Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 24 January 2013.

Clause 2 - Strategic priorities

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 2, page 2, line 40, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘will’.

The amendment is simple and easy to understand. The clause as currently drafted states that the Secretary of State

“may determine strategic priorities for the NCA.”

I want to replace the word “may” with “will” so that the clause states:

“will determine strategic priorities for the NCA.”

We had a useful discussion on clause 1, which establishes the National Crime Agency. You will recall, Ms Dorries, that along with your co-chair, Mr Caton, we had a long discussion on the governance structures of the National Crime Agency board. Amendment 22 moves us on to clause 2, which is about the strategic priorities for the National Crime Agency.

If the Minister can reassure me that the word “may” effectively means “will”, I will be happy to withdraw the amendment. The Secretary of State may determine the strategies of the National Crime Agency, but equally she or he may not. If the answer is that she may not, we are left with the director general of the National Crime Agency, who is appointed by the Home Secretary, being solely responsible for directing the priorities of the National Crime Agency. Clause 2(2) states:

“In determining strategic priorities for the NCA...the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the strategic partners,

(b) the Director General”,

and this amorphous phrase:

“(c) any other persons whom the Secretary of State considers it is appropriate to consult.”

However, responsibility for strategic priorities should still ultimately lie with the Secretary of State.

As part of my preparation, I discussed the matter with the Association of Chief Police Officers. I spoke, via my office, to Chief Constable Mick Creedon, who leads for ACPO. He sits on the National Crime Agency design and operating transition board and is the ACPO lead on serious organised crime issues. He said that when the Secretary of State is setting the strategic direction for the National Crime Agency, there will be a huge need for a clearer definition of what the agency is being set up to achieve. In my view, responsibility for that lies with Ministers.

Workstream groups are established under the Bill and there will be strategic command groups, but I think it is important that we set strategic priorities for the National Crime Agency. Going back to the points made by the hon. Member for North Antrim and others in our previous sitting, the strategic responsibilities lie with the Government. If the Government do not set them and they duck out of their responsibilities—“may” rather than “will”—the strategic priorities would ultimately be set, although in consultation with other bodies, by the director general.

If the director general sets the priorities, there is the potential for conflict downstream. We have already seen in the past year, as I mentioned on Tuesday, that the National Crime Agency, even though it is not yet fully formed, is becoming a port of call for areas of concern that have arisen and the Secretary of State has—quite rightly—said, “National Crime Agency, this is your responsibility. Please go and look at this issue.” The child abuse inquiry in north Wales is the most prominent case to date.

Will the Minister explain where responsibility would ultimately lie if the Secretary of State, who “may determine strategic priorities”, did not set any and ultimately there was conflict downstream for the director general over his or her actions? It is Keith Bristow now, but we are setting this in train for the future. The future Secretary of State might then be accountable to Parliament and then, ultimately, having not set strategic priorities, would be answerable to Parliament on what the director general has said, rather than on what—

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I appreciate that his role involves finding ways to scrutinise, but he has experience of the House and the Committees and of being a Minister. Can he point to other times when he has taken forward a Bill containing a clause with “will” in it? “May” is obviously a term that is not “must”, and obviously does often cover “will”. Is he not dancing on a pinhead? Can he refer to other clauses of a similar nature which used “will” rather than “may”, which obviously is a proper term that is often distinguished from “must”?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I cannot off the top of my head, because I have not prepared in that way for that particular intervention. I accept that this might be a point. My simple point is to clarify what “may” means as opposed to “will”. In every way that I understand it, “may” means that “I might do something”—that I may determine strategic priorities for the National Crime Agency—but it does not mean that I will set them.

In my view, the word “will” gives a statutory undertaking that the Secretary of State ultimately has to sit down at least once a year and set out his priorities for 2013-14 for the National Crime Agency. He must say that he is consulting with the strategic partners, that he will consult with the director general and with these amorphous “other persons” that he considers appropriate. It means that he will set the priorities, not that he may set them, and not that he might duck out of that responsibility; he will set them. It is of course important to get clarification on what that means.

Andy McDonald (Labour, Middlesbrough)

It appears very clear to me that the word “may” implies permission, whereas “will” confers an obligation upon the Secretary of State to set the strategic priorities. With respect to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, I do not think it is dancing on a pinhead. I think it is actually a crucial and vital difference, and we are right to pursue this issue and see where the obligation lies. If there is to be an obligation, I would suggest that the word “will” would serve the purpose infinitely better.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I do not think it an issue of dancing on a pinhead, and I think there is a clear difference between “may” and “will”. If the Minister in his response assures me that “may” means “will”, there may well be an opportunity for me to withdraw the amendment. However, I want some clarity about that, because as I read it—I am a simple man from up north; I might have got this wrong—“may” means that I have the responsibility not to do it. It means that I may be able to choose not to do it, rather than that I will have to do it. There is a subtle difference between the two that I think anybody listening to it would accept.

Charlie Elphicke (Conservative, Dover)

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am a simple man from down south, and I am a bit puzzled because the other day he argued for the vaunted independence of these organisations, and stated that quangos should be allowed to do their own thing. Yet today he argues that the Secretary of State “will” tell them what to do. It seems to me that he argues one thing one day and another thing the next.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I think the hon. Gentleman must have been doing his post on Tuesday, because I did not argue that at all. What I argued on Tuesday was for the Secretary of State to set strategic directions, but for the board to contribute to that and to do the challenge function, the monitoring and the budget responsibility. I argued that the board should follow on and sit on the director general, to ensure that the strategic objectives set by the Secretary of State were put into a local plan which would be achieved and which was followed through. In my view there is still a role for that board, but we have had that argument and I will not revisit it.

What I argue for here is for a strategic direction to be set by the Secretary of State, who for example would say that in 2013, with the command units available, human trafficking, drug abuse, child exploitation or whatever are the key strategic priorities. The Secretary of State would say that they expect these issues to be reduced by x or y per cent., and to do so certain things are expected to be done, because that is a strategic priority. The job of the director general is then to look at how he or she implements that, and the job of the board—had we had one—would have been to monitor progress on that, to challenge day to day, to put pressure on the Security of State and provide some expertise on how the National Crime Agency could deliver those tasks. So there is no contradiction between what I said on Tuesday and what I say now. I simply want clarity from the Minister.

If it helps, before the Minister responds I will quote the following:

“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.”

I think that “will” meets the obligations of that quote. It means that politicians will accept leadership and responsibility and will not just push off tasks to people who the public do not know and will not have a chance to meet. I use that particular quote because it is the Minister speaking in Tuesday’s sitting at 10.45 am, in column 31 of Hansard. I hope that he will not go back on what he said on Tuesday about the need for responsibility to lie with the Secretary of State.

Gavin Barwell (Conservative, Croydon Central)

I have some sympathy with the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making about the importance of politicians setting the strategic direction. However, will he elucidate the difference between that argument in relation to this agency and the Labour party’s argument about police and crime commissioners, which was that there was a great risk in allowing politicians to set strategic priorities for the police, and that that would overlap with operational independence?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I think there is a real difference. Politicians have always set the direction and strategic policy of police authorities. Police authorities were made up of councillors, politicians, magistrates and independent members. They set an overall strategic level. Our argument with police and crime commissioners was that one person would be vested with that responsibility, rather than its being collective. I accept that one person is vested with responsibility in the National Crime Agency, but that one person is the Home Secretary, who is accountable to the House of Commons, appointed by a Prime Minister, and who usually has the majority support of Members of the House. There is therefore a great deal more overview and scrutiny of the Home Secretary than there would be on this matter.

I do not wish to push this too far, but I am trying to make the point that “will” and “may” are two different words. Even if “may” is a commonly used term, which it may be, I believe that “will” has a different meaning and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough said, confers a specific responsibility. “May” gives the opportunity for an opt-out. I wish to see, particularly in the absence of a board, responsibility for National Crime Agency strategic responsibilities lying firmly with the Home Secretary, and I hope that the Minister agrees.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Ms Dorries. How bracing it was to start our deliberations with an Olympian quote on the nature of political authority. I was casting my mind back as to who might have said that—Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, even President Obama—only to find that it was myself. I can now retire happy, having been recognised for shedding light on the entire nature of how powers should be exercised in a modern democracy.

I am grateful to the right. hon Gentleman for tabling amendment 22, which he has indicated is a simple amendment that would convert the power conferred on the Home Secretary to set strategic priorities for the National Crime Agency into a duty—the change from “may” to “will”. We agree that the Home Secretary has a vital role in setting the strategic direction for the agency. Indeed, in practice—this point was made forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate—we would expect that the Home Secretary would always wish to set strategic priorities in accordance with the power granted by clause 2. It is rather hard to envisage circumstances in which she would decline to discharge—I was going to say “those obligations,” but they are not obligations—the option that is open to her, or where she would not regard it as an obligation. Clause 2 was drafted as a permissive power rather than a duty, however, in order to allow flexibility in any exceptional cases, even if they are hard to envisage, where a Secretary of State may choose not to set strategic priorities.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Will the Minister therefore tell the Committee in what circumstances he would expect the Secretary of State not to set the strategic priorities?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

Let me come to that precise point, but the right hon. Gentleman will prefer it if I answer him in a roundabout way, for reasons that will become apparent in a moment. Before I get to that point, I should note that this provision is similar to the equivalent provision made for the Serious Organised Crime Agency in section 9 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, so we have drawn on precedent. The Opposition, when they were in government, presumably thought it desirable to have flexibility in this matter, so I was going to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could tell me, and whether he had a good example.

To get to the nub of the matter, it is our intention that the National Crime Agency should at all times have appropriate strategic priorities in place, and that the Home Secretary should set those priorities. If the right hon. Gentleman withdraws his amendment on the understanding that I will go away and reflect on the substance of his point, we will look at whether the clause needs to be made more explicit, for the reasons that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough touched on in his intervention. In practice, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate gave, we do not envisage the clause having a substantial effect in legislative terms. For neatness and the avoidance of doubt, if the right hon. Gentleman withdraws his amendment, we will make sure that this issue is resolved to everybody’s mutual satisfaction.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I can see a win when I have got one. I accept it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Clause 2(2) states:

“In determining strategic priorities for the NCA (including deciding whether there should be such priorities), the Secretary of State must consult…the strategic partners,…the Director General, and…other persons whom the Secretary of State considers it is appropriate to consult.”

Clause 15 gives the definition of strategic partners, but that definition, surprisingly, does not include the words “police and crime commissioner”. I have not tabled an amendment because it may simply be that the definition,

“Such persons as appear to the Secretary of State to represent the views of local policing bodies”,

includes police and crime commissioners. However, I find that striking, because the creation of police and crime commissioners is a flagship Government policy, although I accept that it is not originally a policy of the Minister’s party. Given that clause 15 defines police and crime commissioners as a policing body, it would be helpful to let police and crime commissioners know, now they have been elected and founded, that they are part of the team and can be consulted formally.

Clause 15, on the interpretation of part 1, defines a range of bodies. Given that clause 2 only mentions strategic partners, the director general and the amorphous group of other people whom the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult, would it not have been better for clause 2(2) to have included a reference to clause 15, rather than to strategic partners? That would mean that all the bodies listed in clause 15 would know that they will potentially be consulted. Clause 2 does not specifically mention that the British Transport police, the civil nuclear constabulary, the Ministry of Defence police, the Serious Fraud Office, border revenue, the Police Service of Scotland, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and others can be consulted about the National Crime Agency’s plan.

I accept that the clause is only about a consultation on strategic priorities, but I feel that it is best to play as part of a team. If those bodies—in particular the more important, bigger ones such as the British Transport police—were asked what their views are, they might have a contribution to the strategic objectives of the National Crime Agency. At the moment, their views might be asked for and taken into account, but equally they might not be. If we are going to make the National Crime Agency a success, we should involve people so they feel it is acting on their behalf and setting priorities on their behalf. Clause 2 as drafted, although I have not amended it, seems to be slightly restrictive in terms of the consultation on strategic priorities.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I should bring it to the Committee’s attention—one or two Members may have failed to notice this—that amendment 4 to clause 15, which, at the current rate of progress, we will probably arrive at some point this afternoon, makes precisely that point. The amendment stands in the right hon. Gentleman’s name. It may be of convenience to the Committee to discuss the issue then and not have me make the same speech twice.

Just for a taster, however, the essence of our point is that clause 2 states that the Secretary of State must consult

“any other persons whom the Secretary of State considers it is appropriate to consult.”

Her hands are not shackled in that regard, and she may wish to consult police and crime commissioners. It is not a requirement to consult them because they are responsible for their police forces, not the NCA. They may well have interesting insights to provide, which is why the Secretary of State may wish to consult them, but she is not required to do so. I can, as I said, discuss the issue in greater detail when the, in my view, more relevant clause 15 comes up, to which there is an amendment on precisely this point. I hope that the Committee will agree to the important but quite limited clause 2.

Clause 3 - Operations

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 3, page 4, line 1, leave out subsection (10).

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 14, in schedule 2, page 50, line 19, after ‘must’, insert ‘by order’.

Amendment 40, in schedule 2, page 50, line 21, after ‘under’, insert ‘annual’.

Amendment 15, in schedule 2, page 50, line 24, at end insert—

‘( ) An order under this paragraph shall be in the form of a statutory instrument and is subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.’.

Amendment 16, in schedule 2, page 50, line 33, leave out paragraph (b).

Amendment 42, in schedule 2, page 51, line 12, leave out from ‘published’ to end of line 13.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I hope to be brief so that we can make some progress. We will not press amendment 3 to a vote, because it was tabled as a teaser and a tester to see what the Government think on the matter.

Amendment 3 would delete the schedule that establishes the framework, but that is not my intention. When we tabled the amendment, we intended to get some indication of what the framework would be. Helpfully, in part, following Tuesday’s discussions, the Minister and his officials drew our attention to the now published outline framework document for the NCA.

I still want to press the Minister on when the actual framework document will be published. The outline is helpful, but having looked at it over the past couple of days, we can see that it is very much an outline. In fact it is so much of an outline that, for example, item 10, which is about scrutiny, transparency and information, says, “Scrutiny”; it does not say how that scrutiny will happen. Under “publish information”, it does not say how. All the items are a series of headlines as to what the Government want to fill in in due course and how the framework will work. While the headlines themselves seem apparent, as ever with such matters, the devil is in the detail.

The Minister said on Tuesday that the Government cannot publish the framework document until the Bill receives Royal Assent. I simply ask him again what I asked on Tuesday. The outline framework document is a series of headings and indications of likely areas, but the detail will be in the paragraphs and the text that follows. While he says that he cannot legally produce the framework document until the Bill receives Royal Assent, I will ask him again—gently and in a friendly way, in a spirit of co-operation—when he will be able to publish a draft of the framework document with the details.

My purpose of tabling amendment 3 is not to delete the framework document—self-evidently, we want one—but simply to ask the Minister when he will publish it. Even if the final version has to come after Royal Assent, will he consider publishing a much more detailed draft? The nub of what the NCA will do and how it will relate to other organisations will be governed by the draft.

To save time, Ms Dorries, I have only one other point to highlight from the amendments. Amendment 40 says that we want the framework document to be kept under annual review, and we also want to ensure that amendment 15 is considered, which aims to make sure that the framework is subject to affirmative resolution in each House of Parliament. Whatever our political differences are, the framework document should be published, not only in the Secretary of State’s world, but in a form that Members or interested parties can look at. Most importantly, if the framework document is to be reviewed, given that we will not see it in full until after the legislation receives Royal Assent, it would be a nice touch for the Minister to say, “Let’s have it affirmed by Parliament, so Parliament can discuss it and express a view.”

Significant powers will be included in the framework document that are to be exercised by the National Crime Agency and/or the Home Secretary, and those will not be approved by Parliament, even though schedule 2 says that the document will have effect. We do not yet know, with regard to subsection (10), what will have effect, because all we have is the outline document. We do not have the framework document, so we are giving carte blanche to the Minister, when we do not know what carte blanche actually is. In terms of parliamentary scrutiny, I think every Member would like to see the document. I do not want to cause trouble, but if we approve the proposal, we are doing so without knowing what we are approving.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

There is a slight danger of the Opposition fetishising the outline framework document, which we discussed at some length on Tuesday. I shall take the opportunity to discuss it in more detail now, for the purpose of reassuring any members of the Committee who would otherwise feel alarmed. As the right hon. Gentleman has explained, the set of amendments—there are six in this grouping—all relate to the NCA framework document. I would like to make some general points about the framework document first, and then move on to the substance of the amendments.

The framework document will be a joint statement of intent by the Home Secretary and the director general of the NCA, setting out how they will work together and the ways in which NCA functions are to be exercised. As set out in the outline framework document, we expect that the document will cover internal governance, accountability between the director general and the Home Secretary, financial arrangements, performance management and reporting, requirements in respect of tasking and co-ordination, and transparency arrangements, including setting out the classes of information to be published by the NCA.

The framework document is essentially an agreement between the Home Secretary and the director general about how they will work together to best fulfil their respective statutory duties and functions, and it is only those two persons who must have regard to the document. I think that Opposition Members have perhaps overstated the importance of the document, certainly in legislative terms. Although I do not want to downplay the document, it is clearly secondary to the legislation, which sets out the core governance arrangements and what will happen with the NCA. The framework document will be an agreement between the Home Secretary and the director general about how that will be put into practice, and it will not—and cannot—cut across the legislation that we have agreed in the Committee and in Parliament more generally in any way. As a result, the framework document can only be agreed following Royal Assent, once the provisions of the Bill are settled. We will then publish the document and lay it before Parliament at about the time the NCA is formally established, which we envisage being later this year, subject to parliamentary approval.

I recognise that some hon. Members are disappointed with the level of detail provided in the form of the outline framework document that we have supplied, but given the secondary nature of the document, it would be jumping the gun to produce a full draft of it before the Bill has completed its parliamentary passage. Were the right hon. Gentleman to be successful with some of the amendments he proposed in Committee, we may well need to reflect that in the framework document. As the Committee has not yet had a chance to consider all his amendments, we cannot be certain whether he will be successful with them. The content of the document will be informed by the parliamentary debates on the Bill in Committee and later in the Chamber, as well as by the detailed work in progress to build the agency.

Such documents, agreed between Ministers and the agencies or Departments for which they have policy responsibility, are fairly commonplace in government, as the right hon. Member for Delyn will be aware. The Attorney-General, for example, has such a protocol in place with the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office, which was established by the previous Government in 2009. Framework documents and protocols of this kind are not usually laid before Parliament—indeed, in some cases they are not made public at all—but we have rejected that course of action.

In the interests of transparency, we have proposed that the NCA’s framework document be published and laid before Parliament. To go further and require parliamentary approval of the document, as amendments 14 and 15 would provide, is unnecessary, given that it will be essentially an agreement between the Home Secretary and director general about how they will do their jobs in respect of the NCA. I remind the right hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members that the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 made no provision for a framework document for SOCA, let alone for subjecting such a document to parliamentary scrutiny.

Andy McDonald (Labour, Middlesbrough)

Outrageous.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

It was shocking to reflect on that, but we have learned lessons and as a result have a far more transparent arrangement.

Amendment 16 would remove the requirement for the Home Secretary to obtain the consent of the director general of the NCA before issuing the framework document. As the leader of the agency, the director general will have an entirely proper interest in ensuring that the framework document arrangements reflect his or her operational view of the NCA and how it can operate most effectively and efficiently. Since the director general will be ultimately accountable to the Home Secretary for delivering the priorities of the NCA, it is only right that his or her consent is gained for decisions about how the agency is administered.

Amendment 42 deals with the publication arrangements for the framework document. The important point to make is that the Government are committed to publishing the NCA framework document, as well as the other key documents referred to in the Bill, such as the annual plan and the annual report, in a fully transparent and accessible way so that all those with an interest in the agency’s work can read them. The requirement in schedule 2 to publish the document

“in the manner which the Secretary of State considers appropriate”

is simply intended to indicate that it is for the Home Secretary, as the publisher of the framework document, to determine the most appropriate means of publication. We expect, for the avoidance of doubt or concern, that in practice the document will most likely be released via the NCA or Home Office website, or conceivably both.

Amendment 40 would require the framework document to be reviewed annually. While it is clearly important that the document should be kept up to date, that requirement is already fulfilled by the existing provision requiring the Home Secretary to keep it under review. We can leave it to the judgment of the Home Secretary and the director general to determine the frequency of such reviews, which could be more or less frequently than annually, without imposing a specific requirement. One could well imagine that once the NCA is bedded in, the need to make changes to the document may become less frequent. Accordingly, it would be far better to have a general requirement to keep the document under review, so that it can be revised as often as necessary—no more and no less—rather than having the rigid requirements envisaged by the amendment.

Finally, amendment 3 points in the opposite direction to the other amendments in the group by seeking not only to strike the provisions on the framework document from the Bill, but, on its coat tails, to remove the requirement on the director general to produce an annual report, which I am sure is not the right hon. Gentleman’s intention. Indeed, I am sure he agrees that such a step would not be in the interests of transparency and accountability.

In summary, I have argued that the framework document, while undoubtedly important, is secondary to the Bill’s provisions and so, while we have committed to publish it and lay it before Parliament, does not require further parliamentary scrutiny. It is appropriate, on the other hand, that it should have the director general’s consent, since he or she will have to implement its arrangements. It should of course be kept under review, but I have argued that an annual process is disproportionate. On that basis, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I hope I gave the Minister food for thought. He knows that amendment 3 was never designed, as I said earlier, to knock out the framework document. It was a mechanism to test some points, which the Minister has responded to. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Schedule 2 - The framework document & annual report

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I beg to move amendment 44, page 51, line 28, schedule 2, leave out ‘As soon as possible after’ and insert ‘Within three months of’.

I want to test the Minister on whether a time scale is needed in respect of the annual report, because otherwise the report could be published at any time; it could be 11 months after the end of the financial year, or even more than a year after the end of the financial year. There is no time limit under the clause. I am happy for the Minister to indicate whether he would agree to a time limit; three months was a random period, plucked from the air as a debating point. Will he agree to tightening up the measure slightly so that there is a firmer time scale?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

The amendment is completely understandable, but I want to explain briefly why the Government prefer the Committee not to accept it. As is the case for all Departments, the National Crime Agency will publish an annual report and accounts prepared in accordance with the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. The annual report and accounts, once audited by the National Audit Office, will be laid before Parliament following the end of each financial year. As a non-ministerial Department, the National Crime Agency will be under the same obligation as all other Departments.

Clearly, it is good practice for annual reports to be published as quickly as possible after the end of the financial year and the Bill, as drafted, reflects that by requiring the director general to issue the annual report “as soon as possible” after the end of each financial year. We expect, in most cases, that the NCA’s annual report would be laid before Parliament certainly before the summer recess, which typically begins in July of each year. That has been the case with the Serious Organised Crime Agency, and is approximately within the three to four-month time frame that the right hon. Gentleman set out in the amendment.

It would be inappropriate for the Bill to be completely prescriptive as there might be cases, for whatever reason, when it was simply not possible to publish the annual report within that timetable. To tie the NCA to a statutory legal requirement of a three-month window would be unhelpful but, that said, I do not disagree with the broad principle underlining the amendment, and our intention is to act within that time scale.

I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005—this may be a familiar refrain for him—used a similar formula to that used under the Bill; SOCA is similarly required to issue its annual report as soon as possible after the end of the financial year. That being the case, that formula, put forward by the previous Government, has much to recommend it. Our view is to be helpful and as speedy as possible, but not to be tied to the time scale under the proposal. On that basis, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman agrees to withdraw the amendment.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

As an aside, so that the Minister does not keep throwing previous Acts at me, if Governments always kept to everything that previous Governments said, there would be no progress and no changes would ever be made to legislation. It is possible to amend legislation that the Labour Government or, even dare I say it, previous Tory Governments brought in without it being a cardinal, criminal offence. Perhaps the Minister would like to table a new clause to that effect later. I was in Northern Ireland at the time, so I was not even responsible for that particular Bill.

The point has been made. We simply wanted clarity. The Minister said that the annual report would usually be produced by the summer recess, which is about a three-month period. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 4 - Relationships between NCA and other agencies: tasking etc

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

I beg to move amendment 28, in clause 4, page 4, line 12, at end insert—

‘(c) may be made only if the Director General has notified the Police and Crime Commissioner responsible for the totality of policing in that area.’.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 29, in clause 4, page 4, line 23, at end insert—

‘(a) may be made only if the chief officer of a UK police force has notified the Police and Crime Commissioner responsible for the totality of policing in that area.’.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

May I say, as everyone else does, that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Ms Dorries? I am also pleased finally to be doing something to redress the gender imbalance in the room in terms of people speaking. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am glad to hear the Government agree with that sentiment. Let us hope they put it into practice in their future actions—

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

We will not put it on the face of the Bill.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

I fail to see it in the Bill, but I would love to see the amendment that the Government will be tabling shortly.

I hope, too, that I will live up to the Olympian standards of debate that we have had so far this morning, seeing that the Minister has set such a high bar for us all to pass. I am afraid that I am not as familiar with “Angry Birds” as some; perhaps that is where my shortcomings come from.

I hope that our amendments to clause 4 will move the debate forward. So far we have talked a lot about the strategic direction of the new crime agency and how it will be influenced by different partners. The amendments speak to the agency’s day-to-day operational protocols and how they will work, in particular the way in which it will use a new power that it will have on tasking. That is not the multi-tasking of being able to play “Angry Birds” and listen to the Committee in detail at the same time, but directing police forces and how they use their resources.

The power that the organisation will have is a new one that SOCA does not have. SOCA had the ability to make voluntary and directed arrangements under the direction of the Home Secretary, but clause 4 will empower the director general of the NCA to require police forces directly to co-operate with him and other law enforcement officers. There will be a reciprocal duty on crime-fighters and members of various agencies to assist NCA officers to discharge their functions. The NCA will be able to enter specific arrangements, and the amendments speak to how those powers will be used and what implications they may have for how the agency operates and how police forces around the country operate with the agency.

Let me be clear about the powers that we want to test the Minister on in order to understand how he sees them working. Clause 4(2) says that the director general may request a chief constable to perform a task that would assist the NCA to exercise its functions. In doing so, the director general

“must explain how performance of the requested task would so assist in the exercise of those functions.”

Schedule 3 sets out the nature of the resources that may be requested. They include equipment, officers, constables and members of staff at any UK law agency. However, paragraph 17 of schedule 3 reads:

“That does not limit the kinds of assistance that may be provided or required.”

Clearly, that is a substantial and possibly costly power for the new director general. It is therefore important to test what is meant by that and to satisfy all of us that it is not open to what might be termed mission creep by the director general.

That the Bill does not set out how the director general should explain why a performance would be requested, only that it must be explained, only further highlights the need to set out clearly in Parliament what sort of explanation should be given and who should be informed of the use of the powers if they are used. There is potentially no limit as to what may be requested.

The Opposition recognise that there is a need to limit bureaucracy and to ensure that new working relationships are set in place from the get-go of the NCA, to ensure that it is effective, but it is the operation of the powers that concerns us. Schedule 3 resembles Jiminy Cricket in his rendition of “I wish I may, I wish I might”, in the way that it says the director general may interact with the chief officers of police forces. Paragraph 4(1) requires the director general to keep chief officers informed of any information obtained by the NCA that he considers to be relevant to the exercise of a function of a chief officer, but paragraph 4(2) reads:

“This paragraph does not require the Director General to keep the chief officer…informed of information which appears to the Director General to be information obtained…from that chief officer or any other member of that police force.”

I am not sure quite what the Minister’s intention is, and I would be grateful for clarity on how he sees the day-to-day operational liaison role and how it will influence how crimes are investigated.

The Minister spoke eloquently on Tuesday about how the NCA might be involved in working with police forces on gun crime, particularly looking at the importation of guns through ports such as Dover that might be used on the streets of London or further afield as part of an organised gang’s dealing in drugs. Clearly, in the course of investigating and prosecuting such crimes, a number of pieces of information would come to light about the ways in which serious organised gangs operate in the UK. It would be interesting to know whether the Minister, under the schedule, intends that the NCA would only talk about the gun crime in that situation, or whether there would be a point at which officers in the NCA would liaise with officers and police forces about more minor crimes that might be associated with the Serious Organised Crime Act 2005, or with other individuals who might be involved and would be implicated in the course of their investigation, but were not the primary target of the investigation.

We are trying to test issues about how the NCA will operate in practice, in particular—the elephant in the room, of course—how those day to day operations will be impacted by the election of police and crime commissioners. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East pointed out on Tuesday, there is no mention of police and crime commissioners in the Bill. It seems rather strange to Opposition Members, simply because we heard the Prime Minister call it a big and important Government reform for policing. A Home Office Minister stated:

“From 15 November onwards, any development in crime prevention, policing and criminal justice will need to engage PCCs and they will be key in its implementation.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 November 2012; Vol. 740, c. 689.]

We know that police and crime commissioners now have a statutory duty to secure the maintenance of the police force for their area, yet despite that, the Bill gives the director general wide powers to require a police force to perform a task of unspecified magnitude, scope or significance without regard to the police or crime commissioner or indeed vice versa. We could get to a situation where a police and crime commissioner would not know if a request for resources had been made or was affordable or, vice versa, that a chief officer, rather than dealing with an issue in their own patch, could ask for the NCA to intervene without involving the police and crime commissioner in discussing that request and whether it was appropriate.

When that argument was made in the other place, the Government rejected it, saying that notifying police and crime commissioners might interrupt a time-critical operation and might amount to political interference. Indeed, they even argued that talking to police and crime commissioners about requests for resources would be entirely discretionary. They gave the example that if a kidnapping were to take place in a jurisdiction, the police and crime commissioner might have their phone switched off and therefore working with them on such a major issue in their local area was immaterial to whether the investigation should take place. I find it surprising that the Government think it would be political interference rather than simply a good working relationship to ensure that all those responsible for the operations of the police are involved in discussions on major issues such as that.

We have talked about the fabled framework document. Again, it makes no mention of police and crime commissioners, nor does it set out how day to day operational relationships will work, yet as the Minister said earlier, that is exactly what the framework document is supposed to do. He said that the framework document should be informed by the debates that we have in Committee. I am mindful that the amendments clearly speak to a debate that the Home Office itself must have been having. Otherwise, why did it issue a taskforce fact sheet about the Bill and the very way the tasking power of tasking would operate, which states:

“If the Director General issues a direction to the Chief Constable of a police force in England and Wales to perform a task or to provide assistance, the Director General will then notify both the Home Secretary and the relevant Police and Crime Commissioner. This obligation will be set out in the NCA Framework Document. This ensures that the Police and Crime Commissioner can properly hold their Chief Constable to account for cooperating effectively with the NCA as set out in the Strategic Policing Requirement. It also ensures that the Home Secretary can hold the Director General to account for issuing a direction.”?

In tabling the amendments, the Opposition are trying to help the Home Office and Ministers clarify their own intentions, because it seems that they are rather confused about the relationship they see the police and crime commissioners having under the powers. It would be helpful if the Minister would set out which is correct. Is it the fact sheet the Home Office has put out about the Bill and how it sees it operating, or the framework document, and perhaps his comments on Tuesday about whether it was worth involving police and crime commissioners in the day to day operations of the National Crime Agency?

We see the amendments as simply tidying up and making good on the aspirations of the fact sheet and some of those within the Home Office about the way police and crime commissioners will be involved in the day to day operations of the National Crime Agency and how police forces will co-operate with them.

Andy McDonald (Labour, Middlesbrough)

We have had police and crime commissioners since 15 November, yet on the face of the Bill, they seem to have been expunged altogether. I am greatly fearful that if these provisions go through without amendment, there is a real danger that police and crime commissioners will be out of the loop in some key issues, which will undermine their position. They will have strategic responsibility for the delivery of policing in their area, but that role will be eroded before it has even started if they are not included, as my hon. Friend describes. Does she agree that we have an agenda to establish PCCs, but it is undermined by the provisions as they currently stand?

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. I am mindful that the fact sheet was clearly produced prior to the police and crime commissioner elections, when the Government were keen on police and crime commissioners. There was certainly recognition that they needed to be able to work with the various mechanisms of policing, but it seems to have been watered down somewhat in recent months. Our debate on Tuesday may have reflected that. I would be interested if the Minister could clarify whether the officials who produced the fact sheet on how they see the police and crime commissioners interacting with the National Crime Agency—particularly around the power of tasking—are correct, or whether, as his comments on Tuesday would lead us to believe, police and crime commissioners will simply be left to pick up the bill without knowing what they are paying for and why.

The amendments are very clearly about notifying. They are not necessarily about police and crime commissioners being able to challenge any decision or any request for tasking. We recognise that power within the Bill. However, it is about how people work together on the ground, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

There is only one issue that seems to obsess Opposition Members more than the outline framework document, and that is police and crime commissioners. I have been a Home Office Minister for only four months, but with every single piece of legislation that comes forward—whether or not it has anything to do with police and crime commissioners—it seems to be the main preoccupation of Labour Members to talk about PCCs. Yet they are in place, they are part of the policing landscape, elections have taken place, and we move on to considering the measures in the National Crime Agency under the Bill. Of course police and crime commissioners are significant people, but Labour seems to have a sort of hang -p about them, which I do not fully understand.

Let me explain how we see the arrangements working, because it is not unreasonable for amendments 28 and 29 to probe how the interaction will take place. The hon. Member for Walthamstow has drawn attention both to the tasking arrangements between the NCA and UK police forces and other law enforcement bodies, and to the NCA’s relationship with police and crime commissioners. The amendments would put a statutory duty on the director general of the NCA to notify the relevant police and crime commissioner prior to tasking the chief constable under the provisions for voluntary tasking. Those are voluntary arrangements between the NCA and an individual police force or group of police forces, working together to keep people in this country safe. That duty will also apply to a chief constable where he or she has tasked the director general under those provisions, so tasking is a two-way street. It is how police forces and the NCA can work together for their mutual benefit and in the interests of the wider public.

Similar amendments were put forward in the other place, and for two reasons I remain to be convinced of the need to add such a provision to the Bill. First, voluntary tasking between the National Crime Agency and partners will take place on a routine, day to day basis. These are not one-off events; we want seamless interaction between police forces and groups of police forces and the NCA to protect the public, based on shared priorities and mutual co-operation. I see no need for police and crime commissioners to be routinely notified, any more than they would necessarily be routinely notified when one police force works with another. If we have an issue in Somerset, with crime taking place on the border between Somerset and Devon, there may be all kinds of minor operational acts of co-operation between Avon and Somerset police and Devon and Cornwall police. We would not expect the two PCCs for those police forces necessarily to be notified every time there was a minor piece of collaboration, nor would we expect such notification before the collaboration took place. We envisage the same methods applying to the NCA’s interaction with police forces, and we fear that the proposals in the amendments would be an unnecessary and burdensome step.

The tasking provisions build on the mutual assistance provisions provided under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, which did not contain a requirement for the chief constable to notify the police authorities—the predecessors of the police and crime commissioners—in the event of co-operative arrangements between the SOCA and police forces. That may have been a good point. We looked carefully at the precedent and we think the previous Government’s judgment on that matter was wise; indeed, it was wiser than the judgment that informed the amendments.

Imposing that duty could, at best, introduce new barriers to co-operative working between police forces and law enforcement partners, and, at worst, disrupt a time-critical operation. Let me give the Committee an example of what we fear will happen if the amendments are accepted. The chief constable may need to task the director general of the NCA to provide urgent support on a live kidnapping case, or to provide specific intelligence to aid the stop or arrest of a potentially dangerous individual. I ask the Committee to consider whether it is a good idea that in those circumstances, no collaborative action can take place—the NCA cannot assist the police force that serves our constituents—until the police and crime commissioner is found. They may be on holiday or, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow said, they may have turned their mobile phone off and be hard to contact. Is it a good idea to have a blanket mandatory notification requirement under such circumstances, any more than it would be for two police forces working together? I gave the examples of Avon and Somerset and Devon and Cornwall.

My second reason for rejecting the amendments is that the proposal could involve a police and crime commissioner in the operational decision making of a chief constable. Let me emphasise that tasking is undoubtedly an operational matter. The provisions for two-way tasking enable the National Crime Agency and partners to draw on one another’s support for operational activities—not just strategic decision making, but day-to-day operational activities—in the fight against serious and organised crime. Those arrangements provide the opportunity for chief constables to draw on the NCA’s specialist services—for example, intelligence, overseas information and intelligence, and cyber assets—and enable the director general of the NCA to draw on partner assets.

Indeed, as I recall, the Opposition also made clear the importance of protecting the operational independence of the chief constable during the Commons Committee debates on the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill in 2011. On 25 January 2011—two years ago tomorrow—the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) said:

“The issue of operational independence and the ability of the chief constable to be operationally responsible, without interference from a politician directly elected on a mandate, is of fundamental importance to all of us”.––[Official Report, Police Reform and Social Responsibility Public Bill Committee, 25 January 2011; c. 205.]

We took the hon. Gentleman’s words to heart. We think it is right that the director general of the NCA and the chief constable are able to carry their operational duties without interference from a politically elected person, as the hon. Gentleman feared and the amendments envisage.

We agree with the hon. Member for Gedling and the people who drafted the Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act 2005; we agree with the independence of the police and the seamless operational interactivity between police forces and the NCA. On that basis, I invite the Committee to reject the amendments.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

I was surprised and interested to hear the Minister talking in such a way about the role of police and crime commissioners. He will be aware of his colleague’s words on the role of police and crime commissioners: they are meant to be key in the implementation of any policing work in a local area. His comments about the concept of co-operation and how that would be ruined by talking to each other speaks volumes about the current mood in the coalition.

The amendments are designed to put on the record the importance of good working relationships—simply notifying and ensuring that people are interacting with each other. The 2005 Act that set up SOCA was passed prior to the introduction of police and crime commissioners—a major reform, as the Government were wont to call it last year. How things have changed, because today we hear the Minister talking as though police and crime commissioners are completely incidental to any decisions about the way in which resources are used in any police force.

I am sure that many police and crime commissioners who have heard the Minister’s words today will be worried by the way in which he talks of excluding them not only from strategic discussions at a national level in relation to the role of the NCA, but in local discussions about what is happening on their patch. The amendments are simply about what is happening on their patch.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

Directed tasking is a different order, which is why the framework document contains a requirement on the director general to notify the Home Secretary and the relevant police and crime commissioner as soon as is feasible, if the issue is a direction to the chief constable of a police force to perform a task or to provide assistance. Although the hon. Lady says that PCCs are not mentioned in the Bill, it does refer to “local policing bodies”, which is the term that covers PCCs as well as the Mayor of London and the City of London police authority, which does not involve PCCs in quite the same way. Those local policing bodies must be consulted on the strategic priorities and the annual plan, so a role is envisaged for PCCs. We are not overlooking them, but we do not think it is necessary for them to be involved on a minute, minute-by-minute operational basis in the decisions made by the NCA and police forces.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

I thank the Minister for his comments. Our debate about when the powers will be used will be a better time to test the question about the minutiae of operational decisions and when the NCA will be involved in working with local police forces.

Our amendments are intended to try to get the Minister to say more clearly that police and crime commissioners are a key part of the way in which policing is going to operate on the ground, which would include them negotiating with the NCA and being involved in discussions about what is being done in any commissioner’s patch. I have no wish to test the opinion of the Committee, but we simply note how quickly the Government’s attitude towards police and crime commissioners has gone from red hot—saying, “This is the future of policing”—to lukewarm, saying, “They are there; we might as well let them know when things are happening.” I hope that their attitude does not become glacial, because otherwise, as many Opposition Members feared, we will find that this is a costly and expensive piece of bureaucracy that adds little to the future of policing in this country. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 4, page 4, line 28, after ‘may’, insert ‘in exceptional circumstances’.

The amendment is about the nature of the powers. It is designed to get the Minister to set out more clearly when he thinks the powers will be used. We have just had an interesting discussion in which the Minister talked about the minutiae of policing operations in which the NCA might be involved and which requests for resources might be made.

When the matter was discussed in the other place, the Government spokesman talked about the powers being used only in exceptional circumstances. The amendment would simply make that clear in the Bill so that we do not get what I referred to in our previous debate as mission creep, through which resources are routinely required from police forces across the country for NCA activities, given the consequential impact that that might have on local policing priorities and local policing action. Has the Minister set out more clearly for the director general—indeed, does he intend to in our final framework document—the circumstances in which the powers can be requested, when a decision can be made that a voluntary arrangement cannot be reached, and therefore when the formal power to task will be used?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

The hon. Lady draws attention to the directed tasking arrangements in clause 4. For the avoidance of doubt for any hon. Members who have not considered this matter as fully as I have, there are two types of tasking: voluntary tasking, which is when the police force is asked to undertake a task on behalf of the NCA; and directed tasking, which is when the police force is required by the NCA to undertake a task. Obviously that is a stronger power, and the Committee will rightly wish to consider it.

The amendment would place a duty on the director general of the National Crime Agency to issue a direction to a chief constable only in “exceptional circumstances”. The amendment rightfully concerns itself with circumstances in which the significant power of directed tasking would be used. I emphasise that, in almost all cases, tasking will be voluntary. We want mutual arrangements that are based on strong relationships and co-operation that exploit intelligence and build on existing arrangements. Far from that being a coercive arrangement, I suspect that the voluntary nature of the activity will be welcomed by both sides on a daily basis. It is essential, however, that the director general has the authority to co-ordinate a UK-wide response in the very limited situations when voluntary tasking arrangements cannot be agreed and when they consider it expedient for action to be taken by a police force in the wider national interest of trying to reduce and combat serious and organised crime.

I welcomed the comments that were made by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), a former Home Secretary, on Second Reading. He said:

“it is inevitable that the Bill should give powers of tasking to the new director general…Without that ultimate power, there will be an imbalance in the priorities that territorial forces can set.”—[Official Report, 14 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 658.]

While I do not believe that an imbalance between local and UK-wide priorities for police forces is inevitable, directed arrangements provide a necessary backstop in the event that action needs to be taken.

I invite the Committee to envisage an operation stretching across five or six police forces in a region in which it is essential that all the forces work together with the NCA to make it a success. While it is hard to envisage this happening in practice, if one of the forces was unco-operative and a vital component was missing from the operation as a result, one can see why it would be in the wider interests of the public in that region—and, indeed, the country—for that force to be required by the NCA to play its part in that operation.

Having robust safeguards to prevent the misuse of directed tasking powers is, of course, essential. There are, however, already robust safeguards in the Bill on directed tasking. For the director general to use the directed tasking powers, he must meet a threefold test: that the performance of the task would assist the National Crime Agency to exercise its functions; that it is expedient for the chief constable to be directed to perform that task; and that satisfactory voluntary arrangements cannot be made or cannot be made in time. In other words, that is a power that the director general should use only if it is necessary for that police force to perform the task and it is not possible to have a voluntary arrangement.

Gavin Barwell (Conservative, Croydon Central)

My hon. Friend has had some gentle fun at the shadow Minister’s expense by citing previous precedent. Will he tell us the position for the existing bodies that the agency will replace? Do they have this power of direction?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I shall answer that extremely good point once I have finished this passage of my response to the hon. Lady, because I would not want to break off halfway through explaining, for the benefit of her and other members of the Committee, why the test for exercising these important powers that the director general needs to meet is onerous, given that the way in which the power could apply to their individual police forces could concern members of the Committee.

I was saying that the director general will, of course, have to demonstrate that the threefold test is met, but a further safeguard is outlined in schedule 1: the director general must personally exercise the power, and may only delegate it in his absence to a senior NCA officer who would be nominated for that purpose. That is an important point, because I know that Members sometimes raise concerns about who will exercise such powers, because even if that is done in the name of the most important officer or official in an organisation, is it done in practice by that person? In this case, the power will be exercised at that highest level, and it may only be delegated in the director general’s absence to a very senior NCA officer.

To respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central, SOCA does not currently have the power to task other agencies, so this will be a new power. That gets to the nub of why the NCA is a wider-reaching organisation than SOCA, because it has the ability—the valuable ability, as the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn, recognised—to take a broad, overarching approach to the threat of national, and in some cases international, serious and organised crime. That is a bit of a departure, and although we recognise that in the vast majority of cases the tasking will be voluntary, we have put in place safeguards to ensure that in the rare cases when it is directed, it is done appropriately.

I am not persuaded that the amendment is necessary in the light of the existing stringent test for which the Bill already provides. On that basis, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

I thank the Minister for his comments. I am surprised, and perhaps saddened, that he does not agree with his colleagues in the other place about the importance of saying that these powers will be used only in exceptional circumstances. We are all aware of people in our lives who believe that they are directing us to undertake a course of action voluntarily—my mother is particularly fond of that mode of operation.

It is important to set out, first and foremost, that the director general should be seeking consensus with police forces—and, dare I say it, with police and crime commissioners—on the importance and priority attached to certain operations to deal with serious organised crime. It is also important to set out the expectation that such a tasking power will be used only in exceptional circumstances. The Minister could not quite address the question of exceptionality and the circumstances in which he believes this backstop power would be used. Indeed, the fact that he simply calls it a backstop power is a little concerning.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

How does the hon. Lady define exceptional circumstances?

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

The Minister is slightly not listening to the question. He said that the Bill was clear enough about when these powers will be used, and the amendment would set out that that would be only in exceptional circumstances—on the rare occasions when voluntary co-ordination could not be reached. For example, how that voluntary co-operation is negotiated might be one test that the Government could set.

I am also influenced by the words of the Minister’s colleague in the other place, who said that exceptional circumstances are an important principle. Through my amendment, I was simply inviting the Minister to reify that, but he has chosen not to. I do not particularly want to test the Committee’s will on the amendment, but I am sure that all those involved in policing will note that he said that he believes that the power is simply a backstop without setting out where the back is and where the front is. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

I beg to move amendment 31, in clause 4, page 4, line 34, at end insert—

‘(7A) The Government will report annually to Parliament on the number of times a direction has been issued and to whom.’.

There is a recurring theme here, as I am trying to test the Government and the Home Office on how the day-to-day operational capacity of the National Crime Agency will be used and what that will mean for police forces and all those concerned with the management of public resources.

Amendment 31 would test how the directed powers are used. We have just debated exceptional circumstances, but the Minister did not want to set out what he feels an exceptional circumstance would be. Perhaps by reporting through Parliament, as the amendment would require the Government to do, we could get clarity on that exceptionality and how police forces use these powers. The amendment would address the way in which not only the National Crime Agency act, but local police forces, in terms of the number of times directions are sought and acted on. It would require the National Crime Agency to report such occasions to Parliament annually so that we could see how the power had been used.

The hon. Member for Croydon Central was rather surprised to learn that this power of direction was new and had not previously been available to the Serious Organised Crime Agency. Many of us recognise the importance of being able to offer that strategic lead. The amendment puts forward an important principle of accountability and transparency on how that power would be used.

I am sure that we will debate subsequently the merits of annual reports and what information they contain. The Minister will understand my scepticism because although this is a new power that needs scrutinising, we cannot guarantee that it will be in the annual report that the NCA is required to produce. It is important to set out now that such information will be available for public scrutiny, and the amendment is designed to do exactly that. If the Minister gave the commitment that the annual report would always include clarity on when direction was given and by whom, and which forces were tasked, that would be helpful.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

As the hon. Lady explained, amendment 31 would place a statutory duty on the Government to report annually to Parliament on the use of the directed tasking powers in the Bill. I agree with her that it is vital that the director general is properly held to account for the National Crime Agency’s tasking and co-ordination functions and will be held to account by the Home Secretary, who is in turn accountable to Parliament. Indeed, I would expect the director general to report on the NCA’s co-ordination and tasking remit in his annual report, which will be laid before Parliament.

However, I remain unconvinced that it is necessary, or indeed appropriate, to place a statutory duty on the Government to report annually on the number of times and to whom a direction has been issued. First, robust legal safeguards are already in place around directed tasking to prevent misuse, which I already outlined in response to the previous amendment.

In addition to the safeguards, the director general will, under the terms of the framework document, be required to notify the relevant police and crime commissioner and the Home Secretary as soon as is feasible if he or she issues a direction to a police force to perform a task or to provide assistance, so that information will be available to the people who provide the strategic direction of those forces. That will enable the police and crime commissioner and the Home Secretary to hold the chief constable and director general to account for the issuing of the direction.

Secondly, reporting on the number of times a directed power has been issued and to whom, without the context and detail of the specific circumstances surrounding the direction, could be misleading. For example, when issuing a direction, the director general will have taken several factors into account, some of which would relate to specific operational details around the capacity and capability of individual agencies. That type of information will be operationally sensitive and, as such, should not be made public. Without the context of why a direction was issued, however, the information could be open to misinterpretation.

Andy McDonald (Labour, Middlesbrough)

Can the Minister describe any mechanism that would guarantee that Parliament received a report simply on the number of times the powers were exercised, without interfering with operational sensitivities? For the reasons that he set out, I do not think that anybody is suggesting for one moment that such a level of detail be made available.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

No, I am not able to provide that guarantee for the reason I just explained, which is that the numbers without context may be misleading. If extra context is provided, that may be operationally sensitive. The fact that tasking is being done on a more routine, or more frequent, basis is illustrative of the priorities of the National Crime Agency or could be deemed to be such, so there are sensitivities.

I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members would be reassured by the point that I made a moment ago, because of their concerns about whether police and crime commissioners are playing a role. I said that the director general will be required to notify the relevant police and crime commissioner and the Home Secretary if he or she issues a direction to a police force to perform a task or to provide assistance.

The information will be known by the directly elected police and crime commissioner. He or she may or may not choose to share that information; that would probably depend on its nature. The Home Secretary is answerable to Parliament, and she will be able to justify the actions that have been taken by bodies for which she is responsible to Parliament and the directly elected Members who constitute Parliament.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

I am afraid that the Minister has opened a Pandora’s box in his discussion of what I thought would be a relatively straightforward question about how we would be able to monitor how the new power is used.

A number of questions spring to mind. First and foremost, the Minister mentioned that police and crime commissioners will be notified when direct tasking is used. Will that information be subject to freedom of information requests, given that he also said that it would not be possible to set out that information at a parliamentary level or through the NCA annual report because that might compromise operational powers?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

Let me check the details of FOI-ability—if that is a word. I will shed a bit more light on this. The type of operations that we are talking about may well be those where the NCA is working on trying to gather intelligence and apprehend a violent, dangerous, serious crime group who are, for example, intent on committing a series of armed robberies that are a major threat to the public. They are doing that, working with police forces in the relevant areas where it is thought that those crimes are likely to be committed and in other areas where the guns that will be used for these armed robberies are being smuggled—or bought and sold—by organised criminal gangs.

In some circumstances, it may be that directed tasking is required to make sure that there is no missing link in that operation, although we would envisage that, by and large, the arrangements would be voluntary because it would be in the interests of all of the police forces—those where the guns are being smuggled or bought and sold and those where they may actually be used for armed robbery—to be working seamlessly with the National Crime Agency. I doubt whether we then want to make available more detail than is necessary—indeed, to the gangs themselves.

At the moment, while there are all kinds of covert operations going on to try to keep the public safe, we have a debate going on in the Chamber about whether the voting age should be 16. Details of those operations are not routinely reported to Parliament because successive Governments have recognised that the nature of some of this material may not be appropriate for the public arena.

I do not think that the hon. Lady is on to as much as she seems to think she is when she says that there is some great act of concealment going on here. We already said that it would be rare to have directed tasking, but, as the right hon. Member for Blackburn made clear, in some circumstances it may be necessary. That power will be used sparingly and, when that power is used, the police and crime commissioner and the Home Secretary will be notified. That is the right way to proceed.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

Again, the Minister does not seem to be quite consistent. Earlier, he talked about tasking happening on a routine basis, but now he says that it may happen on a rare basis. Let us get to the heart of this: will local taxpayers, who pay the police precept, be able to know whether the cost of the resources that they have to pay for have been commissioned by the director general in the National Crime Agency—yes or no? Will they be able to FOI that information? Will, at least, the police and crime panels be told whether resources have been required for that purpose?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I am sorry; perhaps I was not clear enough. I would imagine that voluntary tasking will happen on a routine basis. In the same way as in the example I gave earlier, I would imagine that Devon and Cornwall police and Avon and Somerset police would, as a matter of routine, co-operate on crime that happens on the border of Somerset and Devon.

Voluntary give and take and reciprocal arrangements will be put in place on a case-by-case basis, depending on a particular operation. On NCA tracking, I gave an example on Tuesday of guns coming from the United States via the Netherlands into Kent through Dover and then being transported up the motorways into Greater Manchester. Those illegally smuggled guns would obviously have gone through the areas of several police forces.

The optimum point at which we would use our intelligence to apprehend the smugglers before the guns could be used by criminal gangs might not be in Kent or Greater Manchester, but at some point in between—or in collaboration with the Dutch police, when the guns were in transit through the Netherlands. All sorts of voluntary arrangements would be made, so it would be in the interests of those who were paying the police precept in both Greater Manchester and Kent to have greater capacity provided for their police forces so that the public could be kept safer in their areas.

Separately, and much more limited, is directed tasking. The example that I gave earlier was that of half a dozen forces in a region. If one of those forces, for whatever reason, were not co-operative, as a result of which there was a missing piece in the jigsaw in that region, that force might in particular circumstances be directed by the director general of the NCA.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

Will the Minister give way?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I have not finished responding to the previous query yet.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

It is a simple question.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

It was a simple question in the sense of being a question informed by simple knowledge.

The director general of the NCA, because he had used the power of directed tasking, would inform the police and crime commissioner and the Home Secretary. I am not sure that other members of the Committee are as troubled as the hon. Lady, but I might be wrong

Gavin Barwell (Conservative, Croydon Central)

The Minister has spelt out some compelling reasons why, in terms of some operational details, we might not want to make available all the information that the amendment suggests. Will my hon. Friend reflect on one point? In his example, he spoke about the possibility of one particular police force not being co-operative, for whatever reason. As a London MP, I would be interested if the Metropolitan police were regularly not co-operating with the new agency. He set out good reasons for not accepting the amendment, but he might want to reflect on the public interest if there were not a good relationship between a particular force and the agency.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

My hon. Friend makes an entirely valid point, although we are on quite hypothetical territory. I cannot really understand why a police force would not wish to have the extra capacity and expertise that the NCA will provide. He has perhaps cited the least good example, as he represents in his constituency the police force with the greatest capacity in the United Kingdom.

Smaller, rural police forces have limited capacity to fight serious and organised crime because, luckily for them, there is little organised crime in their force areas. They have fairly modest budgets and fairly limited expertise. They will work with the NCA, perhaps on a wider project when part of a crime gang is touching on their force area. In such cases, they will have their capacity greatly enhanced to the benefit of local people who pay their precept towards the police. Although notionally, in accountancy terms, free, people will also be paying for the NCA through their taxes at the same time and will be beneficiaries from it.

On the freedom of information point, it is proposed that the NCA be exempt in respect of freedom of information provisions. As for information held by PCCs, my understanding is that there might be circumstances in which freedom of information would apply, but because there are exemptions under the FOI Act, police and crime commissioners could appeal under the exemption provisions under the Act if they were being required to publish information that was operationally sensitive in the detection of serious and organised crime.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

The Minister raises further issues. First, can he clarify why he considers that voluntary tasking arrangements will not involve sensitive information, but that directed tasking information might?

If people are being asked to collaborate, especially with the work that the NCA will be doing, operational sensitive material may well be part of the process—so releasing information about what has been done with resources will be sensitive, whether it is a voluntary or a directed task. The Minister needs to reflect on that. The question about FOIs and transparency is not a minor issue; it is about a new power and a new way in which the police will work. If he cannot answer the question on freedom of information—and it is quite clear that he cannot, because he has not looked at how this will work with police and crime commissioners—can he answer whether or not police and crime commissioner panels could request this information, so that they knew?

Are we simply going to see police and crime commissioners having to justify increases in their council tax precept in order to pay for operations when they cannot explain to the public what they are paying for?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

The hon. Lady keeps saying that she is on to something, but because she says it with great fervour does not mean it is true; what she means is that she is getting more and more excitable about not being on to something.

I accept that voluntary arrangements will deal with serious and organised crime, and directed arrangements will deal with serious and organised crime. That is because the nature of the NCA is to deal with serious and organised crime. The hon. Lady’s amendment says:

“The Government will report annually to Parliament on the number of times a direction has been issued and to whom”.

It does not talk about the voluntary aspects. I am doing the hon. Lady the credit of dealing with her point about direction and I say that PCCs and the Home Secretary will be notified if a directed act of tasking takes place; and that the NCA is exempt from freedom of information, assuming the Bill goes through as envisaged by the Government.

As for the arrangements of PCCs, that is covered elsewhere and is not the responsibility of this Bill. However, to try to be helpful and go beyond my remit—because I want to be a co-operative Minister—I could envisage the circumstances where the PCC may apply successfully for an exemption from freedom of information if the FOI request was about an extremely sensitive operation in collaboration with other bodies to try and tackle serious and organised crime in their area.

I fear that I cannot do more to be helpful, however much I try. While I accept the need for cross-checks and balances around the use of directed assistance and tasking powers and the need for transparency, we must take into account the need to protect sensitive operational information. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady will agree to withdraw her amendment.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

It is a pleasure to have you here this afternoon, Mr Caton. I am sure that you have missed some extraordinary, well-informed debates in some parts of the building, but unfortunately here we were trying to find out quite what the Government’s intentions are for the directed powers of the new director general of the National Crime Agency, and, in particular, his new power of tasking. The amendment was tabled to try to make sure Parliament can access the information it requires to scrutinise properly how that new power is used.

It is always with a sense of irony that I watch coalition Government Members, who perhaps in a previous party lifetime were strong defenders of freedom of information, being so cavalier about how those laws are applied. Before I withdraw the amendment, I ask the Minister to clarify to the Committee where information, were it to be shared with police and crime commissioners, would be made public. He raised some serious concerns about tasking and what information would be required to understand the number of times the power would be used.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I took the opportunity during our luncheon interval to look further into the points the hon. Lady raised as part of my ongoing attempts to assist the Committee. I can inform the Committee that the National Crime Agency, like the Serious Organised Crime Agency, will not be subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Like SOCA, it will be designated under section 23 of the Freedom of Information Act, “Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters”. As a result, information supplied to anybody by the NCA will be exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. I hope that helps.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

I thank the Minister for that clarification. Essentially, he is saying that we will not know how many times the directed power has been used, or to what purpose. Police and crime panels and commissioners who may be asked to pay for the consequences of the directed power being used will have little understanding of what impact it has had. That is concerning. I urge the Minister to reflect on how such information might be able to be released.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

The hon. Lady could just as well argue that they will have less understanding than she would like of the benefits that they derive from NCA assistance, which may indeed be directed. It may well have a tangible benefit, not just for people within their police force area, but for the wider national interest, which the Committee must also have regard to.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

The Minister makes a very good point for disclosure, although I am not sure that was his intention. Let me give an example, which I know Government Members will recognise, of where this might be apposite. During the London riots, there was confusion and concern about resources being requested from forces outside London for public order in the capital as and when events then unfolded in those cities themselves. Clearly, questions would be asked about the direction, were it dealt with under the new arrangements, about how the resources were applied and what the consequences were for local cities, people and police forces.

I do not intend to press the amendment, but I ask the Minister to reflect more widely on how to make sure this new power is properly scrutinised to ensure that the public can be confident that there is no mission creep in its use, and the costs and the consequences to the public purse, at local and national level, are well understood. That was the intention of the amendment. I am sorry that the Minister does not quite see the importance of being clear about the new directed power and how it will impact on police resources. I will just say that if he thinks that has made me excited, he has got some things to come later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 4, page 4, line 38, leave out subsection (9).

Martin Caton (Labour, Gower)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 17, in schedule 3, page 56, line 8, leave out sub-paragraph (3).

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

Again, we tabled the amendment to try better to understand the day-to-day operational arrangements behind the Bill and what they will mean for the range of police forces in this country. Will the Minister, in responding to the amendment, set out more clearly why the Government have singled out the British Transport police for such special treatment. In the other place, the Minister responding to similar concerns set out that because the British Transport police operated over a wider jurisdiction, it was appropriate for the Transport Secretary to be consulted were this directive power to be used. There is an entirely justified case for that. But it does not make sense to Opposition Members that only the British Transport police would receive this courtesy. A number of UK special police forces could be considered to be in the same vein. It would be helpful if the Minister could set out why he has not applied the same protocol to dealing with the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, or, indeed, the Ministry of Defence police. With 750 police officers, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary is perhaps small compared with some of the other forces we are dealing with. Yet there is no power in the Bill for the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to be consulted, were a directed task to be enacted. It is the same with the Ministry of Defence—we are talking about a force much larger than the British Transport police. There is no requirement in the Bill for the Ministry of Defence to be consulted in the same way that there is for the Department for Transport.

I fully admit that I am a fan of both transport and defence issues and therefore I am perplexed as to why one receives such special treatment and the other does not. These amendments remove that distinction and make it very plain that all forces should be treated equally—we on this side being big fans of equality. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on this matter.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Caton, and to have an opportunity to reply to an amendment brought before the Committee by a fan of transport issues. I will do my best to ensure that the hon. Lady’s enthusiasm for these issues is sated by the comprehensiveness of my response. There are two amendments grouped together on slightly different issues. The hon. Lady spoke to amendment 30, and I believe the lead name for amendment 17 is that of the right hon. Member for Delyn. I will speak to them both.

Amendments 30 and 17 concern the consent requirements around directed tasking and directed assistance respectively. As has just been said, amendment 30 seeks to remove the requirement that the Transport Secretary gives his consent before the director general can direct the British Transport police to perform a task. Amendment 17 similarly seeks to remove the requirement for the Secretary of State, Treasury or Attorney General, as appropriate, to give their consent before the director general can direct assistance from the police and UK law enforcement agencies.

In making the case for amendment 30, the hon. Member has questioned why the consent of the Transport Secretary is required before the director general can direct the Chief Constable of the British Transport police to perform a task, but there is no similar requirement for the Home Secretary to consent to a similar direction given to the chief constable of a Home Office police force. This difference of treatment simply reflects the differences between the British Transport police and Home Office forces of the type that we represent in geographic terms as Members of Parliament. The British Transport police authority is constituted under quite separate legislation as compared with Home Office forces, with its own specialist remit and its own accountability mechanisms through the British Transport police authority to the Secretary of State for Transport, who is the relevant Secretary of State in terms of that police force but not of others.

Moreover, the funding mechanisms are quite distinct. The British Transport police are primarily funded by the Association of Train Operating Companies. Home Office forces have no such relationship with industry. Given these unique facets, we consider it appropriate that the Transport Secretary should consent to any direction by the director general requiring the BTP Chief Constable to perform a task.

In responding to amendment 17 in the same group, it is important to bear in mind the critical distinction between tasking and assistance. Tasking arrangements between the NCA and UK law enforcement bodies is an operational matter, where command and control of an operation is transferred to the organisation being tasked. We dwelt on that in our previous deliberations. Assistance primarily concerns the transfer of resources, with officers or assets from one agency being loaned to operate under the temporary direction and control of another agency. Because assistance involves such a transfer of resources from the command and control of one organisation to another, it is appropriate that there should be an additional check on the director general's power to direct another law enforcement agency to provide such assistance. That additional check is in the form of a requirement to secure ministerial consent.

There are long-standing precedents in place for ministerial oversight of powers which require the transfer of resources, even temporarily, from one body to another. For example, the Police Act 1996 gives the Secretary of State the power to direct forces to provide assistance to each other in specific circumstances. The hon. Lady, when speaking to the other amendment, gave an example of the type of circumstances where she envisaged such assistance might be provided. In addition, the directed assistance powers under section 24 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 are also vested in the Secretary of State.

I hope that I have been able to persuade Opposition Members of the case for the provisions and that, as a result, they will feel that it is appropriate to withdraw the amendment.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

Perhaps I was not clear enough in the examples I gave about the other police forces to which the provisions might also apply. Will the Minister say a little bit more about why the civil nuclear constabulary and the Ministry of Defence police will not be given the same dispensations? The civil nuclear constabulary reports to the Department of Energy and Climate Change, and the MOD police to the Ministry of Justice. It would be helpful to understand why they have not been given the same level of protocol. The case that the Minister makes—perfectly reasonably—about how the law operates with respect to the British Transport police surely applies to the others. Will he clarify that point?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

The hon. Lady makes a reasonable point. The clarification is this: the other special police forces will not be subject to directed tasking, so there is no need for a consent requirement.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

I thank the Minister for that clarification. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Schedule 3 - Relationships between NCA and other agencies

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

I beg to move amendment 19, in schedule 3, page 61, line 15, leave out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert ‘Advisory panel on payments’.

Martin Caton (Labour, Gower)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 18, in schedule 3, page 61, line 16, leave out sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4).

Amendment 20, in schedule 3, page 61, line 33, at end insert—

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

You will be hearing a lot from me this afternoon, Mr Caton.

This group of amendments speaks to a debate that we had earlier. Having listened to this morning’s debate, the importance of testing such questions has become even more paramount. It is ironical that it is the Opposition who are trying to make sense of the impact of police and crime commissioners on the new police system in the UK, rather than the Government bringing clarity—[Interruption.] It is suggested that we are obsessed. We merely think that if we have shelled out all this money for this system of governance, it is at least worth making sure that we get good value for money. I know that value for money does not necessarily come forward in some of the discussions about budgets—I digress.

The amendments are about precisely the question that we were talking about earlier today: what happens if a directed request is made, the power is used, resources are used and therefore cost is incurred? How will the question of who is charged for costs be resolved? It is entirely fair to ask, “Who will pay for what?”; I am sure that even the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate would agree. After all, we all know that everybody has to pay at some point. I am sad to see the consequences of having to pay for the increased borrowing that this Government have made on my community in Walthamstow.

I wish to focus particularly on how scrutiny of public funds occurs. I was concerned when the Minister had a bit of a tantrum on Tuesday as a result having to do some maths about financial management. I will welcome watching the Home Office in front of the Public Accounts Committee if its argument is simply, “We are under budget. What’s the problem?” Good public financial management is about accounting for costs where they have occurred.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

As I was saying before I was so inclemently interrupted by an important vote on something that I hope has gone through the House, the amendments are about good financial management and ensuring that there are no delays in financial management. Many of us are concerned that there could be delays when different Departments and different organisations with different budgets are asked to cross-charge each other. The amendments would allow for the provision of a body to resolve such concerns. An advisory panel would look at any complaints or considerations around payments and the cost of the directed tasking and make a judgment. It would display the wisdom of Solomon for the police forces to resolve such matters.

The Bill already makes provision under schedule 5 for the appointment of advisory panels

“at any other time when the Secretary of State considers that it is appropriate to do so.”

The panels were set up to advise on training, but I think it is an entirely appropriate parallel to draw on financial management. It is clear that the Secretary of State could have a potential conflict of interest in resolving matters, but I know that the Minister would prefer that. The Secretary of State is responsible for the budget for police forces as well as the budget for the National Crime Agency. To ask one to disburse the other when there might be disagreements about who is responsible for costing could lead to confusion and stasis in decision making, which could lead to problems with budgetary processes.

The panel would remove such problems. It would also ensure that there was confidence on both sides of the negotiation about how public money was being managed. It would ensure that police forces and the National Crime Agency could be confident that the resolution would be in the best interests of the British taxpaying public.

It was suggested in the Lords that the framework document would offer clarity on the matter of who would decide who would pay what and when. Unfortunately, although the framework document has a myriad ways to illuminate several issues, this is not one of them. It simply refers to:

“NCA power to raise fees and charges; approvals needed from HM Treasury to retain funds; ability of CEOP to retain incomes raised including from donors.”

That does not provide clarity on what would happen if there were a disagreement between forces and the director general about who was responsible for costs incurred, whether in terms of police time, the use of physical buildings or premises, or indeed technology or any future claim that might be brought against a police force as a consequence of an NCA action in their territory. The proposal would allow clarity on budgets, on who was responsible and on how the decisions were made if a voluntary agreement could not be reached.

I hope that the Minister will approach the proposal in the spirit in which it is intended. We want to understand precisely how he sees the decisions being resolved. Police forces might fear that the Home Secretary was using the power of the NCA to direct and task, and local forces might have to pay for it. Local police and crime commissioners, when they are eventually allowed into the room to understand what they are being asked to pay for, might have to pick up the tab with the local precept. I hope the Minister will agree that that would not be an appropriate way for public funds to be raised and managed, and that he will act accordingly.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I seek your guidance, Mr Caton. I have a couple of general comments to make in relation to schedule 3. Is now the appropriate time or do you want to take a stand part debate later?

Martin Caton (Labour, Gower)

If you would like to make the comments now, Mr Goggins, that will be welcome, but it will mean that we will not have a stand part debate. Is that agreeable to other members of the Committee?

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I do not see any disappointed faces, Mr Caton.

My questions to the Minister are gentle and probing. On co-operation in part 1, paragraph 1 lists various organisations, most of which come under the direct control of the Government Department, but of course police forces do not. They are under the command of the chief constable, now with the oversight of and accountability to the police and crime commissioner for a particular area. Are there plans for memorandums of understanding with police and crime commissioners and chief constables that would govern the duty to co-operate that is set out?

The duty to co-operate is an important duty, which will ensure good operational communication and co-operation between the relevant law enforcement agencies. Does the Minister intend to set out the arrangements in a memorandum of understanding, so that there can be no doubt about the circumstances in which co-operation would be sought and the manner in which it would be given?

Also, is there anything in writing—anything that has been drafted—or any memorandum in relation to Northern Ireland and Scotland Justice Ministers? They have their own jurisdictions and the duty to co-operate there could be very important. It is important that we have absolute clarity. So will it be set down in writing where the bodies are not directly under the control of Government Ministers?

My second query is more substantial. It relates to part 3 of schedule 3, and concerns assistance within the United Kingdom. Paragraph 11(1) states very clearly:

“The Director General may direct any of the following to provide specified assistance to the NCA—”

Among those then listed is the chief officer of an England and Wales police force. The director general may therefore direct a chief constable to do certain things. Again, I do not quibble with that; I have no difficulty with that.

But when we move on to paragraph 14, we deal with the directed assistance by the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland. Here we see a rather different framework offered by the legislation. I perfectly well understand the political reasons for that, because there would be some sensitivities around the director general of the National Crime Agency directing the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland to do certain things without any reference whatever to the Minister, the Assembly, the Executive, or indeed to the Northern Ireland Policing Board. So I understand the sensitivities around that. However, paragraph 14(1) states very specifically:

“The Department of Justice in Northern Ireland may direct the Director General to provide specified assistance to the Police Service of Northern Ireland.”

In other words, the director general must relate to the Department of Justice, rather than directly to the Chief Constable. These will clearly be operational matters, and we are used to operational relationships between chief constables and the person who will be the director general of the National Crime Agency. They get on with the job, and Ministers quite rightly do not get involved in operational detail and in taking operational decisions. That would be quite wrong.

But here, in order to get the direction, the director general must first go to the Department, which is under the direction, control and leadership of the Minister, and presumably must share very sensitive, detailed operational information with senior officials who are not operationally responsible. I would appreciate an understanding of precisely how that relationship would work. I think it would be helpful, not least to colleagues in Northern Ireland. It is a somewhat different situation when the director general goes to a Department to seek a direction, rather than going directly to the chief constable as he would in, for example, Greater Manchester, which is the area I represent in Parliament. I would be very grateful for clarification from the Minister.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

As the hon. Member for Walthamstow explained, these amendments relate to the charging arrangements for both tasking and assistance. Unlike the charging provisions in schedule 1, which you will recall, Mr Caton, were to do with, for example, specific training courses—rather a limited field which we have already debated—the provisions in schedule 3 relate to cross-charging for specific operational support provided under tasking and assistance. That could include, for example, a police force calling on the National Crime Agency teams overseas to investigate the international activity of specific organised criminals who are having an impact in their force area. It is always worth remembering that the assistance could go in both directions.

In discussing the operational support, I start by emphasising that the National Crime Agency will build on the policy of the Serious Organised Crime Agency not to charge law enforcement partners for operational activity carried out as a result of tasking or assistance, unless agreed beforehand. Routine cross-charging in these circumstances would create administrative burdens for both the agency and partners when calculating costs, and would undermine the vision of the NCA, police and law enforcement agencies working in collaboration. Where, exceptionally, there is cross-charging between the NCA and other law enforcement agencies, we fully expect that agreement will be reached between the parties as to the level of any charges. However, the provision for the Secretary of State to determine the appropriate amount payable for tasks, assistance or facilities, between the director general of the NCA and partners, is a necessary backstop power in the event that agreement cannot be reached.

In this respect, as in others, the Bill broadly replicates current arrangements for payments for assistance and facilities set out in part 1 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Agreement has always been reached between the Serious Organised Crime Agency and partners with regard to charging, and so these backstop provisions have never been used in the history of SOCA. It is important to have them none the less, and that is why we have a similar arrangement in place for the NCA.

The hon. Lady seeks to establish an independent advisory panel on payments, to take the place of the Secretary of State in settling any disputes around payments. I put it to her that such an advisory panel would, in our view, bring an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and cost into cross-charging arrangements, not least because in the history of SOCA it has never been necessary to resort to that level of adjudication. The Home Secretary is ultimately responsible, however, for the efficiency and effectiveness of policing in England and Wales, and in those circumstances, which I hope do not arise but which could arise, I can see no reason why she should not be responsible for settling any disputes in this area, rather than giving that task to an advisory panel.

In addition, amendment 18 would remove any role for the devolved Administrations in setting appropriate amounts if agreement cannot be reached. As the budgets for these law enforcement bodies in Scotland and Northern Ireland are devolved, it is right that the devolved Administrations have a role to play in ensuring that payments are fair in situations where either a Scottish or a Northern Irish body is involved.

The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East hoped that there would be a satisfactory arrangement when the NCA was dealing with Scotland or with Northern Ireland. I say to him that it would be a matter for the director general of the NCA if he wished to negotiate a memorandum of understanding with the chief constables across the board, including those in Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, as I say, the provisions I mentioned a moment ago would also apply.

As I have already outlined, I expect that the cross-charging arrangements for tasks, assistance and facilities will be agreed between the NCA and its partners, but it is right that the Bill includes a backstop power for resolving any disputes and respects existing devolution arrangements. Those arrangements have not given rise to any difficulties in relation to the Serious Organised Crime Agency and we do not envisage them giving rise to difficulties with the National Crime Agency either. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I was trying to catch the Minister’s eye before he sat down. If that is the conclusion of his remarks, he has not dealt at all with the points that I raised. I am more than happy to set them out again if that is helpful to the Minister.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

Perhaps I might expand on those provisions. We regard it as essential that the NCA has a UK-wide remit, which is why there are two-way voluntary assistance provisions between the NCA and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Most, if not all, assistance arrangements will be voluntary, as is the case with the NCA and any other part of the United Kingdom.

However, the Bill also provides for directed assistance provisions as a backstop power, subject to appropriate safeguards. The Department of Justice for Northern Ireland may, with the agreement of the Home Secretary, direct the director general of the NCA to provide officers or other assets to operate under the direction and control of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. In addition, the Department of Justice for Northern Ireland may, having consulted the Northern Ireland Policing Board and any other persons the Department wishes to consult, direct the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland to provide assistance to the NCA. That does not undermine the role of the Northern Ireland Policing Board; indeed, it is precisely in recognition of the importance of the board in overseeing policing in Northern Ireland and holding the Police Service of Northern Ireland to account that the board must be consulted before a direction can be issued. This goes further than the existing provisions for SOCA. We are trying to take into account any sensibilities that would exist in Northern Ireland, in order to ensure that these arrangements can be conducted as seamlessly there as they will be, I hope, elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I am grateful to the Minister for his response, which has provided a partial explanation. In relation to the first point I made, about the duty to co-operate, we all know that people can co-operate gladly or begrudgingly. The reason I am suggesting that there is consideration of a memorandum of understanding between the director general and police forces, and between the director general and the police in Northern Ireland and Scotland, is that I am anxious to ensure that we have very smooth working and a common understanding of what co-operation actually means, so that the very best can be given by all parties and with the best outcome, which is of course to tackle organised crime. That is the spirit in which I am making the suggestion.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I appreciate the spirit with which the right hon. Gentleman makes his remarks. The Government are keen that the NCA should have a UK-wide remit, because serious and organised crime obviously visits itself on all four component parts of the United Kingdom.

However, there are particular sensibilities to take into account in Scotland and, for reasons that members of the Committee will understand, in Northern Ireland. We hope that memorandums of understanding and other mechanisms will make sure that concerns on all sides are observed. The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw the Committee’s attention both to the desirability of these functions covering Northern Ireland and to the regard that the Government and the NCA will need to have to ensure that these arrangements are to the satisfaction of everybody concerned.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I am grateful. I hope that my suggestion will cause some further thought for the Minister.

The second point, however, is more substantial. The Minister has gone some way to responding to it, but the legislation clearly sets out that the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland can direct the director general to provide assistance to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and vice versa—the Department of Justice can also direct the Chief Constable in Northern Ireland to provide assistance to the National Crime Agency.

I am still concerned that co-operation at an operational level is something we are used to between different police forces and different agencies, but Ministers do not become involved in operational detail. The Northern Ireland Policing Board—we have a former member of it on our Committee; I am sure that he will back me up on this point—would not be briefed on operational detail.

So saying that the Department of Justice would consult the Northern Ireland Policing Board is fine procedurally, but what is it consulting about? If we are talking about the duty to co-operate, that has to be on operational detail—and that kind of detail is not generally shared with Ministers, senior officials or the Policing Board. It is essentially shared between those who are responsible for operations: in this case, the director general of the National Crime Agency and the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland.

I understand the political sensitivities and I do not want to unpick what may very well have been neatly stitched together, but we need to know that there is a set procedure in place, in which everybody has confidence, that would allow this co-operation to be sought in a way that will not cause difficulties in future, for the Minister, the Policing Board or the Chief Constable.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

May I intervene? It may help if I can shed more light on this matter.

As the right hon. Gentleman says, tasking is an operational matter and the independence of crime fighters should be protected, but there are long-standing precedents for ministerial oversight of powers that require the transfer of resources from the command and control of one body to another, as opposed to merely co-operating. For example, under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, directed assistance was vested in the Secretary of State, not the then police authorities, and the provisions for Northern Ireland mirrored those of England and Wales.

I think I can draw the distinction between the ministerial oversight for resource transfer and operational matters. Although operational matters may require drawing on the resources of other bodies, it is envisaged that there would be some give and take in those areas. That has not proven to be controversial in the past and we hope it will not be in future, whereas a transfer of resources—that is, a secondment of a group of 10 people for six months—is regarded in slightly different terms. In those circumstances, it is seen as reasonable that there is some oversight and that those arrangements would apply in Northern Ireland as they would elsewhere.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I rise in the same spirit as the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East. I want to make it absolutely clear—and I think the Minister has already done so—that operational independence is sacrosanct. That is all the more true in Northern Ireland because of the difficult circumstances that, thankfully, we have emerged from.

If a situation were created where politicians for one moment thought they had power over operations, it would open up a very difficult set of circumstances in a difficult can, which we would never get closed again. Therefore being clear that the operational independence of all these policing and crime-fighting organisations is sacrosanct is critical. There can be no fudging on that—no blurred lines.

When we joined the Policing Board, when it was set up in early 2000, it was very clear that our powers and responsibilities were to hold the Chief Constable and the senior officer team to account after the event. Our responsibilities were not to direct his involvement in any of that or to push him towards a particular action, but they were there ex post facto. It is critical that that careful balance is maintained so that there is no misunderstanding from any party that may wish to aggrandise its role—or, indeed, be mischievous in its role.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

The different language is quite complicated. We want that operational independence to exist, both in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, which was the point made in the earlier debate about why we should not be seeking the approval of the police and crime commissioners for operational tasks.

On tasking, both voluntary tasking, which we regard as the routine arrangement, or, on rare occasions, directed tasking—by the way, that would apply only in England Wales—would be done at an operational level. As I understand it, there is a difference between that tasking and assistance, whether the assistance is voluntary or directed. Assistance can go in both directions, towards the NCA or from the NCA towards the individual police force. If it is collaborative work on an operational level, under tasking, that would not necessarily be charged for and it would be operational.

However, under assistance, if a number of expert people were seconded from one organisation to another for a period, for example, or some particular equipment was seconded for an operation because it was particularly valuable, that would not be the normal ebb and flow of co-operation. It would require the higher approval in order to have that resource transfer for that period of time—for example, a secondment of people. But it would not be an interference in operational matters per se; it would just be a necessary consent, given the semi-permanent basis of the arrangement as opposed to the day-to-day ebb and flow of typical voluntary or direct tasking.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I want to be helpful on this point. For example, in June this year the G8 is going to meet in Ulster, in Fermanagh. It is very clear to me that 6,900 police officers, as we currently have, will not be sufficient to carry out ongoing policing operations and crime-fighting and also cover the security of the G8. So additional officers will be brought in from the other two services across the United Kingdom to allow that to flow easily. That does not come into the sight of the Policing Board: it happens because it is operationally necessary. Certainly, the board can hold the police to account after it has taken that decision.

In the London riots of 2011, two water cannon trucks made their way from Belfast to Stranraer and down the coast of England, as the Minister will know, and were available to be deployed on the streets of London. They were never used, thankfully; they did not have to be. But no operational decision was brought before the Policing Board to say, “We can allow that to happen or we can prevent that from happening”.

If the police required that equipment, they got it. There was no political interference or hand-wringing or thumb-twisting to prevent it or to slow it down. All these matters take place without political intervention and that is essential. There are people in Northern Ireland who would do their damnedest, even under the current new arrangements, to upset the stability that we have.

The important word used by the Minister and the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East was “co-operation”, and what it actually looks like. There was eye-witness co-operation at a level where MI5 was prepared to send its top person in Northern Ireland, unidentified for years, to brief the board privately. That continued to be a regular occurrence. An MI5 officer was brought in to brief the board probably every six to eight weeks—not about what he was going to do, but about what had been done and what could be done in future if the board was comfortable.

That was absolutely critical and it continues to happen today, even though there are members of Sinn Fein on that Policing Board. In many regards, that is remarkable progress and co-operation. Perhaps in some instances, the agent is talking to the handler; I do not know of course. But that has happened. We can see that sort of co-operation without necessarily having to write it down; it happens because there is a respect for the operational independence of the crime fighter. That is crucial to making this flow.

Tangentially, will the Minister touch on the issue of legislative consent? That goes to the heart of all this. I know that the devolved regions will have to give legislative consent, but what if a circumstance were to arise in Scotland, say, and the Parliament decided that it was not giving consent and was going to invoke provisions to disagree? Will the Minister assure the Committee that we have made progress and that consent will be achieved—not just in Scotland, but across the UK—so that the NCA will tackle drug crime, people trafficking, child prostitution and child abuse properly, on a national level, and that they will be given the national importance they deserve?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

Let me try again to reassure the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I should go a bit further and clarify it better. Voluntary tasking is an entirely voluntary arrangement at an operational level. Forces will be tasked by the NCA, but they are not required to co-operate, although we envisage that they routinely would, because it would be in everyone’s interest that they would in normal circumstances.

There is then directed tasking, which would happen in extremis. As we said earlier, we would envisage it being used only very rarely. However, it is a useful back-stop to have. The NCA could direct a police force to take a particular action as part of an operation, but that power applies only for England and Wales. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman takes an interest in matters across the United Kingdom, but in terms of his narrower interest in Northern Ireland, that provision need not concern him on a constituency basis, if I can put it in those terms.

A separate category from tasking is assistance, which is when a police force may ask the NCA for help—I gave the example of people being seconded—or the NCA may ask a police force for help. Unlike with tasking, the assistance can flow in either direction. It is again subdivided between voluntary assistance, which is obviously reciprocal by its very nature, and directed assistance.

Unlike directed tasking, which applies only to England and Wales, directed assistance applies to all the United Kingdom, so the hon. Gentleman is right to draw our attention to Northern Ireland and Scotland in that respect. Voluntary assistance would be operationally independent, but directed assistance would need some form of consent, which would be applied by the Secretary of State but in consultation with the devolved bodies in Scotland and Northern Ireland, because it is right that the devolved Administrations have a role in ensuring that payments are fair when a Scottish or Northern Ireland body is involved in the transfer of assets for a semi-permanent period.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Does the Secretary of State’s power then trump that of the devolved Parliament or Assembly? In a matter where there is a dispute, a question mark or the need for expedition to get something done, does the Secretary of State trump it—she or he signs it off and that is it?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

My understanding is that the power is in regard to the payment that is made in receipt of the seconded assistance. The Home Secretary would decide ultimately if agreement had not been arrived at. If the matter were between Norfolk police and the NCA, we would hope and believe that, in usual circumstances, they would agree to a reasonable payment without recourse to her. However, if they could not, she would be the person who would be the arbiter as to what constituted a reasonable transfer.

When such matters apply to Scotland and Northern Ireland, the Home Secretary would again be the ultimate arbiter. She would take such action not only in conjunction with the views of the director general of the NCA and those at chief constable level, but take account of the views of the bodies in Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, as she oversees the NCA, in extremis she would be the ultimate arbiter.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Is the Minister content with the progress that has been made in the devolved regions, and happy that there will not be a problem?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

We very much hope that such an issue will not be problematic. To put it gently, it might be the case that if people are counting the pennies, taxpayers in England might be more likely to think that the transfers are disproportionately to the benefit of the people in Northern Ireland with the resources being transferred in the other direction. Often, for very regrettable but perfectly understandable reasons, the cost of the policing burden in Northern Ireland is higher per capita than in other parts of the United Kingdom.

We hope that the arrangements will be collaborative and that people realise that there is mutual benefit in areas working together as seamlessly as possible, and that there would not be routine charging for day-to-day acts of co-operation. I would not say, “Excuse me, would you send me an e-mail?” only to receive a bill saying, “Time spent e-mailing you,” and for the matter to be cross-billed. However, when there is an assistance arrangement with a semi-permanent feel, a transfer might be appropriate, and we hope that it will be designed in a reciprocal and consensual way that was sensible on all sides. We only have such powers as an ultimate backstop. For example, such arrangements with SOCA have not been required to be applied in the past six or so years; I hope that reassures Committee members

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

The Minister is absolutely right. The SOCA arrangements have worked well, and the backstop provisions have not had to be applied—in Northern Ireland, at least. I fear that we might be talking about the money a little at cross purposes, as that will be the hurdle. I was trying to push the hon. Gentleman into saying whether he was happy with progress on the general point, and that he will receive consent from Scotland and Northern Ireland on the Bill.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

Yes. There are some provisions under the Bill, one of which is the ability of the NCA to direct individual police forces when the application is from England and Wales only. However, it is very much the vision of the Government, and the Home Secretary specifically, that the NCA should not limit its ambitions to England and Wales, but that it should be a UK-wide body. Obviously, serious and organised crime is taking place across the border between England and Scotland, and the only land border that the United Kingdom has with another country is Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland. It would make sense to the Home Secretary and the Government as a whole for the NCA, in general terms, to have a UK-wide remit.

However, we are mindful of the different constitutional arrangements in Scotland and Northern Ireland and some of the different sensibilities in both countries, so we want to make sure that the arrangements are to the satisfaction of all four component parts of the United Kingdom. It is obviously easiest in England and Wales, because the Home Secretary’s writ runs directly. Where arrangements are needed to ensure that the NCA works effectively in Northern Ireland for the benefit of its people as well as the wider United Kingdom, we are keen to see them being put in place by the Northern Ireland Justice Secretary and the representatives in Northern Ireland more generally. That is an ongoing process, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the ambition for the NCA to be a UK-wide organisation remains.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

It is utterly essential that the NCA is exactly what it says: a national crime agency that does not stop at Stranraer, with a writ running across the whole United Kingdom. Otherwise it is a misnomer; we could not call it the National Crime Agency because it would not cover the whole nation. It is utterly essential that the Government put everything into ensuring that there is no hiccup in delivering that.

As we know, most of the billions of pounds that the Government lose every year because of the criminal activities of tobacco smugglers emanates from Northern Ireland. Most of the billions of pounds that the Government lose through smuggled fuel is from a lack of revenue in Northern Ireland, because of the land border with the Republic of Ireland. Those multibillion pound crime empires have to be broken up at a national level, so it is essential that the Minister ensures that that is achieved. I wish him well in doing that, and I hope there are no hiccups. I want him to ensure, in the days ahead, that the NCA has full and total consent across the entire kingdom.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

We the Government entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. Obviously, it would be much easier to make the organisation just England and Wales-wide, but we felt that would leave the potential of the organisation falling short. Considerable effort has been put by many people into trying to ensure that the arrangements can work satisfactorily throughout the United Kingdom, for exactly the reasons that he has just given.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

We have had an interesting debate about the nitty-gritty of how the NCA will manage its relationships with a number of bodies. The amendments were tabled to address some of the concerns that have emerged on one of those arrangements and on what would happen in negotiating these tasked powers. The Minister needs to reflect. He said he hoped that things would not be problematic, but in an era of austerity any discussion of budgets and charges will always be problematic. Referring to the powers of SOCA does not make sense, because it always had to work in a collaborative fashion with police forces, because it did not have the stick that the Bill will give the NCA to force action through the tasking powers. No one is suggesting that the tasking powers are not necessary, but they do create a different environment for these conversations and negotiations. Using the Home Secretary as a backstop or an ultimate arbiter does not necessarily deal with the change that the perceived imbalance of authority with these decisions will create.

We have no desire to press the amendment to a vote, but I ask the Minister to clarify in writing where the framework comes in. He talked about a memorandum of understanding between the director general and police forces about these sorts of charges, but the framework is supposed to provide that clarity. The people looking to set up the NCA and those looking to work with it need better in terms of the governance structures and the practical questions on the day-to-day operation. How will this new policing landscape affect those day-to-day operations? We have sought to test that with the amendments. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that.

Perhaps the final framework will offer a lot more detail and clarity, so that people can have confidence in why the Home Secretary, who has a conflict of interest between the different budgets, will be the backstop, rather than there being an independent element of scrutiny and challenge. Perhaps the framework will also give clarity on how good financial management will take place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 5 - Duty to publish information

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

I beg to move amendment 32, in clause 5, page 5, line 7, at end insert—

‘( ) The Secretary of State must—

(a) report annually to Parliament on the progress of the NCA and its partner agencies in reducing the cost and threat to consumers, government and armed forces of cybercrime.’.

Martin Caton (Labour, Gower)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 33, in clause 5, page 5, line 7, at end insert—

‘(b) report annually to Parliament on the progress of the NCA and its partner agencies in eliminating the sexual abuse of children and combating human trafficking.’.

New clause 1—Review of NCA functions—

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall commission a review of the NCA functions to report no later than one year following commencement of this Act.

(2) The review shall report on the appropriateness of the modification of NCA functions, in particular in relation to—

(a) provision about NCA counter-terrorism functions;

(b) provision about NCA public order functions; and

(c) other national response coordination functions.’.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

Having revealed myself to be a fan of transport and defence issues, I add to those questions of governance and accountability, which is perhaps a hangover from being a local councillor and having had to implement Government policy—or perhaps it is a hangover from being on the Public Accounts Committee and being obsessed with value for money. Above all else, it is a hangover from being concerned about some of the new challenges that our society faces. These amendments, and the information they seek, speak directly to those concerns.

All three amendments reflect a concern about accountability and partnership in addressing the key challenges that our society faces. First and foremost, there is the threat of cybercrime, about which I feel passionate—I am revealing a large compendium of slightly obscure interests this afternoon, and no doubt Government Members will have something to say about that.

How will the proposals affect child protection? All of us as MPs will have dealt with child protection cases and will be desperately concerned to ensure that this country has the highest standards in detecting and preventing child abuse, whether online, offline or involving trafficking.

Finally, new clause 1 in particular would ensure that there is a moment to review exactly what the new National Crime Agency will do, particularly on the vexed question of its relationship to the management of terrorism in this country.

Amendment 32 addresses cybercrime, which is mentioned in passing as though we are all supposed to know exactly what we are talking about. Again, cybercrime is in the legislation and it has been in some of the speeches, but there has been little detail. Given that our online economy is now worth £82 billion a year, it seems strange not to have more thorough scrutiny of how the new National Crime Agency will affect our ability to detect and prevent cybercrime.

There is also widespread concern about the UK’s preparedness for a cyber-attack or cybercrime. The Select Committee on Defence recently called cyberspace the “fifth domain” of warfare. This is a new and important debate for Parliament, and we are not only talking about people receiving the odd e-mail selling rather questionable details. I am sure several Government Members might be able to offer illumination on that.

Ross Anderson of the Cambridge computer laboratory, who is an expert on these issues, talks about mapping and measuring cybercrime in the UK:

“Since…2004, volume crime has arrived on the Internet. All of a sudden, criminals who were carrying out card fraud and attacks on electronic banking got organised, thanks to a handful of criminal organisations and a number of chat-rooms and other electronic fora where criminals can trade stolen card and bank account data, hacking tools and other services. Hacking has turned from a sport into a business, and its tools are becoming increasingly commoditised. There has been an explosion of crimeware—malicious software used to perpetrate a variety of online crimes. Keyloggers, data theft tools and even phishing sites can be constructed using toolkits complete with sophisticated graphical user interfaces. The ‘quality’ of these tools is improving rapidly, as their authors invest in proper research, development, quality control and customer service.”

That is clearly an issue for those affected, but it is also an issue for us in the UK, because we are one of the major sites of cybercrime in the world. Symantec, the security software company, estimates that in 2010 the UK was the second-largest user of the underground economy, where people are buying and selling the tools to conduct such fraudulent activities, which generate some £200 million a year.

What sort of malware, tools and services are for sale? A botnet can be bought for £150 on those sites. Phishing services are advertised for a mere £7, and there are keystroke loggers for an average of £15.

I will gladly take interventions from anyone who is not quite clear on what I am talking about.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Is she as surprised as I am that she has not had any interventions from Government Members? I think we would all agree that this is an area in which the Government have done a very good job. They have allocated some £650 million of additional resources, and the Foreign Secretary has played an excellent role internationally. Is she not surprised that Government supporters were not faster to their feet to praise the Government?

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

Actually, I was a little concerned that Government Members might be searching for the underground economy on their iPads to see quite how quickly they could purchase some of these tools for securing people’s information.

David Rutley (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I take a keen interest in what the hon. Lady is saying, and it is interesting to find out what her interests are, wide-ranging as they may be. I absolutely share her concerns about cybercrime, sexual abuse and protecting children, but let us not forget that the NCA will also cover border command and organised crime, for which the hon. Lady is not requesting detailed updates. Given that there will be changing priorities—there always are—I think that the best approach is to stick with what is in the Bill already, which is a general requirement to provide an update on the director general’s duties.

I respect the hon. Lady’s interests, but let us not focus on them. Let us focus on the Bill right now and the fact that we want a general update for all the duties that the director general is supposed to be doing, which is already in the Bill.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

I am only just getting started. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for me to get to the point that I want to make about cybercrime.

I am concerned by what the hon. Gentleman said, because one of the central reasons for tabling the amendment and for ensuring that Parliament is able to hold the Government to account for how they deal with cybercrime is precisely the attitude that he has just expressed. I have some concerns about how the Government are dealing with cybercrime and understanding its true scale, and how we co-ordinate and collaborate across different Departments in dealing with it. My concern, which I think is echoed in the industry, is that there are many chiefs and no king to deal with some of the issues. Given the severity of cybercrime and the threat that we face from it, that is not appropriate.

One of the things that I want to expand on in my comments is where I see that threat coming from. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that cybercrime is an extremely important priority, given the threat that we now face from it. The problem here is understanding the scale of it and who is responsible for which elements of it.

When we talk about something that costs our economy £27 billion a year—that is just a low estimate, because it is impossible to estimate its true scale—we have to recognise the challenge that we face. It is not the same as border control, important though that may be, and it calls for a new form of partnership. The Bill will give the NCA some of the responsibility, and I want to test how the Government envisage it working and to ensure that we are on the same page in making sure that we have a priority, a strategic response and the ability to interact with our international partners on such issues.

The majority of costings that we have on cybercrime at the moment are about intellectual property theft. One concern that many of us have is that a huge amount of personal cybercrime is taking place: people’s details being stolen and malicious software on people’s computers taking data—crimes that are not reported to the police or understood but which are a facet of serious and organised crime in this country.

Intellectual property theft has been costed at around £9.2 billion; industrial espionage at around £7.6 billion; and extortion at around £2.2 billion. Those are minute amounts compared with the amount that people are losing online, with their own costs that they pay with their banking, and with the impact on business and on our national security. General Keith Alexander, director of the National Security Agency, which oversees the US cyber command, warned that cyber-attacks are causing

“the greatest transfer of wealth in history.”

It is identity theft and online scams that affect individuals. To give just one example, one Essex gang was making £2 million a month by stealing log-in details for bank accounts, using a single laptop to co-ordinate that crime. The problem is huge; it is serious, and it needs direction.

Given that 91% of UK businesses are online and 73% of UK households have internet access, it is our daily lives that the crime is filtering into and existing in. A 2012 PricewaterhouseCoopers survey showed that 93% of large corporations and 76% of small businesses had suffered a cyber-security breach in the past year. The cost of that breach to large businesses was between £110,000 and £250,000, and for small businesses it was between £15,000 and £30,000. That is even before we understand the concept of fiscal fraud committed against the Government. SOCA itself is well aware of the issue, having been subject to a denial-of-service attack. It is important to understand that a denial-of-service attack is not necessarily about making money, but about denying a service and disrupting daily life. The types of cybercrime we have to deal with are not just acquisitive, but about terrorism, espionage and activism that is negative on society.

Charlie Elphicke (Conservative, Dover)

The hon. Lady makes a powerful point, particularly on cybercrime and intellectual property. Does she accept that the problem is much harder to combat when, in many cases, that cybercrime is state-sponsored?

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. That is exactly why I am concerned to ensure that we do not draw an artificial distinction between cyber-security and cybercrime. We need to understand how those technologies are used and the nature of the threat. We need to make sure people are aware of the threat and act accordingly. That is why I am keen that the Government have a co-ordinated approach. In the debate today, I want to make sure that that is what we are going to get from the new system.

It is also worth looking at the types of cybercrime that we do not always talk about when we talk about cyber-security and cybercrime, in particular the prevalence of cyber-stalking, which many people in our constituencies have experienced. Indeed, of the stalking incidents dealt with by the Crown Prosecution Service in 2010, 33% were via e-mail and 32% were via text message. Back in 2010 only 10% of people were on social networks—I am sure that number will be a lot higher this year. We know that this type of cybercrime affects the victims’ daily lives. Many people who have been cyber-stalked give up their social activities in their offline lives, and do not go out.

Understanding the ways in which technology is changing crime is absolutely key. Therefore, the Government’s and the NCA’s contributions to preventing those crimes are also key. The NCA will not only lead action on serious organised crime, but it will be charged with training local police forces to be able to respond better to these types of crime. It is therefore important that parliamentarians understand the responsibility that entails.

As Ross Anderson also argues:

“Systems often fail because the organisations that defend them do not bear the full costs of failure. For example, in countries with lax banking regulation, banks can pass more of the cost of fraud on to customers and merchants, which undermines their own incentive to protect payment systems properly…In addition, so long as anti-virus software is left to individuals to purchase and install, there may be a less than optimal level of protection—as infected machines typically cause trouble for other machines rather than their owners.”

In that sense, acting to co-ordinate and collaborate on the detection and prevention of these problems is key to their elimination. There is a risk at present that without better co-ordination by Government we will all bear the full costs of failure.

Part of the challenge—the hon. Gentleman’s view reflects this—is that we do not have those full-scale data. I look to the NCA to try to get a better picture of the data we need. We know that the data collected by the police suffer due to under-reporting. We know that many businesses do not report security breaches because they are frightened of reputational impact. The Federation of Small Businesses reported that in 2011, about 40% of the cybercrime that its members experienced was under-reported. Under-reporting is not restricted to organisations. Only 37% of households in the British crime survey reported experiencing computer viruses to anybody. Only 9% reported the virus to their internet service provider, and only 1% reported it to the police. Yet we know that those viruses can contain trojans, which collect people’s bank details, so that crimes can be committed. We know that they are often organised by serious crime organisations.

Under-reporting further compounds the problems that the NCA will face. If those issues are not reported, or if they are reported to local police forces that do not understand the severity of what they are being told, it will be assumed that they are isolated. Patterns will not be sought, people will not look to see who else is prosecuting them to understand that gangs with one single laptop can create £2 million-worth of benefit a month. The current police system does not record those data. I hope the Minister, in responding to the amendment, will tell the Committee whether the NCA will collate such data and research to get a better picture of criminality on the internet.

Yet, even if we have a body that collates data, we also need to understand how to respond. Again, I return to my passion for public value for money. The Government are spending a lot of money—as previous Governments did—on security systems. Indeed, all western Governments are. One of the reasons why we have some frankly inflated figures about the costs of cybercrime is that they have come from the security systems companies themselves, which tell countries that they need to get these systems. When it is considered that western Governments spend about £35 billion a year on security systems and anti-virus software, and the private sector spends about £51 billion a year, the size of the industry becomes clear.

I welcome the fact that the Government are putting money into cybercrime strategy—my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East said it is about £650 million—but I want to see that money well spent. I am concerned that there are a number of agencies within the Government that currently hold responsibility for cybercrime and cyber-security. As we know, all too often in Government Departments, when everybody holds responsibility, no one holds responsibility.

David Rutley (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I can see the passion that the hon. Lady has for the subject, but in making her case she has not persuaded me that—

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

I have not finished yet.

David Rutley (Conservative, Macclesfield)

But that is what we are encouraging. The hon. Lady has not persuaded me, or the rest of the Committee, I am sure, that we should enshrine that course in legislation. Earlier in the week, my near neighbour, the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East, moved an amendment that recognised that there could be changes in priorities; if there were to be, he wanted to see the Home Secretary come forward with a statutory instrument. If there could be changes, why focus on that specific thing? Important as it is, other priorities could emerge. It would be good if the hon. Lady got to the point of why it is so important to have this matter in legislation and not the other aspects of what the NCA will be doing.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

I am so sorry that I am not entertaining the hon. Gentleman, if he does not have the patience to listen to the case that I want to make about co-ordination and collaboration. Otherwise, I cannot understand the nature of his comments, because he seems to be suggesting that there is not a debate to be had. I want to suggest to the contrary.

May I now talk about the national cyber-security programme, which is the key Government proposal for dealing with cyber-security and cybercrime? [Interruption.] Yes, I will do, because I hope that will convince the hon. Gentleman that his complacency about cybercrime is not well-founded. The amendment is about ensuring that this country cannot be accused of complacency.

The national cyber-security programme is managed by the Cabinet Office but, according to its own strategy document, the Home Office will get only 10% of its total budget for tackling cybercrime. The Ministry of Defence will also create a new defence cyber-operations group, with a joint cyber-unit at GCHQ, and that will get half of the £650 million budget. Yet I am confused how that will fit with the NCA, which is supposed to act as a national capability to deal with the most serious national-level cybercrime and to be part of the response to major incidents, as well as driving up the capacity of other police forces to deal with cybercrime.

We are already looking at four different agencies with responsibility for cybercrime: GCHQ, the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, the police central e-crime unit and SOCA. Merging the police central e-crime unit and SOCA together in the NCA is welcome, but it is still unclear to me how that will cut across different Departments. Who will take responsibility for cybercrime? We are also talking about a strategy that involves the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Cabinet Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office and the Home Office, let alone the National Fraud Authority and the City of London police, who contribute to the cybercrime unit and to the economic crime command of the NCA. Thirty-eight different partners are involved in that aspect of the work alone.

The Government have announced plans to develop a UK national computer emergency response team as a focus for international work. Again, it is unclear to me how the NCA will work with that body. The Ministry of Defence is talking about recruiting its own cyber-reservists. How will they fit with the NCA specialist scheme? Might we see different Departments competing for the same specialists and the same set of skills? The Government are talking about—

Martin Caton (Labour, Gower)

Order. The hon. Lady is talking very generally, and not specifically on reviews.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

The amendment is about the partnership—

Martin Caton (Labour, Gower)

I should be very grateful if the hon. Lady would home in on the subject of reviews.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

I am ever so sorry, Mr Caton, if I was not entirely clear. I would expect the review to address the sorts of questions that I was discussing—how the Government are dealing with cybercrime and the role of the NCA within that. In particular, will the NCA work with the cyber-growth partnership, and how will it work with the Cabinet Office cyber-security strategy? How will it work with the Ministry of Defence? The Defence Committee recently said that the Government need to put in place the

“mechanisms, people, education, skills…and policies which take into account both the opportunities and the vulnerabilities which cyberspace presents.”

We need to understand how the NCA will fit into that.

We also need to understand how the NCA—I hope that the review will cover this issue—will address what I call the Henry Kissinger question, because cybercrime covers many different territories. If there is a cybercrime matter in America, who will they pick up the phone to in the UK to talk about the people who are committing it? As the Committee knows, much cybercrime is committed on our own shores.

Clearly, there is a tension within Government between their partner agencies in dealing with cyber-security and cybercrime. In moving the amendment, I am seeking details on how the Minister will address that and on what information we would have annually on how the Government are co-ordinating on cybercrime, which is separate from the issues that the cyber-security strategy comes up with, because we are discussing the role of the NCA in detecting cybercrime. The amendment is about not only who is in charge but how such issues are resolved, and the international concerns. That gang making £2 million a month in Essex had links to eastern Europe. Clearly, how we negotiate with the European Cybercrime Centre is important. To ask for Parliament to be updated annually on this important issue is not too much to ask. There is no clarity about whether these issues will be covered in the annual report. My point in tabling these amendments is to get the Minister to set out more clearly, in a way that the Government have not done yet, precisely the role of the NCA in detecting and preventing cybercrime.

We have to remember how quickly these types of crimes move and how quickly the internet moves. The domain Google was registered in 1997, Facebook in 2004, YouTube in 2005 and Twitter in 2006. While the Government are setting up centres in universities, businesses are moving to cloud-based services. All that could lead to new forms of crime. We need to understand how the NCA will get to grips with that and work with its partners in other agencies. The trends for security risks this year are mobile phones. Again, what role will the NCA have in working with some of the mobile phone operating companies? When will we get updates on that?

On working with local police forces, some Members may well have seen the YouTube video “Who Pays For Petrol Anyway?” Yet there is no team in the police at the moment with expertise in tackling and detecting crime on YouTube. It is not unfair to ask the Government to provide further information on all those questions, given that we are told that the NCA will offer that step change in how the Government deal with cybercrime at both local and organised international level.

Let me deal with amendment 33 and the role of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. Many people here will have tremendous respect for CEOP, launched in 2006 as a UK-wide agency. We all recognise the benefits of the way in which it has worked in tackling child exploitation and in online protection. We know that it is critical that it operates on a multi-agency basis, including working with a small team of social workers from the NSPCC as well as several partner organisations. In general, it works with a wide range of high-risk child protection cases. To do so, it does more than simply detect crime; it also works on the child protection issues that working with such a vulnerable group of young people generates. Therefore, it is about not just criminal aspects of child protection, but collaboration with social services, health care and a range of expert partner agencies to detect and prevent those types of crime.

We all know that CEOP has been very successful. Since it was set up, it has dealt with more than 1,000 children subject to safeguarding or protection activity. It has had 1,644 suspects arrested and nearly 400 high-risk sex offender networks disrupted. It is clearly a successful model. It is completely understandable that several concerns have been raised about how these new forms of operation will work. The amendment is about reviewing that and making sure that we can be confident that all the gains built up from working in this partnership way will not be lost under the new command. It is certainly clear that people have justifiable concerns, not least the former chief executive, Jim Gamble, who resigned from CEOP as a result of the proposals.

When he gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, he said:

“If you want the new National Crime Agency to have the focus that it needs to deliver an improved service against organised crime assets, then you cannot use it like a Christmas tree and hang different baubles on to apparently de-clutter the police landscape… It is not about where CEOP sits in the hierarchy of issues around this. It is about where CEOP sits and the appropriate governance that makes sure that we continually focus on what is best for children, that we're not fighting for airtime among drugs, counter-terrorism, organised crime, guns and gangs because, having been the Head of Counter-Terrorism in Belfast… I can tell you that they do not sit as easy bedfellows…

Pushing us into a National Crime Agency, where the culture will invariably be different, is not going to be best for children nor other vulnerable victims who find themselves part of these crimes.”

It is a fear for many that the resources required to do this work will be diverted when the two are collapsed into the same command. There are some suggestions that this may already be happening. I would welcome some clarification from the Minister. These are exactly the sort of issues I would expect a review to cover—the work of the specialist child abuse investigators from the police forces in England and Wales who have been diverted to the ongoing investigation into child abuse in north Wales. Senior police officers and experts working with abuse victims have raised concerns that this diversion of limited resources from live investigations to a historical case has already put children at risk. One of those involved says:

“Officers in forces are trying to deal with these massive numbers of cases. If you take away your best people to investigate a historical case, what you have left back in the force are the live cases where a child is being abused tonight.”

None of us can prejudge what is happening with that kind of investigation in north Wales, but these concerns that collapsing the CEOP command, rather than having a separate body and a separately resourced organisation, may lead to such a situation are not unfounded.

The Home Secretary, in discussing the case and the decision to give it to the Serious Organised Crime Agency, said that

“other investigative assets as necessary”—[Official Report, 6 November 2012; Vol. 552, c. 733.]

would be deployed to the CEOP unit to investigate this case. However, those assets have been drawn from other forces across the country and, as one officer put it, they are “like gold dust”. The problem for all of us is that these resources are limited, so when they are being pulled in different directions it is very clear that there could be the risks that people are concerned about, especially when police forces are having to make cuts of 20% to their budgets. Indeed, Alan Earl, who is a member of the CEOP advisory board, has said that the outreach work being done to protect children online is already being affected by these changes.

This situation comes at a time when there has never been a higher understanding or awareness of child abuse and the need to support child protection. The NSPCC reports that, from September 2012—prior to the Jimmy Savile case coming to national attention—to October 2012, it saw an increase of 200% in advice calls about sexual abuse; those were calls about both past and present abuse. During October and November 2012, the NSPCC referred 788 more children to the police or social services for all types of abuse than it did for the same time period in 2011. It also received nearly 250 calls directly relating to Jimmy Savile.

The NSPCC fears that, under the new structure, these issues may not be given the same prominence as CEOP allowed them to be given, and that fear is made even greater by the fact that there is not a separate role for CEOP. Indeed, the NSPCC is also concerned about the lack of accountability of the CEOP board. I appreciate that we had a debate on Tuesday about the importance of advisory boards. However, I will just point out to the Minister that CEOP has a board that is currently run by Francis Plowden and that, under the new structure, that board would not have the same level of power and authority in directing what the CEOP command does as it currently has under the existing structure. If that happens, we may lose some of the benefits that come from that system in providing the challenge and scrutiny about how best to get child protection right in a policing context, in particular monitoring the resources and how they are deployed to deliver the strategy.

CEOP has pioneered a model of multi-agency partnership. The report that we suggest that the Government should be required to produce would allow us all to have confidence that the things that we fear might happen if this new body comes into being do not materialise. I am sure that Members from all parties would want to be certain that such fears would not materialise.

The report that we propose would also help us understand the role that the new command would play in dealing with trafficking. There is a genuine concern that, under the current arrangements, there will be a division of responsibility between internal trafficking of children and those children being trafficked into the UK for sexual exploitation, because of the difference between the CEOP command and the UK Human Trafficking Centre, which is also part of the NCA. Some help from the Minister on how that process will be managed, and what responsibility will be taken for trafficking, would be very helpful too.

Finally, new clause 1 is about reviewing the nature of the NCA, and about precisely the issues that we have discussed today, including how the NCA is operating to deal with some of the criminal issues that we face in the year ahead. The report that we propose would be very different from an annual report. I am sure that we have all produced annual reports ourselves and they may not have been the reflection, and reflective moment, that people wanted them to be. The point about new clause 1 is that it would ensure a proper moment for review and scrutiny of the new body, because it is a substantial change to the policing landscape in the UK. Nowhere do we see that more than in the original proposals that the Government brought forward about how the new body would manage terrorism and the role that it would play.

The original clause 2 would have allowed modifications to the NCA to allow it specifically to take over counter-terrorism functions. It was proposed that the NCA would be able to do that without parliamentary scrutiny of the idea and without proper due process, simply through a statutory order. Counter-terrorism is a hugely significant part of citizens’ safety, and currently the Metropolitan police is known to be the expert on counter-terrorism and known to have the skills and—crucially—the relationships, which are particularly important in dealing with some of the terrorism issues that we have to deal with in all our communities. The Metropolitan police has the relationships with the communities and the community leaders that it needs to investigate these issues.

The 2,000-strong counter-terrorism command at the Met has been around for many years; it has that expertise and those relationships that I talked about. Crucially, however, it also has stability, at a time when we face an unprecedented level of threat in our society. So there was a genuine concern, expressed by many in the other House and particularly by those with previous policing experience, that simply transferring those powers to the new NCA in the year that it was being set up, and without any proper scrutiny of that transfer or any concern or about how it might work, could be disastrous.

In particular, both Lord Condon and Lord Blair spoke out against this change. They were not arguing that this way could never possibly be the right way to go; they were simply asking the NCA not to run before it could walk, and saying that for the NCA to deal with an issue as sensitive and complex as terrorism was not appropriate.

Another possibly interested party is Commander Bernard Hogan-Howe of the Met. I am sure that the Minister will take the Mandy Rice-Davies approach and say, “Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he?” However, as Commander Hogan-Howe said:

“The NCA as of yet is not up and running…I am sure everyone will need to think how that…will work with its original responsibilities—as well as considering the new possibility”.

In its gestation period and infancy, I suspect that it would not be able to pick up and run with the complexities and importance of counter-terrorism. However, there might come a time when that case can be made—I do not say that it will be made, but it might be made. It is both sensible and proper that we should be able to legislate to move counter-terrorism from the Metropolitan police to the NCA if the case is proven. It is about having the opportunity to debate properly and appropriately how those new, very serious powers will be taken on by the NCA, rather than simply pushing them through. The fact that the Government have dropped the clause, having been defeated in the other place, is a welcome recognition that it was not an appropriate way to deal with the issue. The new clause would allow the Government the appropriate time to have that conversation and to update Parliament, to ensure that we have scrutiny of any such decision.

Given that the proposed review of counter-terrorism arrangements after the London 2012 Olympics does not appear to have taken place, it would also be helpful if the Minister could confirm when that will take place, because it could inform the review as well. I wonder whether the Minister could say a little about that, and finally a little about his internal processes of consideration—of where terrorism lies in his thinking—so that we can understand, when considering the new NCA, what future role it might play.

I appreciate the Committee’s patience. We need to get right those three issues because they are very important for our society. The purpose behind the proposals for a review is to ensure that there is continual parliamentary scrutiny of and reflection on all of them. I hope that Members will take this in the spirit intended.

We have seen several changes to the policing landscape over the past 18 months, and several proposals that have been radical in intent and botched in delivery. It is vital when dealing with issues such as cybercrime, child protection and terrorism that we have a more measured and considered approach. Perhaps after the debacle following one policy change over police reform, the Government will pause and reflect. The amendments give them the space to do so. We would all welcome that, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I do not know whether I can replicate the sustained passion of the hon. Lady, but I will do my best to engage the Committee.

Before I start, I should first agree with the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East, who was right to draw the Committee’s attention to the Government’s excessive modesty, and to say that we should dwell much more often on our achievements in office.

Given that we are considering the Crime and Courts Bill this afternoon, it is appropriate that I should briefly bring to the Committee’s attention the fact that we have announced today the lowest levels of crime since the Crime Survey for England and Wales began in 1981, 32 years ago. Under this Government, there was a fall of 8% in the last year, and a 7% fall in recorded police crime statistics, showing a sustained fall in crime since the Government took office in May 2010. That rather goes against the passionate but misguided expectations of Opposition Members, who keep telling us that the consequence of all our policies is that crime will inexorably rise, and then always look glum-faced when their constituents experience less and less crime.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

This analysis of why crime decreases is very interesting. I was listening to Radio 4 the other morning, to a programme which referred to an article from The Daily Telegraph . It said that the reason why violent crime has dropped so significantly across the UK over the past 40 years is because of the reduction in the use of lead in petrol: it was no longer being ingested by people. When they analysed—this is a serious point, coming from a university professor from Oxford no less—those countries where lead is used less, they found that crime falls, and it is very little to do with policing and policemen.

Martin Caton (Labour, Gower)

Order. I heard the Radio 4 item as well and it is fascinating, but it is not really to do with the amendment. Minister.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I am grateful for that guidance, Mr Caton. You would not want me to observe that categories of crime including vandalism and break-ins from cars and household burglary are also falling dramatically. As you rightly say, Mr Caton, we have other opportunities to celebrate the achievements of the Government, and we should concentrate narrowly on celebrating the achievement of bringing the National Crime Agency into being, and particularly on amendments 32 and 33 and new clause 1, which I will address now.

The hon. Member for Walthamstow raises important issues through her amendments on cybercrime, and on child sexual exploitation and human trafficking. They refer to some of the most harmful and damaging crimes perpetrated against some of the most vulnerable people in our society, exactly the types of criminality which the NCA—alongside its partners—will be fighting. It is right that Parliament should be kept informed of the NCA’s progress in leading the national response to those crimes.

The Government’s national security strategy explicitly recognises cyber-threats as one of the four tier 1 risks to the UK’s security. In response to this, the “Cyber Security–A new national programme” report, published in 2011, sets out the cross-Government approach to reducing the cost and threat of cybercrime to the United Kingdom. While by no means the only contributor to this effort the NCA, and in particular its national cyber crime unit, will play a key role in delivering this strategy. It will bring a step change to our national capability of tackling the growing threat from cybercrime. It will lead the NCA’s response to the most sophisticated forms of cybercrime, delivering upstream interventions against the most serious computer intrusions, including malicious attacks, which can be used to steal personal data, and denial-of-service attacks. It will also provide specialist operational support to National Crime Agency command and other law enforcement partners, assisting them in tackling cyber-enabled crimes. The NCA’s cyber crime unit also acts as a centre of excellence, dedicated to strengthening the capabilities of police forces and other partners, and delivering prevention work that makes it harder for criminals to commit cybercrime.

I will come to the second of the issues raised by the hon. Lady, and then to some further points from her amendments. The second of the points she raises is the Government’s duty to protect the nation’s children from abuse. I can reassure the Committee that the National Crime Agency will play a vital role in tackling child sexual exploitation and abuse, with CEOP sitting at its heart. The NCA will use its enhanced intelligence capabilities and co-ordination functions to target the individuals and criminal gangs involved in perpetrating these crimes, wherever they are.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

Will the Minister give way?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I was only just getting into my stride, but yes, I will.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

That is all very interesting, and we are all very reassured that CEOP will be at the heart of this task, but that is not what the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow actually says. Amendment 33 simply asks that there be an annual report on the work of the National Crime Agency in relation to protecting children from sexual abuse. Given that the other day I was able to draw extensively from the latest annual review of CEOP—including the commitment by the Home Secretary to make sure that CEOP keeps its own independent brand and maintains operational independence—the request put forward by my hon. Friend is a very modest one: that the annual report it already publishes be required by this legislation. We can then all be satisfied with the work that CEOP does to protect our children.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I am sorry about that; I was trying to help the Committee. If the hon. Member for Walthamstow had stood up and asked whether there was going to be an annual report and then sat down, I would have felt I could match her brevity, but I do not want to show a deficit of compassion on this side after an extended period of emotional intensity from the opposite Front Bench. I thought it was right to bring to the Committee’s attention—although with greater brevity than we had from the previous speaker—some of the important tasks that the NCA will be doing, before I get to the rather limited scope of the amendment.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I am simply making the point that I hope the Minister will be able to match my hon. Friend’s passion for this issue, although I suspect that maybe he will fall slightly short. In addition to giving us all these reassurances about what CEOP will do and what the NCA will do, I ask him whether he will simply say yes to my hon. Friend’s sensible request that there be an annual report to Parliament.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

Let me get to that very point, but I think it is important to explain the context within which we make wise decisions in government; otherwise, members of the Committee may not feel that they can support the Government when or if these amendments are pressed to a vote.

The National Crime Agency, in addition to all the excellent work that I have already explained to the Committee, will use its new wider remit to go further. It will improve the response at our borders, it will disrupt the activities of traffickers and child sex offenders who travel from or into the UK—this is very relevant to this area—and it will join up work to disrupt the activities of local organised crime groups, who may also be sexually exploiting young people. It will use its single national intelligence picture to prioritise action and co-ordinate the law enforcement response, resulting in a stronger response against the increasingly complex problems of child sexual abuse, trafficking and exploitation. So the fact that CEOP is sitting within the NCA—a wider organisation with a range of capabilities—will, we hope, lead to enhanced protection for children. The law enforcement response to human trafficking will likewise be further strengthened by the incorporation of the UK Human Trafficking Centre—the central co-ordination point for human trafficking in the UK—into the NCA.

The hon. Lady’s amendments place a statutory requirement that progress made in specific areas by the NCA and its partners should be the subject of bespoke annual reports. I hope that, on reflection, she and all members of the Committee will agree that that is not necessary. The hon. Lady will be aware that there is already significant cross-Government reporting on such matters. For example, the Government have committed to reporting annually on the cyber security strategy, to which the national cyber crime unit will undoubtedly make a significant contribution.

Elsewhere, the interdepartmental ministerial group on human trafficking published its first report on progress on combating human trafficking in October 2012 and it will continue to do so annually. To add additional reporting requirements would be unnecessarily bureaucratic.

CEOP also communicates publicly on its performance and activities, providing information and advice, including its thematic assessments and education products, and through its web presence. We expect each of these types of information to continue. Moreover, the National Crime Agency will be an open and transparent organisation, sharing as much information about its work as is operationally possible with Parliament and the public. In addition to its statutory annual report, I expect the NCA to provide information on a more frequent basis through its “duty to publish”, as set out in clause 5, cementing the Government’s commitment to an open and transparent NCA.

I therefore hope that hon. Members are satisfied that sufficient mechanisms are already in place to report the progress that we are making in the fight against crime. In my time as a Minister, there seem to have been huge numbers of reports published and assessments on progress made. I do not know how carefully all those reports are scrutinised by 650 Members of Parliament. I fear that some of them might not be read in their entirety by every Member of the House, but we are certainly providing huge rafts of information and it is envisaged that the NCA will do that to the satisfaction of all those who wish to understand more about the excellent work it is doing to fight serious and organised crime, including in the areas covered in amendments 32 and 33.

Turning to new clause 1, the hon. Lady was seeking a statutory review to ascertain whether counter-terrorism and other national co-ordinating functions, including in respect of public order, should be conferred on the NCA. That debate has been rather discrete. It is a separate debate, if I may so, Mr Caton. The grouping with the other two amendments was slightly surprising, because the matter has been treated as a sort of stand-alone subject of interest, but it was an extremely wise grouping nevertheless. I am only starting to get to the point where I learn how wise such groupings are. For a beginner like me it seems slightly strange. Nevertheless, we are in a position to discuss the amendments together.

We touched on the issue briefly on Tuesday in relation to the debate on amendment 21. Let me be clear: neither the criminal intelligence function nor the reference to

“any other kind of crime”

in clause 1(5)(b) can be used to confer counter-terrorism policing functions on the agency by the back door. I hope that reassures the Committee.

As the Government have been clear from the outset, we are building an agency that will lead the national response to serious, organised and complex crime. I am sure hon. Members will agree it is vital that we give the National Crime Agency the space to design and build within that clear remit and the capabilities and responsibilities that come from its precursor bodies. That is not to say that there are not additional roles, responsibilities or capabilities that may be considered as appropriate for the agency to take on in the future. However, in scrutinising the Bill, I think our first responsibility is to ensure that the agency has a clear mandate in respect of tackling serious, organised and complex crime. That will be a significant challenge for the new agency when it is formally established later this year.

However, in the same way that the agency needs the flexibility to enable it to respond quickly to the changing threat picture, so it is right that the Government too are afforded flexibility to consider whether it is right that the agency should take on additional responsibilities in future.

As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has repeatedly made clear, the Government have made no decision on whether the NCA should have a counter-terrorism role. She has also made it clear that it is right that such matters should be considered when the agency is up and running, and after a review. Our commitment to undertake such a review was first made in the NCA plan in June 2011, and has been repeated on several subsequent occasions both in this House and the other place. We do not need to clutter up the statute book by enshrining such reviews in legislation.

However, providing a ready mechanism to give effect to the outcome of such a review is a different matter. There are several precedents whereby the statutory functions of a public body can be amended or augmented through secondary legislation. That was why the Bill, on introduction in the other place, included a power to confer by order counter-terrorism policing functions on the NCA. Clearly, their lordships took a different view of the appropriateness of including such an order-making power under the Bill. We are continuing to reflect on the debate in the other place, and it has been helpful to hear the views of hon. Members and to know details of the wider debate that has taken place. We will not be seeking in our proceedings to reinstate the order-making power into the Bill, but members of the Committee should not take that to be an indication that the Government have decided such matters one way or the other.

As I have said, we need a little more time to consider our approach. We shall therefore set out our intentions in advance of the Bill being discussed on Report. I note that the new clause refers to “public order functions” as well as

“other national response coordination functions”,

and would require the review to consider the appropriateness of a role for the NCA in those additional areas. I do not know whether to be impressed or daunted by the scale of the ambition of Labour Members for the NCA, but it is not our ambition at the moment to take on those tasks.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am grateful to be able to intervene in the debate between my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow and the Minister. What the hon. Gentleman said about terrorism is important. It was an issue of some controversy in the other place. Will he clarify whether he intends to table an amendment on Report, so that we can consider the matter then, or will the review take place post Royal Assent?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

The review will take place post Royal Assent. Assuming that the Bill has progressed through Parliament and that the NCA comes into being later this year, it will exist without the counter-terrorism function. In time, when the NCA is bedded in, the review will ascertain whether counter-terrorism measures can be achieved more effectively through the NCA or will best be achieved under the existing mechanisms.

As for how such matters will be given legal force, we will not introduce the mechanism in Committee and overturn the decision taken in the other place. We are still assessing whether we will take such action in advance of the Bill being discussed on Report.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

With due respect to the Minister, the measure was in the Bill in another place. Such a provision was removed during its consideration of the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman was saying that he will allow us to continue to debate matters in Committee and not fulfil our function, but then introduce on Report a new clause that reflects the provision that was removed in another place, and just have it debated on the Floor of House before the Bill returns to another place, he really is messing with the legitimate right of the Committee to scrutinise the Bill.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

Well, we will set out our intention ahead of the Bill being discussed on Report, and it might not be to introduce such a measure on Report. We will, of course, act entirely within the processes and procedures that have existed in Parliament for much longer than I can remember.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

Mr Caton, this Committee is conducting itself in a perfectly reasonable normal way. We are testing out the Minister. He is responding to us, and explaining his views. Amendments are generally being withdrawn, which is how procedures in Committee work. There has been no debate on Second Reading and no substantial amendment to debate in Committee, so if he is offering the prospect to the House of Commons that he will, perhaps a day or two before Report, publish the Government’s new thinking on this and re-enter the amendment that was thrown out by the other place, that would be utterly unacceptable and outrageous.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

Let me take members of the Committee back a stage or two. In the Government’s view, we have an effective counter-terrorism presence at the moment, and the leading body is the Metropolitan police. The hon. Member for Walthamstow cited a number of former very senior Metropolitan police officers who believe the Metropolitan police is the best body for exercising those duties.

The case has been made, and it is a perfectly reasonable case, that the NCA will have the scope and talent at its disposal to exercise those powers effectively to protect the people of the United Kingdom. The Government want counter-terrorism to be as effective as possible. We are open-minded about how that can best be achieved. The NCA needs to bed in and establish itself before it would be appropriate to consider whether it is a better vehicle for such responsibilities than the existing vehicles. The question arises separately, and the Government are still open on that point. Others might have views, and they may make speeches or submit those views in writing to the Home Secretary—I am sure she would be grateful to receive them. That is an open debate, and there are pros and cons in different directions.

There is a second issue, which is, were we to go down the path of giving the NCA responsibility for counter-terrorism—that decision has not been made—should we have legislation in this Bill to create a power to do so in future, or should we do it through discrete legislation? We have not yet made a decision on whether to go ahead with that course of action, so we have not introduced a mechanism to include it in the Bill. Before Report, when all Members may contribute, we will set out our intentions. Obviously, there may be corresponding legislation or changes to the Bill, but I am not yet in a position to say what they are.

Charlie Elphicke (Conservative, Dover)

In my, albeit short, time in the House, I have noticed that it is normal for Bills to be living things and for amendments to be tabled on Report following an airing in Committee such as we are having. Indeed, I remember that the previous Government would virtually rewrite Finance Bills on Report; it is not uncommon, and it is not a bad way to go.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

Indeed, I was only a Member of the third of the three Labour Parliaments, but people used to say to me that in the previous two Parliaments, when Labour had very big majorities, such mechanisms were airily put through the House with virtually no regard for the views of Opposition Members. I have tried to take serious regard of all the points that have been made. Of course, the provision was struck out of the Bill in the House of Lords with the votes of, among others, Labour peers. In Committee we could have put the measure straight back in, and I suppose a Government with a majority of this House—if I were able to convince my hon. Friends—would have reinstated it, but we wanted to consider seriously all the points that have been made and to see how the power could best be exercised. That is exactly what we are doing. The clause is not about a review but about giving effect to the conclusions of any such review. We have not yet concluded our review, of course, so we are not in a position to give effect to its conclusions.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

The Minister makes the case that the power is not one that has not been thought through. He recognises that the other place did not feel it was an appropriate power to include in the Bill. The other place gave the Bill proper scrutiny, but by not re-tabling the power, he is denying the Committee the opportunity to scrutinise how it might be constructed under the alternative proposals. He is now summarily suggesting that the Government might bring back the power on Report. Will he assure the Committee that there will be proper legislative scrutiny in the House—not on Report, but proper legislative scrutiny—of the implications of such a major change in how we deal with such a sensitive and complex issue? Yes or no?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I cannot bring such a provision to the Committee when we have not made a decision about whether we wish to bring it to Parliament at all. We in Government will consider what we believe to be the most appropriate means for protecting the public, and there will be a review, once the NCA is established, of how that can be done. We will see how we can best give it legislative effect. When we are in a position to invite Members of Parliament to make a decision we will do so, but as we do not have a decision to invite them to consider at this stage, we cannot.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

The Minister’s hon. Friend the Member for Dover was right: amendments are of course brought in at each and every stage of a Bill. I am hoping, based on our debates, that the Minister will come back on Report with revisions and amendments on a whole range of things. However, the point being made is that the issue is fundamentally important to the Bill, and the provision was thrown out in the other place. If the Minister is seriously thinking that he can go through Second Reading and the whole Committee stage without bringing forward any proposition from Government, and then sneaking it in at the last possible minute and trying to ram it through with a Government majority, it is—I will not say a dishonest form of politics, because you might pull me up, Mr Caton—certainly not a straightforward way of doing things. It would be treating the House with utter contempt. That is the point that, forcefully, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I want to make.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making, but at the risk of slightly going over the ground again, the Government introduced the Bill, which contained that power, to Parliament as a whole. The other place is not constructed entirely to my liking, but that is a different issue on which Parliament has given its view. There it is: we are where we are. The other end of Parliament considered the Bill as a whole, including this proposal. They, not the Government, decided to take out the provision, so we cannot discuss it here because it is no longer in the Bill.

There is an Opposition amendment, which anybody who chooses to observe our deliberations can see we are certainly debating, but the Bill no longer contains that particular proposal because Parliament removed it. Rather than us just bringing it straight back in, in a Committee where the Government have an in-built majority and a fairly reasonable expectation that we would be able to reinstate it if we chose—assuming that I am able to command the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and perhaps the support of Opposition Members who share my passion for defending people from serious and organised crime—we are reflecting upon the decisions made by those in the other place. Decisions made by Parliament. We will continue to reflect upon them, and if we wish to go ahead with some sort of change, we will make our approach clear before Report and there will be an opportunity, it having been discussed at length at the other end of Parliament, for it to be discussed at this end, on top of the discussion we are now having.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

Can I just be clear? The Minister is essentially saying that he did not want to table an amendment for the Committee, which he could have done if he is so convinced that the Government’s original thinking on the proposal that caused them to include it in the Bill in the first place was correct. He could have done that after it was defeated in the Lords, in order to bring it to be considered by the Committee. What message does that send about his presumptions about the ability of the Committee to debate things?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I do not think it says anything. Again, we are going over things, but there are two separate points. One is whether we wish the NCA to be responsible for counter-terrorism. No decision has been made on whether we wish that to be the case. We cannot invite the Committee to endorse a decision that we are reflecting on, based on all kinds of interesting insights and representations that could come from Opposition Members. Separate from that are what parliamentary mechanisms would be put in place to give legal force to that change, were that to be the path the Government wished to go down at some future point. All I am saying is that we will make all those matters clear before Report, so that there is plenty of opportunity for scrutiny. There has been, however, a lot of parliamentary scrutiny already in the other place.

Charlie Elphicke (Conservative, Dover)

Just so that I fully understand, the Minister is being berated for not bringing back a provision that was voted against by Labour peers and not tabled as an amendment by Labour MPs in Committee. Is it not odd for them to attack him for choosing to pause and reflect on what the House of Lords decided? If they feel so strongly about the issue, they could have tabled an amendment.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

Indeed. I share the views of the Deputy Prime Minister about the construction of the House of Lords, but it is still the House of Lords. At the moment, it is the revising Chamber. It decided to change the Bill, with the support of Labour peers, and we are reflecting on that, as Governments are normally invited to do when changes are made by Parliament. It is difficult; sometimes you cannot win either way, can you, Mr Caton? We are doing our best and maybe having come close to exhausting this aspect of the conversation, the hon. Lady will consider withdrawing her amendment.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

The Minister would get further with the Opposition if he focused less on the pejorative language of how women speak in Parliament and more on the specific detail. Suggesting that I am emotional or excitable does not do him any favours in making his case. I hope that he will reflect on how he has behaved today and what that says about this Parliament.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

What did you say?

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

I said pejorative language, because I consider it to be pejorative to suggest that someone is emotional or excitable for raising an issue and to restrict those comments only to when women are speaking.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

The hon. Lady said that she was passionate about the issues, and I said that she was passionate about the issues. I cannot remember which derogatory word she used, but if I have the energy, I will read about it in Hansard tomorrow. If she looks back at what she has said about me in her speeches—if she wants to go tit for tat—she was saying all kinds of things, but I will not get too upset about them and maybe we can call it quits.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

I think the Minister will find that he said that I was emotional and said in the earlier sitting that I was excitable. I suggest that he reflects on what message that sends about the debates that we have here. We are discussing serious issues and in tabling the amendments, I requested specific detail.

Responding to the first amendment, which would create a review of how the NCA is helping us tackle cybercrime, the Minister made no mention of how it would work for GCHQ, or how the NCA would work with the Ministry of Defence. In my speech, I talked about the artificial distinction between cyber-security and cybercrime. I was hoping that the Minister would give us a little more clarity on how the NCA will fulfil the national level role that all the briefings say it will have, how it will tackle those issues and how we can be confident as a society that there is co-ordination across Government.

David Rutley (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I am following the debate with keen interest. I recognise the hon. Lady’s enthusiasm—that is the important word—for these matters.

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)

Expertise.

David Rutley (Conservative, Macclesfield)

And expertise. Given that expertise—a very good word—will the hon. Member for Walthamstow make her case even stronger by setting out what success criteria she would like to see in the reports and what key metrics should be enclosed in them? That will give the Minister the best possible chance to reflect on what she is saying, if that suggestion meets with her approval.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

Absolutely. It is pleasant finally to hear a question from the hon. Gentleman that is about the issue in hand. The amendment raises a number of issues around cost and threat and, in particular, how the NCA works with its partner agencies. The amendment was trying to get at that challenge of co-ordination and what success might look like. Earlier, I mentioned cyber specials, who the Ministry of Defence is looking to recruit. The Bill will allow the NCA to recruit specials to work on cybercrime. Success would come not from the Government trying to compete among themselves, but from collaboration between individuals. For example, were a new form of malware to be developed that required specialist knowledge about how it was transmitted, I would not want separate work going on in the MOD and in the NCA to address the impact it might have.

Industrial espionage, which the hon. Member for Dover mentioned, may have state sponsors. That cuts across the boundaries between commercial and industrial crime and national security. One of the successes I would like to see is evidence of greater co-operation. That is precisely why the amendment talks about relationships with partner agencies.

I am disappointed that the Minister did not refer to how the NCA might work with GCHQ or the MOD, or what role the Cabinet Office would play. He referred to the national defence cyber-security strategy, which comes from the Cabinet Office, yet here we are talking about the NCA and the role that it will play in tackling cybercrime.

I also talked about reducing the cost and threat of cybercrime and the requirement to hold on to data about its nature. Again the Minister made no reference to that or to the importance of accurate data so that we could see the impact of some of the changes on how cybercrime occurs in the UK, and the cost to all of us, whether individuals or businesses, or to national security.

I hope that I have set out for the Minister some suggestions about the sorts of things an annual review could look at, such as how different Government agencies were looking at the problem. Of course different capabilities will be required in the MOD, and of course there will be different issues about how we work with businesses, but the Government are setting up the NCA, which will have a key role in tackling cybercrime, yet they have not clearly set out what it will mean for all of us. At worst, there is a risk of replication as we see silos within Departments dealing with such issues, but at best, there could be a real step change in our understanding of the level of threat we face, the artificial distinction between the nature and type of attacks undertaken, the specialist knowledge required, and how partner agencies work at ground level. For example, if the police are teaching other police about how to deal with viruses, we also need to look at how we work with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to deal with viruses and train businesses in security software.

Given that nearly £1 billion of security software is at stake, I hope that the Minister will agree that reviewing how the agencies will operate is very important. I am sad that he did not see fit to show a commitment to the co-ordination needed to ensure that we are not wasting public money and that we are, as the amendment would require, reducing the cost and threat of cybercrime to consumers, the Government and the armed forces.

Our amendment 34 relates to CEOP’s budget. Again, the Minister did not detail the specifics that many of us are concerned about. We are already starting to see where the bauble approach—as Jim Gamble described it—to bringing the commands together may inadvertently lead to a loss of expertise, resource and priority in child protection. I do not think anyone in the Committee wishes that to happen; I am convinced that everyone would like CEOP to be as successful as it has been. I encourage the Minister to think further about how, when we come to that amendment, he can satisfy some of the concerns that we all have.

As for new clause 1, words fail me in describing the Minister’s attitude to the role that the Committee can play. He summarily announced that he may or may not table a new clause or amendment to provide for a power that had been removed from the Bill on Report in the other place. New clause 1 is about proper parliamentary scrutiny of such a substantial change. Getting counter-terrorism right, given the threats that we face in this country, is paramount. To suggest simply that the Minister can sneak in a power on Third Reading, when we will have a number of other issues to deal with, is extremely destabilising to the Met and to all those doing the planning for the NCA. It is extremely concerning to all of us who live in communities affected by the issues.

I am disappointed that the Minister has taken such a strategy towards the Committee. The Whips and all of us will reflect on what that says about what he thinks of our powers to offer effective guidance on how the power in the Bill might be used. Given that the other House rejected that power, with a number of serious concerns about what would happen, I hoped for more from the Minister.

I shall not press the Committee to a vote on the amendments, but I must say that the temper of the debate was disappointing to all of us who hoped that this afternoon we could have a constructive debate about how policing moves forward in this country and addresses three very serious issues. I hope we do better on Tuesday.

Clause 7 - Other functions etc

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 7, page 7, line 1, at end insert—

‘(7) The Director General must ensure any funds delegated by the NCA to the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) are reserved for that purpose and this be confirmed through the annual report of the NCA to Parliament set out in section 5(2)(b).’.

As I have already indicated, the amendment is to do with our concerns about the child protection unit and what will happen to its ability to fulfil its function. The amendment seeks to ensure that as the unit is transferred to the NCA, it retains the budget required to do the job. We are also concerned about how CEOP manages its budget, because it is one of the few organisations within the police that is successful in raising money from outside sources. The amendment seeks to ring-fence that money, to give confidence to any of the organisations that give money to CEOP that it will not be siphoned off into other elements of the NCA.

There are many things about the proposal that I am sure other Committee members, in particular those with expertise in child protection, want to comment on, but CEOP generated an additional £1.8 million in partnership towards its work last year. The amendment seeks to ensure that there is accountability for where that money, if maintained, is spent. In the Lords, Lord Henley stated that he hoped the CEOP funding model would remain and, in particular, that the training services provided for police, teaching and child protection, which allow it to generate resources, are not curtailed because partners are not confident about where the money might go.

CEOP has a budget of about £6.8 million, which is already to be reduced by 10% over the next three years, under the comprehensive spending review. The amendment would ensure that no further reduction is suffered by CEOP as it is moved into the NCA. I am mindful of our debate on Tuesday, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn expressed serious concerns about the budget for the NCA as a whole. Therefore, an organisation that is able to generate its own funding but is subsumed into the NCA might be extremely susceptible to being asked to pick up the slack in any further reduction of the budget. The amendment seeks to protect it against that so that it can get on with doing its good job of tackling child protection. I hope that the Minister responds positively.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

As we have heard from the hon. Lady, the amendment seeks to ring-fence the funding for CEOP within the NCA.

As I have done throughout our discussion in Committee, I can certainly assure the hon. Lady that the National Crime Agency will play a vital role in tackling child sexual exploitation and abuse. The hon. Lady is, I hope, well aware of the Government’s strong and continuing commitment to CEOP. We want to build on its successes to date and to ensure that children are even better protected in future. Reflecting that commitment, the six principles that underpin the transition of CEOP into the NCA will, as I have said, be set out in the framework document, to which the Home Secretary and the NCA director general will have a statutory duty to have regard. On how CEOP’s important work load is funded, the document will cement the Government commitment that CEOP will continue to have

“clear, delegated authority for its budget”,

as well as being able to

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

Going to the nub of the point made, however, we do not believe that proceeding further, by providing for the statutory ring-fencing of one element of the NCA budget, would support the efficient and effective management of the organisation, including its ability to respond to changing circumstances in-year. Indeed, across government, budgets are not in practice ring-fenced by statute. A commitment might be given by a Secretary of State or a Prime Minister to ring-fence a particular budget, but not in statute, because that does not allow for the necessary flexibility to respond to changing priorities within the financial year. As to how the director general reports on the work of CEOP in the NCA annual report, I suggest that we can also leave that to the director general’s good judgment, rather than introducing additional statutory duties.

I wholeheartedly share all hon. Members’ desire to ensure that CEOP is properly resourced. Incorporating it in the NCA will enable it to draw on the wider resources of the organisation that are not allocated to one of the four commands. CEOP’s work will not be diluted in the NCA. Rather, CEOP will be able to do even more to protect children—the point I was making a few moments ago—with border police and others bringing extra resource and expertise to bear.

On Tuesday, we touched on the issue of CEOP staff transferring to the NCA. With your permission, Mr Caton, I want to take this opportunity to provide a fuller answer to the hon. Member for Walsall South on that point. She asked whether all the staff from CEOP would go over to the NCA. I said at the time that that was my understanding, and I confirm that all staff currently employed by CEOP will transfer to the NCA. It is envisaged that secondees in CEOP will similarly transfer to the NCA; the Bill therefore provides that their secondment will have effect as if it were a secondment to the NCA. Secondees who do not want to transfer will, of course, be able to return to their parent organisation. The transfer process to the NCA from precursor organisations is currently being discussed with staff, but no staff will be lost in the process. As we build the agency, the objective is to ensure that CEOP can do more to protect children as a fully integrated command within the NCA, drawing on the agency’s enhanced intelligence, its operational crime-fighting capabilities and its strong relationships with partners. CEOP within the NCA will mean no lessening of the focus on tackling child sexual exploitation and abuse.

Returning to amendment 34, I hope to persuade the Committee that enshrining the six principles in the framework document is the appropriate way to safeguard the position of CEOP, not by imposing statutory straitjackets, which are not typical elsewhere in legislation, whether under this Government or previous ones. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Walthamstow to withdraw the amendment.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

Again, it would have been helpful to hear from the Minister what he is doing to ensure that there is no loss of support for partners working with CEOP, given their contribution to the CEOP budget. I was also rather worried about his reference to flexibility to respond to changes within years, in terms of budgets. That sounds rather as if we cannot guarantee that CEOP will get the funding that it has been getting, which is of concern to all of us who are worried about the implications of CEOP being moved into the NCA and so having its budget reduced.

I have no desire to press the amendment to a vote, but I am putting on record our concern, to ensure that the Government continue to resource CEOP properly to do its job, and that it can continue to work as it does at the moment, with partners, and having the necessary people. Already, in north Wales, we see the consequences that may be coming to CEOP. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that and reassure us that it will not happen. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.