. We have seen reductions in crime for the past two years, despite Labour’s warning that if we reduced the spending available for the police given the overall economic circumstances in the country, crime would increase. There is only one thing that makes Labour MPs look more glum than the announcements that crime is falling, and that is when announcements are made that unemployment is falling. All I can say to Labour MPs is that it is possible to spend money more efficiently. If one is left with the dire economic inheritance that we were left with, it is absolutely imperative to spend money more efficiently, but we will be making available, in the NCA’s first full financial year, an indicative budget for planning purposes of £407 million. I cannot be more specific now because there are other factors to take into account, but that is a substantial amount of money and we have to be certain that it is spent as efficiently and effectively as possible.

Earlier this morning—before you were here, Ms Dorries —we were invited by Opposition Members to endorse amendments that would have put more bureaucracy, more layers of structure and more paid posts into the governance of the NCA, and which would have been completely unfunded. We said no. We want a streamlined, efficient, effective service, where the money is spent on protecting the public, not on lots of meetings with lots of people who are highly paid to attend. It is indicative of our approach that we want an effective structure where the director general reports to the Secretary of State, not to an expensive board as was envisaged by the Labour Front Bench.

I had more points to make, but Members either do or do not take the view that we have to live within our means. Legislation typically does not come with budgets for years in the future, and everybody understands that the Chancellor and the Government as a whole will set budgets based on the priorities of the Government and the economic circumstance at the time. I am obviously not able to give assurances about future budgets years in advance, nor is it necessary, in order to pass the Bill, to have those assurances about budgets years in the future, nor is Labour able to give any assurances about budgets years in the future. The Government continue to be governed by the needs to balance the country’s books and restore some fiscal sanity while at the same time protecting people from the ill and harmful effects of crime.

Charlie Elphicke (Conservative, Dover)

I thank the Minister for giving way. He hits the crux of the matter. It is ludicrous to set large budgets far into the future. All that will happen is officialdom will say, “That is the money we have to spend; now we have got to spend it.” Budget control should be aimed at trying to squeeze efficiencies and making sure that organisations are as effective as possible, particularly with the rise of technology, which enables many things to be done much more cost-effectively.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

Indeed. I have been struck by how some parts of the private sector have managed to achieve amazing year-on-year efficiencies at the same time as they have increased their service delivery. That is what we need to do better in the public sector. Some parts of the public sector have achieved considerable efficiencies, and other parts still have a way to go. The Bill will, I hope, offer extremely good value for money for the taxpayer, while greatly improving the United Kingdom’s capacity to combat serious and organised crime. On that basis, I ask the Committee to reject these amendments and support the Bill as a whole when the time comes.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I thought that was going to be quite simple, but it obviously turned out to be more controversial than I anticipated. The purpose of tabling the amendments was simply to try to tease out what the budget will be for next year, and potentially for future years. They are devices to do that.

The Minister gave the figure of £407 million, which I already know because it has been published. The purpose of the amendments was to tease out exactly how many of the precursor body’s responsibilities and budget headings will be transferred to the new National Crime Agency. The figure of £407 million is for the new agency. However, as I mentioned, the SOCA budget last year was £394 million. As I read the Bill, all of SOCA’s responsibilities will be transferred to the National Crime Agency. Part of the responsibilities of the National Policing Improvement Agency, will be transferred. Its budget was £360.4 million in the year before last. What element of that will be transferred? The Border Force, in the Border Agency, will also be transferred, but I do not have to hand the figures for the amount of resource that it spends.

We have approved clause 1. If we approve the Bill, we are effectively creating a new agency. The budget for the new agency may be substantially, or partially, less than the budget already agreed for the precursor agency. I just want some transparency on that issue.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

Can I clarify this point with my hon. Friend? I understand the Minister’s desire to get more for less, but according to the Government’s own figures, £28 million has been allocated to Home Office over two years for cyber-security. Since the native cyber-security function goes to the agency, that would suggest that there should be at least £14 million going to that aspect of its work. How does my right hon. Friend reconcile that with the fact that there is only £13 million, overall, for all the new activities?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Those are the kinds of issues that I was trying to tease out. The Minister has not given me an indication on this next issue, but if we are abolishing the National Policing Improvement Agency and the Serious Organised Crime Agency, and transferring the Border Force into the National Crime Agency, there may be some savings. All I wanted was for the Minister to say, “This is the saving that we think that organisation will make, and therefore the budget for the three organisations that are being transferred in need not, any more, be £407 million, as that budget takes account of £x million of savings.”

I have had no clarity from the Minister on the relative budgets between the different organisations. I wanted to tease it out, but have singularly failed to tease out anything from him apart from the figure of £407 million, which was already published. He did not answer my question about the capital elements; if he is willing to intervene now I will be grateful. There will be capital elements that come from abolition and I would like to know whether they are going back into the National Crime Agency or are being creamed off by the Treasury. If he is willing to intervene, that would help give some clarity.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

The right hon. Gentleman has made an extremely reasonable point. I will write to him, because specifically on Bramshill I do not know where capital receipts would go in that eventuality. I will let him know, as well as other members of the Committee who are interested.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am grateful to the Minister. He knows that I have tabled questions about the relative value of Bramshill, which is a considerable resource for the police training college. In the last year of the previous Labour Government, £14 million of capital was invested in Bramshill, so I do not know what the receipt will be now that the Government have decided to sell it off, or where that receipt goes. I would hope at least for some clarity. I am not going to say whether, personally, were I the Minister, I would want it to go to the NCA, the Treasury or the wider Home Office. However, we need to know what is happening to that capital resource. If he can write to me in due course about the principle of capital receipts from any assets that are sold by the new agency—or indeed the policing college, which part of Bramshill will come under—that would be of help. We have at least debated the issues, which is important. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I beg to move amendment 9, in schedule 1, page 45, line 18, leave out paragraph 4.

Although I say this with some trepidation, I hope that this debate will be even quicker than the last. We have tabled the amendment to test the Minister’s objectives. It would delete paragraph 4 of schedule 1, removing from the Bill the principle that the National Crime Agency

“may charge a person for any service provided at the person’s request.”

I do not intend to push the amendment to a vote. I simply want to hear from the Minister what he and his officials understand that element of the Bill to mean in practice.

The Minister will undoubtedly refer me in due course to part 5 of schedule 3, which sets out a range of issues around the principle of charging. I want to look at what that means, in practical terms. Part 5 of schedule 3, on page 60 of the Bill, has the title:

“Payment for tasks, assistance or facilities.”

Paragraph 30 of the schedule, which has the heading “Payments by police”, says:

“The fundholding body for a UK police force must pay the appropriate amount to the Director General if…the Director General performs a task in response to a request by the chief officer of that police force under section 4”.

Let me give the Committee a brief example on this issue, drawing on my constituency experiences. Very recently, the chief constable of North Wales police “requested”—I put that in inverted commas—that the National Crime Agency look at the historical abuse relevant to north Wales child abuse issues. If the Bill is passed in its current form, there will presumably be a charge to North Wales police for the service provided by the National Crime Agency. The agency is doing that because the Home Secretary has requested it to look at that matter. There is a genuine issue of what the charges are, how they are going to be implemented, what the costings are and ultimately how the policy will work in practice.

My concern is in relation to the north Wales inquiry. The Home Secretary has said, “NCA, go and look at this.” There is not much choice about that, because the Home Secretary may direct strategic responsibilities of the NCA. The NCA has gone in to investigate and, in the way I read the Bill, may effectively charge what it wishes to the local force for that service. What are the brakes on that?

Part 5 of schedule 3 states that if there is a disagreement between R and P, which is the force and the NCA, the Secretary of State may determine how much the figure should be. In theory, the Secretary of State could order the NCA to undertake an investigation into a serious criminal matter that is the responsibility of a local force. The local force may not be happy with that, but may end up being billed by the NCA for the cost of the investigation. If it disagrees with the costings, the matter goes back to the Secretary of State, who ordered the investigation in the first place.

I want to be clear what the parameters are of a local force, the Secretary of State and the NCA. If the Minister is able to provide some clarity on that matter, I will be happy not to press the amendment, which is my intention as we speak.

Andy McDonald (Labour, Middlesbrough)

A local police force could be substantially undermined financially, having no control over the process whatsoever. Is it any wonder that the cumulative budgets of the various organisations could be reduced so drastically, if there was an income stream that could be derived from local police forces? I regard the issue as extremely worrying.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observation. His worry might or might not be justified. My worry might or might not be justified. The purpose of tabling the amendment is for the Minister to stand up to give the circumstances in which he believes the power under schedule 1 may be used and the power that relates to part 5 of schedule 3, which we will come to later, may be used, just so that we can get the clarity so that my hon. Friend can rest easy in his bed tonight.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I think the right hon. Member for Delyn would acknowledge that the provision is a fairly technical amendment in terms of details of the funding stream. Let me reassure him on how it will work in practice.

The right hon. Gentleman asked how charging for services will operate in the NCA. Before turning to the specifics of the amendment, I want to distinguish between charging for services such as training, and cross-charging in relation to specific operational tasking or assistance. We regard them as two different categories of charging, but they could be bundled into one by people who are discussing the matter.

Paragraph 4 of schedule 1 broadly replicates the provisions in section 19 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, enabling the NCA to charge a person or organisation for any service provided at the request of that person or organisation. That is different from the charging provisions in schedule 3, which we will come on to in a later group of amendments, as those relate to cross-charging for specific operational support provided under tasking or assistance arrangements.

An example of the services that could be charged for under schedule 1—the first category—is training provided by the proceeds of crime centre, which recently moved into SOCA from the NPIA, for accredited financial investigators. Similarly, the provision will impact CEOP’s ability to provide and charge for important child protection training and expertise to police, teachers and child protection workers, among others. There will be an ability to charge for a course or direct services that someone buys from one of the organisations but could conceivably buy from another organisation. Without the provisions in schedule 1, the NCA would lose its ability to charge for services that are not related to a specific piece of operational activity. That would create additional financial pressures and could mean that services, such as those that I have just mentioned, are no longer viable, going forward. We would not wish for that to be the case. All charges made under this provision will be subject to the usual Treasury requirements and calculated on a cost-recovery basis only.

In relation to specific operational support, provided under tasking and assistance, the NCA’s approach will be to replicate the current arrangements that exist between NCA precursor agencies and partners, which is not to charge or cross-charge for activity unless agreed by both parties in advance. Services can be charged, but partnership working will not routinely be cross-charged because routine cross-charging would create administrative burdens for both the NCA and its partners when calculating costs and would undermine the vision that we have of the NCA and police and law enforcement agencies working together seamlessly in collaboration.

In that second area, we would not see charging as routine unless it was agreed specifically in advance for a specific project because we wish agencies to work together. That precedent has worked reasonably well with precursor organisations such as SOCA, whereas narrow training courses provided by CEOP, for example, on which they are reliant to an extent for funding as well as providing a high degree of expertise, we see as a more transactional arrangement. In those circumstances, we wish that charging will remain. I hope that, having provided that clarification and having pointed to precedent—in both cases we are drawing on precedent—the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I beg to move amendment 38, in schedule 1, page 46, line 23, at beginning insert ‘Ministers in’.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 24, in clause 3, page 3, line 14, leave out from ‘year’ to end of line 15.

Amendment 25, in clause 3, page 3, line 33, leave out from ‘plan’ to end of line 34.

Amendment 36, in clause 3, page 3, line 35, leave out—

‘Department of Justice in Northern Ireland’

and insert ‘Northern Ireland Justice Minister’.

Amendment 26, in clause 3, page 3, line 35, leave out from ‘Ireland’ to end of line 36.

Amendment 41, in schedule 2, page 51, line 4, at beginning insert ‘Ministers in’.

Amendment 43, in schedule 2, page 51, line 20, at beginning insert ‘Ministers in’.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The amendments are designed to tease out from the Minister the relationship between the National Crime Agency and devolved bodies in Scotland and Northern Ireland on consultation and on examination of national crime plans. Amendment 38 would require the Secretary of State to consult with Ministers in the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, rather than just the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland. Hon. Members will see that the current wording refers to “Scottish Ministers” for the Scottish Department, but it does not refer to “Ministers” in Northern Ireland. I want to ask the Minister what that means.

In government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East spent a considerable amount of time ensuring that justice was devolved to Ministers in Northern Ireland. There is a Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, David Ford, and I want to ask the Minister of State what is meant by consultation with Ministers in Departments in relation to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Personally, I think that we need to look at consulting in great detail on the impact of the National Crime Agency on Scotland and Northern Ireland because both devolved Administrations will have their own priorities, but they need to know how they fit into the National Crime Agency’s wider work. That is why I tabled amendment 24. Clause 3(3) states that,

“the Director General must issue a document (the ‘annual plan’) setting out how the Director General intends that NCA functions are to be exercised”.

I propose to delete

“including how they are to be exercised in Scotland and Northern Ireland”.

I tabled the amendment not because I want to delete that particular wording, but because I want the Minister to give some sense of how, with whom, and at what stage the National Crime Agency director is expected to exercise, and discuss the exercise of, those functions in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Amendment 25 deletes the words

“only as it relates to activities in Scotland”.

Under clause 3(6)(a), the director general is required to consult Scottish Ministers about the plan only as it relates to activities in Scotland. We have devolved Administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I am interested as to why the Government think that Scotland’s Justice Minister would only be interested in the National Crime Agency plan as it relates to activities in Scotland. I want to plant the idea in the Minister’s head that the Scottish Justice Minister and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, and/or, if the amendment is agreed, Ministers in Northern Ireland, might have an interest in commenting on the annual plan as it relates to England and Wales as well. For example, there may be things happening between the port of Holyhead in Wales and Northern Ireland that are of interest to both the Justice Ministers and members of the National Crime Agency. There may be things happening in Scotland and England that are of interest to both, and the Minister in Scotland may want to comment on things happening in England that are ultimately generating activity in Scotland or that may lead to issues that might have an impact in Scotland.

I am at a loss, and cannot get my head around why the director general, when consulting Scottish Ministers, will consult them only about the plan as it relates to activities in Scotland. The operational field of influence may only be in Scotland, but the National Crime Agency, by dint of later clauses, has a UK-wide and international responsibility. Is it not fair that Ministers in Scotland and Northern Ireland should have a say in consultation on the National Crime Agency plan, which may cover the whole of the United Kingdom?

Amendment 26 does the same thing, but for Northern Ireland. The Bill says that the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland can be consulted about the annual plan

“only as it relates to activities in Northern Ireland.”

What does that mean? Much crime that funds terrorism in Northern Ireland originates in England and Wales. If the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland responds to the consultation on the plan and it can refer to things in Northern Ireland, that is fine, but does it mean that it cannot talk about issues in England and Wales as well? The amendment is reasonable. It is not about Executive responsibility; it is about allowing Ministers in both Northern Ireland and Scotland to comment on the National Crime Agency plan in totality as well as how it impacts on Northern Ireland and Scotland.

Amendment 41 would require the Secretary of State to consult Ministers in the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, rather than simply the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, for the reasons I gave earlier. Amendment 43 would also require the Secretary of State to consult Ministers in the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland. I want to test why the Government will consult Scottish Ministers, but only the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.

The amendments cover relatively simple matters. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East tabled amendment 36, which mirrors some of the issues I raised about the work of the regional organised crime taskforce. I would welcome the Minister’s view on how devolution fits into the planning under schedule 1.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend. I will touch on the point that he highlighted about Northern Ireland in a moment. I want to use this opportunity to ask the Minister for clarification on one or two other things, in particular, paragraph 7 of schedule 1, which covers the arrangements for the selection and appointment of the director general, and is one of the issues where the Home Secretary must consult in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

I thought that I knew the kind of person and the kind of experience that the Home Secretary was looking for when appointing the director general of the National Crime Agency from her statement to the House of Commons in June 2011. She said:

“The National Crime Agency will be a crime-fighting organisation. With a senior chief constable at its head, the NCA will harness intelligence, analytical capabilities and enforcement powers.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 232.]

That was a welcome message, because she was clearly talking about somebody with substantial policing experience in this country who had attained the rank of chief constable and was known and respected by colleagues, and could therefore not only work at the head of a national agency, but broker good, constructive operational relations with police forces across the country and with colleagues in other countries.

I was doubly reassured by reports in the press about the Home Secretary’s view on the potential for appointing senior police officers from other countries. Yes, they may have substantial experience of fighting crime, but it would be in a very different law enforcement environment. She was dead set against the idea of recruiting people with experience in another country to senior policing roles in this country. Why did I think that? The last time the Met commissioner vacancy came up, there was a very strong indication through various media outlets that the Prime Minister was quite minded and warm to the idea that Bill Bratton might be welcomed here and appointed to the role. The reports also indicated that the Home Secretary dug her considerable heels in at that point; no way was she going to allow it to happen as long as she was Home Secretary. It appears that she won, because Bill Bratton did not get close to being the Met commissioner; we know the outcome. As a further indication of her position, the Home Secretary appointed Keith Bristow, a very experienced chief constable from Warwickshire, to head the NCA.

Given that background, I opened The Mail on Sundayon 20 January to the headline, “Foreign supercop set to take over British police”. The first paragraph reads:

“Foreign crimebusters such as US supercop Bill Bratton will be given the chance to take over British police forces under radical new plans to be unveiled by Home Secretary Theresa May.”

That is a considerable change in attitude. Indeed, as recently as this morning there was a piece by Philip Johnston in The Daily Telegraphexposing the dreadful state of the relationship between the Government and police forces up and down the country. That is a cause for great concern, whichever party one belongs to, because there should be confidence and a good, constructive relationship between the Government and the police. There clearly is not at the moment, and that situation must be repaired as soon as possible.

Can the Minister explain what is in the mind of the Home Secretary in terms of future appointments to the position of director general of the NCA? Until now, we were told that it would be a senior chief constable. Until now we thought that it would be somebody with considerable experience. We know that in Keith Bristow, the current director general, we have an experienced chief constable, but we are now told that to qualify to be a top cop in this country, and therefore eligible to be appointed director general of the NCA in future, someone could come from anywhere if they have relevant experience.

There is a debate about whether people from other law enforcement backgrounds should be welcome to lead the police in this country—I can see arguments for and against—but we all thought we had an understanding of the kind of qualities, qualifications and experience that the Home Secretary would look for. That seems to have altered, even in recent days. I hope that the Minister, who I know is listening intently to this point, will reassure the Committee as to what is in the Home Secretary’s mind as she approaches such appointments.

I would like to move on to three points relating to Northern Ireland. First, I shall refer briefly to my amendment. Looking at page 3, line 35 of the Bill, I ask the Minister, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn, about the difference between Scotland and Northern Ireland. Why is it that in Scotland the Home Secretary has to consult Ministers, but in Northern Ireland she must consult the Department of Justice? There are some fine senior officials in the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland who do a great job, and I am sure that they would give very good advice. However, as the Minister reminded us time without number this morning, in the end it is the Minister who has ultimate responsibility. Perhaps there is a legislative technicality—I do not know—but he needs to explain why the consultation will be with Ministers in Scotland and with the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.

Paragraph 15 of schedule 1 deals with NCA specials. So far the Committee has not had a debate about the role of specials. I am sure specials have an important role to play in the NCA, and I hope that the Minister will be able give some outline of it. I refer him specifically to sub-paragraph 11, which relates to Northern Ireland and differentiates an NCA special and a special constable or indeed

“a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland Reserve”.

Those are all separate functions. The sub-paragraph goes on to say that

“none of the operational powers which the person has as an NCA special are exercisable at any time when the person exercising any power or privilege which the person has as a special constable or as a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland Reserve.”

The Minister needs to offer some explanation of how on earth that will work in practice. For somebody who is an NCA special and a member of the PSNI reserve and carries out both functions, how does the Minister intend to ensure that those two functions are kept absolutely distinct, with their respective accountabilities? It is one thing to write it down on a piece of paper, but when tackling organised crime, when NCA specials and PSNI reserves are working hand in glove in support of regular officers, we need absolute clarity about how it will work in practice.

My final point again relates to Northern Ireland. It would equally apply in Scotland, but I have a particular interest in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister take this early opportunity to update the Committee on his progress in obtaining a legislative consent motion, which would be required for the provisions as they relate to Northern Ireland? I was involved, as was my right hon. Friend, in the negotiations on the devolution of policing and justice powers to Northern Ireland, which was a considerable step forward and happened in 2010 with all-party support. As a result, policing and justice is now devolved, which means that a legislative consent motion is required for aspects of the legislation that relate to police powers exercised by NCA officers operating in Northern Ireland. I suspect that it may not be absolutely straightforward, because there are still strong views about policing and its devolution. We need an indication of what progress is being made, because when the Bill comes into force we need to know that it will apply equally in Northern Ireland as it does in England, Wales and Scotland.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

You rightly determined, Ms Dorries, that this discussion should be wide-ranging and take in many aspects of the role of the NCA in Scotland and Northern Ireland, so as well as discussing the amendments I will take this opportunity to touch on some of the broader issues that were raised in the previous two speeches.

Before I get to the amendments, I say to the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East that I, too, have read theMail on Sunday reports about so-called US supercops, but I am sure that if the Home Secretary has an announcement to make on the issue, she will make it to Parliament in the normal way. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have a UK supercop already lined up for the job and out and about doing super things: Mr Keith Bristow, whose talents have been acknowledged by Members on both sides of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman need not be concerned that we are scouring the United States. We scoured the whole of Warwickshire and found a man who will do that job better than anybody else.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

Before the Minister moves on, let me quote a little further from the article in The Mail on Sunday:

“Mrs May believes that there are too few talented people at the top of the police.”

Mr Bristow is clearly a highly experienced and very talented chief constable and will be the first director general of the National Crime Agency. I have no quibble with that. He has my full support and I am sure that is shared across the Committee. However, we are not legislating in the Committee for this first appointment or for this particular Home Secretary. This is legislation that will continue for a considerable time. We have to satisfy ourselves as to the long term as well as the short term. The Minister needs to give clarity. There seems to be a shift in the Home Secretary’s thinking about what makes someone fit to be a senior police officer. If it is true that she feels there is too little talent at the top of the policing world in this country, I beg to differ. It is important that the Minister of State and other Ministers start to rebuild confidence between the police and the Government because it seems to be at a regrettably low level at the moment.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I have difficulty expanding what I have already said. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of every single word that appears in The Mail on Sunday. I have even, in the past, read the odd article in that newspaper that does not accord with my understanding of events with which I am familiar, let alone ones that are rather more speculative. Perhaps my gentle advice to Opposition Members would be to await the formal announcements that we have the privilege of hearing first as Members of this House, rather than necessarily believing everything that can be read in the Sunday newspapers, entertaining though that often may be.

Gavin Barwell (Conservative, Croydon Central)

The Minister says that he cannot be drawn into speculating on this story, but there are two important points that he could put on the record today. First, whatever the merits of candidates from abroad, who could bring particular experience to the UK if there was a change of policy in that regard, there are in British policing some outstanding officers who would merit senior positions within our police service. Secondly, as a slight counterpoint to the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East, there is an issue about the diversity of the talent pool at the top of British policing and the extent to which, particularly in the kind of community that I represent, it reflects the people it is policing.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

That was a very helpful intervention. Indeed, one could, if one was seeking to test your patience, Ms Dorries, have a wide-ranging debate about the attributes of senior police officers in England and Wales and across the United Kingdom. I readily recognise that there are some extremely talented people in senior police positions. It is due to their talents in large part that we have had such success in the last two years in managing to spend police budgets more efficiently while at the same time seeing a reduction in crime.

I suppose I would also say if I was further to test your patience, Ms Dorries, that there is expertise in all parts of the world. There are lots of insights that people can provide and there are lots of parts of industry and business, and even some parts of the public sector, that have drawn on the talents of people from beyond the United Kingdom. But that is not a proposal which the Home Secretary has made. The first director general of the NCA has been identified. He is reassuringly British, I hope, for the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East. If there are further announcements to be made in this regard I am sure the Home Secretary would want to let the House of Commons know before any other organisation had an indication of her thinking.

The next point I was going to make was the distinction between special constables within the NCA and special constables within individual police forces. But that is the subject of the next group of amendments, so I will hold back on that as I have quite a bit to say on this group. Finally, before I get to the nub of the amendments themselves, the right hon. Member for Delyn probed this whole area of consultation between the NCA and its director general and police forces in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The example that he cited was cross-border crime between north Wales and Northern Ireland. He felt it would be unreasonable for police bodies in Northern Ireland not to be made aware of what was happening in north Wales inasmuch as it had a bearing on their work in Northern Ireland.

We very much envisage that that type of consultation will take place. Obviously, the right hon. Member for Delyn has given an example but there are other examples of cross-border crime taking place between England and Scotland. I would go slightly further and say that I have been struck in my four or five months as a Home Office Minister by how much regular co-operation we have with police forces from outside the United Kingdom that are geographically close to us. For example, the Dutch work closely with us. A lot of organised crime imported into the United Kingdom through ports in the south-east comes, as one would expect, from our near neighbour with a big port capacity, the Netherlands.

There is a lot of work going on within the UK. We envisage that the NCA will be a UK-wide organisation. We could have sought to make it more limited in scope within England and Wales but we wanted it to be UK-wide with that resilience across the UK, because we recognise that a lot of organised and serious crime does operate within the UK, and we do not have the ability to have jurisdiction beyond the UK. As I say, the NCA will also adopt an international role, working perhaps as far afield as Afghanistan regarding the heroin threat, Latin America regarding the importation of cocaine, the USA regarding the importation of firearms, or countries in eastern Europe regarding people-trafficking and further afield still. It is a UK-wide organisation that I hope will have a joined-up and co-ordinated mindset within the UK, and a well networked mindset internationally.

Before turning to the substance of the amendments, the debate provides me with an opportunity to update the Committee on progress to secure the legislative consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The point was also touched on by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East, drawing on his experience as a Northern Ireland Minister, as well as his broader interest in the subject.

As hon. Members are probably aware, securing legislative consent is a devolved process and we, the Home Office, and the Northern Ireland Office are supporting the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to take forward these discussions, because we envisage that the NCA would be UK-wide in its scope. The Northern Ireland Justice Minister David Ford and his Department are engaged in discussions with the political parties in Northern Ireland with a view to securing a collective discussion and decision in the Northern Ireland Executive Committee and, if that agreement can be reached with regard to the NCA, thereafter in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

The Minister is giving a helpful explanation, which I am following carefully. Will he give the Committee some idea of time scale? When he says that the Executive in Northern Ireland may be considering this, does he know when? When does he expect an outcome?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

My understanding is imminently, by which I mean very soon, rather than in the fullness of time. Maybe I will not tread too indelicately on this subject. Although my understanding is that David Ford would like the Northern Ireland Executive to reach a conclusion in favour of the NCA having this function across the UK, including Northern Ireland, with a view to putting that to the Assembly on Thursday of this week, obviously I do not want to prejudge what decisions will be arrived at at the meeting that takes place in two days’ time in Northern Ireland.

We are obviously keen for progress to be made, while also needing to recognise that various sensibilities may need to be addressed in a way that achieves an outcome that is to everybody’s satisfaction. I recognise that progress has not been as quick as we might have liked, but it is important that the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly are reassured that through proper scrutiny the proposals will work in Northern Ireland. It is our intention that the people of Northern Ireland are no less well served by the NCA than the rest of the UK.

There is clearly a serious and organised crime threat within Northern Ireland. In our view it would be appropriate for the public in Northern Ireland to have the same level of protection as we envisage in England, Wales and Scotland. Equally, it is critical that the Police Service of Northern Ireland—which I am sure we all recognise is delivering an excellent job at this particularly difficult time—will benefit from the specialist capabilities and expertise that the National Crime Agency will be able to bring to bear to support its efforts in the fight against serious and organised crime in Northern Ireland, which I mentioned a moment ago. We will have to await developments, but the Home Office and the Northern Ireland Office have been taking a close, but appropriate, level of interest in how this matter proceeds across the Irish sea.

The right hon. Members for Delyn and for Wythenshawe and Sale East have put forward a number of amendments that seek to change various references to the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, so they instead refer explicitly to the Ministers in that Department. For example, they substitute a requirement to consult the Minister for Justice, as opposed to the Department of Justice, on the annual plan. While the National Crime Agency will have a UK-wide responsibility, supported by a UK-wide footprint reflecting the reach and threat of organised crime, it is important that the arrangements for the NCA respect the devolution of policing and justice in Northern Ireland and Scotland—and they do. As such, it is clearly critical that on matters such as the agency’s annual plan, appointment of the director general and the framework document, elected Ministers in Northern Ireland should be consulted.

I support the spirit of the amendments. As the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East said, given that I am a Minister and not an official, it is unsurprising that I do support them. However I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have been told that this is a drafting convention—what he described in his speech as a “legislative technicality”—and that the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland is referred to across the statute book with legislation of this type. This is not a one-off and in practice it would be the Northern Ireland Minister for Justice, as advised by his Department, who takes the relevant decisions, for example offering comments on the NCA annual plan as it impacts on Northern Ireland. So in practice, I hope that amendments 36, 38, 41 and 43 would have no material effect. This is merely drafting consistency, so I am reliably informed.

Moving to amendments 24 to 26 tabled by the right hon. Member for Delyn, amendment 24 removes the requirement on the director general to state in the annual plan how he or she plans to exercise the NCA’s functions in Scotland and Northern Ireland. This is not a change that the Government support as it would, in effect, give the director general the freedom to leave any plans that the NCA might have for activity in Scotland and Northern Ireland out of the plans entirely. That would hardly be transparent and would mean that elected representatives in the devolved Administrations would not be able to scrutinise the NCA’s plans properly within their jurisdiction. I suspect that is not what Members across the Committee intended. I would add that there is an equivalent provision in section 6 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 in respect of the SOCA annual plan. So it is not clear why Members would feel particular difficulty about endorsing legislation as envisaged in the Bill before us, given that it draws on the arrangements that exist, in effect, in predecessor organisations.

Amendments 25 and 26 give Ministers from the devolved Administrations the right to be consulted on the entirety of the annual plan—this was touched upon by the right hon. Member for Delyn—even though some of the plan will not relate to matters within their jurisdiction. Under the terms of amendment 24, the annual plan might well relate only to England and Wales, in which case Scotland and Northern Ireland Ministers would have no mandate to comment at all. In terms of consulting on the entirety of the plan, we would obviously wish consultations to take place on matters directly related to Scotland and Northern Ireland on a formal basis. However it is very much in the interests of the director general of the NCA to work collaboratively, not just with the two devolved Administrations, but with police forces across England and Wales. Although that may not be a formal requirement and may not be relevant with some aspects of the plan, we would envisage that he would on an informal basis wish to share information that he felt would make the NCA more effective as a whole.

We are clear that the statute should uphold the proper role and mandate of Ministers from the devolved Administrations, who are to be consulted, and give their consent to the NCA’s annual plan when it relates to activities taking place within their jurisdictions. I do not believe that anyone would accuse the Scottish Administration of being insufficiently vigilant when it comes to protecting the interests of the people of Scotland. There is a clear sense in Northern Ireland, too, that its ability to decide such matters for itself should be protected. We have been sensitive to those requirements in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and I hope that we achieved the right balance of treading sensitively in respect of responsibilities for such matters while, at the same time, trying to achieve our overall objective.

We want an NCA with resilience against serious and organised crime on a UK-wide basis, even though that inevitably requires more difficult deliberations than were it just to be in England and Wales. However, we believe that it will be a stronger organisation as a result. On that basis, I ask Labour Members to withdraw their amendment. I am grateful also for the opportunity to update the Committee on the deliberations that have taken place in Northern Ireland.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

We just wanted to test again the relationship among Northern Ireland, Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom in relation to the National Crime Agency plans. I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment on the basis of the Minister’s comments.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I am also grateful for the Minister’s explanation of the convention in respect of consultation with the Department, not Ministers, although it prompts the question, when do we ever change conventions? I look forward to his explanation of specials in our later debate.

During the hon. Gentleman’s helpful explanation of the update on the legislative consent motion in relation to the Northern Ireland Assembly, he cautioned the Committee about the use of the word “imminent”. In the context of Northern Ireland politics, he is probably wise not to use it because such matters sometimes take a little time. When he spoke about tackling organised crime in Northern Ireland, I am sure that he was right. Obviously, the relationship of the NCA, the police ombudsman and the Policing Board has to be sorted out and has to be absolutely in keeping with the devolution of policing and justice. However, in the end, the measures are about tackling people traffickers, people who smuggle drugs and those who smuggle fuel across the border. In the face of such threats, we should be putting all our resources together, and in that context the NCA’s resources will be absolutely essential.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I beg to move amendment 39, in schedule 1, paragraph 15, leave out sub-paragraph (9).

I hope that we shall have a relatively speedy discussion about the amendment. I refer the Committee to clause 12, which gives powers to prohibit any person in a trade union, for example, from calling a strike by NCA officers with designated operational powers. It gives the Home Secretary quite wide-ranging powers to take civil action against persons who call such a strike. I do not wish to debate clause 12 because we shall do so in due course, but the amendment would delete the provision in schedule 1 that states:

“The no-strike provisions in section 12 do not apply in relation to NCA specials”.

I tabled the amendment because I wanted to test the Minister’s thinking and to know why there is a difference between the two provisions. Having read the Bill, it seems that the National Crime Agency specials are selected by the director general as persons appointed by the NCA, as part-time officers. They have the powers of an NCA officer. They are unpaid, which is a crucial difference between others and those under clause 12.

However, at present, the Government have power to take action against those who wish to cause a strike and who work for the National Crime Agency but there is no similar sanction for those who are part-time and unpaid, and who wish to withdraw their labour, having signed a contract and the terms and conditions of appointment set out by the director general. What is the difference between the two provisions? Part-time, unpaid specials have powers, reimbursement and the ability to act on behalf of the director general, and yet they are not subject to the proposal in clause 12, whereas people who are paid and full-time in the organisation are. What is the difference? Is it simply a matter of payment?

I can envisage a situation whereby, in the unlikely event of a strike being called by the Police Federation, the Government could take action against National Crime Agency members who obeyed that instruction—against the Police Federation and other agencies such as Unison and others that might have staff in the agency—but would not act against somebody who could be a member of the Police Federation and/or another trade union, who decides individually that they want to withdraw their labour, but is employed as a special, admittedly part-time and unpaid. What is the difference?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

The NCA can protect the public only if it has the operational capability to meet the threats posed by those engaged in serious and organised crime every day and every week of the year. As I sometimes say to people when this subject is raised, when organised criminals decide to go on strike, we may decide that we can afford to have our crime-fighting capacity similarly made redundant for a period, but that is not the case at the moment. We face a threat on a daily basis and we want to be able to ensure that we can respond to it on a daily basis. Of course, the matter is directly dealt with in a later clause, so we can discuss that issue, if the Committee so wishes, in greater detail then.

Our ability to respond to serious and organised crime cannot be disrupted by industrial action, and that is why we have restricted the right to strike of NCA officers with operational powers. The nub of this point is the one about specials as distinct from that broader point, which, as I said, the Committee may wish to discuss at greater length in future. We do not agree that it is appropriate for the provisions to apply to NCA specials. They will be unpaid volunteer officers, whose part-time role will complement that of the core NCA work force. They will contribute their particular specialist skills to the NCA in their spare time.

Even though it will be possible for an NCA special to be designated with the powers and privileges of a constable in England and Wales, the additional contribution made by volunteer NCA specials does not form part of the NCA’s core operational capacity in the same way as other NCA officers with operational powers. NCA specials will not receive payment, save for the reimbursement of expenses or to compensate for loss attributable to injury or death resulting from their duty as an NCA special. For those reasons, we do not believe that it is necessary or proportionate to extend the no-strike provisions to NCA specials.

There is a difference between NCA specials and specials within regular police forces. The right hon. Gentleman has questioned why NCA specials should not be barred from striking, given that police special constables are not allowed to strike. The reason for that distinction is partly technical and partly to do with the different role that NCA specials will play. Special constables hold the office of constable in the same way as a police officer and are therefore covered by the restrictions on constables taking industrial action. NCA specials, on the other hand, are not office holders and are a different class of personnel from other NCA office holders.

Whereas many police special constables are engaged in highly visible local policing, the role of NCA specials is intended to be different. They will instead enable the NCA to harness the additional specialist skills that the agency and its officers will need to tackle some of the most serious and complex criminality impacting on the United Kingdom. For example, a forensic accountant could make an invaluable contribution to the NCA’s ability to tackle serious and complex fraud, and someone with an in-depth understanding of IT and the internet would be able to work alongside other NCA officers in the national cyber crime unit. They would volunteer their expertise out of a sense of civic duty and because they wish the country well, but they would not be paid for that activity and they would not be visible to the public. They would not be an external, if you like, or core part of the NCA.

For the reasons I have set out, we do not consider it appropriate to apply the no-strike provisions to NCA specials, who after all are volunteers. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the amendment on this basis, because of the distinctions I have set out and because of the voluntary nature of the specialist—but nevertheless what we envisage to be backroom—function of the expertise provided by NCA specials.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am grateful for the explanation, and I am very pleased to withdraw the amendments. I simply wanted to test the Government’s thinking on that particular point.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

Is this the moment when the Minister offers me an explanation of the difference between NCA specials and PSNI reserves?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

Indeed, this is exactly the moment I was waiting for. I knew the Committee would be interested to know why the legislation on suspending powers refers to both NCA specials and members of the PSNI reserve, when NCA specials will not have operational powers in Northern Ireland. The Bill is explicit that no NCA special could ever be designated with operational powers in Northern Ireland; that is clear. However, we also need to be clear on what happens when an individual has operational powers from more than one source, wherever they may be. In Northern Ireland that will primarily relate to an NCA officer who is also a member of the PSNI reserve. However, by drafting the legislation in this way, we will also be able to ensure that any member of the PSNI reserve could not use their powers as a Northern Ireland constable in relation to any voluntary role for the NCA, in the event of a future decision to use NCA specials without powers in Northern Ireland.

I must again reiterate that under this legislation no NCA special could ever be designated with powers in Northern Ireland or in Scotland. I must also reassure the right hon. Gentleman that no decision has yet been taken on whether NCA specials without operational powers will be recruited in Scotland or Northern Ireland in the future. This would be a matter for discussion and agreement between the director general of the NCA and the relevant devolved Administrations in due course. I am grateful to be able to clarify that matter on behalf of the Government.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.