Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2013.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Good morning, everyone. The usual rules apply. Gentlemen, if you wish to remove your jackets, you may.

Clause 8 - Director General: customs powers of Commissioners and operational powers

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Good morning, Ms Dorries. I hope that you had a pleasant weekend. It is a great pleasure to be here in Committee today. The Opposition have tabled no amendments to clauses 8 to 15, but we intend to discuss all the clauses to explore the issues and the Government’s thinking in what I hope will be a helpful and constructive way. I give notice to the Whip and to the Minister that we do not plan to vote against the clauses, but we want to have at least some discussion. Depending on what the Minister says, we might oppose the clauses, but I doubt that we will.

Clause 8 is about operational powers of the director general and the commissioners. It states that the director general, Keith Bristow, who has already been appointed,

“has…the same powers as the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs would have.”

It continues:

“The Secretary of State may”

—that is the key word—

“designate the Director General as a person having one or more of the following—

(a) the powers and privileges of a constable;

(b) the powers of an officer of Revenue and Customs;

(c) the powers of an immigration officer.”

Interestingly, the clause confers on the Secretary of State another power:

“The Secretary of State may modify or withdraw a designation of the Director General by giving notice of the modification or withdrawal to the Director General.”

Schedule 5 gives effect to the clause and will form part of this debate, but I want to ask the Minister about clause 8 as a whole. In what circumstances may the Secretary of State

“designate the Director General as a person having…the powers and privileges of a constable”,

which, self-evidently, Keith Bristow has? The same question applies to:

“the powers of an officer of Revenue and Customs;”

and

“the powers of an immigration officer.”

Will the Secretary of State designate the director general as having those powers as a matter of course? It would be helpful to know, because according to the material that we have dealt with to date, the director general, Keith Bristow, will have responsibility for the National Crime Agency as it relates to policing of serious organised crime; Revenue and Customs and the border force; and matters connected with policing and training through the work being amalgamated through the National Policing Improvement Agency. I am genuinely interested in hearing in what circumstances such powers will be vested in the director general and whether it will be a matter of course.

Subsection (3) states:

“The Secretary of State may modify or withdraw a designation...by giving notice of the modification or withdrawal to the Director General.”

If the director general is to be vested with the powers as a matter of course, in what circumstances does the Minister envisage the Secretary of State giving a power to the NCA director and then exercising the power to

“modify or withdraw a designation”?

With these questions, I am trying to discover what powers the Minister anticipates the director general of the NCA will have. Serious responsibilities are vested in the agency and the director general will have oversight of those issues. The heart of the clause is the competence of the director general to oversee, direct and have powers in relation to those fields.

This is an important matter, and I have already asked whether and how it has been dealt with in respect of Keith Bristow. Although the Bill has not yet passed through the Commons, it has had Second Reading in the Lords and has completed its Committee stage. Keith Bristow was appointed more than 12 months ago to be national director of the NCA. What powers have already been vested in him? What assessment have the Secretary of State and the Home Office made of Mr Bristow’s powers? This is not a criticism of Keith Bristow. As I said at the first sitting of the Committee, I have a great deal of respect for his work and worked with him during my time fulfilling Government functions. My questions are not about him but about the principle of a future Keith Bristow and the starting point for such a person. Were the tests under clause 8 directed at Keith Bristow on his appointment? What powers does he have as of 29 January regarding these matters? That is an important point and I will welcome the Minister’s comments.

Those points also relate to schedule 5, which I think we might deal with in a separate stand part debate, so I may leave my comments on that schedule until then. That would be helpful, as it deals with an advisory committee, but I will just touch on the issue now and we will discuss it more fully in due course. The advisory panel is put in place under paragraph 4(1), which says,

“The Secretary of State must appoint an advisory panel (to enable recommendations to be made as to the operational powers which the Director General should have)”.

The schedule states that an advisory panel must be appointed to advise on whether the director general has the relevant skills for those powers, but it states also that the Secretary of State has the power not to have an advisory panel. We will test that when debate schedule 5. My question in relation to clause 8 is: was an advisory panel put in place when Keith Bristow was appointed? Clause 8 gives power to schedule 5 and we have Keith Bristow in post, so I question the powers, the “may” and whether the Secretary of State acted with or without an advisory panel, as the Bill directs, when appointing Keith Bristow.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

Good morning, Ms Dorries and all those on the Committee. It may be helpful if I briefly outline the purpose of clause 8 and the associated schedule 5. I will try to incorporate a response to the points just raised by the right hon. Gentleman.

Clause 8 confers the powers of the commissioners for revenue and customs on the director general and sets out the arrangements for the designation of the wider operational powers on the director general. The director general will be, first and foremost, an officer of the NCA with all the necessary operational powers to take an active part in agency operations. The crime-fighting experience and focus of the director general of the NCA will be crucial in setting the tone for the agency’s work, establishing its crime-fighting credentials and securing its position in the law enforcement landscape.

The arrangement in clause 8 for the three types of operational powers—police powers, customs powers and immigration powers—is distinct from the general administrative powers of the director general to run the agency and his or her operational responsibilities as the head of a crime-fighting agency, which are covered under earlier clauses. The director general will have the overall direction and control of the agency’s operations, even if he or she does not hold operational powers; but the director general will need to hold such operational powers if he or she wants to take an active part in those operations—for example, making arrests alongside NCA officers. Even without the operational powers, the director general will be able to run his organisation,; the question is whether he will have the special powers vested in a police officer, a customs officer or an immigration officer.

In the clause and the linked arrangements in schedule 5, there will be a clear and independent mechanism on the face of the Bill to provide the director general with those important operational powers. The director general will be able to be designated with one or more of the powers of a constable, a customs officer and an immigration officer. Under the provisions in clause 9, it falls to the director general to designate other NCA officers with those same operational powers, but our view is that it would be inappropriate for the director general to designate them to himself. He can designate other people and oversees that process, but who can designate him? Clause 8 provides for the Home Secretary to designate the director general with operational powers.

It is clearly important that the director general is designated with operational powers only if he is adequately trained and fit to exercise such powers. Schedule 5 provides two routes for assessing the adequacy of the training in operational powers before the Home Secretary can designate them to the director general. Designation will take place either on a binding recommendation of an advisory panel, which would be set up to judge the suitability in a given area for the director general to receive the designation, or according to certain regulations, subject to the affirmative procedure. It may well be that if the director general manifestly has that level of competence, it will not be necessary to convene an advisory panel, but it is necessary to recognise the competence that he or she holds.

Clearly, the judgment on whether the director general is adequately trained is best taken by operational experts and not by the Home Secretary, who authorises the process but does not routinely have the expertise to make the judgments. The reason two processes are set out is to ensure that the provisions are sufficiently flexible to cover a range of scenarios, including when a director general does not have prior training in the operational powers or, conversely, when he or she does have the prior experience in some or all of those powers. We shall consider the details of the arrangements when we debate schedule 5, which is obviously an extension of the current debate.

The director general will also be conferred with the powers of the commissioners for revenue and customs. That is an important development and one that addresses a gap in the arrangements for the Serious Organised Crime Agency: for example, SOCA officers could use customs officers’ powers to seize goods, vehicles or vessels used in smuggling, but were then unable to make decisions relating to the subsequent return, sale or destruction of seized items because they did not possess the relevant powers, as those are conferred under statute on the commissioners for revenue and customs. By providing the powers of the commissioners to the director general, that gap will be filled. In recognition of the extensive powers of the commissioners of revenue and customs, the clause allows the director general to exercise those powers only for customs matters; he or she will not be able to use those powers for revenue matters, which will remain the preserve of HM Revenue and Customs. The commissioners have extensive functions and powers and it is right and proper that tax and revenue matters remain the preserve and responsibility of HMRC.

The right hon. Gentleman made a couple of specific points about the provision that the Home Secretary “may” designate powers. We expect that she will designate the powers to the director general, subject to the provisos that I just outlined. We accept that the withdrawal of those powers is very unlikely. I suppose one could conceive of the nature of the knowledge required to fulfil the task evolving over time and the director general not updating his knowledge, so that having previously been deemed fit to exercise the powers, he may not be deemed fit to fulfil them any longer unless he updates his knowledge. However, the main purpose of the ability to withdraw designation is to make the treatment consistent with that of other NCA officers. The director general has the power to modify the conditions of other employees of the NCA and, in extremis, to withdraw the designation of their powers, so it was thought fit that a parallel power should be vested in the Home Secretary.

Regarding Keith Bristow himself, we have not yet agreed clause 8 and schedule 5 and I would not want the Government ever to be accused of being insufficiently respectful of the Committee or of Parliament more generally, but with his background as chief constable of Warwickshire police, Keith Bristow ticks the box emphatically in terms of having the necessary qualifications to exercise the powers as a police officer. He does not have any powers as the director general of the NCA because those are subject to the Bill, so the further powers that the Home Secretary may confer on him, subject to the advisory group’s recommendation, will follow in due course, once the creation of the NCA has been agreed by Parliament and fully constituted.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I do not want to be churlish, but the Bill has not gone through all its stages in Parliament—not even clause 1, which states:

“A National Crime Agency, consisting of the NCA officers, is to be formed.”

Mr Keith Bristow was appointed as the director general of the National Crime Agency, which is yet to be formed, more than 12 months ago. I was asking the Minister, effectively, what consideration under clause 8 has been given to Keith Bristow’s competences on the other issues? Self evidently, as a chief constable, he has

“the powers and privileges of a constable”,

but he was appointed 12 months ago, before the Bill has received Royal Assent. What consideration was given to the designation of

“the powers of an officer of Revenue and Customs”

and

“the powers of an immigration officer”?

I would like to know whether, for example, the Secretary of State has considered appointing the advisory panel for which schedule 5 provides in respect of Keith Bristow. Again, this is not a criticism of Mr Bristow; I just want to know what consideration was given, because the Minister’s test that clause 8 is not yet law does not stand: clause 1 is not yet law, yet Mr Bristow has been appointed. He has walked away from being the chief constable of Warwickshire and is now the director general of the NCA, yet neither clause 8 nor clause 1 have taken effect. Will the Minister give some indication of where we are with the process and the proposed director general?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

The right hon. Gentleman is correct that some preliminary work has taken place; it would be difficult to constitute the NCA in a matter of weeks from a standing start. Of course, SOCA still exists—in fact, I had a meeting with the leading officers in SOCA just a day or two ago to talk about their ongoing operations and activities. We are waiting until Parliament has granted its full approval—assuming that it does—for the NCA before we are in “all systems go” mode and can put every single arrangement in place.

I do not know whether it is appropriate to talk about Keith Bristow. The powers in the Bill will last beyond the appointment of any specific individual, although Mr Bristow’s background is clearly in the powers of a constable, rather than the customs or immigration powers. His successor may have a background, and therefore greater expertise, in a different field, and not necessarily have a background in the powers of a constable. The director general will oversee the work of the NCA and its operational leadership, regardless of whether he or she has designated powers in all three of those areas. He or she might feel it is helpful to have those powers and the Home Secretary might agree with that assessment, so it might be a good idea for the director general to acquire additional skills and training and for an advisory panel to judge whether the director general has reached a satisfactory level of attainment, but the decision on that arrangement will be based on the competence, knowledge and background of the individual concerned.

I do not want the Committee to get the impression that the NCA under the leadership of Keith Bristow will be able to operate only in certain fields because his background is in one area and not in another. He will still be able to manage and run the organisation for which he will be responsible.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I accept that, and I understand that procedure. However, the clause gives the Government the power to designate the three competences of the director general. My simple question is—I am not sure whether the Minister has answered this—will it be normal practice for those powers to be designated to the director general? If that is the case, will those powers be designated to the current holder of the post, Mr Keith Bristow? Will it be it normal practice for the Government to seek a candidate, if Mr Bristow leaves in two, three, four, five, six or seven years’ time, and designate those powers to them? I am interested in the scope of the post, rather than the individual post holder.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

That is a good point. The Government will certainly not only consider a candidate to be director general if he or she has already ticked all three boxes—immigration, customs and constable powers. The advisory committee will advise the Home Secretary whether the director general has attained a level of knowledge that warrants him or her being vested with those powers. We envisage that the director general will be able to run the organisation perfectly well without having powers in all three areas.

However, it is unlikely that a candidate will become director general if they have no background in any of those three areas. I imagine that directors general will seek to acquire knowledge to be given powers in those areas, although it is not necessary for them to possess that level of knowledge and those powers formally to run the organisation and the operations. They can take a keen interest in the fields of the NCA’s activity without having formal powers granted upon them in the same way that you or I, Ms Dorries, can take a keen interest in police operational matters without having the formal powers of a constable vested upon us. Just as the director general will wish senior NCA employees to have a broad understanding of the formal powers across the organisation in order to equip them to do their jobs to an even higher standard, the Home Secretary and the director general will wish to reach that extensive level of attainment.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I am very much looking forward to the debate on schedule 5 because the Minister raises some very interesting questions. I put this simple question to him: would it not be better for the Home Secretary to know for sure that the director general has the necessary competences before she appoints him, rather than waiting until after she has appointed him to convene the panel to then be advised on whether he has the competences?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I hesitate because I cannot immediately think of an individual—although I defer to the two previous Home Office Ministers on the Opposition Benches—who has designated powers as a customs officer, an immigration officer and a police officer. They tend to be different strands of career development, and people will have accumulated knowledge and expertise in the particular strand that they have chosen earlier in their career. To say in advance, when looking to appoint a future director general, that only someone who has accumulated expertise in all three fields would be deemed to be suitable even to put themselves forward would almost certainly limit the field of applicants too greatly.

As I have said, the director general will still be able to oversee the NCA’s operations. Members of the Committee were alarmed that a director general who does not have designated powers in, for example, the field of immigration would have his hands tied in overseeing the immigration function of the NCA. I can put their minds at rest—they should not be alarmed on that score. The director general will take a close interest in all matters regarding the NCA, but he will not be able to exercise the functions of a designated immigration officer if he or she chooses to get their hands dirty on the front line, unless the Home Secretary, following the advice of the advisory panel, has deemed him or her fit to do so.

I would imagine that, in order to extend his or her knowledge, that might be an area in which they could be interested to acquire additional skills and insights, but it will not be a requirement. Clause 8 and schedule 5 lay out the process by which that would happen.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

We will explore these matters in slightly more detail in schedule 5 to see exactly where the Minister is coming from regarding the powers. I am happy to let clause 8 stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 - Police, customs and immigration powers

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Schedule 5 will set the parameters of the designation of the director general’s powers under clause 8. In line with the initial comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East, I want to test how the designation will work in practice.

Does the Minister intend to convene an advisory panel for the proposed and current post holder, Mr Keith Bristow? Will Mr Bristow exercise all three competences or not?—[Interruption.] I think the Minister is saying that that is not a matter for the Committee. I am sorry, but we are discussing schedule 5, which states:

“The Secretary of State must appoint an advisory panel”.

I want to know whether an advisory panel has been appointed to consider the competences and whether the current post holder intends to exercise all three competences.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

The right hon. Gentleman rightly heard me say that, in my view—although obviously such matters are decided by you, Ms Dorries—the matter is not one for the Committee. Mr Bristow could decide to resign from his post this afternoon—I do not envisage that he will—and we do not need to have a long conversation about which particular skills and attributes he personally has. What we are doing is putting legislation in place that will be suitable for a director general, whoever that is in the future.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The point is that we have a post holder in post, for whom I have great respect. The discussion is not about the post holder, but I am interested in whether the processes in schedule 5 are, have been or will be used in relation to the current post holder. It is perfectly legitimate to ask whether the post holder, who is a chief constable, is planning to take on board the other competences under clause 8—the powers of a Revenue and Customs officer and of an immigration officer.

Schedule 5 will give the Secretary of State the power to appoint an advisory panel to see whether the current post holder wishes to take on those two powers. I am just inquiring whether the current post holder is intending to apply to have the two designated roles. Is the Secretary of State or the Minister going to appoint an advisory panel?

Paragraph 4(3) of schedule 5 gives details on what the advisory panel should be. I am interested to test that in relation to the current post holder and to future post holders, if designations are proposed.

Schedule 5 at the moment says:

“An advisory panel is to consist of—

(a) a person to chair the panel, who must not be a civil servant;”.

Okay, they must not be a civil servant. Will the Minister indicate what competences the potential chair of a panel might have, given the chair will judge the competences of an immigration officer, Revenue and Customs officer and/or a constable? Will the Minister tell us the type of person he envisages would chair the panel, if not a civil servant?

Secondly, the advisory panel is to consist of

“(b) an appropriate number of other members (the “expert members”) who, when taken together, have appropriate knowledge of the following matters—

(i) the training of constables in England and Wales…

(ii) the training of officers of Revenue and Customs…

(iii) the training of immigration officers;

(iv) the training of NCA officers.”

My question is: what type of competences are required of the chair of the panel? What is an appropriate number? What type of skill and knowledge are those people expected to have in relation to the competences? Those are important matters.

“(4) The expert members of the advisory panel must—

(a) consider the…adequacy of the Director General’s training, and

(b) give the panel’s chair such information in respect of their consideration of that question as the chair may require.

(5) The panel’s chair must then—

(a) consider the information given by the expert members,

(b) decide the question of the adequacy of the Director General’s training.”

Those are important points. I am testing schedule 5 because that is what is before us. Does Mr Keith Bristow intend to apply for the two competences that he does not have? If he does, does the Minister or the Secretary of State intend to exercise the powers under schedule 5? If so, what type of person should be chair of that advisory panel? How many people will be members of that panel and with what competences? This proposal would give tremendous power to the Secretary of State and I want to test how that would be exercised.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

Presumably the point that my right hon. Friend is trying to tease out is whether the chair and members of the panel will be competent in the areas of expertise they are to judge. Could this be a back-door route for the Home Secretary to import foreign law and order experts into our system, bringing in people who have no competence in our system but might be law enforcement officers in other jurisdictions?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

That is an interesting point to which the House of Commons will return later. I know my hon. Friend takes a keen interest on the Home Affairs Committee.

I make these points, Ms Dorries, because on page 68 of the Bill there is the heading “No advisory panel”, under which it says:

“5(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about the circumstances in which the Director General may be designated as a person having operational powers otherwise than on recommendations made in accordance with paragraph 4.”

So, under schedule 5, the Secretary of State has the power to appoint an advisory panel but also the power not to. I am testing the Minister on his view regarding the current post holder, who is a chief constable, and whether he intends to designate those other two powers. If so, has the process already been followed, and if not, will it be followed? If that designation is required, will there be a panel or not? What is the principle involved? Unless the Secretary of State finds somebody who happens to be an immigration officer, a customs officer and a chief constable, what are the circumstances where no advisory panel will be brought forward?

It may seem tedious to go through these issues, but this proposal would give powers to a Secretary of State to determine these matters now and in future. All I am seeking is to tease out the Government’s thinking, so that when future Members of the House test a Minister on the exercise of these powers, they will have an idea of Parliament’s intention when giving those powers to the Secretary of State. This is the right moment to ask why there should be an advisory panel, who would be on it, when, where and how, and also to ask in what circumstances one would not be convened. Does the Minister have a view on where we are with the current post holder, Mr Keith Bristow?

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I do not think my right hon. Friend is raising tedious questions, but important ones. The purpose of the panel is to decide whether the director general is adequately trained. Would it not be better to make the assessment prior to the appointment of the director general, rather than waiting until the director general has been appointed?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

In the interests of speed, Ms Dorries, I did not mention two other points that I wish to mention. My right hon. Friend has given me a chance to do so. Paragraph (6) refers to

“adequate training in respect of that power”,

and paragraph 9 defines adequate training as

“training that is adequate to enable that power to be properly exercised”.

What does that mean? And “appropriate” training means

“appropriate in the Secretary of State’s view”.

So we need to test those issues, too.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has had a further opportunity to raise more questions for the Minister, who I am sure will answer them.

I have no doubt about the competence and experience of Keith Bristow. In common with my right hon. Friend, I do not question Keith Bristow’s seniority, experience and ability to do the job. However, the questions are important. We need to know whether a panel will be convened in relation to the current post holder once the Bill is enacted. It is an important question for the longer term. We would not expect to convene a panel after the appointment of the chief executive of an NHS hospital trust to see whether they had had adequate training, and we would not convene a panel after a head teacher had been appointed to see whether they had the adequate competences and experience to be the head teacher. It would surely be better to do that in advance. If there are areas in which the post holder does not have competence, what then happens? Is he sent off for more training? Is the authority delegated to another official? We need to know the answer to such important questions.

I accept that no one person can have every competence to the nth degree, but what is the consequence if a judgment is made that a post holder does not have the experience and training in one area? What is the implication of that? Is he sent off for more training or is the authority delegated to somebody else?

I want to ask about the panel itself. As my right hon. Friend has said, we need to know more about who is likely to be the chair of the panel. The only criterion at the moment is that they must not be a civil servant, so that includes the majority of the population. We need to know a little more about the type of person that the Secretary of State has in mind. My right hon. Friend made various observations and raised questions about the other people who might form the panel. What would happen if the panel members formed a view about the competence and experience of the post holder that was not accepted by the chair of the panel? According to schedule 5, all the power ultimately rests with the chair and the panel members are simply there to advise. Presumably, the chair can take the advice or not. So what would happen if there was a substantial difference of opinion between members of the panel and the chair?

Will the report of the panel members be published and made available, or will it be kept private? I am concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak alluded to bringing in law enforcement officers from other jurisdictions. As I commented the other day, the Home Secretary seemed to be dead set against that until recently, when she was reported to have had a major change of mind. She is now prepared to think about bringing in senior police officers from the United States and other places.

What if the Home Secretary was hellbent on appointing a certain director general, who had come outwith our jurisdiction and who did not have experience of the policing system in the United Kingdom? She then appoints the chair of a panel that she hand-picks, because she knows that the chair will agree with her. The panel members are then assembled and they take a completely different view and make a clear recommendation to the chair, who completely ignores their expertise and makes his recommendation to the Home Secretary, which she was anticipating, anyway. That would be complete nonsense. We need to know whether the panel members’ report will be published and what ultimate authority they will have in making a recommendation to the Secretary of State. Schedule 5 looks at first sight like an innocent little schedule, but as we begin to think about not just this but future appointments, many questions arise.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I am grateful for the opportunity to demonstrate to the Committee that schedule 5 is indeed an innocent little schedule. People need not be unduly alarmed when considering giving it their approval this morning.

The right hon. Member for Delyn asked about the powers that Keith Bristow possesses. Of course, in terms of the matters we are discussing, the NCA, under his leadership, cannot assume the full functions until the Committee, the House and Parliament have given their approval to the whole process. Were the Committee to decide, against my recommendation, to reject schedule 5, the ability of the director general to satisfy an advisory panel would obviously be compromised, because there would be no provision for such a panel. Until the Bill receives Royal Assent, we are not in a position to go ahead in the way that we envisage, which is precisely why we are seeking Parliament’s approval right now.

Let me go back. The conversation was about the practical questions of how the advisory panel will work. It is worth reminding the Committee that the Home Secretary will judge whether the director general warrants the particular special powers in the three fields of constable powers, customs powers and immigration powers. We have made it that way because otherwise the director general, who is responsible for the NCA staff, would be making that judgment about himself. We thought that the Committee would be more satisfied if he was not put in the invidious position of making a judgment about his own competences, so that judgment is made by the Home Secretary.

Of course, the current Home Secretary is demonstrating on a daily basis particular competence in her office, but we cannot be certain that that will always be the case. We do not know whether a future Home Secretary will have particular knowledge or insight into the particular requirements that an individual needs in order to become a designated constable, customs officer or immigration officer. So, to ensure that the Home Secretary can make an informed decision about the director general, schedule 5 contains the provision for an advisory panel of people with the relevant expertise.

The advisory panel is not a permanent sitting committee. It is not a group of people who are remunerated on a year-in, year-out basis and turn up for monthly meetings. It is a small group of people—the number depends on the precise nature of what they are trying to ascertain and what is necessary to make the judgment—brought together to ensure that the Home Secretary has the knowledge required to make the decision. Let us say, for example, that the director general is seeking the powers that go with being an immigration officer. One would envisage that the advisory group would be people with particular expertise in the requirements necessary to become a designated immigration officer. They would not have particular expertise in customs issues, because that is not the matter at hand. They would look at what requirements the director general was able to fulfil and make the recommendation to the Home Secretary on that basis. That is how it would work.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am genuinely not trying to be difficult on this; I am just trying to find out from the Minister whether, in the case of the current post holder Keith Bristow, for example, he intends to convene a panel in relation to potential designation. If the answer is yes, the question has to be whether he is willing, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East said, to publish the names of the people on that panel, their competences and any comments about those issues. Those are matters for scrutiny. If I were to table a parliamentary question at some point and ask who the members of the advisory panel were, would the Ministers say, “Yes, they were people A, B, C, D and E?” I simply want to get that transparency so that we understand the matter.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

Of course, the Home Secretary will be the person who makes the decision whether the director general should be given operational powers in a particular field, and she takes advice the whole time. In fact, Governments are not always as transparent as we are being now in describing it as an advisory panel. Perhaps even as we are meeting now, the Home Secretary may be in the Home Office taking advice from a group of people who have expertise in a particular field to enable her to undertake her duties better informed by expert insights. An advisory panel will be constituted to fulfil that role.

The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East asked why all of this will not be done prior to an appointment. The point I was trying to make earlier was that because the NCA will be a wide-reaching body that will be seeking to fight serious and organised crime across the board, it is very unlikely that the director general will have such operational powers as part of their CV on the blocks and waiting to go when they apply for the post. It is likely that they will be drawn from a particular field or area of expertise. He or she will still be able to run the show and make operational decisions, but if he or she wants to exercise operational powers in a particular area, he or she will have to demonstrate competence to do so.

We are talking about particular powers, such as those of a constable—that would not apply to Keith Bristow, because his background means that he already has those operational powers. One can take a view about a police operation without having the formal operational powers of a chief constable, but if a director general wants to have the formal powers of arrest or detainment that a chief constable has, they will need to demonstrate the right level of attainment and knowledge to exercise those powers. I do not want the Committee to get the impression that the director general will be hamstrung without those powers. It is just that he or she may be keen to have at their disposal the three sets of powers in question.

I was asked about the Home Secretary having the power to appoint, and the power not to appoint, an advisory group. That is precisely because, taking Keith Bristow as an example, we want the Home Secretary to have the power not to appoint an advisory group to advise her on whether he is suitable to have constable powers, because we all know that he is. She does not feel it is necessary to constitute a group to tell her something that she already knows. The Bill therefore makes provision for a decision to be made where the right way to proceed is obvious to everybody concerned. Where the Home Secretary feels that she needs additional insights provided by a limited group of advisers brought together specifically for that narrow purpose and then disbanded again afterwards, the Bill provides the power for that group to be brought together more openly and transparently than if she just decided to take the guidance of advisers and experts, as she does on daily in any case.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am grateful to the Minister. I will not test him further on this matter. I simply wanted to put a few items on the record, and it has been helpful to have discussion of them. Ultimately, we are legislating, and although he said that the Home Secretary might at this very moment be receiving advice from individuals in the Home Office, that is not in schedule 5, which the matter that we are discussing is. However, I am happy to give the schedule a fair wind. In slower time, I will read what the Minister has said in response to our questions.

Clause 9

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I have a couple of questions. The clause gives the director general the power to designate officers of the NCA

“As a person having one or more of the following…the powers and privileges of a constable…the powers of an officer of Revenue and Customs”—

and—

“the powers of an immigration officer.”

In most cases, those designations will be straightforward. People will receive competences based on their particular role and history. I want to test the Minister on the meaning of subsection (2), which states that the officer must be

“capable of effectively exercising those powers”

and

“has received adequate training in respected of the exercise of those powers.”

I am clear what a constable’s powers and training are, but, for clarity, I ask the Minister indicate what the basic requirements for being a constable, a Revenue and Customs officer and an immigration officer are. The phrase “adequate training” is very broad; it is not definitive.

Before I agree to the clause, I want to understand the Minister’s perception of the meaning of the following phrases:

“capable of effectively exercising those powers”,

“adequate training”

and

“a suitable person to exercise those powers”.

That would help to clarify the clause.

My second question relates to schedule 5. We may debate this issue separately, but I will touch on it now. Schedule 5 sets out how those roles may be exercised not only in England and Wales, but in the devolved Administrations of Northern Ireland and Scotland. I would welcome the Minister’s comments—I know we have already agreed to schedule 5, but this links to the powers in the clause—on the relationship between Scotland and Northern Ireland, and how the operational powers of constables, Revenue and Customs officers and immigration officers will marry in with the devolved responsibilities.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I think the Committee is beginning to understand a little better the importance of schedule 5 as it will apply to the clause, which deals with the operational powers of other NCA officers. Clearly, the Home Secretary needs to assess the level of competence that the director general has in each individual area, because he has the important power to designate other officers with particular powers—the powers of a constable, a Revenue and Customs officer, and an immigration officer. Obviously, the Home Secretary will not want to give the director general powers if they do not have adequate training or competence, because they will have the responsibility of designating particular officers with similar powers and competences, and there would be no consistency.

I turn to subsection (2). What will happen if the director general is deemed by the advisory panel not to have a particular set of competences and not to be adequately trained in a particular area? He will have to judge whether particular NCA officers have received adequate training in respect of the exercise of their powers. I return to the question that the Minister did not answer, although I knew there would be other opportunities for him to do so. If the panel makes an assessment that a director general does not have expertise and adequate training in a particular area, what happens? Is he required to undertake further training? Does he have to gain that competence himself so that he can exercise his power to designate officers with the powers of a constable, a Customs and Revenue officer and an immigration officer? Or does he have to delegate that task to somebody else—one of his deputies—who has expertise in the area in which his expertise and training is lacking? It is important to know whether he has to be trained further, or whether he has to designate an assistant or a deputy to carry out those functions on his behalf.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

There are two essential points. One is about the nature of the powers, and the other is about how the decisions will be made, which is the point just raised by the right hon. Gentleman.

Regarding the nature of the powers, I hoped that I had addressed it—perhaps a little bit in passing—when I was speaking to clause 8. I gave the example that SOCA officers can use customs officers’ powers to seize goods, vehicles and vessels used in smuggling, but they are unable to make decisions regarding the subsequent return, sale or destruction of the seized items, because those powers are conferred by statute to the commissioners for revenue and customs, and SOCA officers do not have the powers of customs officers. The operational powers vested in SOCA are incomplete, and we are seeking to address that incompleteness by making it possible for NCA officers to have the full range of constable, custom and immigration powers to fight serious and organised crime across the board.

Regarding the director general’s decision making, I suppose that the parallel is this: as far as I am aware, the Home Secretary does not herself have designated operational powers as a constable, customs officer or immigration officer. However she will make a judgment about whether the director general is fit to exercise those powers based on the wise and expert advice offered to her. Keith Bristow, or whoever his successors may be, will be able to make a judgment, based on the expert advice he receives, on whether an NCA officer is suitable to exercise the powers.

We imagine that the director general would wish to acquire the designated operational powers in each of the three fields. However, were he not to have operational powers in a given field, he would still be able to take an overview of the organisation in a way that allowed it to function perfectly satisfactorily. He would, with advice, be able to make the right judgments about whether someone should be delegated with the powers or authority.

Ultimately, a decision has to be made. We are talking about a broader organisation, the head of which is unlikely to have expertise in every field for which that organisation is responsible. Unless we have a series of niche organisations that are not properly linked to each other, that will inevitably be the case. We expect the director general to offer leadership across the board, while recognising that the person is likely to have greater accumulated expertise in one field than another. We will try to ensure that officers across the NCA have designated powers in each of the three broad fields of activity, so that there can be, as much as possible, a seamless operation to tackle serious and organised crime.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I remain somewhat puzzled. The Minister makes the perfectly valid claim, with which I agree, that we could not expect even the most experienced director general of the NCA to have competence in every area. He has just asserted that point, and I accept it.

The Minister says that if the post holder has experience in one particular field—policing, for example, as the current post holder does—he may not have experience in immigration or Revenue and Customs, but the Minister says that he will be sufficiently experienced and will know how to do it anyway. What is the point of having the panel?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I do not think that the provision is as novel as the right hon. Gentleman says it is. Lots of big organisations have a person who has particular expertise in one field of that organisation’s activities but who draws on insights and expert advice to better inform them about areas of the organisation’s activities with which they themselves have not personally been associated for the past 30 years. Therefore, the advisory panel informs the Home Secretary, and the director general will be informed internally about the appropriate powers to confer because he or she runs the organisation. I hesitate to use commercial parallels, but a chief executive of a supermarket chain would not be expected to have accumulated expertise in each field of the operation. However, obviously that person would want to run the organisation as a whole and would draw on the expert advice and insights of those who had particular accumulated expertise in areas that he did not.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I do not disagree with a word that the Minister has just said. Good leaders will lead. They will use the experience that they have in their particular field and apply that across the board even into areas for which they do not have specific personal responsibilities. I understand that. I expect the director general who has experience of policing to be able to apply his knowledge and expertise to those other areas operationally as well as strategically.

What is the point of the panel? It will not advise the Home Secretary before the appointment. It will advise the right hon. Lady after the appointment about the competences, expertise and training of the post holder, but the Minister said that, in any event, the post holder will be sufficiently experienced and will know from his own experience how to apply himself and his expertise to those areas where he does not have particular skills and expertise. I ask the hon. Gentleman for the third time: what will happen if there were a particular area, perhaps immigration, in which the director general did not have expertise? Will he make the decisions? Will he designate NCA officers to such areas or will he designate one of his deputies?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

The parallel I was making was that, as far as I am aware, the Home Secretary does not have the expertise of a designated operational immigration officer, but she will decide whether it is appropriate for the director general to be designated with those powers, and she will make that decision based on expert advice. The director general will also be able to make decisions based on expert advice about whether people are fit to exercise operational powers, but just as the Home Secretary does not necessarily have designated operational powers in respect of every matter for which the Home Office is responsible but can still offer leadership and direction to the organisation, the director general will do the same. I do not envisage such issues being as problematic as members of the Committee fear. If the expert group does not think that the director general has the necessary level of aptitude or skills to be given the designated powers, it is able to recommend that he or she seeks some additional training, insight or experience to meet such criteria.

I want to make the distinction clear. The director general is responsible for achieving the operational objectives of the NCA, following the strategy laid out by the Home Secretary. That does not necessarily require the director general to be given the formal powers at the point when someone’s door is broken down and the arrest is made. In fact, I imagine—unless the director general is a particularly hands-on leader—that he or she would not routinely be in those situations, but perhaps a step or two back from the front line of seizing drugs on the other side of the world or stopping illegal immigrants coming through a United Kingdom port.

The director general can take a view about how we can try to make sure that proper controls are in place in respect of illegal immigration without exercising the formal operational powers of an immigration officer, as we might see being exercised in Dover, for example, or at Heathrow airport. If the director general wishes, perhaps feeling that it enriches him as a person and a leader, to acquire those formal operational powers, in the way that Keith Bristow does in the field of a constable, he could be a constable out on the beat in my constituency with the same operational powers as any other police officer. If he wants to acquire those additional front-line powers in respect of immigration and customs, the advisory panel could judge his training and accumulated knowledge in that area and advise the Home Secretary on whether it is appropriate for him to have those powers. However, he would still be offering the leadership that we require, even if he is not literally there to make an arrest when the front door is broken down.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

I think the Minister is being slightly dismissive on this issue. Surely the reason why we are discussing this today is because it is his position and the Home Secretary’s position that currently organised crime is not being adequately addressed. That is why he is creating this new agency, and why it is perfectly reasonable to accept that the director general will not necessarily be hands-on in an operational sense. We have to be assured that the new powers and the new arrangements will actually lead to a better, more organised series of activities against organised crime. If we cannot be assured that the people doing the job will have the required competences—and will have been properly assessed by their superiors to have those competences—the Minister has set up an agency that will fail, and we will all pay a price for that.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I do not know what further to add. I do not accept that we, the Government, have dismissed this issue out of hand. We have been discussing it for the last hour in Committee.

I want to reassure everybody who is concerned that we want the NCA to be a seamless organisation. We want to make sure that it can fight serious and organised crime in different fields—police areas and customs areas and immigration areas—and obviously we will draw on people with particular backgrounds and expertise in each of those different fields. It is hard to think of any broadly-structured organisation with a head who has exactly equivalent expertise in every area for which that organisation is responsible. The director general will inevitably be drawn from one particular field; he or she will have a high degree of expertise in that field, but will also have a strong and growing working knowledge of the other fields for which he or she is responsible. We want the director general to give the operational leadership, and we are confident that Keith Bristow will do that across all of these different fields.

We want the Home Secretary to have the ultimate power to make a judgment about the narrow operational powers of the director general, as members of the Committee might be concerned that the director general ought not to make that judgment about himself. Obviously, if the director general stays in post for an extended period—as we hope they will—this advisory panel will hardly need to meet at all. It may meet once on the appointment of a new director general, and deem the director general suitable to exercise operational powers in the one field in which he or she does not currently have those powers. The Home Secretary will then endorse that recommendation, and the director general will stay in post for another decade. The advisory panel will therefore have no need to meet again for another 10 years. An entirely different set of people may be constituted the next time a director general is appointed, who may have a different range of skills and experience from that of his or her predecessor.

I hope therefore that the Committee is not unduly alarmed. All we are trying to do is formalise the arrangements that would exist in any large organisation, to recognise which levels of skill and attainment exist and ensure that a suitable person is able to make those judgments, while recognising that the overall head of the organisation is fit to lead it as a whole.

Clause 10 - Inspections and complaints

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I have a few questions about the clause. As the Committee knows, it deals with inspections and complaints. It gives powers to the inspector of constabulary to carry out inspections, and to the Secretary of State to ask for inspections. It also deals with matters relating to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, and its relationship with the roles and responsibilities of the National Crime Agency.

I have a couple of questions. First, on inspections and complaints, clause 10 gives the Secretary of State the power to ask Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to inspect the NCA, if requested to do so. Does the Minister envisage, in the remaining two and a quarter years of this Government, that the Secretary of State will ask HMIC to inspect the first 18 months to two years of the operation of the NCA? There is a power to do so. Given that we are merging the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the National Policing Improvement Agency and the UK Border Force, and given that we are addressing all the matters in the Bill, I wonder whether I can tease from the Minister whether, perhaps one year from the establishment of the NCA in December 2013, or perhaps in April or May 2015, the current Government intend to review how the NCA’s functions have merged, what the operational challenges are and whether the Bill, as currently drafted, meets the NCA’s needs. In a sense, I am simply asking whether the Secretary of State plans to exercise the powers provided by clause 10(2) for either a general review or a specific review in the lifetime of this Parliament. An answer would clarify HMIC’s review capability.

My second question is on the inspections themselves, about which I am content and happy. We will shortly address schedule 6, which is given effect by clause 10. My question is on the relationship between activities in Scotland and activities in Northern Ireland under schedule 6 and clause 10, because schedule 6 indicates that permission is required from the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland and from the Scottish Government for an inspection that affects rightly devolved areas in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I am inquiring under clause 10, but I might inquire again when we consider schedule 6: in the unlikely circumstance that permission for an inspection is refused, would we know about it? What is the relationship between the devolved Administrations and the inspectorate on those matters? I seek to tease from the Minister what the outcome will be. Such a situation is unlikely, but we can never tell, particularly with a Scottish National party Administration in Scotland—who knows what Administration Northern Ireland might end up with?—what might happen with a UK NCA where HMIC asks for an inspection and is refused. First, would we know? Secondly, what redress is there?

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

The right hon. Gentleman has touched on the most crucial part of clause 10: who ultimately calls the shots? I came from Northern Ireland this morning with a heavy heart, in the knowledge that what we are talking about has already happened. Sinn Fein pulled the plug on this at the Executive meeting on Thursday of last week and has now said it will not support the legislative consent motion to allow the proposal to proceed. The National Crime Agency, as far as Sinn Fein is concerned, stops at Stranraer. Sinn Fein is quite content to allow paedophiles and international gangsters to run writ across Northern Ireland. We must know from the Minister, therefore, whether the Government will be able to overrule if the Executive decide, or if three members of the Executive decide, to block the operation of the legislative consent motion in Northern Ireland.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

That adds value to my comments, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that to the Committee’s attention. Here is a little secret between you and me, Ms Dorries: I had a weekend away, and I did not keep up with the news. My BlackBerry was switched off. I know this is a terrible dereliction of duty, which I have now put in Hansard, but I was not aware of that piece of information.

That point does not just impact on the inspectorate issue, but on other matters in the Bill. I was simply referring to it in relation to the inspectorate. I am interested in what would happen if, for example, a Scottish National party Administration said, “We refuse permission for an inspection on matters relating to Scotland when they also have an import for England and Wales.” What about if that happened either now on a cross-party basis, with no community involvement from one side or the other, or in a future Administration that might be controlled one way or another? It was refused in Northern Ireland. I am interested in the Minister’s response to those scenarios and how the Bill fits into them. I am sure that he has an explanation, but I want it on the record so that we have clarity for the future.

My final point on clause 10 is on the Independent Police Complaints Commission’s responsibilities. Helpfully, in another place, a Labour amendment—I hope that Government Members will not be too shocked when I let this secret out of the bag—was accepted. It gives stronger emphasis in the Bill to the role of the IPCC. I am grateful to the Minister’s counterpart in the other place for accepting my noble Friend Lord Rosser’s amendment. I want to be clear in my mind, because the Bill is of great interest and is full of amendments and cross-references to other legislation. I want an assurance from the Minister that the powers of the IPCC over the former SOCA and, if need be, the NPIA and corresponding complaints procedures on the border force, are not diluted by the Bill, but are similar. If he can give me that assurance, I will be extremely happy.

I also want some indication of future IPCC budgets up to the next general election if possible, because the IPCC, which will have a role on and responsibility for National Crime Agency officers under the Bill, had a budget in 2011-12 of £343 million and staffing costs of £429 million. For 2012-13, it has a budget of £327 million and staffing costs of £397 million. I am interested in what the forward trajectory is on that, given that the Bill gives the IPCC additional responsibilities to those it already has. On 16 January last year, the IPCC was given the responsibility to decide on investigations into the Mayor’s office for policing and crime in the Metropolitan police authority. On 22 November last year, the IPCC was given responsibility for deciding whether allegations against police and crime commissioners or their deputies should be investigated. The IPCC—this is particularly relevant to you and me, Ms Dorries, as Liverpool football supporters—has also been given the responsibility to take forward the investigation into the conduct of officers in the Hillsborough tragedy of some years ago.

We appear to have given three additional areas of responsibility to the IPCC over the past 12 months. We have a budget that has reduced by some £20 million in the past year and staffing costs that have reduced by more than £30 million. Can the Minister give some trajectory on what the 2013-14 and the 2014-15 budgets will be, given the additional pressures that are being put on the IPCC, as well as confirming that the roles of the IPCC are comparable to those of previous organisations?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I spent my weekend at a Liberal Democrat training event in Bedfordshire, so I can only pity the right hon. Member for Delyn for the miserable time that he had compared with the endless fun that was enjoyed by me and all my colleagues. On this Committee, only my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South has had the privilege of going to such events; everyone else can only dream about the pleasure that can be had. [ Interruption. ] I will not dignify that heckle by allowing Hansard to put it on the record.

Clause 10 sets out the crucial role of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary in conducting independent assessments of the agency’s efficiency and effectiveness. That is obviously a permanent arrangement to reassure people that the NCA will be properly inspected and complaints acted upon. It will normally be for HMIC to determine what aspects of the agency’s work to inspect. That will be set out in the annual inspections programme that HMIC will prepare, consult on with the sector and agree with the Home Secretary.

Clause 10 also includes a provision that enables the Home Secretary to initiate an in-year inspection either of the agency generally or of a particular aspect of the agency’s work. We would expect that power to be rarely used, but it does enable the Home Secretary to trigger an inspection if, for example, there was a public issue about a particular aspect of the way that the NCA was operating that gave cause for concern. Importantly, there is no obligation to give notice to the NCA as to when HMIC will conduct those inspections. Further important provision has been made in schedule 6 to ensure that HMIC has the powers that it needs, such as access to NCA premises and information, robustly and independently to carry out its inspection functions.

It is not just the agency as a whole that must be accountable to the public, but its individual officers. As I have said, we expect that NCA officers will conduct themselves to the highest standards at all times. However, should a member of the public feel that that is not the case, the NCA will have a robust internal procedure for dealing with complaints. That said, the Government recognise that independent oversight of the process and recourse to independent investigation of serious complaints will be vital to maintain public confidence that NCA officers are accountable for their actions.

As a result, clause 10 provides for the Independent Police Complaints Commission to oversee the arrangements for the handling of complaints against NCA officers in England and Wales, similar to the functions that it exercises in relation to police forces. Those powers, to reassure the right hon. Gentleman, are not being diluted. We take them very seriously.

The budget issue that the right hon. Gentleman raised is not a responsibility for this Committee. Budget announcements will be made as and when appropriate, and are dependent on the overall spending priorities of the Department and the Government as a whole. However, we are confident that sufficient money will be made available to ensure that the duties contained in the clause are effectively discharged.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

With respect, that is a matter for this Committee. We are giving powers to the IPCC under the Bill, which are comparable to previous powers but ones that are excisable. In the past 12 months, the IPCC has been given additional responsibilities in relation to the Mayor of London, police and crime commissioners and the tragedy of Hillsborough, at a time when the budget and staff numbers have already shrunk. I seek assurance from the Minister that the same level of support will be focused on dealing with complaints, as the IPCC will have to deal with complaints. It can decide how to deal with those complaints, either by looking at them itself or having forces look at them. The powers rely on the ability of the budget to meet the growing demands on the IPCC.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making. It is certainly our intention that the IPCC will have the funding needed to undertake the work that the Government require. Of course the IPCC, like all other parts of Government, will need to ensure that it achieves efficiencies and value for money on behalf of the taxpayer. There is no point spending more money than is required in order to get the excellent level of work that we wish it to attain.

Members also talked about Scotland and Northern Ireland. With your permission, Ms Dorries, I should update the Committee specifically on the situation in Northern Ireland. Regarding whether Scotland or Northern Ireland Ministers can refuse to allow HMIC to carry out inspections, there is a duty to consult the devolved Administrations before an inspection is carried out in those territories, but the legislation does not require consent. We envisage that HMIC will continue to carry out its functions, and to draw on existing processes set up with the devolved Administrations to ensure that the situation does not arise.

If you will allow me, Ms Dorries, I want to speak specifically about developments in Northern Ireland since the Committee last met. The hon. Member for North Antrim raised that matter, and it is important for the future development of the NCA. I need to say, on behalf of the Government, that we are disappointed to report that despite extensive negotiation and the offer of a number of significant compromises to reflect the specific policing and accountability arrangements in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Executive have chosen not to take forward the legislative consent motion for the National Crime Agency. We must, of course, respect the devolution settlement in Northern Ireland and the convention that we do not legislate at Westminster on matters within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly without its consent.

Accordingly, in the light of the Executive’s decision, we are carefully considering the part 1 provisions to see how they can best be modified to give the NCA some functionality in Northern Ireland but in a way that does not require a legislative consent motion. We will aim to introduce any necessary amendments to the Bill on Report. We will need to work carefully with the Northern Ireland Office and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to mitigate the operational impact and preserve as far as we can the operational relationship between the NCA and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I say again that our commitment to a UK-wide agency, and to working with the Police Service of Northern Ireland to protect the people of Northern Ireland from the corrosive effects of serious organised and complex crime, has not diminished—it remains the same.

I pay tribute to the efforts of David Ford, the Northern Ireland Justice Minister, and his officials for their tireless efforts in the negotiations on the arrangements for the National Crime Agency. His support for the agency has been unswerving, and he has recognised the benefits that a fully operational NCA would bring to the fight against serious and organised crime in Northern Ireland. As chair of the organised crime task force in Northern Ireland, he is more than aware of the work that the Serious Organised Crime Agency has delivered for Northern Ireland, and also the extent of the challenge that all the law enforcement agencies there face. Unfortunately, not all members of the Northern Ireland Executive took that view, and that is how we find ourselves in this position. While we are considering carefully the arrangements in the Bill, we remain open to continued discussions with the Northern Ireland Executive. Time is against us, but securing the most operationally effective National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland, and supporting the efforts of the PSNI, is our utmost priority.

I am sorry, Ms Dorries, for going slightly off the beaten track, but I thought that, given our earlier deliberations, the Committee would wish to hear that from me as the relevant Minister. Regarding the inspection complaints regime, I hope that I have reassured members of the Committee that we want a vigorous and rigorous system that ensures that the best practices are upheld.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Like the Minister, I am disappointed, but disappointment is probably the least descriptive word I could use. What has happened completely changes the tone and colour of the Bill. It is not a national Bill if it does not run writ in Northern Ireland, and we have to get to grips with that. We must ensure that we do not let devolution be the altar on which we sacrifice combating organised crime. We are unfortunately now at a crossroads, being told that the Government will let some of the legislation run in Northern Ireland if they can, with the rest of it running in the other parts of the United Kingdom. All of the United Kingdom must be treated equally. That is not an ideological point; it is about the safety, security and benefit that we give to our citizens. Northern Ireland today risks becoming the capital of crime if we do not take serious action.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister that follow on from his statement. Will he outline what compromises the Government put forward to try to get the arrangement through? That would show that the Government have gone to extensive lengths to reassure people in Northern Ireland at Government level that no harm would be done to the current policing infrastructure and arrangements in Northern Ireland. Does the Minister not agree that given that the NCA is a national agency, it is outwith the devolution settlement? As the NCA deals with organised crime emanating from other parts of the world, as well as from within Northern Ireland, the Minister cannot easily, therefore, remove the necessity of consulting and getting the agreement and legislative consent of the Assembly because of the national security implications of the legislation.

Will the Minister indicate that implementing only some of the provisions would be the wrong way to go? Implementing only some of the provisions in Northern Ireland would be totally wrong for Northern Ireland and for all of the United Kingdom. Most of the illegal fuel that arrives in the United Kingdom is laundered in Northern Ireland, in south Armagh. It just so happens that it is laundered by a friend of the leader of Sinn Fein, a Mr Murphy. It just so happens that it was his party that blocked this legislation. I do not know if you are getting the coincidence here, but I am picking up something. I think that we have to recognise that there is a vested interest by some people who are still wedded to the past—there is a vested interest for them to keep their criminal power intact.

We have to remember that a number of the drugs that arrive in the streets of Manchester and Glasgow come in through Dublin, into Northern Ireland and across into the rest of the United Kingdom.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The Serious Organised Crime Agency was accepted as having an operational role in Northern Ireland. In later clauses, the Bill abolishes SOCA, to replace it with the National Crime Agency. In the absence of the legislative consent and given the abolition of SOCA, how does the hon. Gentleman think that we will tackle the issues he has raised?

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

The fact of the matter is that we will be robbed of the apparatus to combat such issues. Okay, the PSNI will do its own job, but on what SOCA was doing, we will effectively have to recommence drawing up our own Northern Ireland SOCA. That would be a scandal, because it would be subject to the wishes and desires of certain people who still have their hands in the pie of organised crime. We must, therefore, take a national perspective. I want assurances that this place, this sovereign Parliament, can overrule a devolved assembly if it has to, to get the legislation through, because that would be of benefit to all our people. Who has primacy in such issues? That is really what is now on the table. We have to ensure that this place takes primacy and that the NCA has got to do it.

At St Andrews, I broke the heart of the right hon. Members for Delyn and for Neath (Mr Hain) on annexe E of the agreement reached there. Does the right hon. Member for Delyn remember? [Interruption.] He should, but I will remind him. Don’t worry, I will not remind him of the other things—only he knows what I am talking about; I am sorry. In those arrangements, we ensured that MI5 had primacy in Northern Ireland and was not subject to the same scrutiny as that to which the Police Service would be. We ensured that that special provision was put in place because of its national importance—national security is national security.

I believe that the National Crime Agency in the Bill falls outwith the responsibilities of the Assembly, even though schedule 6 requires consultation:

“Before making a request for an inspection that would fall to be carried out wholly or partly in Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State”—

I assume, the Home Secretary—

“must consult the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.”

That assurance has been given to the parties in the Northern Ireland, and yet still the SDLP members of the Executive, and the Sinn Fein Ministers, including the Deputy First Minister, have rejected the overtures.

We need to have absolute certainty that the issue will be treated as one of national importance, and that it will be pushed through if the Assembly is not prepared to do its duty in combating national crime that emanates from and affects Ulster.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I will not detain the Committee for long; all the pertinent points have been made. I am, however, perplexed by what the Minister has told us about the lack of progress with the legislative consent motion in Northern Ireland. It is almost three years since policing and justice powers were devolved to a Justice Minister in Belfast and, to those of us no longer involved in Northern Ireland day to day, the arrangement seemed to work perfectly well. David Ford has been an excellent Minister who has done a fine job. It seemed as though the compromises and the arrangements that led to the devolution of policing and justice were holding firm.

One of those arrangements was that SOCA, as the UK-wide organisation dealing with organised crime, had a real role to play in combating organised crime in Northern Ireland, as did Garda Siochana. It is deeply saddening and worrying to hear that there is a block in the way of the new SOCA, the National Crime Agency, being able to do that important job. My hon. Friend has made all the relevant and pertinent points about cigarette smuggling, fuel smuggling and people trafficking, which we know take place in Northern Ireland, and which still, to an extent, fund the activities of dissident groups that seek to kill police officers and undermine the peace process, which has been so successful.

We need to know from the Minister not that the Home Office is waving a white flag, but that it is prepared to go back and have some further, detailed discussions with the Justice Minister and with the parties in Northern Ireland to underline the consequences of the position that they are taking. I warn the Minister that negotiations in Northern Ireland are painstaking. They require detail and attention because the prize is always worth it. Who will lead such negotiations? Will it be the Minister? Will it be the Home Office? Will it be the Northern Ireland Office? We need to know, and we need to know that such discussions and negotiations will be pursued with the greatest possible vigour.

There is another disappointment, and I do not know whether colleagues in Northern Ireland fully grasp this. As Justice Minister, David Ford has championed the recycling of criminal assets back into the community. Where SOCA has been able to seize the assets—the ill-gotten gains—of the criminal element in Northern Ireland, many of those assets have been recycled back into some of the most disadvantaged parts of Northern Ireland. Surely, that in itself is a prize worth having. At all levels, what the Minister has told us is deeply worrying. I think the Committee will want to hear from him that he is prepared to continue to discuss the matter to see what is possible.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

All I can say at this point is that I endorse what the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East has just said, drawing on his considerable background experience as a former Northern Ireland Minister and Home Office Minister. The Government want the maximum powers for the NCA in Northern Ireland for precisely the reasons that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for North Antrim gave. There is a problem with serious organised criminality in Northern Ireland, as there is elsewhere in the United Kingdom. In some cases, however, there are particular problems in Northern Ireland, and we want to make sure that the new agency can use its breadth and expertise to protect the citizens of Northern Ireland from serious and organised crime. Obviously, we do not want people in Northern Ireland to be less adequately protected than those in England, Wales and Scotland.

We intend at the outset that the NCA should cover Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for North Antrim said that some provisions are not good enough. To be frank, some provisions may be the best that we can achieve following further discussions. They may be the alternative to having no provisions at all, rather than the alternative to having every provision, and we want the coverage to be as extensive as possible. There are some red lines for the Home Secretary. She was not prepared to negotiate on the wholesale removal of Northern Ireland police powers from NCA officers, because we felt that that level of concession would compromise too fully the NCA’s ability to function in Northern Ireland. We will have to look at the best outcome that can be achieved for the people of Northern Ireland.

Finally, the hon. Member for North Antrim said that the competence should reside with the Westminster Parliament rather than with Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Assembly, of course, has primacy on transferred matters, and this House has primacy on reserved and exempted matters. The NCA covers a mix of transferred and reserved matters, and the United Kingdom Government had to try to find a working arrangement satisfactory to all parties in Northern Ireland precisely because of the hybrid nature of the arrangements. That is why we have been having a conversation and why we have not made the progress for which we had hoped; it is not a case of us here in Whitehall or Westminster declaring what we want the outcome to be, and that being the end of the matter. A process of negotiation is required, and I reassure the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East that we do not intend, as he put it, to put up a white flag; we want an arrangement that provides maximum security and protection to the people of Northern Ireland.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I hope you will bear with me, Ms Dorries. We have already considered clause 4, which states:

“Any of the following persons may perform a task if the Director General requests the person to perform it—the chief officer of a UK police force”.

That is not an England or Wales police force but a UK police force. Under clause 4:

“A person given a direction under this section must comply with it.”

So there are powers under clause 4 for the director general of the NCA to tell Chief Constable Matt Baggott of the Police Service of Northern Ireland that this is a task he wishes him to perform, and under clause 4 Mr Baggott must comply with that direction. Yet a legislative competence order has been drawn to the Committee’s attention by the hon. Member for North Antrim on which the Executive, to whom the Chief Constable is accountable, have not accepted the direction of travel.

I do not want the Minister to respond to those issues now, but will he, outside the Committee, ensure that—before the Government table any amendments on the relationship, particularly in Northern Ireland, with the NCA, which they may have to do on Report—discussions take place, perhaps on a Privy Council basis, on the Government’s concerns and the direction of travel? From my own experience, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East indicated, Northern Ireland discussions take significant time and painstaking energy to reach a conclusion. The Bill’s Committee stage may finish before the February recess and Report will be in early March at the latest, which does not give much time for amendments to be tabled.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I want to emphasise what is happening practically on the ground. My understanding is that the NCA will task the Police Service of Northern Ireland to do a particular thing, but what will actually happen on the ground? PSNI officers are already operational in C division, which is the crime agency part, and they will continue doing their work with an added emphasis on work tasked by the NCA. There will not be different officers on the ground doing the job. That is why it is so frustrating that two parties in the Assembly have tried to block the measure, because on a practical basis it is the same officers doing the job but given, not direction, but instruction and indication of areas where the NCA would like an investigation to take place, yet that has been frustrated.

The Minister may say, “Well, there are all sorts of political reasons,” but there is one simple reason why that is happening: there is an attempt to play the Government. There is an attempt to try to open a negotiating line: “If you want us to agree to something that already happens and to stop blocking this, you have to give us something in exchange.” That is an old bartering trick that has been played too long in Northern Ireland. I understand the hybrid aspect of the negotiation process, but that is why the Government have to be firm and indicate that, if there is an attempt to block the measure, because of the national security aspect and the fact that the measure will affect all parts of the UK, this will go ahead and will run in Northern Ireland, too. There is room for the Minister to say that, and there is room for the Government to proceed that way.

We have a terrible situation where the leader of a political party in Northern Ireland who is in the Government of Northern Ireland has described one of the single largest gangsters in Northern Ireland, who is involved in the most fuel fraud activities, as “a fine gentleman”. I think that man has got problems. The reason why they now want to block this is because they want something out of it for this “fine gentleman”. We must therefore stamp our feet here and make it very clear that although we will have this negotiation, be in no doubt that we will protect the national security of all the people of these islands that are part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We will protect these people and we will put this in place if we have to.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I can only reassure the hon. Gentleman again that it remains the intention of the United Kingdom Government to have the NCA apply as far as possible to every part of the United Kingdom. This is obviously a setback, but we wish the end outcome to be the most extensive presence. He has put his case forcefully for the role of the NCA in Northern Ireland. On the points raised by Opposition Front Bench, clearly, if the legislation did not apply to Northern Ireland to the extent which we had hoped and envisaged, that would have implications for some drafting aspects of the Bill which we would have to consider. We have brought the legislation forward, and I think we should continue to proceed, on the basis that we would have a UK-wide NCA. If further problems were to arise they would obviously need to be addressed by clerks with drafting expertise, to ensure that the NCA reflected the reality of the situation on the ground.

Schedule 6 - Inspections and complaints

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I apologise to the Whip; I will try not to take too long. This is a genuine attempt to help the Minister in his negotiations with colleagues in Northern Ireland. I draw his attention to paragraph 1, which deals with inspections in Scotland. It requires that, before an inspection is carried out, there is consultation by the Secretary of State with Scottish Ministers, and there is a parallel in paragraph 2 for what is required in Northern Ireland; the Department for Justice must also be consulted. However, in sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of paragraph 1, arrangements are made for HMIC to carry out an inspection jointly with the Scottish inspectors, where the matter to be inspected falls wholly or partly within Scotland. Yet it does not make the same arrangement in Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland has its own criminal justice inspection system, Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, which has the power to inspect not just prisons, probation, the justice system, the prosecution service and the courts, but also to inspect the police. I think it would be a very welcome addition if the Minister would consider putting in the same arrangements for Northern Ireland as are in for Scotland. This would give more confidence that the inspection arrangements in Northern Ireland could be added to HMIC’s efforts to inspect the work of NCA in Northern Ireland, in a way that is wholly constructive. This would hopefully help to reassure colleagues who may be sceptical of what is proposed that there will be full scrutiny which is accessible to their own system.

There is one very particular reason why I encourage the Minister to think along these lines. If, under the Bill, an NCA officer in Northern Ireland is using the powers of a constable, and if there is a complaint about the conduct of that officer, that complaint will be handled by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. It would not be dealt with by the independent inspectorate here. The Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland is inspected by Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland. For both those reasons, and for general reassurance about the very practical issues relating to the powers of oversight that the Ombudsman has, I do not expect a long response from the Minister now. I genuinely encourage him to see if arrangements parallel to those he has already provided for Scotland could be made for Northern Ireland.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Given our earlier discussion, the sort of compromise that the right hon. Gentleman has just mentioned might be worth while in certain discussions the Minister might be having.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

Obviously, the situation in Northern Ireland is somewhat fluid. Perhaps we would like it to be more fluid—it is perhaps too set—but anyway it is not entirely predictable. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East has raised a constructive point, and I undertake to add his constructive contribution to the wider deliberations that are taking place.

Schedule 7 - Information: restrictions on disclosure

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

In part 5 of schedule 7, in relation to disclosure, the Bill states:

“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this paragraph to prove that the person reasonably believed…that the disclosure was lawful”.

Does that mean that ignorance of the law is a valid legal defence under the Bill in relation to disclosure?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I cannot believe that that would be the case. It seems highly unlikely. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman can be confident that the Bill has been drafted to be consistent with precedent. I hope that reassures him.

Clause 12 - NCA officers with operational powers: labour relations

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I have a few brief questions on the clause, which, broadly speaking, I think is a reasonable one. Subsection (1) states:

“A person must not induce the Director General or any NCA officer designated under section 9 to withhold (or to continue to withhold) services as an NCA officer.”

Will the Minister clarify when he believes that that provision, and the other provisions under the clause, would be exercised by a future Home Secretary? For example, he will know that this very week the Police Federation is commencing a ballot of its members on whether they should have the right to request strike action. Whatever the result of that ballot, if in future, for example, someone from the Police Federation put a motion to the Police Federation conference that there should be a withdrawal of labour by persons covered by subsection (1), that motion was passed and went to the federation’s national executive committee, and then plans started to be made, at what stage does the Minister envisage the Home Secretary exercising powers under the Bill that would impact on labour relations?

It is a genuine question, because the provision is similar to that operational with regard to prison officers in the Prison Officers Association, which I exercised as a Minister: I took the Prison Officers Association to court when it threatened a strike, and an injunction was issued against it. In that case, we had 12 hours’ notice of the strike—it was a wildcat strike. We took the association to court and eventually its members went back to work because the association faced sequestration of its assets under other provisions.

At what stage, then, does the Minister envisage the Home Secretary potentially exercising any power under the clause? Would it be when initial discussions were taking place, when motions were passed or when actual action had been taken?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

The provisions are in the Bill because we believe that the threat to the citizens of the United Kingdom from serious and organised crime is, regrettably, constant, or at least never disappears: the threat ebbs and flows, but it is permanent and we do not want the NCA, as the law enforcement body tasked with trying to address serious and organised crime, to be subject to strikes. Obviously, we want to have a level of resilience that matches the scale of the threat and not to have the NCA be disabled by strike activity.

The Government’s approach has not been confrontational in any way. It will still be possible for NCA officers to belong to a trade union. If they find the functions of membership of a trade union attractive, they are entirely entitled to draw on those functions if they choose to become members.

We are seeking a voluntary agreement that NCA officers will not strike; I have confidence that they all join the NCA because they want to fight serious and organised crime. That will be done through consensus and negotiations rather than through legal obligation. Clause 12 is a backstop, because we regard protecting the public as being of paramount importance.

As to when the powers will be exercised—the reason for which I have just told the Committee—we hope that the reciprocal nature of the voluntary agreement will mean that it will not come to that point.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am trying to be helpful and to find out what happens if the Secretary of State ever exercises the powers, which I hope she will not have to. Subsection (1) states:

“A person must not induce the Director General”.

For future reference, what does inducing the director general mean?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

Were the statutory non-strike provisions in force, what constituted an inducement to strike would be determined by the particular circumstances of a given case. It would be inappropriate to speculate on what they might be, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the power would be exercised in a way that is wholly appropriate to the circumstances and designed to protect the public to the maximum degree.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I can but try. As one who has exercised such powers myself, I just wanted the Minister to give some indication. The power is an important one and there may be occasions when he would wish to use the power. We have, for reasons I understand, not really had any clarity. I was attempting to the test the Minister as to what he regards as inducement to strike, so that we had clarity about any actions he subsequently takes.

Clause 14 - Abolition of SOCA and NPIA

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I want to test the Minister on some of the issues regarding the abolition of the National Policing Improvement Agency.

To all intents and purposes, the Government abolished the NPIA 12 months ago. They have been winding down its role and transferring its responsibilities to both the new NCA and the Home Office, but operationally it completed its service in December 2012, and clause 14 provides for its statutory abolition when the legislation receives Royal Assent. The majority of the NPIA’s functions have been transferred to the new college of policing, the Home Office, and SOCA in anticipation of the NCA. A small number of its functions—I am helpfully told this by a fact sheet—have been discontinued. I want to test the Minister on a couple of points regarding responsibilities relevant to the NCA. I will give him a heads-up on what they are.

We are we with the information technology company, which was a responsibility of the NPIA? Will the Minister give me a sense of the roles and responsibilities of the NCA? I want to examine the issues that have been brought in-house by the Home Office, and further clarification on the costs of dissolving the NPIA—for example, what is happening to its capital assets, including Bramshill college of policing? If you will allow it, Ms Dorries, I am happy to deal with the issues individually and then get a response from the Minister on each topic, rather than to do all four at once, so that we get some dialogue.

The creation of the police ICT company was announced by the Home Secretary on 4 July 2011. It was being developed under the auspices of the NPIA, but obviously will not be any longer. How is it progressing? In parliamentary questions to the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, I have not got to the nub of precisely where we are. What progress has been made in the negotiations with police and crime commissioners, who were elected on 15 November, to take over the responsibility for the company?

There are two key issues. First, the ICT company being developed by the to-be-abolished NPIA was established to take forward national ICT for police forces, but the programme’s development is not clear and I have not had satisfactory answers to my parliamentary questions. Given that the NPIA is being abolished by the Bill and that the ICT company is being established, what is the time scale for that establishment? To date, how many police and crime commissioners have indicated that they will sign up to the company? What happens if an insufficient number of police and crime commissioners sign up? What happens if they decide not to sign up? To date, how much investment, cash-wise and capital-wise, has been put into the police ICT company? Does the Minister intend, through his right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, to mandate and effectively force police and crime commissioners to participate in the national police computer system in the event of non-acceptance and non-delivery?

The Minister has indicated that it is far too early in the process to answer those questions. On 4 July 2011, 18 months ago, the Secretary of State determined that she would announce the creation of a new police ICT company, which was established as a private company limited by guarantee under the auspices of the NPIA in June 2012. It is now under the temporary ownership of the Home Office and the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners. Now that we have police and crime commissioners, what progress has been made? What would happen in the event of several or some of the bigger ones deciding not to participate? I ask because the NPIA was the body that originally dealt with that national procurement; when the NPIA is abolished, where do the liabilities go?

I will stop at that point to see whether the Minister wants to respond to those points before I move on. If the Minister wants to deal with them all at once, I will happily wait for the answers.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

With your permission, Ms Dorries, and that of the right hon. Gentleman, it may make sense to address the issues in one block.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I was only trying to help the Minister and give him an opportunity to focus on different issues rather than all together.

The National Policing Improvement Agency’s functions are being transferred. It says in the helpful note from officials on the background to the Bill that:

“on 1 April 2012 SOCA took over responsibility for the Central Witness Bureau, the Crime Operational Support Unit, the Serious Crime Analysis section, the Specialist Operations Centre and the National Missing Persons Bureau”.

The note continues:

“The NPIA's Proceeds of Crime Centre, together with its statutory responsibilities under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to train, accredit and monitor Financial Investigators, will also transfer to the NCA when it is established”.

In earlier discussions, the Minister helpfully told us that the budget of the NCA is expected to be £407 million for its first year of operation. The budget for the Serious Organised Crime Agency was just over £390 million. The Minister says in his helpful note that the central witness bureau, the crime operational support unit, the serious crime analysis section, the national missing persons bureau and potentially the Proceeds of Crime Act training, accrediting, monitoring and so on are transferring to the National Crime Agency, as are the responsibilities of the border force, yet the NCA budget for next year is only £407 million. Those functions are transferring, other functions might transfer and we have the border force on top. We need some clarity about the monetary value that the Minister puts on the work of the central witness bureau, the crime operational support unit, the serious crime analysis section, the specialist operations centre, the national missing persons bureau and ultimately the Proceeds of Crime Act training, accrediting and monitoring.

Again—I say this helpfully, I hope—on 1 October 2012 the Home Office took responsibility for 101 emergency numbers, crime mapping, pathology services, forensics, training policy, the automotive and equipment section and non-ICT procurement. I would like some idea of the split between the budget and staffing of the NPIA and how that fits into its transfer of responsibilities to the new NCA and the repatriation of certain issues to the Home Office. Frankly, the budgets of these bodies do not add up. How did the Minister reach his conclusion on the £407 million budget for the first year, when the responsibilities for the National Crime Agency are bigger than SOCA’s, and include those of the NPIA and the border force? How will this work be undertaken?

I would welcome an update on the college of policing. The college, only recently established, was effectively a large part of the responsibility of the NPIA, which is formally abolished under clause 14, but which has been winding down since December 2012. How does the Minister see the policing college fitting into the new landscape, particularly in relation to its budget and how it will fund its activities, given that it is being desegregated from the NPIA? I would also welcome some information about the locations and how the college will physically be established, given that it has already been announced that Bramshill police college is for sale. That was effectively both the major police training centre in the United Kingdom and, in part, the focus for a large number of NPIA responsibilities that are now being divested to SOCA and/or repatriated to the Home Office. Will the Minister provide some detail on whether the governance of the policing college has finally been settled and its physical location?

I would like an answer to the question I asked last time, on which I have still not received a letter: what is happening to capital receipts? Do other NPIA sites—for example, Harperley hall in Crook, County Durham, Yew Tree lane in Harrogate, Wyboston lakes in Bedford, the Peel centre in Hendon, Hendon data centre, the Crown Prosecution Service headquarters in London, Orchard Works in Carterton, and Leamington road in Coventry—face the same changes as Bramshill? Is there a plan to sell or dispose of any other NPIA assets?

I would welcome that information because the chief constable of Greater Manchester, Sir Peter Fahy, has expressed concern about the abolition of the NPIA and the changes to Bramshill. I do not have the quote to hand at the moment. The Minister will know that Sir Peter, who is ACPO's lead on work force development, has expressed concern about the fact that Bramshill college is being sold when the details of the policing college have not yet been finalised. Alex Marshall, the former chief constable of Hampshire and the new head of the college, took up his post only in December, but decisions on Bramshill, the training college and the physical locations have been taken prior to Mr Marshall coming into post.

I want to try to finish on these provisions by 11.25 am, but, as a starting point, I would welcome the Minister’s views on where we are with those three central issues.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

There are, as the right hon. Gentleman says, three issues: the budget, the ICT company and the policing college. I will deal with each in turn.

Following our earlier deliberations, I have commissioned from the Department an extremely handy graph. If only we were allowed to use PowerPoint presentations I could share it more easily, but I do not see any reason why everybody could not look at it. It shows where the individual parts of the NPIA are being functioned. Some are going to SOCA and then transitioning to the NCA. Some are going to the Home Office, some to the police ICT company, and some to the college of policing.

I should say as a caveat that the following figures are rounded to the nearest million pounds. It is notable that, of the £337 million NPIA budget in 2013-14, only £12 million is for parts of the NPIA that are going to SOCA and then the NCA. Opposition Members keep making the point that adding together the SOCA and NPIA budgets gives a bigger number than the NCA budget, so it is worth drawing the Committee’s attention to the fact that, actually, only a reasonably small component of the NPIA will eventually be part of the NCA. The bulk of it—about two thirds of the budget—is going to the Home Office. That is explained by the fact that, of these figures, more than £200 million is related to the national police radio system, Airwave, which rather distorts the overall picture. There is also a budget allocation of £53 million to the college of policing in 2013-14, which will fall slightly to £48 million in 2014-15, although with the caveat that that is rounded to the nearest million pounds and does not take into account opportunities to adjust the budget between now and 2014-15, so it is indicative, not absolute.

The overall point I wish to make is that NPIA functions that are going through SOCA to the NCA are the proceeds of crime centre, the central witness bureau, crime operational support, the national missing persons bureau, the serious crime analysis team and the specialist operations centre. The list is impressive, but in budgetary terms it constitutes only £12 million of the £337 million budget for the NPIA for 2013-14.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

On a point of order, Ms Dorries. If the Minister is relying on this note to explain the position to the Committee, would it not be reasonable to let us have a copy so that we can understand its detail and status?

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I am sure the Minister has heard your suggestion and will respond accordingly.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I will. I am instinctively in favour of letting the Committee have the information, but the hon. Gentleman can get a copy of the Committee Hansard tomorrow. I have just read out all the key numbers.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

That is tomorrow. I would like to read it while we are still dealing with it.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

Well, I just read the crucial numbers to the Committee. If I had done that from memory rather than putting the note in front of the hon. Gentleman, he would never have known that there was a note. I chose to hold it up, but it is common knowledge. The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, and others have explained that the functions of NPIA are going to different parts of the Home Office family—if I can put it in those terms. The parts that are going to the NCA are £12 million out of £337 million in 2013-14. All of that information is available.

I come to the point about the royal college of policing. In the letter about the policing college that I wrote to you, Ms Dorries, on 25 January, and which was copied to all Committee members, I addressed the Bramshill freehold issue. While the right hon. Member for Delyn was having a restful weekend, I was labouring away, sending letters out to make sure that every single member of the Committee is fully informed.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Well, it has not arrived.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I will ensure the right hon. Gentleman receives that letter. The relevant paragraph says, “The Bramshill freehold transferred to the Home Office from the National Policing Improvement Agency when the agency operationally closed last year. Therefore the sales process and any associated risk, such as failure to sell, are for the Department to manage, and the capital proceeds of any sale will be received directly by the Home Office.” That may not be the answer he wanted, but it is the accurate answer. The college will be brought into place, and will have a budget allocated to it.

The right hon. Gentleman made a point about the ICT company. Information technology is crucial for police officers in their fight against crime. The costs of developing and providing information communications technology at a local level forms a significant part of force budgets. Currently, the Government regard there to be a failure to exploit the full potential of economies of scale that should come when 43 police forces are spending £1 billion each year on information communications technology. There is significant scope to get better economies of scale. That is why in July 2011 the Home Secretary announced she would support the creation of a police owned and led ICT company. It has been established to support PCCs and their forces in getting the maximum value out of ICT, and to help fix the current confused, fragmented and expensive approach to police ICT procurement and management.

It is proposed that the new police ICT company will be owned and controlled by police and crime commissioners, and be led and funded by its customers, who will determine the services it provides. It will be responsive to local operational needs and will offer forces a route to better value for money and innovation in service delivery.

The police ICT company board will determine when the company will become operational when the business plan has been completed. Police and crime commissioners have been briefed on the police ICT company and the opportunities to get involved as the company develops, but they have not yet been formally invited to participate. PCCs will not be compelled to buy the company’s services. However, they are accountable locally if they opt not to buy critical services required by forces, or purchase more costly solutions in a less efficient manner. The Government envisage that PCCs and forces would wish to be involved in an organisation that would give them collective purchasing muscle and innovation insights, which they might not otherwise be able to acquire, but they would not be compelled to be involved, as I just explained to the Committee.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I have not really had an answer to my question about the cost of the development to date, and what the liabilities are. The key point is what happens if the police and crime commissioners do not participate in the police ICT company.

The Government, under the NPIA, which will be abolished under the clause, have tried to develop standardised ICT across the policing service. There has been a veil of secrecy over the development of the ICT company. There has not been full discussion, and now the 40-odd police and crime commissioners who were elected on 15 November have to decide whether to participate in the new ICT company.

I accept that the decision is locally determined, and that the police and crime commissioners will have to account to their electors, but there has been considerable investment by the Government in time, energy and other matters to develop the ICT company. I am trying to establish the cost of such development and the Government’s investment to date. If the police and crime commissioners do not participate, what will be the critical mass for the Government to ensure that the ICT company continues?

For example, if one or two large metropolitan areas chose not to participate, would that mean that the ICT company did not progress? If five or six small shire countries did not participate, would that mean that it did not progress? What is the critical mass for the ICT company to be operational and deliverable, and when will the decision be taken? It is now nearly 20 months since the Home Secretary’s announcement of the establishment of the company. What is the time scale for when the final decision will be taken? I have not received answers to my parliamentary questions in that regard. Given the NPIA’s abolition, now is an opportunity to tie down the views of the Minister and the Policing Minister on whether the company will be a success.

On a personal basis, when I was the Policing Minister, we wanted greater coherence. I am talking about the practical delivery of such a proposal. Now that it has been devolved to the police and crime commissioners to sign up, the Minister seems to be saying that he would not mandate people to be involved. Therefore, what is the critical mass? How will the proposal be a success? When will the decision be taken? At what stage will the Government determine matters? If the proposal does not proceed because of people not participating, what has been the cost to date of the process?

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I have been asked an entirely reasonable set of questions, and I wish that I could give more comprehensive answers to them. I have no desire to be evasive, but the comprehensive answers are not yet known so I am not in a position to share them with the Committee. It is not possible to provide the cost of establishing the police ICT company, as the work to establish it is still under way. The interim form of the company is not yet operational, so no staff are employed. We are not at the stage of the company’s development to know the sort of costs that it would incur and cannot answer such a question in the way that the right hon. Gentleman hopes.

The right hon. Gentleman is right that individual police forces led by their PCCs will not be compelled to buy services or participate in the company. We envisage that it will be very much in their interests to do so, but the nature of directly elected post holders is that they sometimes make decisions that the Government regard as not even being in their own interest to make. However, that is the essence of a vibrant democracy.

We hope that giving the powers to police and crime commissioners and allowing them to exercise discretion does not mean that they will make unwise decisions. We see that as an entirely preferable and viable option for them to take, but we are not yet at the stage when we can do a headcount of which PCCs want to buy into the service and which do not. We hope that if any do not come to our view that it is a bad value for money decision not to buy into the services, what they are missing out on will quickly become apparent to them from the forces that do buy into them. We hope that the ICT company will be a success, but I can only recommend that the right hon. Gentleman continues to probe this matter with his customary diligence. Regardless of whether he probes, the Government will be keen to release all information that will help the House as soon as we can provide further details of an evolving picture.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Suffice it to say that the words “head” and “brick wall” come to mind, but I shall continue to use my head against that brick wall whenever the opportunity arises.

Schedule 8 - Abolition of SOCA and NPIA

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

I beg to move amendment 45, in schedule 8, page 91, line 5, leave out ‘under a staff transfer scheme’.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 46 to 48.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

These are all essentially technical amendments, so unless the Committee would like a detailed explanation, I propose that they be made.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Schedule 8 currently excludes the National Crime Agency from the operation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Again, I have some sympathy with that because for some issues involving the security service, the intelligence service, GCHQ and national criminal intelligence, that is appropriate. There are also policing issues for which it is appropriate, but the National Crime Agency will now undertake work from the border force, and immigration and customs services are not exempt from the Act.

Will the Minister clarify how it will work in practice? If an FOI application is made about aspects such as immigration and customs work, will it be refused on grounds of national security, which effectively apply to other areas? I ask not because I am particularly interested in the point—I think that the National Crime Agency should be able to get on with its work—but because Liberty has put it to me that the agencies covering the work of the former agencies must be subject to the same FOI regime as previously, and schedule 8 might change that.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane)

We envisage the NCA having a pooled information-gathering capacity, so it would be difficult for freedom of information measures to apply to some parts of the NCA but not others. Information about one part of the NCA will lead to information being garnered about another part, which it would not be in the public interest to disclose.

That is the reason for the overall exemption in the clause, but I reassure the Committee that the duty to publish an annual report and other publishing requirements mean that the Government will be keen to share knowledge that it is entirely reasonable for the public to know about the NCA without having insights into its intelligence or operational practices, which could compromise the security of its operations.

Clause 15 - Interpretation of Part 1

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 15, page 14, line 25, at end insert—

‘(i) The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners’.

Amendment 4 is designed to clarify what is meant by the phraseology in the Bill, which indicates that “strategic partners” means

“such persons as appear to the Secretary of State to represent the views of local policing bodies”.

I added the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, because I am expecting somebody of that sort—

Martin Caton (Labour, Gower)

As there is a Division in the Commons, the sitting is suspended until five minutes past 2.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr Caton. You missed a fine morning’s entertainment. I recognise that the world’s eyes are now focused on the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill and the boundaries. I have to declare an interest as my seat would be abolished. I am giving Conservative Members an even bigger incentive to vote.

This morning I started to speak to amendment 4, I hope relatively speedily so that we could get on to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington. Clause 15 indicates the interpretation of part 1 of the Bill and gives a range of definitions of who means what, where and when in the previous 14 clauses we have dealt with so far. Amendment 4 refers to the part of clause 15 that refers to strategic partners. As I mentioned just before the break, “strategic partners” are currently defined as

“such persons as appear to the Secretary of State to represent the views of local policing bodies;”.

The amendment would add the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, as I feel that body would be a strategic partner. Although I accept that there may not yet formally be an Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, post April I expect there will be because there is a shadow board that met last week. The Opposition certainly wish for participation by the 13 Labour commissioners in a body of that nature.

I will not go to the wall on the matter. I simply seek clarification from the Minister that

“such persons as appear to the Secretary of State to represent the views of local policing bodies;”

is not a way to deal with a certain group of people, but not necessarily PCCs, who form a new organisation. Given that PCCs are a central tenet of the Government’s framework for policing, I think that including the name of that body under strategic partners would give it more credence than a simple mention, as at the moment, under the heading “policing body”, which means a PCC elsewhere. Will the Minister clarify what is meant by the definition under paragraph (c)? I am sure it means what I have put in my amendment but I would like confirmation.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I, too, welcome you, Mr Caton, in my late appearance at Committee. As the right hon. Gentleman just said, amendment 4 adds the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners to the list of the National Crime Agency’s strategic partners, who will be consulted during the development of the NCA’s strategic priorities and the agency’s annual plan. I am happy to reassure him that PCCs will indeed be important strategic partners for the NCA. The PCCs have an express national role in tackling the kinds of serious and organised crime whose pernicious effects are felt in the communities they have been elected to represent.

As the right hon. Gentleman says, the definition in clause 15 already includes a reference to

“such persons as appear to the Secretary of State to represent the views of local policing bodies”.

If hon. Members look at the definition of local policing bodies in subsection (1), they will see that it includes PCCs, as well as the Mayor of London and the Common Council of the City of London.

As indicated in the debate last Thursday, there is no requirement on the Home Secretary to consult each and every police and crime commissioner on the strategic priorities. She will certainly be required to consult persons representing views of PCCs. As the right hon. Member for Delyn said, I would fully expect the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners to be an appropriate representative body for these purposes at this time. Thus, an express reference to it is unnecessary, in the same way that an express reference to the Association of Chief Police Officers is unnecessary. I hope that my explanation satisfies the right hon. Gentleman and that he agrees to withdraw his amendment.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I welcome the Minister to the Committee. We simply wanted to test that out, but his explanation is fully satisfactory, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 16 - Civil and family proceedings in England and Wales

Jenny Chapman (Labour, Darlington)

I beg to move amendment 73, in clause 16, page 16, line 17, at end add—

‘(7) There shall be no restriction on the number of days that a family magistrate may sit in the family proceedings court.’.

I welcome you to the Committee, Mr Caton—I did not have the opportunity before now, although I know that other Members did last week.

We have spent the last few sittings discussing the National Crime Agency and serious organised crime and terrorism, but we are now shifting to a very different area of justice. Clause 16, alongside schedules 9 to 11, provides for the establishment of a single country court and a single family court. Amendment 73 addresses subsection (3), which contains the family court provisions, and simply states that there should be no restriction, as currently exists, on the number of days that a family magistrate may sit in a family proceedings court.

The creation of a single family court was a recommendation made by the family justice review, which was commissioned under the previous Government and chaired by David Norgrove. The Opposition strongly welcomed his recommendations and support the Government’s implementation of them. On accepting the recommendations, the Government said that the creation of the new family court would

“facilitate wider reforms to enable the more efficient use of court resources, and more effective administration of proceedings”.

We agree with that, and will not press the amendment to a vote. However, although we accept that it is desirable to move to a structure of single courts, our amendments address the details on administration and how best to keep the court system under adequate review, so that we may monitor the impact of reform—both successes and difficulties.

The amendment addresses a matter that the Government have, to their credit, previously considered, and is intended to gauge where they are at with it. It provides for the removal of the limit on the number of days that a family magistrate can sit in the new family court, which is currently 70 days. It is worth spending a little time considering the work that magistrates do, so that we can properly understand why a 70-day limit might be disadvantageous to the smooth running of the family court. Many magistrates do family work because they care very deeply and passionately about families and especially children. They undertake special training beyond that which magistrates normally do, often beyond the core requirements of the law, and are called upon beyond their normal time commitments, often at unsocial hours. They do a lot to create a family court that is friendly and accessible, particularly to parents, and they always put the child’s welfare first.

One thing that family magistrates are often praised for, which other legal areas could learn from, is making sure that parents understand proceedings. They are not perfect and things do not always go as we would wish them to, but the magistracy deserve credit for the efforts that they have made to make things more easily understandable for the users of family courts. Family courts are more relaxed. Those involved sit around the table. Both public and private law is dealt with. Family cases, whether public or private, are always tricky.

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton. Is it the case that sometimes both parties are not represented by lawyers? It is a much more informal atmosphere, as my hon. Friend says. However, perhaps one side may have a lawyer while the other side does not.

Jenny Chapman (Labour, Darlington)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. It has been argued that such circumstances will increasingly become the position, following changes to legal aid. The Ministry of Justice’s impact assessment of the changes under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 stated that we could expect to see more people representing themselves in such situations. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South has underlined the importance of magistrates making justice accessible to a broad range of people.

Family courts deal mainly with public law cases in which the state, usually a local authority, is often attempting to intervene in family life. That can include anything from supervision orders to keep an eye on a family with problems, to adoption, but most of the work involves care orders. Family courts hear thousands of private law cases when there is disagreement between members of families. They are equally difficult cases. Custody battles are often resolved in a family court, as are issues of contact. Such courts deal with about everything in family law except divorce cases, of which many are dealt with in the county court.

When we listen to magistrates, it brings home how important their work is to our justice system. A testimony of a magistrate—a former midwife—that I read recently has stuck in my mind. It shows how magistrates come from a broad variety of backgrounds, something that we want replicated in other areas of the judiciary, an issue that we shall discuss later this afternoon. The magistrate described a case that affected her, in particular. She had to make decisions about a middle-class family in which there were three girls and a boy. They had all been horrendously sexually abused by their father—a respected member of the community—with the collusion of their alcoholic mother. The abuse only came to light when the eldest girl told her fiancé.

The magistrate said that they were fantastic kids, and had sat in court holding hands. The eldest had married her fiancé, and she had obtained residence with the youngest two children. However, the magistrate found the reaction of one of the teenage daughters disturbing. She was intelligent, sophisticated and wanted to be a lawyer, but said that she loved her father and that she would always support him.

A chair of the bench went on to explain how training has supported her understanding of such difficult cases. She said,

“some people become entrapped, sucked into skewed relationships and that children will often keep abuse a secret for fear of breaking up the family.”

Older children are sometimes carers for their alcoholic or drug-addicted parents and want to protect them. They may even say that they want to stay in the household where they are being abused. The court can appoint a guardian, although there may sometimes be a shortage of them, to look into family circumstances and help to decide what is in the child’s best interests.

Normally the guardian’s role is to support the child, but occasionally the guardian and the child might each have their own legal representation, as they might be requesting different outcomes. I am trying to explain how difficult and complicated some hearings can become.

It is not all depressing for magistrates. The favourite occasions, I guess, will be when they are not removing a child from a family, but adding one through adoption. In one account, a magistrate says:

“At the conclusion of adoption cases, the whole atmosphere [in court] is one of joy…The children get a certificate and a toy, and the family are allowed to take photos.”

The proceedings can be quite a charming thing too.

We feel that individuals who have developed strong expertise and experience in delivering justice in family courts should not have their contributions limited to 70 days a year; that is too restrictive.

One family that the magistrate dealt with already had a seven-year-old and was adopting a three-year-old. When the legal process was over, the parents told the seven-year-old that she now had a little sister. The child replied, “I’ve always wanted a little sister,” and her new sibling turned to her and said, “I love you.” The magistrate said:

“There wasn’t a dry eye in the place.”

The hardest cases are those where the risk-benefit between leaving a child at home and taking him or her into care is finely balanced. I would not want to be in the position of taking such decisions. Individuals who are willing to put themselves in that position should be able to offer their services to the community in that way to a degree that they see fit, and they should not be restricted.

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)

My hon. Friend makes an important and moving point about adoption. Given that we all support the way in which the Government are trying to speed up the adoption process, does she agree that we need more magistrates, rather than fewer, sitting for longer?

Jenny Chapman (Labour, Darlington)

I agree with that. More magistrates should be encouraged to offer their services in more specialised areas, such as the family court. I would not want to see their contribution to the family court curtailed in any way; it just does not seem justified. I know that the Government have some sympathy with that view, so the amendment is an opportunity for the Minister to inform the Committee of his most recent thinking.

The removal of the time restriction was among the proposals recommended by the “Family Justice Review”. That report, which was widely welcomed on both sides of the House, noted:

“Judges and magistrates should be enabled and encouraged to specialise in family matters.”

That is right.

Sadly, as my hon. Friend has indicated, there is a growing demand on our family courts. The review recommended that appointment to the family judiciary should include consideration of a willingness to specialise in family matters, and, following representations that the limitation on the number of days they may sit prevents specialisation in family matters, that the restriction on magistrates’ sitting days should be reviewed. That is the reason for amendment 73.

The recommendation follows the review’s statement:

“The aim should be judicial continuity in all family cases.”

It is desirable, for the more effective performance of the court, which both the Government and Opposition desire, and for the experience of those involved in proceedings, for the magistracy to have the opportunity to build up expertise and provide continuity when dealing with sensitive family issues. The issue is also about getting cases heard and concluded in timely fashion.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

I am following my hon. Friend’s point. Does she accept that one argument for ensuring that we have magistrates who have built up a great body of expertise in this field is that quite often courts now bend over backwards to help litigants in person at the expense of people who have proper legal representation? We need clarity about the role of magistrates in such situations. We need to protect the rights of litigants in person without giving them an unfair advantage. If magistrates do not sit for sufficient time, the disruption would encourage, rather than lessen, that likelihood that litigants in person are unfairly advantaged.

Jenny Chapman (Labour, Darlington)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. If I may widen it further, I do not think the Government, or anybody else, fully appreciate the ramifications of the increase in the number of litigants in person. We do not yet know how it will affect access to justice and delays in court proceedings. As my hon. Friend alluded to, there is an increased pressure on the judiciary at many levels to make allowances for the fact that people are representing themselves. There is much to keep in mind on that issue. Hence, we will need an amendment shortly after we see the impact of the reduction in legal aid. There may need to be a change to the arrangements for litigants.

Clearly, the Department for Education will have an interest in the family court, given the number of cases and care proceedings that are heard in the family court. Has this issue been discussed with the Minister responsible for looked-after children? I know he takes seriously the speed at which such cases are heard, and he is concerned that we accelerate the speed. The restriction on the number of days that magistrates can sit is not helpful in accelerating the speed at which cases are heard.

The Government’s response to the Norgrove review states:

“The Government agrees with the Review’s analysis that enabling and encouraging specialisation in family matters will improve judicial continuity and create a more experienced family judiciary.”

That is welcome. The Government’s response accepts the recommendation that sitting day restrictions be revisited. It states:

“The Government will review processes in relation to managing magistrates’ sitting days and the current system of writing to magistrates who go over the recommended maximum threshold.”

We welcome that statement greatly, but we have not seen anything to support it. The Government agree that magistrates willing to sit extra days to accommodate family cases should not be discouraged from doing so due to an arbitrary threshold. The Government will consider, with the Judicial Office, how such processes can be refined at the earliest opportunity.

In the other place, a Government spokesman assured the Lords that the Government will work with the Judicial Office to look at the feasibility of making such changes. They promised to update interested parties—and the Opposition are an interested party—on progress in this area. That is what the amendment is about. We will not press it, but will the Minister make good on that promise and update the Committee on where his Department is with that recommendation, and whether any progress has been made?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton. I congratulate the hon. Lady on presenting her amendment with customary warmth and humanity. No doubt, it is based in her experience of psychology and—

Jenny Chapman (Labour, Darlington)

Homework.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Indeed, and her particular interest in this important area.

Lay magistrates do an excellent job. They do all the things the hon. Lady said; they put people at ease, they work hard to gain experience, they train and they deal with difficult cases that are hard to decide. I am very happy to start by paying a tribute to their work, which is truly vital.

The hon. Member for Walsall South made a point about litigants in person; I think we now call them self-represented parties. There is no doubt that it is important, particularly for people who are on their own, that they have the support they need to present their case properly.

The current sitting limits are set out in the Lord Chancellor’s Directions for Advisory Committees on Justices of the Peace. They provide a ladder for magistrates as they start out. The minimum that a magistrate has to serve is 15 half days in the adult court. The maximums are 35 days if a magistrate sits in one jurisdiction only, or 50 days if they sit in more than one jurisdiction. There is of course some flexibility, because if they are on a case that runs for a longer period it is possible to sit beyond the limit to provide continuity. These are the sort of basic rules set out in the directions.

The reason behind the current rules is to try to ensure that a range of magistrates have experience of this jurisdiction as well as the main adult jurisdiction, with the idea of bringing magistrates on over time as they gain experience. A court would perhaps typically have as chairman a very senior experienced family magistrate who has specialised for some years, with perhaps a slightly less experienced person on one side and someone who is fairly new on the other, with the idea of building experience over time. It is also important to have new members coming through to ensure diversity. The Government are keen, and I know the Opposition agree, to have people of different types—people of different ages, ethnicities, gender, different kinds of families—represented on the bench. The idea of the rules is to try to have some method of balancing that.

The hon. Member for Darlington is absolutely right that the family justice review chaired by David Norgrove pointed out that the system was rather inflexible, and that there was a need to allow magistrates to build their specialism. The Government therefore agreed to review the processes of managing magistrates’ sitting days, and the current system of writing to magistrates, which was mentioned. We agreed that those who are willing to sit extra days to accommodate family cases should not be discouraged from doing so by an arbitrary threshold.

The current work on the review and setting up the family court, which of course is a major undertaking, is complex. It requires detailed discussions with the judges, the Courts and Tribunals Service and others to get the secondary legislation—the processes and procedures—right. It will be obvious from our future discussions that some areas are still being discussed and will need new rules. However, the discussion processes, and the preliminary liaising with the Judicial Office over the review of the magistrates’ sitting limits, have started. The discussions are under way. They are not at a point where there is a clear outcome, but clearly there will have to be before the family court is up and running at the beginning of next year. That is the timetable. It is being treated seriously, and I think I can give the sort of assurances that the hon. Lady asked for.

Jenny Chapman (Labour, Darlington)

I welcome the Minister’s words. We have his assurances on the record, and we have them on the record in the other place too. I do not know what else we want, so I am very pleased to hear what the Minister has to say on this issue. We look forward to working with the Government as things progress, because we have a shared aim in wanting the family courts to be as effective as possible. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

New Clause 4 - Review into the Courts and Tribunals Service

Jenny Chapman (Labour, Darlington)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Martin Caton (Labour, Gower)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 5—Information for court users—

‘The Secretary of State shall publish and consult on a strategy for the delivery of legal information, support and dispute resolution services to the public by HM Courts and Tribunals Service.’

Clause stand part.

Jenny Chapman (Labour, Darlington)

As noted previously, clause 16 deals with the establishment of a single county court and a single family court for England and Wales. As we have already discussed, the Opposition agree that the move to a structure of single courts is desirable. The proposed new clauses seek information following those developments and other recent changes to the courts system. We hope the Government will see the suggested new clauses as reasonable. They are about confidence, transparency and ease of access to the criminal justice system for the community.

With regard to proposed new clause 4, the former Lord Chancellor began his foreword to the Ministry of Justice’s response on county courts by stating:

“An effective justice system is the cornerstone of a civilised society.”

Who could argue with that? He rightly notes:

“It is the civil justice system upon which ordinary members of the public rely every day to resolve bread and butter issues that really matter to their lives…Without effective civil justice, businesses couldn’t trade, individuals couldn’t enforce their rights, and government couldn’t fulfil its duties.”

Louise Casey, the former Victims’ Commissioner, goes a bit further than that. She describes how confidence in the criminal justice system is essential, in effect to avoid people taking the law into their own hands. I wholeheartedly agree. We have seen cases in communities where particularly with violent offences, perhaps against children, retribution has been meted out locally. That is not something we want to encourage. However, some of that comes about because there is a lack of confidence in the criminal justice system. We have to accept that and work out how to improve the system so that we grow confidence in it.

New clause 4 would provide that the Lord Chancellor conduct a periodic review into the Courts and Tribunals Service, and the impact of the reforms in the Bill, as well as in other legislation such as the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act. We are calling for a periodic review; we are not being over-burdensome. We are not asking for an annual review. However, we believe a review would provide a helpful resource, without placing too heavy a burden of work on Ministry officials.

Areas we would like to see reviewed and reported on are efficiency, cost, ease of access, user and practitioner satisfaction and, specifically, the impact of court closures on court users and access to justice. There are serious concerns about that that have been previously been debated in the Chamber and the other place. I do not want to rerun all that, but there may well be an impact on access to justice due to court closures. Therefore, it is right to ask for that process to be monitored carefully over time. With some of the changes, there will not be a big bang with a massive instant impact. Some will take time to appear, and we think we need to review that so that we are aware of the impact of those changes, good or bad.

The new clause would provide that the Lord Chancellor shall publish a report on the review of those important matters to both Houses of Parliament.

Reporting on progress, reviewing the impact of change and putting in place safeguards to spot and stop problems in a service as vital as the Courts and Tribunals Service are understandable duties to have in place. Under the Bill and other recent legislation, the court system is going through what one Member in the other place described as a “seismic” change; I know that Ministers want to be reformers and leaders of change. If we have a seismic change, it can often be a good idea to have a little look at what the situation was like before and what it is afterwards, to see whether that change was a good idea after all.

If the system struggles—many people believe that it may well begin to struggle—or if unforeseen or, in the case of legal aid provisions, very much forewarned problems arise, severe detriment will result. That has already been described in the Government’s own consultation—the Government are aware of some of the problems that could arise out of their decisions in this and earlier Bills. Their response to the consultation states that it is

“important that the system helps people to resolve their problems quickly, efficiently and cost-effectively.”

It is surely consistent with the Government’s aims to review the performance of the reformed service in terms of efficiency and cost and how well and how quickly it assists people with their problems. There are already practices in place to report on the performance of areas in the service, such as the annual report by the Office of the Public Guardian.

At a time of extensive change, when the theme is the joining up and efficient running of the service, it seems reasonable to ask that useful information be provided on the service as a single system, rather than just bits here and there. I spend a lot of my time trying to glean, as I am sure Ministers did when they were in opposition, and it would be useful to have a report from the Government on the whole system.

Problems often exacerbate each other, while successes can have a knock-on effect. It is a simple case, if we want to see an effective court system to serve our constituents, of keeping Parliament’s eyes on the matter. We hope that the Government will be pleased to keep their reforms under review. I know that they are proud of their reforms and I am sure that they would want to review them and demonstrate their success, but they must be willing to admit and deal with difficulties too, and not cease to look for further improvement. Our case is that it would be difficult to do that without collecting data and evidence over time.

In tabling the new clause, we want to draw particular notice to access to justice, which is a hot issue. It is about access in the physical sense as much as anything, and about access to legal help for litigants. If an effective justice system is the cornerstone of a civilised society, as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) asserted, access to it is a vital counterweight.

In the previous Session of Parliament, access to justice was the subject of many important or even, as described by one Library note, “intense” debates. I was not part of the Justice team at the time of those debates, but I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) delayed Members well into the night, discussing the changes to legal aid. The issue is incredibly important to Members on both sides of the House. There have been a number of Back-Bench and Adjournment debates on the matter, so it is something in which hon. Members take a strong interest.

The issue concerns physical access, too. For many people, access to a local court at a reasonable distance is essential for their attendance. The programme of court closures, while properly seeking to reduce the cost of the court system, will affect the provision. It will make the process more difficult, and it will be important to assess the impact on access and the users of existing and planned closures. If the Government were confident that they were doing the right thing, they would welcome such a reported assessment.

As for access to justice for the person, the changes to legal aid introduced by the Government in the previous Session raised many specific worries. I come now to the hon. Lady for Maidstone and the Weald (Mrs Grant), now a colleague of the Minister’s on the Justice Front Bench. We all welcomed her appointment as Under-Secretary of State. Tellingly, she, along with many other hon. Members, noted the worries that many people might not have the ability to represent themselves in court, nor would the courts have the resources to assist increased numbers of litigants. In light of the more troubling legal aid changes alongside the provisions under the clause, we believe that a review of the performance of HM Courts and Tribunals Service is a necessary and important service.

Access to justice and the availability of information and advice bring me to the second of our proposed new clauses, new clause 5, entitled “Information for court users”. It deals with the worry about the provision of information for those in need of navigating our rather perplexing court system. It requires that the Secretary of State shall

“publish and consult on a strategy for the delivery of legal information, support and dispute resolution services to the public by HM Courts and Tribunals Service.”

We have tried hard not to be too prescriptive, but it is important that we deal with information and advice for court users.

Many concerns have been expressed by several parties for many different reasons about access to information in the court system. It seems a small matter, but it is important. Citizens Advice, for example, reported a problem nationally of the lack of reception staff in courts. It says that in some cases it has lapsed completely and in other cases it has dropped to only two hours a day. Given the Government’s recent overhaul of legal aid and the approach to the provision of advice, many people who arrive at court on their own have to find their way to the court not knowing which way to go and turning up at the door unaided and uncertain. It is not too much to ask that there should be some accessible advice available in the system. Such a service is important to its efficiency, as well as to the experience of the users and the assurance of justice.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

Without the provision that my hon. Friend is referring to, what will happen to the vulnerable person turning up in court, perhaps in a hotly contested custody case, who has explicit reasons for not being forced to meet the other party and who might already be supposed to be protected by the law in a segregated room? Who would be the contact to ask that such a provision is observed?

Jenny Chapman (Labour, Darlington)

Again, my hon. Friend raises a huge issue. We know already that support at court for victims and witnesses of crime is not as good as we would like—far from it. We have all heard dreadful accounts of people being unsupported, perhaps sitting in a room with the perpetrator’s family prior to a case. That is concerning and we want to ensure that such incidents are kept to a minimum.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I fully accept and agree with the hon. Lady that supporting witnesses in criminal cases and separating the parties—for the reasons the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak mentioned—is vital. The criticism here is of the counter service at county courts. There are always people, such as the ushers, who receive witnesses and parties arriving for a hearing, but I think I am right in saying that the recent criticism is of the counter service.

Jenny Chapman (Labour, Darlington)

I think it is both. The experience is just not good enough from start to finish for too many people. The welcome that someone receives when they enter the building is important to how confident they feel through their proceedings. I know the Government want to improve that and get it right, and the new clause seeks to assist in that. There must be good information and advice for people, whether they be victims, witnesses or jurors, so that they understand the way of the system. We can never do too much to ensure that that happens in the best way possible.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

Does my hon. Friend agree that getting that right will also help to improve efficiency and, therefore, the cost-effectiveness of our courts? Having seen first hand the difficulties—one might use the term “shambles”—of the organisational work at Stratford court on Monday because of some of those process issues, I was concerned that not only were victims getting a raw deal in terms of justice but court resources were going in all different directions; it was not the most effective use of resources. Some of the work will also be on cost-effectiveness and value for money in the court system.

Jenny Chapman (Labour, Darlington)

I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s work with survivors of domestic violence on their experience of the court service. We do not have much to be proud about. A lot has improved for survivors of domestic violence in recent years, but there is a huge amount of work still to do.

We know that the Ministry of Justice, to its credit, is explicitly and enthusiastically encouraging the use of alternative gateways to information. We have a digital strategy, which has been published, and a planned telephone gateway. We welcome all of that. If one uses the Department’s website to inquire after the Courts and Tribunals Service, one will find the service explained:

“HM Courts and Tribunals Service aims to ensure that all citizens receive timely access to justice according to their different needs, whether as victims or witnesses of crime, defendants accused of crimes, consumers in debt, children at risk of harm, businesses involved in commercial disputes or as individuals asserting their employment rights or challenging the decisions of government bodies.”

All of that is to be applauded. Individuals, families, small business owners and consumers from each of our constituencies use those services, and they are assured by the Government of their right to timely access to justice. The amendment seeks to ensure that those people are provided with the support that is blatantly and reasonably necessary to understand the system. Citizens Advice and Members on both sides of the House are deeply concerned about the trials that face some users when navigating the court system unaided.

On timely access to justice, it is important that information is provided where it is most needed. Sometimes, when a person has witnessed a crime, they are given a fair bit of support as they make their statement and some information about what to expect at court, but when they turn up on the day expecting to be supported, there is not a lot of support to be seen. The provision of resources, such as telephone and online information, is obviously welcome.

I come once again to the importance of review. A service must be judged on how it serves its users in practice. We might imagine that we have the most user-friendly service ever created, but unless the users of the service think the same we have not achieved what we set out to do. The service must be judged according to how its users perceive it. Will the Minister tell the Committee what procedures will be in place to review the provision of information that the Ministry of Justice has proposed? How do the Government intend to report on the efficiency and suitability of the different means used to provide it? I am hinting that not all means of accessing information and advice will be accessible to all users of our courts.

There is one further area where the importance of information should not be underestimated. This group was mentioned first and foremost in the list of those to whom Her Majesty’s courts owe their service: victims. The need for adequate information and support to be provided to victims during their involvement in court was strikingly and at times—I do not mind saying this—upsettingly described by the first victims commissioner, Louise Casey. I put on record my thanks to Louise for her excellent work in that role. In her work on the experiences of bereaved families in the court system, especially victims of homicide, she reported many things worthy of discussion and which can be improved.

Most importantly for the clause, Louise Casey reported a lack of information about what was happening with cases, and said that it was one of the most serious problems facing families. I see the Solicitor-General nodding, and I know he agrees. The lack of information about what to expect when in court and about the court system is a serious reality facing families. We know that lack of information is not just a problem in court and at sentencing. It is about understanding what on earth the sentence is and how long the offender is actually going to serve. The lack of information goes right down the line to parole hearings. Victims are often unaware that the perpetrator is being released and will be living in a street near them. It is a huge problem.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

I have heard Louise Casey speaking over a number of years about this issue. She speaks of the need for relentless information. One of the best ways to do that in the modern age is online. A tracking system is available in some American states, including Florida. In 2002, the previous Government threw £11 million at the Crown Prosecution Service to do the same thing, but it was not able to deliver it. Culturally, there needs to be a wake-up to the fact that we must properly track cases. Online may be the best way.

Jenny Chapman (Labour, Darlington)

I am not familiar with the service in Florida, but it sounds like the sort of thing we should be aspiring to deliver for victims in this country. Recently, a constituent came to my surgery who had been assaulted by a former partner; he was once again living on her estate and she had not been informed. She was only 22 or 23 years old, and she had children. There was no way for her to track, or to find out that information. I thought that we had good services locally in that field, but there is clearly room for improvement, even in Darlington.

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. We need to aim much higher. The culture across the Courts and Tribunals Service does not put victims’ needs and experiences centrally enough. We say that again and again and we try to improve it, but we do not aim high enough. When there is something practical that we can do, such as improve information for court users, that is precisely what we should be doing.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate makes a reasonable point about online information, but the point when people are feeling most vulnerable—when they are victims—may not be when they are best able to make use of that service. Although the Government recognise that victims have real needs and have in fact been quite thoughtful about that by giving police and crime commissioners responsibility for looking after them, is not the difficulty that we need some kind of corresponding champion in the courts, so that a person’s needs in that part of the system are similarly respected?

Jenny Chapman (Labour, Darlington)

I agree. It is pleasing that police and crime commissioners have a duty to consider the needs of victims, although we have yet to see how that will play out in terms of services. There is some concern as to quite how effective local services to victims—not the nationally commissioned services—will be, and what victims will make of them.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

The new clauses are very much looking at the civil courts, but on the point about the criminal courts, the witness care units set up under the previous Government, which are continuing under this Government, are raising the bar. Certainly, a lot more support is going to witnesses than ever before, particularly in some of the cases where the victim is most vulnerable.

Jenny Chapman (Labour, Darlington)

Given the dire low base at which we started, the fact that we are doing better than we were 10 years ago, although welcome, is not cause for too much celebration.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

I note what the Minister says, but one thing that perplexes me is that if we fund a system of independent advisers for victims of either domestic violence or sexual assault, why do we not involve them in the courts? When I have visited courts, I have been struck by the fact that the advisers often find out only a day or two before about the cases being heard. That makes it impossible for them to be able to support those people. Frankly, the witness care units ought to be working with advisers to ensure that vulnerable victims in particular are getting support and that advisers know who is coming to court on that day. Otherwise it is impossible for them to work.

Jenny Chapman (Labour, Darlington)

My hon. Friend makes her point extremely well and I have nothing at all to add to that observation, other than to agree.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

It is of course very early days for the sexual abuse referral centres that have been set up. The hon. Member for Walthamstow is absolutely right that proper co-ordination between SARCs and WCUs is necessary.

Jenny Chapman (Labour, Darlington)

It is a pleasure to act as a conduit between two hon. Members. However, our point remains: services are not nearly good enough and are a long, long way from being so. We will be on the Government’s case until we reach that happy place where we think that they are good enough. Actually, I do not think we ever get to that point in this area of work, do we?

Returning to Louise Casey’s report, she was quite clear that the “overall tendency” was for the criminal justice system to be “closed”. A third of respondents to her survey did not feel that anyone ran through with them how the trial would work or what to expect. That led to one family being so poorly prepared for trial that they first heard the details of their daughter’s murder, unexpectedly and in horrific detail, in the courtroom. Another bereaved victim who took part in the survey put it very succinctly:

“In my opinion all families in this situation need the following: 1) The Truth 2) Information 3) Support”.

Those should be simple things to provide. Things have changed, but the police and the courts system still have not got it right. That supports the points the Opposition have been trying to make, and if the Minister is candid and open with us, he cannot fail to agree.

Following her work on the issue, Louise Casey recommended a victims law, with which the Opposition agree. One of the central provisions of the victims law would be the right to information. Given that the Opposition agree with the victims law, it would be slightly odd if we did not push for the right to information on this occasion. The Labour party has accepted the recommendations, and we intend to ensure that information and support are given when they are most desperately needed.

The Government say that they want to put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system, and I do not doubt that intention, but it is somewhat difficult to be comforted by that assertion in light of their cuts to victim compensation, for example, or the decision to downgrade the role of the victims commissioner. We have already seen the importance of the victims commissioner in this debate. It has been changed from a full-time post to one of only 10 days a month. I have enormous respect for Helen Newlove—I am sure that she will do a tremendous job—but at face value the downgrading of the commissioner’s role is concerning. While we welcome her appointment, we put on record our disappointment at the lack of support and resources the Government have afforded her so far.

New clause 5 would allow for wide-ranging consideration and debate about the different types and hubs of information that should be made available to the wide spectrum of people who need to use the courts system. We see it as an opportunity to ensure that our constituents, be they victims, witnesses or other users of the courts system, are provided with what they need to navigate the system confidently and effectively, ensuring that timely access to justice is a reality.

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)

I want to add a few observations about the county court area, having served as a solicitor in many county courts across London and the rest of the country.

I start with the magistrates court. I welcome the Solicitor-General to his new post; I do not know whether this is his first Bill Committee since his appointment. Will he clarify whether his remarks on magistrates apply to stipendiary magistrates? I am assuming that they do.

My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington mentioned county courts. As I said, I was a frequent visitor—as a lawyer, rather than as a litigant—so I have great fondness for them. Having also sat as a deputy district judge, I know that they are an underused resource and that justice can be seen to be done in those forums.

The explanatory note states that there are about 170 county courts, and there is nothing to assume that that is wrong, but will the Minister clarify whether there will be a programme of rationalising county courts over the next five years? Will we see some county courts being closed?

On the removal of jurisdiction, when a claim is issued from a certain area, does it follow where the person lives or where it arose? What will be the situation on jurisdiction when we have only one county court area? Will there be consequential changes to the civil procedure rules as a result? Clearly they will have to be amended. Has there been any discussion with the judges, particularly those in the county courts, of those points?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I will start with clause stand part, which will not take long, and then I will go on to the more detailed points. Clause 16 overhauls the structure of the civil and family court system in England and Wales. It is not seismic like the other changes that the hon. Member for Darlington mentioned; it is an overhaul. It has been widely welcomed and it makes a difference to the administration and efficiency of the courts. Few, if any, individuals or businesses want to become involved in court proceedings, but if they do, they want a system that is accessible, efficient, effective, proportionate and resolves their dispute. It is with those principles in mind that clause 16 will establish a single county court and a single family court for England and Wales.

Through the single county court, court users will experience a more efficient, proportionate and speedier resolution of their disputes. While court users will continue to have access to local county court centres, they will benefit from a more responsive and consistent service based on modern technology and centralised administration systems that have been operating for many years in the private sector.

Taking up the point made by the hon. Member for Walsall South, at the moment, proceedings are issued in individual courts. If a case is to be heard anywhere else, it has to be transferred, and none of the administration can easily be done on a national basis. We want all cases to be heard appropriately in a court near home that suits the litigants, but regarding the overall administration of the system, bearing in mind that most cases are not contested, it makes a lot of sense to move to a national method of processing cases.

Quite a lot of work has been done on the matter in Salford, where there is now a money claims centre, which deals with money claims of up to £5,000 on a national basis. At the moment the rules and administration are, as I have described them, clunky. Having a national court will remove those problems. Cases can be filed in the county court rather than local county courts, and administratively they can be dealt with on a national basis. We believe that will be much more effective. The change will not alter the experience of having a case heard locally.

The creation of a single family court will mean that a user can make an application to that court, rather than having to work out whether to make the application to a county court, a magistrates court or the High Court. Cases will then be allocated to the appropriate level of judge, depending on factors such as the type of case and its complexity. The flexibility that will create should benefit the court user, as early identification of the appropriate level of judiciary will help to minimise delays and unnecessary case transfers.

The single family court will provide a framework for the more efficient use of administrative and judicial resources. The effective listing and allocation of cases and the provision of management information are important ways of reducing delay and cost.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

Before the Minister moves on, I may have misunderstood something, so will he clarify how the changes will work? There seems to be evidence at the moment that some solicitors, because of the clogged-up nature of city courts, are going to other areas—perhaps to out-of-town courts. Under the system that the Minister is proposing, will cases be distributed to courts after being centrally collected? What provision will be made to ensure that a person’s hearing takes place in an area that they can readily access?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

The purpose of the allocation process is to find what level is required and then to place the case in a convenient location for the litigants. That is the aim.

At the moment, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, one court can end up being snowed under while another court nearby is not. Doing the obvious thing—having a case heard in the neighbouring court—is quite difficult, because courts are individual institutions, and one has to make an application to transfer. It is difficult to provide a simple convenience of that sort.

New clause 4 asks for a periodic review. When the Courts Act 2003 was debated, there was discussion of the need for the Lord Chancellor to make an annual report on an efficient and effective system to carry on the business of the courts. An annual report is required of him, in which he has to set out exactly what is happening with the courts. Clearly, if there is a change in the courts, as there is under the Bill, he will be expected to report on how it is bedding in. I ask the hon. Lady to consider whether it is necessary to impose another formal process on top of that in light of my second point, which is that the Government promised in their impact assessment that there will be post-legislative scrutiny of both the single county court and the single family court within five years of Royal Assent. That time lag will ensure the new arrangements have bedded in.

There are two duties. First, there is an annual report, which will have to address how the measure is working. If something is missed out and the hon. Lady wishes to take it up when the report is published, there are parliamentary processes by which she can do so. Secondly, there is the five-year review.

Andy McDonald (Labour, Middlesbrough)

Will the review cover the previous arrangements, which were on a national basis? Recent changes mean that proceedings are not issued in a local county court; they are issued in Salford county court and administered in Northampton, which has caused great confusion in the legal profession, as well as delays. Will the review consider how efficiently that arrangement has worked? My experience as a practitioner is that trials might be shifted at the last minute if a particular county court is overburdened and court staff are able to transfer trials to a neighbouring court, and in Middlesbrough that would either be Newcastle or Leeds.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly valid point. With the present system, as he rightly says, people are a bit confused, because having lodged a claim concerning matters in, say, Durham, they receive papers that refer to Northampton county court, Northampton processing centre, or whatever the current wording is. That is one of the reasons for the change to a national county court; obviously, there will be a processing centre in Salford for money claims. The process will be more transparent and understandable, and will also avoid a lot of the rules.

There are clusters of courts. Luton county court, for example, sits in other places, such as Stevenage magistrates court, from time to time. The hon. Gentleman is right that Luton may decide to transfer a case to Stevenage because that is still Luton county court, but when it wants to go to a nearby county court that is not part of the group, that is difficult. The measure means that cases may be allocated to sensible places without all the problems of procedure.

As well as post-legislative scrutiny after five years, Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service has a transparency agenda, and it routinely publishes performance data, including clear information on the effectiveness of court centres and on how long it takes to decide cases in the civil, family and criminal jurisdictions. All that information will be provided.

Additionally, a complaints analysis and feedback database collects information from courts and tribunals across the organisation; it captures information on the number of customer complaints received, the reason for the complaint, how quickly it was responded to and whether the issue was resolved. That is all collated and routinely reviewed by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. Clearly, if there were concerns about the roll-out, questions could be asked and information made available for consideration. The thrust of new clause 4 is absolutely right. We need to review such matters. However, I ask the hon. Lady to consider whether the four items that I outlined will cover them.

Information for court users is another important matter. The general view of the Courts and Tribunals Service is that it works better when customers are better informed, and the benefits of effective dispute resolution need to be explained to people. One of the thrusts behind the legal aid proposals for the family court that were discussed earlier is the idea that more mediation, when legal aid is available, will be of benefit to families going through very difficult divorces and cases involving children. Hopefully, it will be possible to reach more agreements.

The process needs to be monitored carefully, because if it does not happen and there are many more self-represented parties, that needs to be known as quickly as possible. It is the Government’s policy intent that we shall have a more human, effective mediated system rather than having so many cases going to court with all the rancour and misery that can involve.

As for the Government’s digital platform, the GOV.UK website is the primary portal for information and guidance on all the Government’s services. Information was published last month. The Ministry of Justice will shortly publish its own digital strategy, which outlines that it will make use of GOV.UK. As part of that, the Ministry and its agencies will ensure that appropriate information and support is provided to assist the public to navigate its systems. There will be an online signposting service that explains how help can be obtained from the not-for-profit sector—CABs and the like—and there will be a primary access point for clients or organisations looking for assistance to resolve a problem. It will take people through the eligibility test for legal aid and direct people to the right source of assistance, if it is not available. The online service is scheduled to go live on 1 April this year.

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)

I appreciate what the Minister is saying, but in my experience people turned up at court at the last minute, just before the hearing. The Opposition are considering the information given to those people, and the access to justice and independent legal advice that people used to have. I had several cases when people lost their homes. The Law Society says that there are not that many housing lawyers now. Information immediately before the court hearing is needed. Along with that and the cuts in the services of CABs at particular courts, will the hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of an independent bureau at certain county courts?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

“Independent” is the key word. It is not right for the Courts Service to give legal advice. It can give advice about the forms and procedures, and hand out leaflets. It should have a proper service at courts, so that if a hearing is going ahead, people are received by the usher, and if the witnesses are vulnerable, arrangements will be made for them to be separated from people who they should not be near, and so on.

The hon. Lady is right. One of the key issues is signposting people to the citizens advice bureaux or other services that are available to give them help. That is something that we aim to achieve in three ways: telephone services, the online digital service and for people who need an appointment, the Department is looking carefully at what arrangements can be made for a person to have a face-to-face interview. For many people, a telephone and a digital service allows them to examine the information in their own time. It is available 24/7 and is quite a good system for most people.

In addition to the services that the Ministry of Justice is providing, the Department for Work and Pensions has a part to play. It has a web application called “Sorting out separation,” which was launched in November last year. It is part of the Government’s help and support for separating families initiative, which was designed to co-ordinate expert support services to help parents and couples work together to achieve what is best for them and their children. It would be my hope that it would also give some fairly clear direction about what to expect from separation and the various steps involved. The Courts and Tribunals Service provides information on various dispute resolution avenues, and signposts customers to a whole range of information, not just through digital means, but in leaflets available centrally and from court buildings, libraries and the like.

I have a lot of sympathy for the points that the hon. Member for Darlington made, and I shall cover two or three of the additional points she raised—although I shall do it quickly, because I am told that I am trespassing on the good will of the Whip. As far as court closures are concerned, it is of course true that both this and the previous Government closed courts. I think most people would agree that the Courts and Tribunals Service is operating pretty successfully within its reduced estate. Currently, there is no plan for further reductions. If so, it would be an entirely separate exercise and there would be the usual consultation.

There has been considerable improvement in the performance of the Court of Protection and the Office of the Public Guardian, where there were backlogs. The hon. Lady can ask me more about that if she wishes. In terms of counter modernisation, there is a difference between the counter and the ushers. Steps are being taken to look at what are the right hours for the counter service and whether appointments might be a better way forward, but at the moment the service remains. That is probably enough to offer the hon. Lady the opportunity to withdraw her new clauses.

Martin Caton (Labour, Gower)

Order. There is no need for the hon. Lady to withdraw her new clauses at this stage. She has the opportunity to consider the Solicitor-General’s answer, and she will have the opportunity to proceed at a later stage, if she wishes. If she would like to make a contribution now, she is very welcome.

Jenny Chapman (Labour, Darlington)

I shall make a very brief contribution. I am grateful for the Chair’s guidance to the Minister on hurrying me to withdraw my new clauses. I am happy to withdraw new clause 4, but I reserve the opportunity to test the will of the Committee on new clause 5, which I understand can be done at a later time.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Schedule 10 - The family court

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I beg to move amendment 49, in schedule 10, page 150, line 28, leave out

‘legal adviser or assistant legal adviser’

and insert

‘justices’ clerk or an assistant to a justices’ clerk’.

Martin Caton (Labour, Gower)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 50 to 68.

Amendment 74, in schedule 10, page 158, line 8, after ‘legal adviser’, insert

‘provided the functions are deemed to be essentially administrative in nature (for example, case management decisions)’.

Amendment 75, in schedule 10, page 158, leave out lines 12 to 23.

Amendment 76, in schedule 10, page 158, leave out lines 24 to 27.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

The Government amendments in this group are technical and pertain to the naming of the justices’ clerk and the assistant to the justices’ clerk. We thought about a change to “legal advisers,” but have changed our minds, and will stick with the original, tried and tested “justices’ clerk” and “assistant to the justices’ clerk,” as in the Courts Act 2003.

Clause 17 - Youth courts to have jurisdiction to grant gang-related injunctions

Martin Caton (Labour, Gower)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 7—Extension of section 37 and section 47 of the Ch ildren Act 1989 to youth courts—

‘(1) The powers of direction of courts—

(a) under section 37 of the Children Act 1989 (including the power to direct the local authority children’s service to investigate whether a child is at risk of suffering significant harm); and

(b) under section 47 of that Act to direct a local authority to intervene to safeguard and to promote a child’s welfare

shall extend to youth courts.

(2) Such powers shall be available to youth courts throughout any criminal proceedings and in any family proceedings concerning the welfare of a child.

(3) In any investigation pursuant to the foregoing subsections, the local authority shall consider whether it should—

(a) apply for a care order or supervision order with respect to the child;

(b) provide services or care to the child or his family; or

(c) take any other action with respect to the child.

(4) It shall be in the discretion of the youth court to adjourn sentencing until such local authority investigation has concluded and the findings thereof have been notified to the court.

(5) Any youth court in which the powers under this section are to be or may be exercised shall include on its panel at least one member of the Family Court.’.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to new clause 7 as part of the stand part debate. I feel enthused, as though I have been in a trap waiting to be set free, a little like the dogs of old that ran around Walthamstow stadium. The rabbit I am after in this case is not the Government. It is one which, in many ways, we all take hold of. It is a recognition about young people, in particular when they are in the jurisdiction of the youth court. This is an area on which we all agree.

In the debates on the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill—the right hon. Member for Delyn and the hon. Member for Sedgefield served on that Committee, which went through the Bill line by line—there was consensus about youth court provisions. Young offenders come before the youth court with a whole package of issues, such as drugs, alcohol, mental health concerns and education. It is right that there are orders before that court to deal with those requirements. I must declare an interest, because I was a criminal defence solicitor. When I reflect on my filing cabinets before I was elected in 2005, those factors were prevalent with most young people. But many also had family issues. More often than not the father was not present or involved, and often there were other complications. There are issues of real concern around the family, and that forms the context for the new clause.

Family issues are also relevant to clause 17, and it is right that we debate them. When we try to tackle the scourge of gangs, which is an issue relevant to most of our constituencies, certainly those in north London—there are a number of projects in Enfield and Walthamstow that aim to tackle this area—we need to prevent the problem at an earlier stage, and tackle reoffending. In the early stages, mentoring projects can be useful, and Chance UK has recently kicked off a mentoring project in Enfield. However, it is important to have a number of tools in the box, which is why I support the tool of gang-related injunctions. Enfield was the first north London borough to impose a gang-related injunction on a gang that was causing mayhem. That tool, along with many others in the box for prevention and enforcement, has led to a 50% reduction in antisocial behaviour and gang-related crime in Enfield.

Clause 17 will allow that important tool to be available to youth courts. The power should be available. In Enfield, it has helped ensure that gangs in our patch receive prison sentences of 14 months. The explanatory note makes it clear that the clause is in the Bill to allow courts with the most appropriate facilities and expertise in dealing with young people to consider these matters. That forms the backdrop to new clause 7, which aims to ensure that youth courts, which have the expertise and facilities to deal with family-related issues, also deal with gang-related matters. Some cases that need urgent action in terms of enforcement and injunction involve, not far beneath the surface, family-related issues. The new clause seeks to allow youth courts to deal with issues of family concern.

Over the years, I have spoken to many magistrates who have been involved with youth courts, and many who are also involved in the family courts—many magistrates are both on the youth court and the family panel. They express frustration that when they see before them cases that have family issues bubbling under the surface, they want to get them into the family court as soon as possible so that appropriate investigation and reports can take place and those welfare concerns are dealt with.

This chimes with the Government’s principle, which has been outlined, of having a system where the jurisdiction meets the particular area of litigation—a triaging process to get people into the right court. We have that flexibility, which has been welcomed across all sides of the House, in relation to community justice, whether it is the Red Hook Harlem scheme in the United States, in Liverpool or elsewhere. We want to make sure that the court process fits the wide-ranging needs of somebody who comes before the court.

Clause 17 recognises that. It allows the youth court to sit in a civil capacity in order to impose an injunction. That is a good example of the flexibility that we can allow the court through jurisdictional changes, the powers to fit better the circumstances before them, and to make use of the activities and what is coming before youth courts. There are good examples of where this is already working well in the present system. I do not suggest that there needs to be a major overhaul. There are examples of children’s services working well with the youth offending team, and when someone does come before the youth court, early work has already taken place and there is no need for further intervention.

There are cases when someone is up before the youth court for a first offence and is most likely going to receive a referral order. This is a good and important opportunity which, as I have seen myself, can sometimes be missed when there is a desire to move people through the system quickly to impose a short referral order and then a package happens away from the court. What can be missed is, yes, dealing with some issues around offending and trying to prevent reoffending, but also the welfare concerns of that young person. The statutory duty on all those within the youth courts to try to get beneath the surface again and make interventions in proportionate terms is what is missed.

There can also be those more serious cases where one hopes there has been earlier involvement with family intervention where sadly they have slipped through the system. In many ways, when they are before the criminal justice system, along with their own responsibility for offending, it is also testimony to a failure of the system. Sadly, the criminal justice system ends up as the dumping ground for people with serious welfare problems that many of us recognise should have been dealt with earlier through intervention. At the very least, once they are in the court system they should be tackled appropriately.

Another example that has been brought to my attention by magistrates and which I see a lot of in my area around the North Circular road, is children begging, stealing and causing problems in the streets around London. That happens all too often. Obviously there is a need to try to deal with that through enforcement, to tackle some of the antisocial problems around that. However, beneath that surface and of us wanting diversion orders and things like that, all too often these children are part of an organised and exploited activity, run by people who are really the prime culprits. Sadly, they can often be carers and others around them. It is that example where we need to allow the youth court the opportunity to investigate further, rather than hope that somehow they will end up with the family court dealing with these issues, when they will be long gone. So it is about trying to make the most of the opportunity to deal with a child’s welfare.

This new clause has some record behind it. It was most recently welcomed in the last few days by the family law committee of the Law Society, which said:

“'The Law Society's Family Law Committee, comprised of specialist practitioners working day-to-day in the field, welcome the proposed amendment. The youth courts often have young people appear before them who they are concerned about from a welfare perspective. It is a serious lacuna that there is at present no route by which the courts can secure the involvement of children's services. In the view of the Committee, it must be the right for the option to be made available to the youth court”.

Baroness Butler-Sloss, who was the eminent President of the Family Division, has expressed particular support for this amendment. She sought to raise the issue through previous legislation in 2008 in the other place. The Centre for Social Justice has also welcomed it, saying it was recommended in its 2012 paper “Rules of Engagement”. It said,

“it will mean that young people’s offending can be responded to in the context of their families and will ensure that those at risk of harm receive the protection and support they need. It is vital that local authorities are held accountable as part of the effort to change young lives and reduce reoffending”.

We can go back further still. The Centre for Child and Family Law Reform, chaired by Professor Hugh Bevan in 2004, proposed a similar change to the law to enable the transfer of cases from the youth court to family court. Let us go back even further, to 1997. I know that the right hon. Member for Delyn will know this well: it will have been in the manifestos of some of my right hon. Friends as they sought to return to this place. In March 1997, the Home Office consultation said this, on page 26:

“Under the law at present, the Youth Court is not able to refer children to the Family Proceedings Court for consideration of a care or supervision order. It is possible that this might be a useful additional power which would enable the Youth Court to deal more effectively with difficult children. The Government would welcome views on this proposal”.

We then had an election, and the rest is history. I am not one to reinvent the wheel; that proposal was good then, when we were in government. There have been a few changes along the way, not least that we are now in coalition, but there may still be some civil servants around who were involved in drafting that proposal, and I am sure my right hon. Friends would have wanted to fulfil the purposes of that consultation of March 1997 had they been returned to Government.

It has been the will of successive Governments not only to prevent reoffending but to get to its roots and try to tackle those problems, because of concern about the welfare of children. I want to bring us back up to date, to a body that has informed much of our work in government—certainly on the Conservative side of the coalition—the Centre for Social Justice, with which I have had some involvement. Its report, “Rules of Engagement”, made some key points on this issue. That report was not based on a whim, or some think-tank policy discussions; the centre was out there, in the field, and talked to 200 professionals, in over 70 hours of hearing evidence. It stated:

“There is a consistent failure by many local services to provide support to prevent offending and reoffending. The youth justice system is subsequently operating as a dumping ground,”—

that was its phrase—

“sweeping up the problem cases that other local authority services have failed to address. A large number of Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) have informed us of the difficulties they experience in obtaining the necessary input from children’s social services: children in trouble with the law are not seen as a priority and do not reach the thresholds required to access support.”

The report goes on to say that

“the youth justice system is often failing to provide a holistic, family-based approach to youth offending: opportunities are missed to work with families when parents or siblings are involved in the justice system; and there is significant variation in the extent to which YOTs are working with both young people and their families.”

I recognise that there are very good examples of good practice, with youth offending teams and services working well, but there are not enough. Sadly, more often than not—I say that as someone who has been involved in the world of the criminal court—the tendency is to respond to children’s offending in isolation from family problems, from which criminality so often flows. Cases could be referred to the family proceedings courts but are not, even when there are serious child welfare concerns.

That brings me to the new clause, which seeks to extend sections 37 and 47 of the Children Act 1989 to youth courts. The intention is to give the youth court new powers to respond to concerns that a child is likely to suffer significant harm attributable to the standard of care given to the child at home, or to a child who is beyond parental control. I know, as will others involved with the youth court system, that many children will sadly come within that bracket. The powers that the new clause seeks to be made available to the youth court in the same way as they are available to the family court are those under section 37 of the Children Act, to enable investigation by local authority children’s services, and under section 47 of that Act, to allow intervention to take place.

Subsection (5) of the new clause seeks to deal with the concerns that some people might have about whether the youth court is sufficiently experienced to deal with particular family court issues. I know that many a magistrate is already experienced to deal with those issues, but it is important to ensure that the proposed new power would not be overused and would not lead to an already overburdened system having to deal with many an order for investigation and report. Subsection (5) is designed to provide some assurance that there would be a family-court-trained member of the bench in place when the powers were exercised.

The other aspect I should tackle is the question whether the provisions would cause too much of a burden. Section 37 of the Children’s Act is used when a court thinks it may be appropriate to make a care supervision order. The time scale is defined as one of eight weeks for local authorities to report back. The referring court then has to spell out its reasons very carefully. Guidance was put in place in 1993 to ensure that that power was not used in an unjustified way or overused; that guidance is quite proper as the power needs to be used proportionately.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

I shall be brief. I have quite a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is proposing. However, it sounds like an extension of court powers to place new obligations on local authorities at a time when most local authorities’ children’s departments cannot cope with looking after vulnerable children and the strain on their services as it is. How will he ensure, if the amendment is accepted, that it is possible for it to be enacted?

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

It is an important and practical concern. It is important that it is dealt with proportionately and with caution. At the same time, one should recognise that costs come in different ways. If there is not an appropriate intervention and appropriate information such as a report at an earlier stage, then down the line it could be much more expensive and more problematic for both the courts and the social system. It simply needs to be dealt with proportionately. The practical side of the issue should not negate the need for courts to be empowered.

There is also the question whether there should be a section 41 power, which would need to be in place for a child to access Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service guidelines for their own representation. The issues of legal aid and the implied costs also raise concerns. However, it is important that we have a proportionate power in place so that there can be an investigation in cases that need it; otherwise, we will allow too many cases to slip through the net, and that will not do us any good in terms of reoffending and also the welfare of the child.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

Mr Caton, may I add my congratulations on your chairing of us this afternoon? I welcome the other Ministers who have joined us this week. They missed a lot of fun last week. I hope we can make up for it this week.

I rise to speak to both new clause 7 and the clause 17 stand part debate. I welcome the intent of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate. He and I share a concern about gang violence, having seen at first hand its impact on our local communities. I cannot debate gang violence in this place without mentioning some of the people we have lost in Walthamstow in the past two years or so. Tommy Overton and Ezekiel Amosu were bright young boys cut down in their prime through senseless violence. We know that gang injunctions are there to deal with gang violence. That is an important point to make in relation to the clause. It is important that gang injunctions are used in the spirit in which they were set out, which is not as a curative for gangs, but as part of a series of tools to enable us to tackle the problems that gangs cause.

We know the problems that gangs cause across the country and that there is a cost to the public purse. We know that gangs are responsible for 50% of shootings and one in five stabbings in London—both north and south London. I must include Croydon, although I have not been there often. I know that youth violence is a problem there, and I appreciate that the Government are putting a lot of money into tackling gangs.

We support the issues that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate is raising, but we want to understand how the transfer of powers will affect the ways in which other services are designed to work with gangs, particularly youth offending teams and the role of local authorities. We want to know how such things will be tied together in the move towards the youth courts, which we support. How will they cope? My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak mentioned the cuts in local government, particularly the cuts to youth offending teams, which have had a 20% reduction in their budgets.

We know that youth offending teams were due to be formally consulted before gang injunctions were applied for, especially if they are applied for with notice. We are concerned to understand how the power is now being used. Obviously, gang injunctions have already been in place for a year or so. We have some local authorities, mine included, using them and welcoming the powers that they give, but as the transfer takes place, we need to know how many gang injunctions have been required. How many are without notice and so do not involve the youth offending team, and how many are interim orders? I hope that the Ministers will commit to getting that information to us, because so far it has eluded us.

There is a formal role for a youth offending team in being a link body. Trying to look at issues around welfare and safeguarding, and ensuring that local authorities use the powers that they have around the welfare of the child, means that as the transfer takes place, and were the amendment to be passed, there would be a question about who would take primary responsibility for managing and dealing with the young people and dealing with the reasons why they joined the gangs. As we have already said, gang injunctions should never be seen as a curative, but should be part of an armoury of tools available to tackle and disrupt violent behaviour and leading to positive intervention, for example mentoring and displacement of activity. We must ensure that we do not inadvertently ask the courts to lead that work, but that we join up expert services at the local level. Our concern is to ensure that youth offending teams are part of the mix. If the new clause is accepted, there would be reference to them in the Bill. I hope that the Minister, on hearing the Opposition’s support for the issues being raised on the Government Benches, will look at what he can do in the Bill to make that happen.

I have a couple of concerns about how youth courts will operate. The majority of young people affected by gang injunctions at the moment are male, but the consequences of such injunctions may extend to young girls; young girls are joining gangs too. Clearly, there are issues about the kinds of orders that might be made—particularly on the civil injunction side, such as a gang injunction—that need addressing. We need to reflect the different needs of young women, particularly those at risk of sexual exploitation. Again, there are issues of welfare, well-being and safeguarding.

There is an issue about how gang injunctions join up with the Government’s broader agenda on troubled families. We know that many families with domestic violence—we will come on to the troubled families agenda—tend to have children who are involved in antisocial behaviour and gangs. There are many links there, and it is important that we have a system that understands them. Building safeguarding into the discussion on gang injunctions will allow us an opportunity to have that conversation.

Crucially, one of the reasons why we support building safeguarding into gang injunctions is the strong link between young people who get involved in gangs and siblings or relatives. We want to ensure that in dealing with a young person whose behaviour may merit a gang injunction, there is a wider discussion about any other young people who might be affected or induced to be involved in gangs through that relationship.

The children’s panel will have an opportunity to look at safeguarding, but we want it to draw on the expertise that youth offending teams offer in dealing with such issues. It is therefore important for there to be co-ordination in the resources that are pulled in.

The report by the joint inspectorate published last December talks about the poor care that we give to looked-after children. There is a strong connection between gang behaviour and looked-after children. One of the issues raised by the report is displacement. One of my concerns is that youth offending teams are already being stretched and are being asked to take young people not from their areas through the measures of a gang injunction; in south-east Kent, 20% of the case load is not from the Kent area. That places a burden on local authorities and on the organisations in the area that are dealing with gang members.

Displacement is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is important for there to be recognition of what impact that might have. Again, a local safeguarding board and a formal relationship with the courts in making provisions will provide information about the impact of such an assessment. If someone was placed in an inappropriate area, where there may be other links to members of a gang, that could be raised in conversations to make sure that it is right to make that injunction.

I do not want to speak for long; I know that Members are completely focused on this debate and not at all on the debates regarding the boundary changes. Like everyone else, I have to declare an interest, especially if Walthamstow is abolished.

I ask the Minister to provide us with information about gang injunctions and how they are being used, and to confirm that youth offending teams will be involved in youth courts, with the same roles that they have when they are involved in Crown courts.

I also ask the Minister to clarify how resources will be made available to ensure that gang injunctions, where they are used, are not seen as alternatives, but as a complementary measure to deal with gang behaviour, and that local authorities are able to deal with them. Will he support the new clause tabled by his colleague the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate regarding safeguarding to ensure that young girls, siblings and those in care are properly afforded the support that they need to break the chains of bad behaviour that lead to gang violence, and to ensure that we all benefit from that impact? I join the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate in pointing out that, while the process may seem to be of a high cost, if we consider that we spent £133 million to deal with the consequences of the riots alone, having failed to deal with the causes of violent youth behaviour and with gangs, it is a surprise that none of us can afford to pay in the long term.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

Let me start with new clause 7. I am fascinated that one of the many eloquent arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate did not appear in the 1997 Conservative manifesto. As someone who is proud to have been first elected to this House under that manifesto, even I would not necessarily regard every comma of that to be a guide to political success or prosperity, remembering what happened next.

As my hon. Friend explained, new clause 7 relates to the powers of youth courts when dealing with a child whom they consider to be at risk of significant harm. I absolutely sympathise with the outcomes that he and the hon. Member for Walthamstow seek to achieve. I hope that I can persuade them that the amendment is unnecessary, given the existing powers available to the courts.

Protecting children is self-evidently of the highest importance. It is essential that there are clear links between local youth justice and children’s services at both strategic and operational levels in order to achieve that. The current process for helping a young offender at risk of harm is relatively straightforward. When a young offender comes in contact with a youth court, they are referred to a youth offending team for an assessment covering the welfare of the child, including whether they are or have been abused or neglected. If the assessments raise any concerns, the youth offending team is responsible for referring cases to local children’s services so that any action necessary to safeguard the child and promote their welfare is taken.

When such a case is referred to children’s services by a youth offending team, it is for the local authority to assess the child’s needs and determine what steps are necessary to respond. Local authorities have wide-ranging powers. They can take robust action to obtain urgent orders for the immediate protection of children, as well as applying to the court for a care order to allow the authority to share parental responsibility and make long-term plans for the child’s care if it considers it to be in the child’s best interests. Decisions to intervene in families are not easy, and are not taken lightly. Local authorities have statutory responsibilities to safeguard children. Furthermore, they have experienced staff with the skills required to assess children’s complex needs in often challenging circumstances, in order to make such sensitive and difficult decisions.

Youth courts already have a power under section 9 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 to request a local authority to investigate the circumstances of children appearing before them, and local authorities have a duty to provide such information. Those provisions are little used, if ever. I believe that that reflects criminal courts’ acceptance that the youth offending team is, in the vast majority of cases, delivered by local authority children’s services and should be the primary conduit for securing information about the child and ensuring that wherever necessary, referrals are made to the local authority’s safeguarding services.

The focus of section 9 of the 1969 Act and section 37 of the 1989 Act are slightly different, but both cover the courts’ powers to request information from local authorities and local authorities’ duties to provide such information and take other action. Unlike section 37 of the 1989 Act, section 9 of the 1969 Act does not explicitly require the local authority to consider applying for a care or supervision order. However, if as a result of investigations under section 9 there is reasonable cause to suspect that the young person is likely to suffer significant harm, the local authority has a duty under section 47 of the 1989 Act to consider whether it should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. That could include applying for a care or supervision order.

Section 47 of the 1989 Act does not enable a court to direct the local authority to intervene as new clause 7 suggests. However, it does impose a requirement for local authorities to investigate whether there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm, and to take action on the basis of what they find. When there is a need for the child’s immediate protection, that could involve seeking an emergency protection order to remove the child to a place of safety and then making an application for a care order.

The Government believe that, as local authorities will have responsibilities for the continuing care of looked-after children, it should be for those same authorities to determine whether it will be necessary for children to enter care. In the new single family court, it would then be for a judge in the family court, who could be a magistrate or a judge, to decide whether it is in the best interests of the child to grant such an order. I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate enough to enable him to withdraw the new clause.

The hon. Member for Walthamstow spoke about gang injunctions. Central Government does not routinely collect information about the take-up of gang injunctions, but the information we have suggests that in excess of 100 gang injunctions have been granted so far since January 2011. We are also aware of case studies when gang injunctions have made a real difference to local communities by preventing gangs from operating in specific streets where they have previously caused serious problems.

The take-up of gang injunctions for those under 18 years old is slower, but at least three are in place. Discussions are happening with the Courts and Tribunals Service as part of the transfer to the new court on how the data will be collected for under-18s. The hon. Lady also mentioned the troubled families programme. Progress is certainly being made with that. Families are now being identified and worked with, and more than £100 million has been paid out to local authorities to help implement the system and the changes required.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow)

I very much appreciate the figures that the Minister has given. Does he mean that 100 gang injunctions have been issued for respondents over the age of 18 or does that figure include those under the age of 18? I am worried; I think that there are three in my borough alone, so I am not sure that that figure is entirely right. Can he clarify whether the gang injunctions were with notice or without notice, or is he including interim gang injunctions?

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I do not have the pieces of information to hand on the last couple of matters. I will certainly write to the hon. Lady about them. The figure of 100 injunctions includes those over the age of 18 as well.

Clause 17 makes changes to how the court system deals with gang injunction applications for under-18s. In essence, it transfers the jurisdiction of gang injunction applications from the county court or the High Court to the youth courts sitting in their civil capacity. When gang injunctions were originally introduced, it was felt that the civil court was best placed to hear the applications due to its expertise in handling civil injunctions. That remains the case for adults. However, following discussions with practitioners, we have reached the conclusion that that the youth court is best placed to deal with gang injunctions for 14 to 17-year-olds as well.

Youth courts have more appropriate processes, as well as tailored facilities for dealing with under-18s, such as the inclusion of appropriate adults for the young person, automatic reporting restrictions and appropriate and adequate security, including tagging facilities or cells if a young person needs to be held overnight. They also have expertise in handling and sentencing young people, and an understanding of the support structures they need. Obviously, they are familiar with the protocols and have access to technology that will aid bail decisions.

Clause 17 aims to ensure that gang injunctions for under-18s are handled efficiency and effectively. I commend it to the Committee.

Martin Caton (Labour, Gower)

Mr Burrowes, you have been invited to withdraw your new clause. In fact, this is not the time to do so. The only question before us is whether clause 17 stands part of the Bill. You can reserve your decision on whether you wish to press it to a later stage in the Committee’s deliberations, but you are very welcome to participate again in the debate.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

I am grateful for the opportunity to reflect on what the Minister says. I ask him to note the continuing concern of practitioners and the Youth Justice Board. Perhaps it will lead to some changes. They support the key points of principle. I hope the Minister will take the time to consider.