Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Public Bill Committee, 9 July 2013.

Clause 100 - Offence of possessing firearm for supply etc

Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 5—Firearms licences—assessing public safety—

‘(1) The Firearms Act 1968 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 28A (Certificates: supplementary) insert—

(1) When assessing the threat to public safety under sections 27, 28, 30A, 3 0B or 30C the Chief Police Officer must ensure that a range of background checks are performed.

(2) Where these checks uncover substantiated evidence of violent conduct, domestic violence, mental illness or drug or alcohol abuse, the presumption is that the Chief Police Officer should refuse the licence application unless exceptional evidence can be brought forward by the applicant as to their suitability to possess a weapon.

(3) When assessing public safety within this section the Chief Police Officer must follow any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”.

Amendment (a) to new clause 5, line 6, at end insert—

‘(1A) Background checks under subsection (1) must include, so far as practicable, consultation with current and former partners of the applicant.’.

New clause 6—Firearms: power of Secretary of State to alter fees—

‘(1) Section 43 of the Firearms Act 1968 (power of Secretary of State to alter fees) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) Before making an order under this section the Secretary of State must consult with chief police officers to ensure the level of fees collected by the police under sections 32 and 35 are sufficient for the police to recoup the costs they incur through the administration and assessment of firearms licences made under this Act.”.’.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Good morning, Mr Dobbin. Welcome back to the Chair after what I hope has been a very pleasant weekend for you.

Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)

A hard-working weekend.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Indeed. I spent my whole weekend at summer fêtes. I am sure you did as well; that is the nature of our job.

We had good discussions on dogs last week. We now come to an equally important topic: guns. This morning we are discussing clause 100 and new clauses 5 and 6. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South for tabling amendment (a), to which I will also refer.

I genuinely welcome clause 100. There is no argument from the Opposition about the need for that vital provision. It will help reduce crime, murder and serious organised crime and send a clear signal to those who engage in the sale, trade or hire of weapons that the House of Commons does not support their business.

When I was lucky enough to be in the post that the Minister how holds—in my last few months in office—I visited the National Ballistics Intelligence Service in the west midlands to look at the tracking of weaponry and the renting of guns. It was clear from that visit and discussions with officials that there is a real trade in weapons for hire, and that those weapons can be traced to a range of activities: robberies, murders and intimidation. The common theme is armourers for criminals who undertake such activities. Clause 100 will send a clear signal that that is something we wish to stop and I therefore welcome it.

However, we have tabled new clauses 5 and 6 and amendment (a), because, in addition to clause 100, measures could and should be taken, in the light of recent events and as part of good practice, to strengthen the fight against firearms misuse. Firearms licensing is an important public safety measure. The ability for individuals to hold firearms for work or sport or leisure purposes is perfectly legitimate. This is not about stopping people holding weaponry under legitimate circumstances.

I have tabled new clause 5 to ensure that a range of background checks are performed when firearms are licensed. It would amend the Firearms Act 1968 by adding proposed new section 28B, which states:

“When assessing the threat to public safety under sections 27, 28, 30A, 30B or 30C”—

of the Firearms Act 1968—

“the Chief Police Officer must ensure that a range of background checks are performed.”

Crucially:

“Where these checks uncover substantiated evidence”—

we can debate what “substantiated evidence” means—

“of violent conduct, domestic violence, mental illness or drug or alcohol abuse, the presumption is that the Chief Police Officer”—

of any local force—

“should refuse the licence application unless exceptional evidence can be brought forward by the applicant as to their suitability to possess a weapon.”

Steve Barclay (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) introduced a private Member’s Bill, which secured cross-party support, to tackle discrimination linked to mental illness. I understand the background of why mental illness might be in new clause 5, but would the right hon. Gentleman explain how one differentiates the ill that he seeks to tackle here and cross-party support for the view that mental illness itself should not lead to discrimination?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am grateful for the constructive way in which the hon. Gentleman made his intervention. I seek to set down in proposed new section 28B(2) that there should be,

“evidence of violent conduct, domestic violence, mental illness or drug or alcohol abuse”.

The presumption is that individuals should be refused a licence pending assessment of their suitability to possess a weapon. The hon. Gentleman will see that, in subsection (3), I have also included the words:

“When assessing public safety within this section the Chief Police Officer must follow any guidance issued by the Secretary of State”.

That could be the area where guidance is given about what the concerns would be.

There have been—and still are—cases whereby people with histories of violent conduct, domestic violence, schizophrenic behaviour and other mental illnesses, and drug and alcohol abuse have either been granted a firearms licence or not had their licence revoked. I am trying to set out the principle—and I am happy to reflect on this with the Minister—that there should be some check to ensure that we stop and look at some particular factors that could contribute to the misuse of firearms downstream, while not preventing people who are suitable for a firearms licence from having one.

I hope that the guidance that could be issued under the proposed new section would satisfy the concerns of the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire. I do not want to stigmatise people with alcohol or drug problems, or mental illness. However, those problems should be a contributing factor in an assessment of whether somebody is entitled to own a firearm, which is a lethal weapon; and where those contributing factors could lead to its misuse. It is important that we deliberately check those things.

Under sections 27, 28, 30A, 30B or 30C, the Firearms Act 1968 states:

“A firearm certificate shall be granted where the chief officer of police is satisfied—

(a) that the applicant is fit to be entrusted with a firearm to which section 1 of this Act applies and is not a person prohibited by this Act from possessing such a firearm;

(b) that he has a good reason for having in his possession, or for purchasing or acquiring, the firearm or ammunition in respect of which the application is made; and

(c) that in all the circumstances the applicant can be permitted to have the firearm or ammunition in his possession without danger to the public safety”.

In my view, those provisions do not sufficiently differentiate the background checks that need to be made into anybody who applies for a firearms licence. The purpose of the new clause is, in a sense, to put the issue on the agenda. I may or may not push it to a vote at the appropriate time, depending on what the Minister says, but I want to put background checks on the agenda.

As I said, new clause 5 puts a presumption on refusal when there is,

“evidence of violent conduct, domestic violence, mental illness or drug or alcohol abuse”.

Let me consider one particular case. I could cite many others, but the murders committed by Mr Michael Atherton in County Durham on 1 January 2012 sparked a debate with the Independent Police Complaints Commission and others about this issue. Although I may still refer to other cases, in the interests of time, I will focus on Michael Atherton.

On 1 January 2012, Mr Atherton went to a property in Horden, County Durham, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris). Hon. Members will note that he has signed new clause 5 because he shares our concerns. Mr Atherton then shot dead Susan McGoldrick, his partner; Alison Turnbull, Mrs McGoldrick’s sister; and Tanya Turnbull, Alison Turnbull’s daughter. Ultimately, he turned his weapon on himself and killed himself. Following that tragic triple murder and suicide, questions were raised about Mr Atherton’s suitability to own a firearm in the first place. I will not go into great detail, because the Minister will be aware of the case, but there was an investigation following a referral to the IPCC. The IPCC, the Association of Chief Police Officers and others looked at the circumstances around Mr Atherton’s murder of those three individuals, and the IPCC has recently produced a report, a copy of which I have in my hand, into the shooting and the Durham constabulary’s granting, management and review of the shotgun certificate and the firearm licence.

The benefits of new clause 5 relate to circumstances such as those involved in Mr Atherton’s murder of those three individuals. The first national recommendation of the IPCC inquiry—in paragraph 6—states:

“The Home Office should revise the current legislation and guidance to allow for a single uniform test for the assessment of suitability and fitness to possess both firearms and shotguns. ‘Fitness to be entrusted’ should form a specific element of the shotgun application process to ensure clarity and consistency around both applications.”

The shadow Home Office team consists of myself and my researcher, Sam, so the wording of new clause 5 might not be as watertight as the wording the Home Office might have used, because we do not have access to the same legal resources. However, I hope that the Minister will support the principle in the IPCC recommendation that “fitness to be entrusted” should be a specific element of the shotgun application process. I would like to hear his thoughts on that.

Finding 3 of the IPCC’s report says:

“The Home Office, Association of Chief Police Officers…and the College of Policing should devise clear guidance and tighter restrictions around applications for firearms or shotgun certificates where there have been previous allegations of domestic violence/incidents which have not resulted in convictions. Checks with police Domestic Violence Units should be a mandatory requirement for all new applications.”

Again, the wording of new clause 5 might not be watertight, but the Home Office needs to examine the principle following Michael Atherton’s murder of three individuals. Without the new clause, there would not have been a discussion of these matters, and the Home Office needs to reflect on them.

Steve Barclay (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point when he says that checks should be made regarding domestic violence, for example. However, I imagine there is no impediment to forces that believe such checks should be made making them now. Is he saying that no police forces are cross-checking or that some are while others are not? If it is the latter, and senior police leadership thinks this proposal is a good idea, what is the impediment to their performing these checks immediately?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

There is no impediment at the moment. Individual chief police officers will undertake licensing checks according to the 1968 Act. That gives them a range of models, but, crucially, unlike the new clause, it does not say there should be a presumption that the chief officer should refuse the licence

“unless exceptional evidence can be brought forward”.

What I am seeking to place on record for debate is that, if there is a history of domestic violence, there is a presumption that the application will be refused rather than the position at the moment, which is that the matter will be investigated, but the licence can still be granted. The presumption changes to one of proving that one is safe to have a weapon, rather than the presumption that that history is a factor to be considered. I do that because the IPCC’s national recommendations went further. Paragraph 17 of the report states:

“The Home Office should consider that applicants be required, as part of the application procedure, to disclose all cautions, bind-overs and fixed penalty notices.”

Again, that is not me, but the IPCC. Having looked at the case of Michael Atherton—one example of many that I could give the Committee today—it said that we need to look at cautions, bind-overs and fixed penalty notices. That is why I have included in new clause 5 domestic violence, violent conduct, drug or alcohol problems—or, indeed, mental illness, which was the debateable point that the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire raised.

If someone has been cautioned for violent conduct, that would, at the moment, not necessarily mean presumption that the individual is refused the licence. It would simply mean that the authority had to examine the matter, but it may not even show up because those checks are not done. I want a presumption that those issues are examined seriously and that, if they show up, the licence is refused unless the individual can prove mitigating factors of the sort set down in guidance by the Minister.

Bridget Phillipson (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South)

It is my understanding that, in the case that my right hon. Friend is considering in Durham, police licensing officers were advised that there might not be sufficient grounds, and they were concerned about legal challenge were they to refuse the licence to the individual concerned. I understand the point that the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire made, but some confusion remains around the current guidance about where it is appropriate to renew a licence, and police officers have been concerned that they may be subject to legal challenge under current legislation were they to refuse it.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend because she has made the point that there is a range of mitigating factors that the police themselves—in Durham in this case, but also across the country—have to look at, and they have to worry about these particular issues. I am also grateful to her for tabling amendment (a) to new clause 5. In a spirit of helpfulness, my Front-Bench colleagues and I have put our names to the amendment. We did that because, in the IPCC final report on the death and killings in Horden relating to Mr Michael Atherton, it makes a further national recommendation, on which my hon. Friend picked up, from both her work in the Home Affairs Committee and being a north-east MP close to this murder. The IPCC said that it

“supports the Home Affairs Committee’s recommendation, following its inquiry into controls on firearms in 2010, that national guidance should be revised to ensure not only that issuing forces take into account intelligence about criminal behaviour that does not result in a conviction, as well as convictions resulting in non-custodial sentences, but that they be expected to take such behaviour extremely seriously.”

The IPCC goes on—this point relates to my hon. Friend’s amendment (a):

“In particular, they should take account of bind-overs, arrests and police call outs for domestic violence and an accumulation of convictions for offences where the penalty falls short of that requiring prohibition, thereby encouraging greater emphasis on patterns of behaviour.”

In a sense, the new clause supports the contentions of the Independent Police Complaints Commission in relation to its investigations into Michael Atherton. I am challenging the Minister: if these matters are important, what is his response to the IPCC’s recommendations? What is his response to those particular issues? I have some indication from press reports. Mr Bobby Turnbull, the brother and son of two of the deceased, raised some issues with the Home Office concerning the case of Mr Michael Atherton. He has led a strong campaign, with my hon. Friend the Member for Easington and others in the north-east. He has met my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). He has lobbied the Home Office hard for the type of changes that new clause 5 reflects in spirit, even if it does not necessarily nail them down word for word.

The Home Office is on the case. I understand from press reports in the Evening Chronicle on 9 June:

“In a letter to Bobby Turnbull, who lost three loved ones in a gun massacre, the Home Office’s head of firearms, Sheila Alexander, said it intends to introduce stronger and clearer guidance on how the police should consider applications when there may be a history of domestic violence.”

I know that the Home Office intends to respond to the IPCC’s recommendations. However, I tabled new clause 5 so that the Minister can, while open to scrutiny from members of the Committee, explain what the Home Office will do. The present information says that the Home Office is looking at guidance, and according to press reports, we can expect that guidance by the end of the year, but we still need to look at these matters in detail.

Following the Horden shootings, Mr Tweddle, the coroner overseeing the inquest on the murders of the three individuals I mentioned earlier, said that he wanted a “root and branch” reform of gun licensing reform after ruling that the three women shot in a house in County Durham were unlawfully killed. He said:

“The systematic shortcomings highlighted by me today lead me to conclude that, on a balance of probabilities, the four deceased would not have died when they did in the manner in which they did had there been robust, clear and accountable procedures in place…In my opinion, the issues revealed by my inquiries into these deaths have made it absolutely clear and beyond doubt that a root and branch review of policy, guidance and procedures and indeed possibly legislation too, to ensure…that the protection of the public is paramount.”

New clause 5 is an attempt to generate that debate. We accept clause 100; we think it is worthwhile, and it gives us the opportunity to discuss the new clause in some detail.

I shall read an extract from a letter sent to me from Bobby Turnbull. It may have been sent to all members of the Committee. He urges us to support new clauses 5 and 6, saying:

“This is incredibly important to me because of the murder of my mother, Alison Turnbull, my sister Tanya Turnbull and my aunt Susan McGoldrick on 1.1.2012…Atherton was licensed to own six firearms, despite having a history of domestic violence and alcohol problems…New Clause 5 will prevent persons with similar histories from obtaining firearms unless they can provide exceptional evidence that they are not a threat to the public. This places the onus on the applicant not the police. I believe that this will result in a reduced risk to the public from people who have violent and abusive pasts.”

He expressed a sentiment I share, when he stated:

“I do not believe in a ban on firearms, but I want to see the common sense approach of denying firearms licenses to those who pose a risk to public safety implemented. This will help prevent such tragedies like the one that cost us our beloved family”.

New clause 5 is worthy of debate, and I want to hear from the Minster what it would mean in practice. I would also like to hear from the Minister what his guidance is intended to be, when it is intended to be produced, whether it has any legislative back-up and how it will be enforced by the police. Ultimately, what is his assessment of what I think are still loopholes in relation to the management and authorisation of firearm licences? As I said at the outset, I could have listed a range of cases over many, many years in which drugs, alcohol and domestic violence criteria had an impact upon individuals who have licences. The vast majority of people who hold a gun licence do not use it for the illegal purposes that I mentioned in the case of Mr Atherton, but some do.

Our job as legislators is to ensure that, with the Home Office, we tighten the law as far as possible, to help reduce the risk of the type of incident I have described as soon as we possibly can. That is why I support and accept amendment (a) tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South. As the IPCC said, looking at discussions with former partners will also help to strengthen the checks taken when licensing firearms. When my hon. Friend makes her contribution I would welcome support for her.

I turn briefly to new clause 6, which simply says that we wish to examine the cost of issuing firearm licences in the first place. New clause 6 puts a requirement on the Minister to consult the Association of Chief Police Officers on the level of fee for the licence. At the moment, taxpayers, including every member of the Committee whether participating, watching or working, subsidise gun licences to a considerable extent. According to ACPO, last year the cost to forces of issuing gun licences was in the region of £18.6 million over and above what is raised from the general public in the process of applying for firearm licences. Fees have not risen for more than a decade, and there is a shortfall of nearly £19 million.

I accept that new clause 6 may not be phrased in a way that meets the objective, but we can check that, but the principle is to ask for the Minister’s view on whether gun licences should pay for themselves, in terms of the cost of issuing those licences. Does he think that it is still appropriate for members of the Committee, and all the millions of taxpayers we represent, to subsidise the cost of gun licences to the tune of £19 million a year? In these difficult times, that money could be spent on front-line policing, on a range of other policing matters and on important issues of policing as a whole.

We issued a freedom of information request to all police forces to ask about their costs for licensing firearms. I give only two examples, but I could have given 43. Last year, the cost to Devon and Cornwall police of issuing firearms licences in their area was £1.2 million. They generated £514,000 in revenue, which meant that the taxpayers of Devon and Cornwall subsidised gun licence applications to the tune of £736,000. That is a considerable amount, which could be recouped from the people to whom the licences are issued. In Thames Valley—a large force—the total cost was £928,000 but the revenue generated was only £148,000, meaning a net cost of £780,000 to the residents of Thames Valley for the issue of gun licences.

The Government are, in principle, committed to full cost recovery across the public sector; accordingly, they have put up the costs of our passports and our driving licences, yet at the moment, there appears to be no movement on firearm licences.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned passports. I should point out that, going back to a previous life when I was Immigration Minister, I cut the price of passports, so to say that the cost of passports always goes up is not true.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The principle with passports is full cost recovery. If I have slipped up in my vista of Home Office knowledge on that particular example, I say to the right hon. Gentleman, touché. I will take that one on the chin if that is the case, but I will tell The Daily Telegraph that it needs to research these matters better, as that newspaper provided the information. Self-evidently, its journalists need to take a lesson in Home Officery from the Minister. We will put that aside. As I have said, it is only me and my researcher, poor old Sam, dealing with these matters. We try our best.

Returning to the important point in this debate, the Government are committed in principle to full cost recovery across the public sector. Should he wish to do so,I would welcome the Minister making an intervention to tell me whether the facts I have given on the costs for gun licences in Thames Valley and Devon and Cornwall are wrong. I think he will find that the figure of £736,000 in subsidy from Devon and Cornwall is correct, as is the figure of £780,000 in Thames Valley. I could list figures for the 41 other forces—figures that are, I believe, correct. Whatever we say about passports, the point is that taxpayers are subsidising firearms licences to the tune of £19 million a year.

New clause 6 simply says that we should consult the Association of Chief Police Officers about the cost of the licences. That would reassure chief police officers, who are currently saying—not to me but, dare I say it, to The Daily Telegraph—that they are concerned about the £19 million shortfall. The Minister should reflect on that and try to respond positively.

Steve Barclay (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Is that £19 million the current figure? If so, could the right hon. Gentleman enlighten the Committee as to what he would expect the revised figure to be if the additional measures set out in the new clause were adopted?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The £19 million is a figure that was quoted by ACPO on 9 June 2013—as recently as four weeks ago. ACPO is arguing for a rise in the fee for gun licences to help compensate for police costs in issuing the licences. To be fair to ACPO, it is not saying that there should be full cost recovery. Instead, it wants the fee to rise to £94; the current figure is £50. That would allow recovery of some of the £19 million loss, but would not cover it in its entirety; it would not be full cost recovery.

Steve Barclay (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The logic of the right hon. Gentleman’s argument is surely that there should be full cost recovery. If so, should he not be straight with people who, in future, will want firearms licences as to what would be the full increase in the fee that the Opposition are calling for?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I think we should have full cost recovery. I am very much in favour of that, as are the Opposition team.

Steve Barclay (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

How much?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The fee at the moment is £50, and there is a shortfall of £19 million. That shortfall will rise depending on the number of licences issued and their cost, so the fee will need to rise. I believe in full cost recovery, but I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a figure for a new fee today, because we do not know how many licences will be issued or what the cost of issuing them will be. The key point is that new clause 6 would lead to the Minister discussing the cost of issuing the licences with ACPO.

Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the very act of putting up the price would deter some people who perhaps should not be getting gun licences? An increase would mean that only people who need gun licences for professional and business reasons would see them as a viable option.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

That is a perfectly valid point. If the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire wishes to continue the discussion, I will simply say again that the cost of issuing a licence is around £200 but at the moment the fee is £50, so he and I, as taxpayers, are subsidising gun licences to the tune of 75%.

We should look at how we can get full cost recovery on gun licences. Under new clause 6, the Minister would have discussions with ACPO before any gun licence fee is set. At the moment the fee is £50; ACPO says it should be £94 and that it is currently subsidised by £19 million. I say we should aim towards full cost recovery. We could do that over a staged period and I am very relaxed about it. Is the Minister satisfied that taxpayers still subsidise the issue of these licences? If he is, could he tell us why, and indicate how he intends to look at ACPO's genuine concerns that it is subsidising the cost of the licences?

Steve Barclay (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman’s value-for-money case. To be clear, the Opposition’s position is that gun licence fee payers should pay four times what they currently pay for a future gun licence. Is that the position?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Let me say to the hon. Gentleman, before he starts preparing his press release, that the new clause says that the Secretary of State should consult ACPO about the appropriate level of fee. The current fee is around £200. I would be quite relaxed about moving towards full cost recovery in due course. That would be a saving to the taxpayer. The Government often ask us how we would pay for things. We are now spending £19 million on subsidising gun licences, at the same time that the Government are cutting millions of pounds from policing.

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to listen to my argument, at the moment ACPO says it wants to increase the licence fee to about £94. I say that the cost is around £200. I am happy to look, with the Minister, at how to increase the fee. I would not be prepared, were I the Minister, to continue for ever subsidising gun licences from the general taxpayer, in the way they are currently subsidised by local and national taxpayers. That is a reasonable compromise. If the hon. Gentleman wants to put out a press release saying, “Labour committed to fourfold increase”, we will debate that. I think most people would not wish to subsidise those applying for gun licences. That is a perfectly reasonable position.

Is the Minister happy to maintain the £50 licence, and therefore the £19 million subsidy? Does he accept that he should consult ACPO that wants a rise to £94? Does he believe that new clause 6 would be a beneficial addition to the Bill?

We have had a useful debate on three key issues. I welcome clause 100, support new clauses 5 and 6 and agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South on amendment (a). I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

Bridget Phillipson (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Dobbin. My amendment seeks to test the Government’s position, along with new clause 5 that focuses on reducing the harm and death that can result when those with a history of violence or alcohol or drug abuse have access to firearms.

I understand that the Home Office has been considering the measure I propose in my amendment. I have raised the matter today so that the Minister can respond in detail and explain the Government’s current thinking on this important area.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn set out, we have seen too many tragic cases involving firearms, not least in the north-east with the appalling events in Horden in the neighbouring constituency to mine. I join him in paying tribute to Bobby Turnbull, who has been determined and brave in his campaigning. He has sought to change the law so that no family should ever again experience the loss that his family has had to endure.

The Home Secretary indicated in the Government’s supplementary response to the Home Affairs Committee report that her Department would work with ACPO to bring in stronger guidance on how reports of domestic violence should be treated by the police when considering firearms applications. In that response, she specifically mentioned the Canadian practice of consulting the partners of firearms applicants. However, she said it needed greater examination because no one wants victims to be placed at a greater risk of harm by a measure that seeks to protect them. The Home Secretary’s response was published in December 2012. I would be grateful if the Minister can tell the Committee what stage the discussion has reached, and what conclusions, if any, the Government have drawn on consulting the partners or former partners of applicants for firearms licences.

The Minister will know that in December 2010 the Select Committee on Home Affairs recommended that the Government consider that proposal. It is now more than two and a half years later, and I am anxious that we make some progress. I want to hear what the Government’s thinking is, because we need action if we are to avoid such tragic cases occurring.

It has been suggested that the revised guidance that the Government have talked about will involve police licensing officers consulting domestic violence and public protection units as part of an application process. That is welcome. Unfortunately, all too often victims of domestic violence are not known to the police because they do not report what is happening, and the police may never have even been called to their home.

When I worked in a women’s refuge, I came across women who had expressed concern about their ex-partners’ access to firearms, some of which were held illegally, but most were held legitimately. Some had been threatened directly with those firearms. For example, I remember one woman telling me that her partner kept a shotgun under the bed to intimidate and control her and to prevent her from leaving.

Victims need to have confidence that the licensing system is robust, and that people with a history of domestic violence will not be able to hold firearms. Will the Minister explain what further action he can take to ensure the police feel empowered to act on concerns reported to them outside the renewal and application process?

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady. Will she help the Committee by indicating whether the police are already empowered to contact partners and former partners of people who apply for gun licences? What does she think new clause 5 would add to the current regime?

Bridget Phillipson (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South)

Amendment (a) seeks to test the Minister’s thinking. The Home Secretary has indicated that the Home Office is considering this approach, which is currently used in Canada, to some effect. As I said, often there is a history and pattern to domestic violence, and concerns are often raised. Unfortunately, police licensing officers are sometimes concerned that they might not be able to reject the firearms application or renewal on the basis of that intelligence—whether it is call-outs, a history of cautions or a pattern of arrests—because it has not led to the threshold that would lead to a licence being revoked. The Home Affairs Committee touched on the fact that suspended sentences do not automatically lead to a firearms licence being revoked, even if it for an offence that is imprisonable. Imprisonment results in revocation, but a suspended sentence that would otherwise have led to imprisonment does not necessarily do so.

There is a need for greater clarity. Police licensing officers need to have more confidence in the work they do in ensuring that victims of domestic violence and the general public are confident that the people who hold firearms licences are fit and proper people. I recognise that many people hold firearms licences for good, legitimate purposes, such as for sporting and farming reasons. No one wants to impinge on that. However, we need to make sure that the appropriate people hold licences. My amendment would ensure we have the widest possible understanding about the background of the applicant, so we can prevent tragedies occurring in the future.

On the hon. and learned Gentleman’s point, of course the police should act on concerns when they are raised. However, with the current legislative framework, I am not entirely confident that the police will always feel they have the law on their side in making sure that people who hold firearms legitimately are the right people to hold licences. My amendment seeks to draw out the Minister’s position on this issue, to see what Home Office thinking is, and to make sure that we have a system of firearms licensing that protects victims and the wider community and ensures that the only people who have access to firearms are those who hold them for legitimate purposes and do not pose a risk of harm to others.

I hope the Minister will offer some reassurance on this issue. I appreciate the work that the Home Office has done so far. Although we have further to go, and, unfortunately, progress has been slow at times, the system needs reform and we all want to do everything that we can to avoid future tragedies. I hope that the Minister will set out how he will address the principle outlined in new clause 5 and my amendment.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

Welcome back to the Chair, Mr Dobbin. New clause 5 would create a presumption that if an applicant for a firearm exhibits substantiated evidence of violent conduct, domestic violence, mental illness or drug or alcohol abuse, the police should not grant a licence to unless there is exceptional evidence to demonstrate the suitability of that applicant.

I am happy to assure the Committee that the police already have the ability to take factors such as domestic violence and alcohol and drug abuse into account when assessing the risk to public safety. As a result of the tragic shootings on new year’s day 2012 in County Durham, which were mentioned by the right hon. Member for Delyn, we are carefully considering the recommendations made by the Independent Police Complaints Commission about firearms licensing, including cases where there is evidence of domestic violence.

The new firearms guidance on domestic violence and abuse is to be introduced by the end of the summer, in time for the later stages of the Bill’s consideration. The right hon. Gentleman reasonably asked me for some indication of what will be in that guidance. It will make it clear that although each case must be assessed on its merits, evidence of domestic violence and abuse will generally indicate that an individual should not be permitted to possess a firearm. I hope that that provides him with some reassurance. Similarly, the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South said that amendment (a) would introduce a system whereby there is greater involvement of partners and ex-partners in the application process, as happens in Canada.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Perhaps I am intervening too early. Greater involvement is of some reassurance, but will my right hon. Friend put some flesh on these bones: will that encompass a requirement to consult with partners and former partners for a set period preceding the application, and if not, why not?

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

Let me explain to my hon. and learned Friend and to the hon. Lady. We are in the process of preparing the new guidance. The new process will involve interviews of partners where judged appropriate in the particular case, provided that that would not place those partners at risk of further reprisals and violence, because if one went to partners and ex-partners and the application subsequently failed, that might be an incitement to reprisals that may include violence. We would want to avoid that.

The new approach will not follow the Canadian model of requiring the partner to sign the application form, first because that may also place partners at an unacceptable risk of harm. Secondly, there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Canadian model results in a decrease in domestic violence-related murders. The hon. Lady asked for an indication of our thinking and that is it. We are, however, revising firearms guidance to make it clear that the police can interview widely if they deem that necessary to establish whether an applicant is fit to be entrusted with a firearm. That could include interviews with partners, ex-partners, other family members or associates depending on the circumstances of the case. The guidance will strike the right balance.

Evidence of domestic violence can be considered, and I absolutely take the point that it should be considered, but the balance we are trying to strike is to do that without increasing the risk to the victims that we are trying to protect.

Let me deal with some specific points raised by the right hon. Member for Delyn. The test for a shotgun in section 28 of the Firearms Act already requires a chief officer of police to be satisfied that the applicant can be permitted to possess a shotgun without endangering public safety or the peace. I believe that that statutory test, accompanied by the Home Office guidance, is sufficient to provide the safeguards that he was asking for. The guidance is being revised and will highlight the fact that cautions and bind-overs should be taken into account when assessing fitness for firearms or danger to public safety for shotguns.

9.45 am

The right hon. Gentleman also asked about a statutory presumption. Arguably, having a fixed statutory presumption against the grant of the certificate would fetter the discretion of the decision maker, who has to consider all the circumstances in the round and must begin with an open mind. A public law decision must be taken with an open mind if it is to be fair and reasonable. A fixed statutory presumption would tilt the balance too heavily away from the grant of the certificate in all cases.

From the drafting of new clause 5 it is unclear what would constitute “exceptional evidence”—no definition is provided. The phrase “mental illness” is clearly very broad and could potentially include anyone with a history of having suffered depression or anxiety, which captures a sizeable proportion of the population. The proposal that the applicant would have actively to prove their own suitability does not fit with the existing test in the 1968 Act.

New clause 6 seeks to introduce a legal requirement for the Secretary of State to consult with the police before revising the licence fees so that they achieve full cost recovery. We are currently in the process of revising the fees, and I can happily reassure the right hon. Member for Delyn that the police are very much involved—I regularly meet police leaders on this matter. The work is informed in part by a proposal from the national policing lead for firearms licensing. Consultation with the police is integral to the fee setting process. I therefore do not believe that the changes are required.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire asked about my level of concern for the fee; does the Minister believe that full cost recovery should be an objective?

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I am moving on to the subject of full cost recovery. I think I am right in saying that at one stage in his speech, the right hon. Gentleman said that new clause 6 simply asked me to consult the police. That is not the case; it says that the level of fees should be

“sufficient for the police to recoup the costs they incur”—

in other words, that there should be full cost recovery. That is an interesting point. As the right hon. Gentleman says, generally, the Government are committed to that for those parts of public service where it is appropriate, and he raises an important point about the use of police resources.

The way to cut this Gordian knot is to investigate what the full cost is, why it is as high as it is and, if possible, bring it down. That is precisely what we are doing. We are updating the firearms licensing system through the introduction of an online e-commerce system. In other words, it is moving from an old-fashioned paper-based system to a much more modern online system that will massively reduce the administrative burden on the police. That will result in cost savings in the administration of the licensing process.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Whatever the final cost, does the Minister believe that it should be paid for by the people applying for the licence or by the taxpayer subsidising it?

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

The right hon. Gentleman made the point that, in general, we wish to move to full cost recovery. However, we are not going to move to the figure that he suggested—£200—on the basis of what may be full cost recovery in the existing, rather inefficient, rather old-fashioned paper-based system. Those who legitimately own firearms deserve a system that absolutely provides safety for the public, alongside all the issues that we were discussing under new clause 5. They also deserve a licensing system that is efficient.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Will the Minister then give some indication of when he expects the new paperless online system to be operational? When it is operational, would he expect the purchasers of a licence to pay the full cost, or would he expect the taxpayer to subsidise any gap in that cost?

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

It is coming in now and is already used in some forces. We hope and expect that all forces will be using it by 2015. That will be the point at which we consider whether we should move to full cost recovery. I am happy to say that we will continue to consult the police regularly on that matter.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Is not the difficulty with new clause 6, which is plainly designed to move to a system of full cost recovery, that it does not take into account, for example, farmers who need to own guns in order to do their job and put food on the table of British consumers? The Opposition have not thought about that at all, and they would saddle those farmers with additional costs for simply going about their business.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

My hon. and learned Friend makes a powerful point. Another point I want to make is that the right hon. Gentleman agreed with the hon. Member for Rotherham that a connection exists between the cost of a firearms licence and the provision of safety, which we all want, but I urge him strongly not to go down that road. There is one argument about how much various firearms licences should cost, and there is a separate argument about ensuring that the system tries as far as possible not to allow guns to get into the hands of anyone whose past behaviour—for example, a history of domestic violence—suggests that they are likely to misuse them. That must be the priority of a gun licensing system. It is also important to strike the right balance when it comes to the cost of a licence, as we have discussed, but the two issues must not be confused.

Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)

Respectfully, Minister, my right hon. Friend did not agree with me on that point; he simply let me intervene.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

As a courteous parliamentarian, of course the right hon. Gentleman would let one of his colleagues intervene. I will look at Hansard, but I understood him to agree with the hon. Lady.

Steve Barclay (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Could my right hon. Friend assist me in interpreting new clause 6? It appears to suggest that fees must be sufficient to allow the police to recoup their costs immediately, not in the future or incrementally. Would that not result in a fourfold increase in the cost of a licence?

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I agree—that would be my interpretation of new clause 6. Perhaps I should stop intruding on the private grief that is the drafting of the new clause, however. The underlying, wider point is that one should not accept what is now regarded as the full cost of a system. This provides a vivid example of the universal need to try to make such systems cheaper for those who use them, less burdensome for the police and more efficient. The new online system is designed to do just that; we will indeed be producing more with less.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support for clause 100. It increases to life imprisonment the maximum sentence for certain offences connected with the manufacture and supply of prohibited weapons and ammunition. It also creates a new offence of possession for sale or transfer of a prohibited firearm or ammunition, which will, similarly, carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. It applies the existing minimum mandatory sentences to the new offence.

We all know that the use of prohibited firearms by urban street gangs and organised criminal groups continues to have a disproportionate impact in our communities. We have some of the toughest gun laws in the world and, as a result, firearms offences continue to be relatively rare. We can always do more, however, and clause 100 ensures that our laws properly punish and deter all criminals and protect our communities. We think that the actions covered by these offences are more serious than simple possession and purchasing or acquiring prohibited firearms or ammunition. Such behaviour is generally associated with the trafficking of firearms. Our intention is to target the behaviour of those who choose to supply firearms to the criminal market by applying a tougher maximum sentence to those individuals. The clause targets the middlemen responsible for supplying illegal firearms to street gangs and organised crime groups. Those middlemen are morally as culpable as those who pull the trigger and should therefore face a higher maximum penalty.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am grateful for the chance to debate this issue in detail. I welcome clause 100, so the Committee is in general agreement on the matter.

New clause 5, with the helpful amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South, would be a positive addition to the Bill, and I reserve the right to return to it later in our deliberations, when we will have an opportunity to vote on that issue if we so wish.

Those Members who are interested—the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire self-evidently is—will notice that new clause 6 states:

“Before making an order under this section the Secretary of State must consult with chief police officers”.

I support the principle of full cost recovery, and we should attempt to achieve full cost recovery in the administration and assessment of firearm licences made under the 1968 Act. The new clause states that the Secretary of State must consult with chief police officers, because they have said that they are almost £19 million in arrears due to the failure to raise the fees in the past 10 years—seven years of which were under my party’s Government and for one year of which I was the Minister responsible.

I accept that in times of particular financial stress, when we face very large reductions in policing budgets, the police look at savings. Savings are not only made by cuts in services; they can be made by looking at charges for services. I still did not get a sense from the Minister whether, even if the paperless system he has talked about is effectively up and running by 2015, he would go into the election committing to having full cost recovery on firearms licences.

I will tell you a secret, Mr Dobbin—it may be worth a press release for the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire—I suspect we will go into the election saying that we should have full cost recovery. That is not because we want to penalise farmers. I represent a very rural constituency, and I do not want to penalise farmers any more than I want to penalise truckers or car owners who use cars for their businesses. The state does not subsidise those licences; those people pay full cost recovery for them.

It is perfectly reasonable that, if the state has to choose what it spends taxpayers’ money on, subsidising firearms licence applications should not be a priority. Even if the cost were £200 for a licence, that would not be excessive, given that the current cost of £50 has not been raised for more than 10 years.

This debate on full cost recovery is a reasonable one to have and the Minister should consider the issue. As with new clause 5, I reserve the right to return to new clause 6 at an appropriate time later in our deliberations. I am grateful for the Minister’s response and I hope we have had a useful debate. I look forward to reading the press releases in due course.

Clause 103 - Offence of breaching forced marriage protection order

Bridget Phillipson (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South)

I beg to move amendment 118, in clause 103, page 75, line 15, at end add—

‘(8) It shall be a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare and publish guidance about the effect of this section before it comes into force to such descriptions of persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(9) A person exercising public functions to whom guidance is given under this section must have regard to it in the exercise of those functions.’.

Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 119, in clause 104, page 76, line 8, at end add—

‘(9) It shall be a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare and publish guidance about the effect of this section before it comes into force to such descriptions of persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(10) A person exercising public functions to whom guidance is given under this section must have regard to it in the exercise of those functions.’.

Bridget Phillipson (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South)

Forced marriage is a serious concern that affects thousands of young people across the United Kingdom, but there are no reliable estimates of its extent. The Government’s forced marriage unit’s figures indicate that the number of cases stands at roughly 1,500 to 1,700 a year, but experts and agencies alike admit that it is a hidden problem and that too many cases go unreported, which is what we heard from experts during the oral evidence sessions. In 2009, the then Department for Children, Schools and Families estimated that the national prevalence of reported cases of forced marriage in England was between 5,000 and 8,000. In 2007, civil remedies to deal with forced marriage in England and Wales were introduced under the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007, and guidance was issued to public bodies as a result.

The Home Affairs Committee’s 2008 report on “Domestic Violence, Forced Marriage and ‘Honour’-Based Violence” and its 2011 report “Forced Marriage”, its eighth report of Session 2010-12, both made it clear that the Government’s response to the problem showed significant weaknesses. The 2011 report recommended that the Government criminalise forced marriage, as it had become clear that forced marriage protection orders were not protecting individuals satisfactorily.

The increase in cases handled by the forced marriage unit and in calls made to the honour network helpline since the 2007-08 inquiry demonstrates that more young women are coming forward to seek help. That is welcome and encouraging, but it underlines the need for greater support for victims and more effective mechanisms for identifying them. The lack of support is unfortunately exacerbated by the occasional unwillingness of public bodies effectively to tackle the issue. Although statutory guidance exists following the 2007 civil legislation, it is not being followed or properly implemented by a host of agencies, which could be doing much more to identify and support victims.

The new measures before us today will criminalise both the breach of forced marriage protection orders and forced marriage itself for the first time. Given that the law is changing, the Government should re-examine the statutory guidance and revise it in light of the changing nature of the offence. It should also be recognised that the guidance is not being sufficiently followed by public bodies. When the Minister responds, I hope that he will set out what action the Government intend to take and whether they intend to work across Departments to tackle the issue, in particular with the Department for Education, where significant weaknesses exist in how forced marriage is addressed.

The Government’s forced marriage unit began a review of the implementation of the statutory guidance that was introduced in October 2010 following the 2007 legislation. That guidance is relevant to all persons and bodies in England and Wales that exercise public functions in relation to safeguarding and promoting the well-being of children and adults. Unfortunately, the review had many findings. Many agencies had not embedded forced marriage within existing children and adult safeguarding structures, strategies and procedures. There was a lack of commitment within agencies to address forced marriage. Approaches to training were inconsistent, with few agencies routinely and regularly training their staff to respond to cases of forced marriage efficiently and effectively. There was also a disparity in the way different agencies and individual departments within those agencies handled and monitored cases of forced marriage. Although the police recognised the need to address forced marriage proactively, their implementation of the guidance was not always consistent and school and further education colleges needed to do significantly more.

As a result, the review had several recommendations. All agencies should have a forced marriage strategy and policies and procedures in place, together with an inter-agency protocol for handling cases and sharing information. There should be clear lines of accountability and training on forced marriage should be offered. All agencies should also have the ability to monitor and evaluate cases.

The criminalisation of forced marriage and the breaching of a forced marriage protection order is an opportunity to ensure that some of the October 2010 recommendations of the forced marriage unit are finally implemented. That is the purpose of the amendments that I have tabled to clauses 103 and 104. They would ensure that new statutory guidance was published by the Government and distributed to all relevant public bodies, and require organisations and individuals who received it to follow it when carrying out their duties. Unfortunately, criminalising forced marriage in itself will not be enough to protect victims and potential victims.

Those measures would be welcomed by many agencies. In the forced marriage unit report, agencies asked that multi-agency guidance on forced marriage include more about information sharing and an adaptable leaflet for victims and professionals. One agency requested that guidelines be more succinct for front-line practitioners. The measures would also target improvements in the approach adopted by schools towards forced marriage, an area that was of particular concern to the forced marriage unit, as we heard in oral evidence.

The 2010 report was critical of the attitude of schools towards forced marriage. First, only one school responded to the questionnaire from the forced marriage unit. It found that schools and colleges were difficult to engage with in a number of regions because they tended to shy away from raising awareness about forced marriage with their pupils. The reasons cited were not wanting to stigmatise particular ethnic groups and concerns about the reactions of parents and governors. As a consequence some schools refuse to display posters and leaflets or participate in training and raising awareness.

Indeed, we heard oral evidence from the two organisations that work in this area that schools remain a significant concern. One witness reported that it was not even possible to ascertain the number of people affected by forced marriage. They were told that they would have to seek the information from each individual school, which is simply not practical. We do not have a proper estimate of the number of young people who may be disappearing because of forced marriage, and we need that data if we are to have a proper evidence base that can further inform the debate. The unwillingness to raise the issue of forced marriage within schools means that the issue is not addressed within safeguarding structures.

The 2011 Home Affairs Committee report reiterated many of the concerns raised by the forced marriage unit about schools. We heard evidence from Jasvinder Sanghera of Karma Nirvana that little had changed in schools since 2008, and that schools were reluctant to participate in her charity’s work on forced marriage. Other evidence confirmed that schools were doing very little to ensure that pupils were informed about forced marriage or offered the necessary support if the problem had affected them. In fact, some schools were putting students at risk by contacting family members when children had consulted teachers in confidence.

In 2011, the Home Affairs Committee was extremely worried that schools were continuing to refuse to engage in preventive activity and wrote to the Secretary of State for Education to express that view. The Committee rejected the Secretary of State’s assurance that schools were already aware of the guidance available on forced marriage and called for teachers to be given active support from the Department for Education, as it was vital for child protection. In response, although the Government accepted the role teachers play in protecting children from forced marriage, the Secretary of State for Education did not believe that his Department should be directive or prescriptive to schools on such issues.

This Committee heard further evidence that, after another two years of inaction from the Department for Education, forced marriage is still not being treated as a child protection issue in many schools. The compilation of new guidelines gives the Government an opportunity to implement a fundamental change in the way that schools approach forced marriage and adopt many of the recommendations made by the two Select Committee inquiries and the forced marriage unit report. That could put an end to the situation in which schools collect no data on disappearing students so that we do not know the full extent of the problem.

In conclusion, I support the measures that the Government have put forward in the Bill. I appreciate that they have at times divided opinion among those working in the sector, but I think they are the right step. However, criminalisation in itself is not a panacea. To draw a parallel, female genital mutilation was criminalised more than two decades ago but there has yet to be a single conviction for that crime in the UK, despite the fact that 24,000 women in this country continue to be exposed to the risk of female genital mutilation. If this Bill is to effectively tackle forced marriage, and if criminalisation is to have the effect that we all want of stopping this dreadful practice, a broader, more comprehensive approach needs to be adopted. Criminalisation is only one important part of such a process. The Bill should ensure that public agencies and bodies provide a consistent and appropriate response to those within their care who are threatened by forced marriage. The amendments I have tabled would thus incentivise public agencies to improve their best practice and encourage Departments, in particular the Department for Education, to discuss openly how best to tackle forced marriage beyond criminalisation.

Tracey Crouch (Conservative, Chatham and Aylesford)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Dobbin. I have no idea whether forced marriage is a problem in my constituency, and therein lies the point that the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South has made—that there are no consistent or useful data that can enable constituency MPs to understand the extent of the problem. My constituency is largely white, with only a very small minority community. However, that is not to say that there are no instances of forced marriage in my constituency.

I listened carefully to what the hon. Lady said and concur with her entirely that part of the problem is the lack of available data. Indeed, the Home Affairs Committee made that point when it commented that victims fall through the cracks because of the failure to share data. She made some interesting points about who is responsible for sharing that data; it is perfectly acceptable to comment on schools that have children who do not come back after a summer recess.

I did a little research and was interested to note that Karma Nirvana, which came to give us oral evidence, recently reported a 52% increase in calls to the charity helpline from Kent in one year. I know the county incredibly well and was astonished by that. That reinforces the point that others have made—that in many respects this is a hidden crime. I am therefore pleased that the Government have brought forward these measures; it is important that we do so for the safety and security of our youngsters, and we must take this issue very seriously. However, we need to look at the available data and at how we can best improve the sharing of them.

A point was made powerfully and emotionally on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), who had a big case in his constituency of forced marriages and the abuse of younger children. He made it very clear—this is also the purpose of my short contribution today—that he wanted the Home Office to consider introducing a new police power in the Bill to require specific hotels or bed and breakfast establishments to collect details of identity and proof of relationship for persons under the age of 18. That information should be passed on to the police, which would allow them through their intelligence to collect that data, understand it and use it as best they can. In response to my hon. Friend, the Home Secretary said that that was an important and powerful point and one that she would consider.

This is an opportune moment to raise that issue alongside the wider one of data sharing mentioned by the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South, because it is clear that at the moment we have no reliable data. If we are truly to understand the scale of the problem of forced marriage, it is important that we have such data immediately.

Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour, South Shields)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. I would like to speak very briefly in support of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South. Prior to becoming an MP some two months ago, I was a front-line child protection social worker and witnessed first hand the effects of mental and physical abuse suffered by child victims of forced marriage and witnessed the adults involved. I encountered daily all the issues raised today by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South, as did the other agencies I worked with. My experience therefore tallies with the evidence given to the Committee by Karma Nirvana and Freedom that criminalisation alone, while welcome, is simply not enough to ensure that children and families are adequately protected. Robust multi-agency guidance needs to be in place to ensure that everyone is as safe as they can be. Should the Minister wish to have a benchmark for such guidance, it would do no harm to look at, and expand on, the excellent “Working Together to Safeguard Children” guidance issued under the previous Labour Government, which is still widely used by child protection workers.

Gloria De Piero (Labour, Ashfield)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields and to support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South.

I want to focus on the role that schools and other educational institutions, in particular, can play. Evidence submitted to us by Imkaan said:

“Schools and other educational institutions have a key role to play yet are often not engaging on these issues as highlighted by our research The Missing Link (2011). Teachers should be equipped to identify and respond appropriately to girls at risk, yet they are not consistently trained to identify risk and respond appropriately.”

Southall Black Sisters also submitted strong arguments, saying,

“Our experience shows that the education system has been the slowest to respond to the need to address forced marriage. There needs to be considerable attention on increasing awareness and creating monitoring mechanisms for all forms of gender-related violence and equality issues in schools…We are of the view that heads of secondary schools and further education colleges have an obligation to provide clear and well publicised information on a range of gender-related violence issues and Ofsted has an important role to play in monitoring how these issues are addressed.”

Has the Minister had any discussions with the Department for Education about the role of schools and Ofsted? My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South also mentioned the Home Affairs Committee. What action has been taken on its recommendation that we write to schools to urge them to be aware of their responsibilities in relation to forced marriage?

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

All of us, on both sides of the Committee, share the abhorrence of the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South for forced marriage. It is a relatively recent phenomenon in this country, and we clearly need to get better at stamping it out; indeed, that is the purpose of the legislative changes in the Bill. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for South Shields bring to bear her experience from a previous career, because it is valuable.

Let me deal with the amendments and then answer some of the specific questions that have been raised on both sides of the Committee. The amendments seek to ensure that statutory guidance on the new offences created by clauses 103 and 104 is published by the Secretary of State and that those professionals receiving such guidance adhere to it in exercising their public functions.

It is, of course, vital that the new legislation is accompanied by appropriate training and guidance for all relevant professionals, and the Prime Minister said as much when he announced our intention to legislate on the issue last year. However, as I have argued previously during our deliberations, it is not always necessary to make guidance statutory.

As it happens, statutory provisions already exist in this respect. The Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007, which the hon. Lady mentioned, inserted new part 4A in the Family Law Act 1996, providing a civil remedy for forced marriage—the forced marriage protection order. Sections 63Q(1) and (2) of part 4A of the 1996 Act make provision for guidance. Section 63Q(1)(a) states:

“The Secretary of State may from time to time prepare and publish guidance to such descriptions of persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate about…the effect of this Part or any provision of this Part”.

The reference to “this Part” means part 4A of the Family Law Act. As clause 103 amends part 4A to make a breach of a forced marriage protection order a criminal offence, it follows that section 63Q(1)(a) covers the preparation of guidance about the new offence. Similarly, section 63Q(1)(b) applies to the preparation and publication of guidance about other matters relating to forced marriages. Clearly, making it an offence to force another person to enter into a marriage without free and full consent is, indeed, a matter relating to forced marriage, so it follows that that section covers the preparation of guidance about the offence in clause 104.

The hon. Lady rightly brought up the matter of adherence to the guidance, and the Family Law Act provides:

“A person exercising public functions to whom guidance is given under this section must have regard to it in the exercise of those functions.”

That directly addresses her concern.

The one difference is that the amendments would place a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare and publish guidance, whereas the existing statutory provision does not. However, the fact is that multi-agency statutory guidance for those dealing with forced marriage has been published in accordance with section 63Q of the Family Law Act. The first edition was published when the provisions came into force in 2008, and a second, revised, issue of the guidance was published in January 2010.

A review of the implementation of the guidance was published in January last year; measuring how it is used on the ground is one thing that is crucial. The report focused on how statutory agencies have applied the strategic principles in dealing with forced marriage cases, and also provided some key recommendations to improve that response. Those recommendations will be taken forward, and the guidance will be further revised to reflect the creation of the new offences. So will other relevant guidance, including the guide to the court process on forced marriage protection orders, a revised edition of which was published as recently as June last year.

I hope that the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South will understand from what I have said that there is already multi-agency statutory guidance. It is aimed at senior managers, and it covers broad obligations. It is relevant to all agencies that exercise public functions to safeguard children or protect adults, or any third party agencies to which those duties are delegated.

The new practice guidelines will directly target education professionals as well as health professionals, social services, police and housing authorities. I hope that that answers the point raised by the hon. Member for Ashfield about what goes on in schools. It will be squarely aimed at them as well as at the other parts of the public sector that have direct responsibility.

Similarly, it was reasonable to raise the point about contact between the Home Office and the Department for Education. The inter-ministerial group on violence against women and girls, which is chaired by the Home Secretary, oversees the implementation of the action plan, which covers forced marriage and the new legislation. The Department for Education is a full member of the working group, so it is directly plugged into the work that we are doing, led by the Home Secretary, to try to up our game.

The hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South asked what we are doing to monitor the implementation of the guidance. As I have said, a review of the implementation was published in January last year, and it considered how statutory agencies have applied the guidance. They are under a statutory duty to have regard to it when they exercise their functions. Failure to have adequate regard to it could make the agency subject to a legal challenge by way of judicial review, for breach of statutory duty; thus there are considerable obligations on agencies.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford raised a good point, and we are actively considering the proposal made on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley that there should be a targeted power to require hotels and guest houses to record the details of those under 18. It is well worth further exploration, and we are happy to look at that, possibly later in the consideration of the Bill. I agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley raised an important point.

I hope that the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South and members of the Committee behind the thrust of what she is trying to achieve with the amendments will accept that they are unnecessary. I hope she will agree to withdraw.

Bridget Phillipson (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South)

I have listened carefully to the Minister’s response. I welcome much of what is in the Bill on forced marriage, but there is still a long way to go in tackling the issue, and I would like to test the will of the Committee on amendment 118.

Clause 104 - Offence of forced marriage

Richard Fuller (Conservative, Bedford)

I beg to move amendment 127, in clause 104, page 75, line 18, after ‘coercion’, insert ‘or any form of deception’.

Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 53, in clause 104, page 75, line 27, at end add—

‘(2A) A person commits an offence if he or she—

(a) causes a person to enter into a marriage who lacks capacity, as determined by the Mental Capacity Act 2005,

(b) uses violence, threats or any other form of coercion, or practises any form of deception for the purposes of causing another person to enter into a marriage, and believes, or should reasonably believe, that such conduct may diminish the other person’s capacity to make decisions, to the extent that they no longer have capacity to consent to the marriage.’.

Clause stand part.

New clause 17—Offence of using a sham marriage to avoid immigration requirements—

‘(1) A person commits an offence if he or she—

(a) applies to enter, for leave to remain or to settle in the United Kingdom, and

(b) relies on a sham marriage in support of that application.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine or both;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years.

(3) A “sham marriage” is a marriage entered into primarily for the purpose of avoiding the effect on one or both of the parties of one or more provisions of United Kingdom immigration law or the immigration rules.’.

Richard Fuller (Conservative, Bedford)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. Despite our disagreement on the previous amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South, I think we all listened intently to her descriptions, particularly in relation to honour in the matter of forced marriage.

I wish to draw the Committee’s attention to another reason for forced marriage, that is for immigration purposes. That is my intention in new clause 17 and amendment 127, which would add after the word coercion “or any form of deception”. Deception in relation to immigration purposes is as much an aspect of force in marriage as some of the pertinent issues mentioned by the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South.

In the evidence sessions we heard from Aneeta Prem, the chief executive of Freedom. I pressed her on the reasons for forced marriage and she said:

“The main reasons are around the family. It is about control. It is about money. It is about immigration and getting people to stay in the UK or come over.”––[Official Report, Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Public Bill Committee, 20 June 2013; c. 77, Q147.]

I asked a similar question of Jasvinder Sanghera, who is the chief executive officer of Karma Nirvana. Her response was:

“Another motive is first cousin marriage, which ensures that family members remain within family kinship, maintaining and securing land and property rights.”––[Official Report, Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Public Bill Committee, 20 June 2013; c. 78, Q149.]

I pressed her further and asked:

“Is that land and property rights here in the UK?”

She said:

“It can be here in the UK or it can be abroad, hence the link with entry to the UK and the wish to have a visa to become a British subject.”––[Official Report, Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Public Bill Committee, 20 June 2013; c. 78, Q150.]

I looked at some of the statistics on marriages arranged primarily for immigration purposes. According to a written reply from the Minister for Immigration, the Department received

“384 section 24 reports in 2007…561 in 2009…1,741 in 2011; and 1,891 in 2012.”—[Official Report, 2 July 2013; Vol. 565, c. 561W.]

under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which shows that marriages arranged primarily for immigration purposes are an increasing issue. It is therefore appropriate that this Committee considers the connection between forced marriage and immigration.

There is a substantial difference between arranged marriages and forced marriages. Many of my constituents have an arranged marriage and are delighted by the process—it is a perfectly reasonable process, and some would argue that it offers guidance for many others on the ways in which marriages might eventuate. I want to make sure that there is no misunderstanding about the intent of my proposals. I also recognise that the Government have tightened up the rules, in particular, with regard to deception, by lengthening the time before indefinite leave to remain can be granted and making that entitlement provisional for two and half years.

However, in my view the focus of much of the legislation is too specific, inasmuch as it relates to the marriage ceremony. I was pointed by the Clerk to the guidance on the criminal provisions for sham marriage. That talks about issues that relate at a particular point in time—the marriage—regarding the celebrant and witnesses to a marriage, but in practice the application of those provisions assumes a common knowledge of all parties at that particular point in time, whereas in my experience there are instances, significant in both number and human consequences, where there is not common knowledge. In effect, there is a deception that only becomes evident long after the time of the marriage—specifically, at the granting of leave to remain. In my view, that is as much a forced marriage as some of the other circumstances that we have already considered, the provisions on which, in part 9, receive support from Members on both sides.

I would like to draw on some examples, significant in both number and implications, that I have heard in my time as a Member of Parliament. In a number of instances, a spouse immediately departed their partner after being granted indefinite leave to remain. In the shortest case, that happened after 40 days. Clearly, that was a sham marriage and involved force—deception as a force, not brutality or honour or someone telling them to do that. In another example, there was a life-changing accident and a spouse, just granted status, abandoned his wife. In a further example, sexual assault while in marriage was alleged, but leave to remain was granted and then the person abandoned his spouse. In perhaps the worst example, because there were multiple abuses, a person whose spouse came from abroad abandoned her immediately after the granting of indefinite leave to remain; she then remarried in similar circumstances and the second spouse left shortly after the granting of indefinite leave to remain. People who have suffered from that type of deception are in as bad a situation as those who have been put through some of the circumstances of forced marriage we have discussed, but what is their recourse under the Bill and under the immigration rules?

When the Minister responds to the amendment and the new clause, which I shall not press to a vote because my aim is to probe the Minister, will he tell us what can be done in those circumstances? The only recourse that such people seem to have is to ask the Border Agency to follow up and remove the granting of indefinite leave to remain, but we know the likelihood of that occurring and UKBA’s ability to do it, so that is no solace.

Marriage and immigration rules are a sensitive issue, particularly now—indeed, my local paper, the Times & Citizen, has been highlighting some of the changes in the rules and how they affect some of my constituents—and it is absolutely the case that the Government must get the rules right. Equally, it is important to see the other side of marriage and immigration rules, where force, coercion or deception have resulted in people essentially being used as passports. In all such cases, I believe that criminal sanctions for forced marriage should apply.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I shall not detain the Committee long; I simply wish to voice my support for my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford. He has raised an extraordinarily important issue, not only for his constituents and mine but for all the people in this country, because we have reached a position where marriage is being used to circumvent immigration rules. Everyone in the House will deprecate that, not only as purely circumventing the rules that are designed to ensure acceptable levels of immigration in this country, but because of what it says about marriage, which is an institution that we have debated in this Parliament and which I know every member of the Committee values.

I therefore want to congratulate my hon. Friend publicly for raising the issue as he has done. I know that he will not press the amendment and his new clause to a vote, but I do want to hear from the Minister that perhaps there ought to be a consultation on what can be achieved in this area, and that the Home Office is therefore susceptible or amenable to introducing provisions to deal with the problem highlighted by my hon. Friend. For that reason, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

Without in any way belittling the cases mentioned by my hon. Friend, I cannot resume my seat without noting that his amendment and new clause may be drawn too broadly. I say that only because amendment 127 refers to “any form of deception” used for the purposes of causing another person to enter into a marriage, and I suspect that in many marriages there is perhaps not deception, but at least some spinning of the truth before the marriage is contracted. I wondered idly, for example, whether it might have caught the marriage of Henry VIII and Anne of Cleves: would she, by virtue of the painting that she persuaded Holbein to paint, have been practising some form of deception upon our former sovereign, who, as I recall, remarked that she was nothing so fair as she had been reported? Be that as it may, the issue is a serious one. Perhaps the Minister could indicate either that the Government will table amendments on Report, or that they will consult on what can be done to deal with the extraordinarily important point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford has made by moving the amendment.

Paul Maynard (Conservative, Blackpool North and Cleveleys)

May I speak to amendment 53 at this point?

Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)

Yes.

Paul Maynard (Conservative, Blackpool North and Cleveleys)

Let me say, in time-honoured fashion, that I do not wish to detain the Committee long or to press the amendment to a vote, but I do wish to extract a few indications from the Minister of his views on the subject.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford has eloquently described some of the motivations behind forced marriage and the reasons why people go down that path. It will come as no surprise to many members of the Committee that those with a learning disability who lack the capacity to take adequate decisions and interpret the world around them are particularly vulnerable to those who have ulterior motivations. The forced marriage unit calculates that approximately 4% of its case load consists of people with a learning disability. That in itself is a shocking figure, but the Government have admitted that the real figure is probably five times larger. That is not an inconsiderable number of people.

The incidence of forced marriage is, regrettably, higher among south Asian families. Equally, the incidence of learning disability is higher among south Asian families, according to Mencap. That self-reinforcing cycle is underpinned by the motivations—honour, land and so on—that contribute to this practice. Individuals who have a learning disability may struggle to interpret the complex world that they live in, so they rely on a support network that consists primarily of family and friends—the same people whom members of the Committee and those who are listening to or watching our deliberations may also think of as their own personal support network. It is terrible to think that those on whom individuals with a learning disability rely may be the most liable to send them into a forced marriage. Such individuals are in a double bind, because those on whom they ought to be able to rely are perhaps those who pose the greatest risk to them. Although I do not seek to press my amendment to a vote, I hope that the Minister will give some indication that the guidance that will accompany the legislation—should it be passed, subject to the will of the House—will contain explicit provisions on learning disability and a recognition that the problem is much greater than the numbers provided by the forced marriage unit suggest.

Gloria De Piero (Labour, Ashfield)

I rise to speak more generally about the clause. It is important to recognise that there are two sides to the argument about criminalisation. Several long-established women’s organisations, including the Southall Black Sisters, Ashiana, which runs the only forced marriage refuge in the country, and Imkaan, a much respected BME women’s organisation consisting of academics, judges and others, disagree with the witnesses who gave powerful evidence to the Committee, both of whom supported criminalisation. Those organisations argued in written evidence that victims may be more reluctant to report an offence if they believe that family members such as parents may be criminalised, particularly in cultures in which family honour is important, or if they fear that they will be ostracised by their communities. It is important to consider those arguments, and I would like to hear how the Minister intends to ensure that victims feel supported and confident about reporting. In cultures where parents’ wishes carry great force, would parental pleas to marry a certain individual in order to preserve the family honour or family interest be interpreted as coercion, as set out in the clause?

It is also important to define the dividing line between a forced marriage and an arranged marriage to which an individual consents. Many organisations argue strongly that criminal law already addresses the underlying elements of forced marriage, whether they be rape, kidnap, assault or murder. The same is true where there is no specific case of domestic violence; enforced marriage is arguably a form of domestic violence. Those underlying substantive crimes carry maximum penalties exceeding the seven years proposed for forced marriage. Many organisations that have written to us made the point that there is a danger that perpetrators will be charged with the lesser offence of forced marriage, rather than with more serious offences that carry greater sanctions. It is important that the Minister gives us some assurances on that issue.

Some of those organisations have suggested that, rather than create a specific offence of forced marriage, we could treat forced marriage as an aggravating factor in those serious crimes. Did the Minister consider that approach? Has he heard the arguments on the alternative side of the debate on criminalisation, which we did not hear in Committee? Why did he decide that criminalisation was the way forward? As I said, we have not tabled any amendments, but we are aware of the great strength of feeling in many of the organisations that made the points I have outlined.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I am grateful to all hon. Members who have moved amendments or otherwise contributed to this debate about an important and sensitive issue. As the hon. Member for Ashfield suggested, I have grappled for a number of years with whether we should criminalise. I hope to explain why we have come down on this side of the debate. However, I will start by going through the purpose of the clause and the various amendments and new clauses that have been tabled.

Clause 104 contains two separate offences designed to capture two different sets of behaviour. Subsection (1) captures violent, threatening or coercive behaviour to cause another person to enter into a marriage. Subsection (2) captures deception involving tricking a person into leaving the country by fabricating or concocting a false story, such as a family funeral or wedding, so that the victim leaves voluntarily but on a false premise.

Our approach has been to criminalise behaviours where we have an evidence base that they are occurring in practice. The two separate offences are designed to address the behaviours evidenced in the cases with which the Government’s forced marriage unit has dealt when providing direct support to victims of forced marriage.

We are aware of cases involving an element of deception to cause another person to enter into a marriage, as opposed to specifically luring them overseas to get married, but the cases that have come to the attention of the forced marriage unit have also included some use of violence, threats or coercion, and would accordingly be captured by the offence in subsection (1) of clause 104.

Amendment 127, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, raises the interesting scenario of someone being deceived into marrying in the UK without any element of coercion. It is difficult to conceive how even in that scenario, the marriage could be maintained without coercion once the deception was identified. If there were no element of coercion, the marriage could simply be annulled without recourse to criminal law.

My hon. Friend said he did not propose to press amendment 127, but he raised some important points that I am happy to consider further. If a loophole is identified, we will seek to close it at a later stage. As I said, I shall go away and look at the practicalities of what actually happens in this field.

Similarly, amendment 53, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys, raises a separate but equally important issue. The Government regard forced marriage as a form of violence against women and, sometimes, men. It is domestic abuse and a serious abuse of human rights. When it affects people with disabilities, it can be an abuse of vulnerable adults, and when it affects children and young people, it is child abuse. Marriage without consent or the capacity to consent is totally unacceptable. By making forced marriage a criminal offence, we are sending out a clear message that the brutal practice will not be tolerated in the UK; that also addresses the point made by the hon. Member for Ashfield.

People with learning disabilities are among the most vulnerable in society, and they may need extra protection. Evidence suggests that children and adults with learning disabilities are both more likely to be subjected to abuse and less likely to be protected by existing safeguarding systems than non-disabled people. Some people with learning disabilities may lack the capacity to give informed consent to a marriage and all it entails. In such a case, however well intentioned the actions of the family or carer may be, it is a forced marriage and it is abuse.

The Government are clear that we want the provisions in clause 104 to capture forced marriages where someone does not or cannot consent. Clause 104 provides that a person commits an offence if he or she believes, or ought reasonably to believe, that their conduct may cause the other person to enter the marriage without free and full consent. A person who lacks the capacity to enter into marriage is incapable of giving free and full consent to marriage. Although I very much appreciate the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys, I am not persuaded that amendment 53 is required, because the definitions in the Bill are adequate and already capture the intended effect of his amendment.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 applies to all people aged 16 and over. It aims to empower individuals to make their own decisions whenever possible and protect those who lack the capacity to do so. I would be concerned about applying that Act in its entirety to the forced marriage offence, as there may be individuals covered by the Act who do have the capacity to consent to a marriage.

Equally, by specifically linking capacity to the 2005 Act, competence to consent in other circumstances may be perceived to fall outside the clause. The legislation has been specifically drafted to allow for flexibility of usage by practitioners tackling all forms of forced marriage. Defining certain types of behaviour within it goes against the essence of that flexibility, and I do not think that we should take that step.

My hon. Friend rightly asked about guidelines. Multi-agency practice guidelines have been in existence since 2010 to support practitioners tasked with tackling forced marriage involving victims with a learning disability. When it has been identified that more robust interventions would need to be considered, the forced marriage unit will work with local partner agencies, such as the police and local authorities, to ensure they are effectively implemented.

Finally, I turn to new clause 17. I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. friend the member for Bedford that it is unacceptable for any application to enter or remain in the UK to be based on a relationship that is not genuine or lacks the free consent of both parties. Over time, that has been one of the loopholes in our defences against illegal immigration. It has been exploited, and I know that at some stage the UKBA made significant and successful attempts to close it.

It is important to bear in mind that a sham marriage for immigration purposes is not the same as a forced marriage. In sham marriages, by and large both parties have consented to the union, in my experience, although one party may have been duped into believing that their relationship was genuine. They could have refused to marry if they chose to.

The main purpose of a sham marriage is to gain an immigration benefit for at least one party involved, with the beneficiary often required to pay a substantial sum of money. By contrast, the reasons cited for forced marriages are complex and may include cultural and familial motivations, however misguided. As the Committee heard during the oral evidence sessions, immigration can be one of the motives for a forced marriage but it is by no means the only one, and it is not a factor in all cases of forced marriage.

I am sympathetic to my hon. Friend’s concern that we fully consider all aspects of false marriage, but I am not persuaded that new clause 17 takes the right approach. First, I do not expect that the new clause would increase the ability to tackle forced marriage. For example, it would be difficult to prove that the false marriage relied on in the immigration application was primarily for the purpose of avoiding the effect of one or more provisions of UK immigration law, or the immigration rules, rather than for the other reasons usually given by perpetrators. As I said, the motivations for forced marriage are often complex and the new clause would put the burden on the state to prove that the primary purpose was immigration benefit.

Secondly, the new clause would apply only to cases where a sham marriage had taken place and the immigration application had been submitted on the basis of it. Powers already in place provide a broad basis for tackling cases where marriage is for immigration benefit, before even getting to the stage where an immigration application is made. Since April 2012, investigations conducted by the Home Office into suspected sham marriages for immigration purposes have resulted in 78 individuals receiving a conviction or caution under those offences. We are not persuaded that the new clause would lead to any increase in the number of convictions or cautions resulting from investigations into this area of abuse.

Thirdly, the new clause as drafted would apply only to cases when an application based on a sham marriage was made under the immigration rules or UK immigration law. Many suspected sham marriages involve non-EEA nationals marrying EEA citizens—were Anne of Cleves still with us, she might come under this provision—where the aim is to remain in the United Kingdom under the provisions of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006. In such cases, the non-EEA national does not need to rely on making an application to be entitled to remain in the UK. The new clause would therefore not help in tackling that type of sham marriage.

The hon. Member for Ashfield also made a number of general points. Where the behaviour resulting in forced marriage also involved a separate criminal offence—rape or an assault causing grievous bodily harm, for example—there would be nothing to prevent the Crown Prosecution Service from considering whether it would be appropriate to charge the offender with those other offences as well as the forced marriage offence. The CPS would be expected to follow existing guidance on selecting charges, to ensure that those properly reflected the criminal behaviours involved and offered sentencing powers that reflected the level of criminality in a given case. I hope the hon. Lady is assured by that.

In summary, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, I will go away and look at whether there is a loophole that amendment 127 would close and we will consider that further. As for amendment 53 and new clause 17, I share the wish of my hon. Friends the Members for Bedford and for Blackpool North and Cleveleys to see all incidents of forced marriage comprehensively dealt with and effective action taken against sham marriages. I hope that I have been able to persuade them that the amendments are not necessary.

Richard Fuller (Conservative, Bedford)

I appreciate the contributions and the comments about the amendment, including the Minister’s comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 105 - Regulations to be prepared or approved by the College

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 105, page 76, line 21, leave out from ‘so’ to end of line 22.

Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3, in clause 105, page 77, line 13, leave out from ‘so’ to end of line 14.

Amendment 4, in clause 105, page 77, line 31, leave out from ‘so’ to end of line 32.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

There are occasions when I wish to detain the Committee, but amendments 2, 3 and 4 do not represent one of them. However, I would like the Minister to explain what they seek to find out. Clause 105 allows for regulations to be prepared or approved by the College of Policing, which, for the purposes of clarification, we welcome. However, it gives a caveat; throughout the clause, there are phrases saying that the Secretary of State may make regulations unless she considers that

“doing so would impair the efficiency or effectiveness of the police, or…it would be unlawful to do so”.

The third phrase is that

“it would for some other reason be wrong to do so”.

I want the Minister to explain to the Committee on what basis he has included the phrase

“it would for some other reason be wrong to do so”

three times in the clause. He might as well have deleted paragraphs (a) and (b) and just said that if the Secretary of State does not like it, she can say so, because that is the impact of the phrase

“it would for some other reason be wrong to do so.”

The Secretary of State will have two methods of refusing to agree a regulation: if the regulation would impair “efficiency or effectiveness” or if “it would be unlawful”. The Minister is taking on the powers of Henry VIII—whether he was married to Anne of Cleves or not at the time—when he says

“it would for some other reason be wrong to do so.”

That phrase gives the Secretary of State carte blanche to reject any recommendation by the College of Policing, without any real explanation, on the basis that

“it would for some other reason be wrong to do so.”

Amendments 2, 3 and 4 would delete the phrases. I am happy to listen to the Minister explain for what other reason it could be “wrong to do so”, if the regulation does not impair “efficiency or effectiveness” and is not unlawful. In what circumstances does he expect the Secretary of State to exercise his or her powers? We should remember that the power remains with any future Secretary of State until the legislation is repealed.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I will answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question directly, but first I will say that the clause is the cornerstone of the College of Policing’s ability to set standards for police officers and members of the special constabulary in England and Wales.

The creation of the college cements the status of policing in England and Wales as a profession, placing it alongside other fields such as law, medicine and accountancy. As with other professions, the Government believe that the police should set standards that members of that profession should meet. The clause will enable the college, on behalf of the police, to set standards for policing regarding rank, qualification for appointment and promotion, the maintenance of personnel records, training, deployment and, where necessary, practice and procedure.

For the college to be able to set those standards, its decisions will need to have legislative effect. The standards the college sets are absolutely critical to the long-term strength of policing in England and Wales, so it would not be right to leave the decision as to whether such standards should be followed on a voluntary basis. That would not be right for police officers or the public.

Enabling the standards set by the college to have legislative effect necessarily involves a role for the Home Secretary. She will need to continue to make regulations through the appropriate parliamentary process. As the Bill makes clear, the Home Secretary may make regulations on the subjects to which I have referred only if they have been prepared by the college. In the future, we expect that in the vast majority of cases the Home Secretary will make regulations prepared by the college in the terms they are drafted, although that may not always be the case.

The provisions that are the subject of these amendments have caused some interest. The right hon. Gentleman appears to be suggesting that the wording of parts of the clause gives the Home Secretary carte blanche to disregard the views of the college and decline the regulations it has prepared. I am happy to assure him that that is absolutely not the case.

The power of veto that the amendments would remove is designed to cover instances in which there is not necessarily a disagreement between the Home Secretary and the college, but where the Home Secretary feels she is unable to make the regulations as drafted. She may not wish to do that because they would not achieve the policy intention that the college hoped to achieve. She may not wish to make the regulations as drafted because their meaning is not sufficiently clear, or because they contain an error.

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, even the best and most well intentioned drafting occasionally contains an error. In the event that such circumstances arise, it is sensible to allow the Home Secretary to decline to make the regulations as drafted and ask that the college prepare a fresh draft, instead of requiring her to lay before Parliament regulations that she knows to be defective.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Would that not be covered by paragraph (a)?

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

Not necessarily. All three paragraphs are required to cover all potential eventualities.

During the evidence sessions at the start of the Committee, the right hon. Gentleman put a lot of questions to Shirley Pearce and Alex Marshall about the power of veto. It is worth remembering that both were supportive of the powers that the Home Secretary has retained. Alex Marshall said:

“Clearly, the Home Secretary has a responsibility for the safety of the citizen and therefore needs to retain that power, where necessary, to ensure that the right standards are set or that the right area in policing is covered.”––[Official Report, Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Public Bill Committee, 18 June 2013; c. 50, Q99.]

The phrase

“it would for some other reason be wrong to do so”,

which is perhaps the widest term, is not a catch-all; it should be read as covering similar kinds of things to those in proposed new section 50(2ZA)(a) and (b) of the Police Act 1996. As the explanatory notes to the Bill explain:

“This limb could be used to cover a case where it would not be unlawful to make the regulations in the terms proposed by the College but it would be undesirable to do so because, for example, the drafting was obscure or defective.”

The right hon. Gentleman asked, perfectly reasonably, when the provision would be used. It is a backstop power that I would expect to be rarely used, if ever. The chair of the college, Professor Pearce, put it well in her evidence to the Committee:

“I would be very surprised if that were used, and I would be very surprised if it came at us out of the blue. We would hope that we had engaged in discussions so that we never got into the position of having standards turned down.”––[Official Report, Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Public Bill Committee, 18 June 2013; c. 51, Q100.]

I wholeheartedly endorse that view, but that is no reason to have an emergency backstop power, which is what is proposed and what the amendments seek to probe. On that basis, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can agree to withdraw the amendment.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The Minister’s comments do not take away from the fact that the provision is still in the legislation, and can be exercised by any Secretary of State until such time as the legislation is changed. As the legislation reads at the moment, the Secretary of State can effectively veto a draft on the grounds of efficiency and effectiveness, that it would be unlawful to do so or that for any other reason it would be wrong to do so. It is a wide power; it can be for any “other reason” that the Secretary of State believes. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation, but he might want to reflect on the provision and perhaps put some caveats to the other reasons that it would be “wrong to do so”.

At the moment, any future Secretary of State in five, 10 or 15 years’ time could, under the provision, determine that they would veto the College of Policing’s recommendations. Effectively, they would not have to give any public reason for doing so and they can choose any reason they want. That seems to be an unfettered power. I accept that it is open to scrutiny by the House and the other place, but at the end of the day, it is still an unfettered power. I leave that thought with the Minister, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 106 - Codes of practice issued by the College

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The Opposition support the establishment of the College of Policing and we believe that the provisions, including clause 106, are a valuable addition to the regulatory framework that provides statutory guidance and support to police forces. There are no problems with that. The only reason I rise on this matter is because subsection (4) states:

“The College of Policing shall consult with the National Crime Agency before issuing or revising a code of practice under this section.”

Some weeks ago, we spent some time, possibly in this Committee Room, establishing the National Crime Agency. One of the elements still outstanding, despite our legislating on the matter, was the fact that the National Crime Agency had not yet secured the agreement of the Northern Ireland Assembly to operate in Northern Ireland, or for the asset recovery scheme to operate in Northern Ireland. I raise that point because under the current legislation, the College of Policing must consult with the National Crime Agency. My question to the Minister is simply this: what progress is he making to ensure that the National Crime Agency operates in Northern Ireland? When does he expect to reach agreement with the Northern Ireland Assembly on these matters? If the National Crime Agency is not operating in Northern Ireland when the Bill receives Royal Assent, what is the status of subsection (4) regarding College of Policing matters relating to Northern Ireland?

You were fortunate not to have to chair the Crime and Courts Bill Committee, Mr Dobbin, because it went on for a considerable time and we discussed many issues. When the legislation was passed, one of the key holes in the establishment of the National Crime Agency was the failure to get it adopted in Northern Ireland. I understand that there were legitimate reasons for that due to the challenges in Northern Ireland, but will the Minister clarify whether there has been any progress on that issue so that we know the exact status of clause 106 when, I hope, we agree to it shortly?

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

The right hon. Gentleman is ingenious in raising this issue under clause 106. I am happy to assure him that the NCA will have a remit in Northern Ireland in respect of reserved matters.

On the wider matter that was indeed discussed at length previously, discussions are continuing with the Northern Ireland Office on whether the NCA’s remit in Northern Ireland can be extended to devolved matters. I am afraid I cannot give him an end date for those discussions because, as he will know from his experience in government, discussions of that sort in Northern Ireland tend to take some time. They are taking some time and they continue.

In terms of the guidance notes issued by the college, the NCA has a certain amount of remit on reserved matters in Northern Ireland, which should reassure the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope he will also be reassured that subsection (4) of the clause does not cover Northern Ireland. Codes of practice issued under section 39A of the Police Act 1996 cover only police forces in England and Wales.

Clause 107 - Guidance by the College about employment of civilian staff

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I beg to move amendment 47, in clause 107, page 78, line 22, leave out from ‘officer’ to end of line 24.

Jim Dobbin (Labour, Heywood and Middleton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 59, in clause 107, page 78, line 29, at end insert—

‘(c) the scope of use by police forces of civilian and contracted staff.’.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The amendment would change the guidance note issued under clause 107, which currently allows for guidance about civilian staff employed by local policing bodies and chief officers to be issued by the College of Policing. It defines relevant civilian staff as

“individuals, other than constables, who…are employed by a local policing body or chief officer of police, or…provide services to a local policing body or a chief officer of police, in pursuance of contractual arrangements but without being employed by the body or officer”.

At the end are the words that I seek to delete:

“and can be expected to have frequent contact with members of the public in the course of doing so.”

My purpose in seeking to delete those words was to get from the Minister a flavour of why he is effectively creating, through the College of Policing guidance notes, two classes of civilian staff: those who are public facing and those who are not. If the College of Policing is to issue guidance about civilian staff employed by a local policing body or chief officers, why should there be a differential for those who

“can be expected to have frequent contact with members of the public in the course of doing so”?

Many civilian staff will not have frequent contact with members of the public. Does that mean that the College of Policing cannot issue guidance to those individuals, or does not or will not want to? I should like the Minister’s clarification because the choice of phrase seems curious. I am sure that there is an explanation, and it deserves a wider audience than there would have been had we not tabled the amendment.

Amendment 59 is, I hope, slightly more substantial. Regarding guidance issued by the College of Policing, it seeks to add a new paragraph (c) under subsection (2). As well as being able to issue guidance on the experience and qualifications expected of relevant civilian staff, or the training expected to be undertaken by such staff, the College of Policing could produce guidance on the use by police forces of civilian and contracted staff. A range of debates is ongoing about the use of civilian and/or contracted staff by the police, and the amendment offers the Minister the opportunity to provide clarity on that and the guidance that could be issued.

The Minister will undoubtedly reply that all the current contracting and civilianisation of staff follows legislation introduced by the previous Government. For the benefit of doubt, I confirm that. He will doubtless also remind the Committee that some years ago I told a Select Committee that I was relaxed about civilian and contracted staff. Yes, I am. There is no disagreement about the need for police forces to use civilian and contracted staff. The purpose of my amendment is to tease out whether we should give greater guidance to police and crime commissioners about that. For example, if amendment 59 were accepted the College of Policing could offer guidance on

“the scope of use by police forces of civilian and contracted staff”.

Would it be helpful if the College of Policing gave guidance on the length of contract for any staff employed by local policing bodies or chief constables? As the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham will know, in Lincolnshire a contract was issued by the police prior to the election of the police and crime commissioner that will outlive the eight-year tenure of any police and crime commissioner elected last November. Could the College of Policing offer guidance on the length of contract for civilian and contracted staff? Could it talk about contracted staff in relation to transparency and possible surpluses or profit margins? What about guidance on value for money or staff transfers from the public sector to the private sector? Is there guidance on what should be included in contracts for the public and private sectors?

Should the college offer a view on what is open to potential contracting or civilianisation? Is there guidance on the choice of potential private sector partner or tests for those providers? Will guidance notes be issued on whether a test for resilience has taken place? I do not wish to criticise G4S, but the Olympic example showed that there was not the resilience in the private sector partner to deliver what it was contracted to deliver. Should there be guidance from the College of Policing on those matters? Should it look at whether there should be freedom of information on contracts and all the matters I have described?

I tabled amendment 59 to highlight the continuing growth in civilian and contracted staff. At the moment, although the legislative framework is there, I get little sense from the Home Office that any guidance is given on how, when and in what circumstances the private sector should interface with the public sector on the delivery of policing. It would be useful for the College of Policing to have as part of its responsibilities under the clause the ability to issue guidance to police officers about the use of civilian and contracted staff. That would avoid the current situation, where we could have a Lincoln example, but a different model altogether next door in Humberside. For the benefit of doubt, we will have an argument at some point about public and private sector contracting and about the roles and responsibilities of each. My point is that the College of Policing should have a role in setting down some guidance. The debate is not “public sector good, private sector bad”—we can argue that elsewhere; it is about whether someone should set guidance. The College of Policing seems to be in pole position to fulfil that role under clause 107, subject to the Secretary of State’s examination of efficiency and effectiveness, lawfulness and whether it would be “wrong to do so”, which is the total veto power we have just agreed under clause 105.

Why are the lines that amendment 47 seeks to delete present in the Bill? Is there a two-tier approach? Does the Minister think that the two issues are valid for the College of Policing to examine?

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

Clause 107 extends the ability of the College of Policing to set standards for police staff. As the Home Secretary and I have made clear, in order to succeed, the college must be an inclusive organisation. Its standards must cover police officers and police staff alike. Clause 107 helps to achieve that aim. Not all the staff working for a police force are in the employment of either the chief constable or the police and crime commissioner. Some are employed by private sector companies providing services through contracts. There are examples across the country already, such as in Avon and Somerset, in Lincolnshire and in Cleveland to name three of those with the broadest scope.

Such contracts cover a range of functions, including some parts of policing that provide services directly to members of the public, such as the control room and the custody suite. I am sure that members of the Committee will agree that it is important that the public are reassured that when they ring 999 or when a criminal is detained, the individuals responsible for such functions meet the highest standards in terms of experience, qualifications and training. That is why the College of Policing has powers to set standards in respect of those functions. Amendment 47 takes that power beyond the functions where the staff of private sector contractors have frequent contact with the public. To extend the college’s powers in that way would mean that it would be able to set standards for individuals working in functions such as human resources, finance and ICT. Such functions are important and provide many key services that enable a police force to function effectively. Without the ICT upon which officers depend to do their jobs each day and the payment of salaries at the end of the month, it is difficult to see how a police force could operate at all.

However, those functions are not unique to policing. They are common to all businesses and public services and it is rightly the responsibility of employers to satisfy themselves that staff are appropriately skilled and qualified, and carry out their work to the standards necessary to fulfil contracts made with the police. Many functions, such as human resources and finance, already have their own professional bodies—the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants. Indeed, some people already providing policing services through outsourcing contracts will be members of such bodies.

The Government therefore do not believe that the remit of the College of Policing should be extended to cover areas outside the scope of its expertise, which lies in its knowledge and understanding of policing and of what the job entails, the skills and abilities that are needed to perform it effectively and the training that is needed by officers to ensure that they are able to fight crime. In order to provide an effective service to police officers and police staff, as well as to the public, it is imperative that the college focuses its attention on the area that it understands and knows best—policing—and not on areas where expertise is found in greater depth elsewhere.

I make it clear that individuals working in functions such as HR, finance and ICT will not be cut adrift by the college. The college will have much to offer such people, particularly in terms of material that helps them to apply their knowledge in a policing context. In terms of the basic standards to which they should adhere, however, that is properly the subject for their employers and for existing professional bodies and I do not expect the college to duplicate work carried out elsewhere.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Civilian staff may be engaged in forensic science, for example. That is a policing matter, but they do not necessarily have contact—

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment 59, in clause 107, page 78, line 29, at end insert—

‘(c) the scope of use by police forces of civilian and contracted staff.’.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Welcome back to the Chair, Sir Roger. I was in the middle of a lengthy intervention, which I shall continue in as short a manner as possible. I was asking the Minister about forensics, where staff may well be contractors or civilian staff, but they are not public-facing. Why is there a differentiation in the current draft of clause 107?

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

Welcome back to the Chair, Sir Roger. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman intervened, because it enables me to remind him of the role of the forensic science regulator, which is responsible for ensuring that the provision of forensic science services right across the criminal justice system is subject to an appropriate regime of scientific quality standards, including identifying the requirements for new or improved standards, leading on the development of new standards and, where necessary, providing advice and guidance so that providers of forensic science services can demonstrate compliance. As I said this morning, the College of Policing should not duplicate the work of other professional bodies. In this instance, I would expect that standards for forensic scientists will continue to be set by the forensic science regulator.

Amendment 59 would also take the college into territory that the Government do not believe it should enter. Not only would the amendment give the college the power to specify which roles should be carried out by police staff, it would also allow the college to say which functions are suitable for outsourcing to the private sector. The Government have made it clear that they have no intention to allow private companies to carry out police activities that require warranted powers, except to the extent that that has already been done for detention and escort officers by legislation passed by the previous Government. Otherwise, the use of private contractors is a matter for local decision.

The power that the amendment would create would limit the scope of local decisions about how and where to use police staff and how and where to use the private sector. These decisions need to be taken by the police and crime commissioner together with his or her chief constable. The power would constrain the ability of chief constables and police and crime commissioners to think imaginatively about the structure of their work force. They will need to account locally for their decisions about the use of police staff or the use of the private sector. There may be a variety of reasons why a police and crime commissioner uses police staff to carry out a particular role or engages the private sector. They might want to save money, to improve service, to bring in new expertise or to increase efficiency, for example. Hon. Members will agree that few, if any, parts of policing should be immune from challenge about whether they could be delivered more cost-effectively, would benefit from new expertise, could be made more efficient or could give an improved service to the public.

Parliament has spent considerable time debating the introduction of police and crime commissioners and their freedoms. Our intention is to give them as much flexibility as possible. We do not want to influence or curtail that flexibility in the way that the amendment proposes. That is important. It is the cornerstone of the accountability that police and crime commissioners have to their electorate. They need the freedom to take the decisions they believe necessary in order to provide an effective service to the public.

For the reasons that I have set out, I do not believe that the college needs the powers that the amendments would bestow and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to withdraw the amendment.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The Minister’s response has made me even more worried than I was before I tabled the amendments. The amendment’s whole purpose was not to say that the private sector is bad and the public sector is good. Indeed, when a Minister, I signed contracts and supported discussions with the private sector about the delivery of services. The amendment’s purpose was to ensure that some guidance is issued by the College of Policing on contracts, profit margins, surplus, transparency, scope—a whole range of things. According to clause 105, the Secretary of State has the power to change, amend, veto or do all sorts with the guidance if it was not to their liking.

Based on my understanding of what the Minister has said, it is a laissez-faire situation. It says to police and crime commissioners, “Do what you will anywhere you want to with no guidance from the centre whatsoever.” I do not find that at all acceptable. I am tempted to press the amendment to a Division—I was not going to do so; I was going to let this one lie—because the Minister has just told me that the Government’s laissez-faire approach to police and crime commissioners is essentially to say, “Do what you will, get on with it, and you are accountable to your local electorate.” I think that there should be some guidance and overarching examination from the College of Policing and the Home Office. Given what the Minister has said, I would like potentially to test the will of the Committee on amendment 59.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

The right hon. Gentleman either presses amendment 59 or he does not.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

He will, but first I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 47.

Clause 108 - Power to give directions to the College

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 18—Requirement for parliamentary approval: changes to College of Policing—

‘It shall be a duty of the Secretary of State to have approval from both Houses of Parliament before any changes in funding or the introduction of membership are made to the College of Policing.’.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I hope that new clause 18 will not take up too much of the Committee’s time. In one sense, it is a device to provoke a debate on the future of the College of Policing post-2015. I fully expect that post-2015, decisions on the future of the College of Policing will be taken by a Labour Government, but we want to be fully aware of the current Government’s plans and preparations.

As I have said before, the College of Policing is a welcome addition. The new clause would require the approval of both Houses before any changes can be made to funding or the introduction of membership. We have tabled it because the College of Policing does not have royal charter status, although it aims to achieve that status over the next few years, and Alex Marshall, the chief constable with responsibility for the College of Policing, told us:

“We cannot move towards royal charter status until we can demonstrate that the majority—51%—of our funding is coming from other than Government grant. At the moment, we generate about 24% of our income from other than Government grant and we are now modelling how we can reach that 51%...There are opportunities to use our intellectual property to generate income. On membership, while at the moment there are no plans for compulsory membership fees, we could look at options for voluntary membership for particular skill areas and perhaps associate membership.”––[Official Report, Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Public Bill Committee, 18 June 2013; c. 53, Q106.]

That is the nub of new clause 18. I want a sense from the Minister of the Government’s vision for membership of the College of Policing. Funding will self-evidently be tighter. Royal charter status cannot develop until the majority of funding comes from other than Government grant. It will have intellectual property it can sell; it will be able to market courses to the wider policing world.

I want to hear from the Minister whether my sense is correct that the College of Policing will move to be a membership body. By that it will potentially charge members for membership of that body, and therefore change the nature of the relationship of police officers to the training establishment of the College of Policing. In a sense, this is a device to get a debate on that issue.

I want to hear from the Minister how he sees the College of Policing raising its resource over and above that given centrally by the Government. Secondly, does the Minister intend or expect the College of Policing to have a membership scheme, to be financed by payments from members? If so, how will that operate? Both those issues are relevant to the establishment of the College of Policing and the thousands of police officers who currently use the College of Policing but whose relationship with it would change in the event of membership or changes in funding.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

New clause 18, as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, would require the Home Secretary to seek parliamentary approval in the event of either of two changes in respect of the College of Policing: first, for any changes to the funding that she gives the college and second if the college wished to introduce a membership scheme. The right hon. Gentleman made the point that he is using this to create a debate. I make the point that Parliament already has ample opportunity to scrutinise these matters.

I will answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question directly in a second, but in terms of funding Parliament already has an opportunity to vote on the moneys allocated to the Home Office and hold the Home Secretary to account for the way in which she chooses to spend the money. So there is already a parliamentary scrutiny process that would cover the issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised.

The amendment would also place a duty to seek the approval of both Houses should the college wish to introduce a membership scheme for police officers. Again, Parliament already has the powers to debate the introduction of such a scheme. If the college wished to require all police officers to be members in order to carry out their functions, that could be achieved only through a change in police regulations. That is directly germane to the question asked by the right hon. Gentleman. I assumed he was most concerned about the prospect of compulsory membership.

Under clause 105, the college would be able to prepare draft regulations making membership a condition of recruitment or promotion. It would not, however, be able to prepare amendments requiring serving officers to join in order to stay in their existing rank, although the Home Secretary would. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, police regulations are laid before both Houses, which have the opportunity to debate the changes the regulations would introduce. It is not therefore possible for the college to introduce a compulsory membership scheme for police officers without Parliament being able to debate the merits of that scheme should the Houses so decide.

As the right hon. Gentleman fairly said, so the Committee has already heard, there are no plans to introduce a compulsory membership scheme for police officers and police staff. Alex Marshall was clear during the oral evidence he gave to Committee members that that is the case. He said that the college was in the process of looking at its commercial activities.

There is a wide range of opportunities at which it is looking: licensing and accrediting providers of police training, the sale of police training internationally, use of the college’s intellectual property and membership. I think that directly addresses the other question from the right hon. Gentleman about how, if not through membership fees, the college could establish enough funding to proceed down the path to the royal charter. That is the answer. It has a wide range of activities, which have to some extent been commercially exploited in the past but, I suspect—and, indeed, others at the college know—have not been exploited as much as they should have been. The college already covers roughly a quarter of its expenditure from self-generated income and, clearly, expanding those commercial opportunities in both this country and globally, and relying on the good reputation of British policing and British police expertise throughout the world, will be the central way in which the college can increase its income and therefore proceed on its preferred path.

The types of membership that the college is considering are broad. They could be directed at police officers, police staff and police forces but, equally, they could be directed at those outside the United Kingdom who might want to join the college and at academics who work closely with the police or at those in the private sector who provide policing services. I can only repeat that Alex Marshall is clear that the college is not currently looking at a compulsory membership scheme. There are no plans of the college to levy a compulsory membership fee on individual officers or to require individual officers to join the college to carry out the functions of a police officer.

No officers or members of police staff will be forced to pay a membership fee to continue to carry out their job and, in the absence of an element of compulsion, I see no reason why we should restrict the ability of the college to develop its commercial activities. If individuals want to join the College of Policing and are happy to pay a membership fee, that should be a matter for them. It is not something in which Parliament should intervene. I hope that I have answered the worries of the right hon. Gentleman, and that he will not press his new clause.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

That is helpful. I am still worried about the implications of a potential change, but I am reassured by the way in which the Minister has answered the issues that we, by the new clause, have sought to tease out.

Clause 112 - Abolition of Police Negotiating Board for the United Kingdom

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I want to make a couple of comments on the clause, which abolishes the Police Negotiating Board for the United Kingdom. It will be replaced under clause 113 by a new police remuneration review body. I do not want the provision simply to go by without discussion. The Minister will know that at our first sitting on 18 June, we received written evidence from the Police Superintendents Association and from the Police Federation of England and Wales, both of which showed that they were not happy with the Government’s approach to police negotiating rights.

For example, when the Police Federation of England and Wales heard the initial announcement, it said:

“We are extremely angry and disappointed”.

In evidence to the Committee, the Police Superintendents Association argued that the board should be retained and reformed. In fact, in the first question of our sitting on 18 June, when I asked him about it, Mr Williams, chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, said:

“We are disappointed that the PNB is to go. We felt that it was the right and proper process to allow police officers, through their federation, to air their views and concerns about their pay, terms and conditions.”

In the second question of the same sitting, Gavin Thomas of the Police Superintendents Association said that

“the recommendation being put forward needs the confidence of the men and women who are serving in the police service. If it does not have that confidence, as my colleague in the federation said, police officers do not have the right to remove their labour…The first key point is that the proposal must have the confidence of those whose pay and conditions are going to be negotiated.”––[Official Report, Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Public Bill Committee, 18 June 2013; c. 4-5, Q 1 and 2.]

It would be helpful if the Minister indicated on what basis he thinks he can gain and secure the confidence of those who work in the service, given that both the Police Federation and the Police Superintendents Association have said that they do not support the proposal before the Committee. I do not intend to vote against the clause, because I can see merits in the discussions that we have had, but the Minister should indicate what steps he is taking to talk to and work with the vast majority of people in the police service who are covered by the board, both representative bodies of which have said that they have no confidence in the new proposals. That is a serious point, and the Minister must give some indication of what steps he will take to build confidence in the body established by clause 113.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I will happily explain why we are making these changes. We want to ensure that police officers have pay and work force arrangements that recognise the vital role that they play in fighting crime and enable them to keep the public safe. That is why we commissioned Tom Winsor to conduct an independent review of police remuneration and conditions. His two reports made a range of recommendations, many of which have already been implemented, to modernise pay and conditions, help chief constables manage their resources and improve service to the public. Above all, the changes will help the police fight crime.

The police remuneration review body is an important part of the reform programme. In England and Wales, police officers’ pay and conditions are determined by the Home Secretary following a statutory process of negotiation or consultation. The Police Negotiating Board considers matters relating to pay, allowances, hours of duty, pensions and uniforms and equipment for officers across the UK. It includes representatives of police officers and those responsible for maintaining forces, including police and crime commissioners and chief officers.

The PNB’s function is to seek to make agreed recommendations to the Home Secretary. Where it cannot agree, there is an independent system of arbitration, which can make a recommendation in the PNB’s place. The Winsor review found the existing system to be cumbersome, inefficient and adversarial. Since the end of pay indexation in 2006, the PNB has failed to agree on the most contentious issues. Originally intended to be a last resort, arbitration has become a regular fixture of police pay settlements. The process is time-consuming, costly and does not best serve either police officers or the public.

There is a fundamental lack of strategic foresight in the current system. Although there has been a pay negotiating system since 1919, there has still been a need for periodic independent reviews of police pay and conditions. Tom Winsor therefore recommended that the Police Negotiating Board should be replaced with an alternative system—a pay review body—by late 2014. The approach is similar to that used to set pay for the armed forces, prison officers, school teachers and other public sector workers. He proposed that the most senior officers should be brought within the remit of the Senior Salaries Review Body so that their remuneration could be considered alongside that of other public sector leaders.

This is not the first time that such a move has been proposed. In 2007, Sir Clive Booth was commissioned by the previous Government to undertake a review of police pay, including the way it is determined. His conclusions on the matter were very similar to Tom Winsor’s. The previous Government, to which the right hon. Member for Delyn was an adornment as police Minister, welcomed Booth’s findings, accepted his recommendations and began to consult. Indeed, a Home Office document from September 2008—I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was police Minister then—

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I was in prison then.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

You escaped, slightly.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. The right hon. Member for Delyn may wish to set the record straight for Hansard.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I accept that the right hon. Gentleman was doing a different, equally important job at the time. Anyway, at the time, the Home Office said that the Government accepted Sir Clive’s recommendations and that they would consult on how, not whether, a pay review body would be implemented. However, as so often with the previous Government, what started as an eye-catching initiative ran into the sand.

We accepted Winsor’s proposals for a pay review body as the basis for a public consultation last year. Following that consultation, we have developed the measures outlined in clauses 112 and 113 to replace the existing system with a review body.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

With due respect, we know that. If the Minister had listened to what I said, he would not have heard a word of criticism from me about the mechanism. My point was about how he is going to get the confidence of the people who feel aggrieved by the changes.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

The essential thing is that the body will be independent. It will take objective views, which I am sure police officers will mention. One member of the new body will be a former police officer. The body itself will conduct annual visits to police forces to meet rank and file officers and hear their concerns. All parties—Government, chief officers and the various representative bodies of police officers—will have equal opportunity to present evidence to the body.

Tracey Crouch (Conservative, Chatham and Aylesford)

The Minister stated that one member of the new body will be a former police officer. What rank will that officer will be? Will he be federated?

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

It is not for me to say at this point exactly what rank they would be, but I take my hon. Friend’s underlying point. Clearly, that officer will need to have the confidence of the ranks whose pay is being negotiated. As I explained, the “ACPO ranks”, as they perhaps used to be called—the senior ranks of the police service—will have their remuneration decided by the Senior Salaries Review Body, rather than by the new body.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I know that we are moving to schedule 5 after this debate, so I do not want to make a bad point, but I am having difficulty in seeing how the Minister can assure the Committee that one member of the review body will be a serving police officer.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

Former police officer.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

The same point stands. My understanding from schedule 5—perhaps we can deal with it when we come to it—is that there is no real guidance as to who the five members of the review body will be. One is appointed by the Prime Minister as chair, and the four others are appointed by the Secretary of State, but I might have that wrong. I have a habit of making bad points against the Minister, as he knows, so I want to give him due notice of the question now, so that his officials can scramble around and find the answer.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

We will deal with that point during our debate on schedule 5.

The point of having an independent body that can take evidence is that the body itself should not have members who regard themselves as representatives of particular interests; it should have the independence of mind to reach a conclusion at the end of having the evidence produced by the various bodies, and the police representative bodies are obviously a hugely important part of the system.

At the moment, what happens in practice is that, if the negotiation fails, it goes to the police arbitration tribunal and the evidence is then weighed up by the Home Secretary, so I would hope that the bodies, about whose interests the right hon. Member for Delyn is concerned, will recognise that having multiple independent minds addressing themselves to objective evidence produced by the various sides in the negotiation is likely, in the long term, to provide a better system that can give confidence not only to individual officers, but to the public. It is important that the new body has the confidence of all sides. That is why we have listened to the concerns expressed in response to the public consultations on the issue, and we will continue, as always, to work closely with policing partners during and after the passage of legislation to ensure that the design of the body meets this aim. That is why we are establishing a body that will work for the future and deliver police officer pay and conditions suitable to the demands of modern-day policing.

Clause 113 - Establishment of Police Remuneration Review Body

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I beg to move amendment 60, in clause 113, page 80, line 33, leave out ‘five’ and insert ‘four’.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 61, in clause 113, page 80, line 33, at end insert

‘and one member appointed by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.’.

Amendment 62, in clause 113, page 81, line 4, leave out from ‘(4)’ to end line of 6, and insert

‘may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before both Houses of Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.’.

Amendment 126, page 129, line 25 [Schedule 5], at end add—

‘(c) the quorum for the review body.’.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The clause establishes the police remuneration review body. As mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, the membership consists of a chair appointed by the Prime Minster and, as currently constituted in the Bill, five or more members appointed by the Secretary of State, one of whom should be deputy chair. Crucially, proposed new section 64A (3) of the Police Act 1996 states:

“Before making an appointment, the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State shall consult the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.”

The purpose of my amendments is to ensure that the chair is still appointed by the Prime Minister, four members are appointed by the Secretary of State, but one member is nominated directly by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, rather than its simply being consulted by the Secretary of State.

Amendment 62 would ensure that any changes to the membership or the name of the body are made not by an annulment of resolution, but by an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

Amendment 126 is to schedule 5, which we will discuss later. It would establish a quorum for the meeting of the police remuneration review body by guidance from the Secretary of State.

The problems I have tabled the amendments to address might not exist, but I want to test the Minister to see whether it would be valuable for the Committee to consider those issues. The first issue relates to the appointment of the members of the pay review body. The pay review body will have a responsibility for Northern Ireland, but, as the Bill is drafted, the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland will only be consulted on the membership; it will not nominate members.

As the Minister will know, policing in Northern Ireland has a long, chequered history. It is only recently that one community has accepted that policing is legitimate in Northern Ireland. For many years, members of Sinn Fein, and, to a lesser extent, the Social Democratic and Labour party, had real concerns about the operation of policing. Over many years—I do not intend to revisit the history today—there was movement on those issues. Now, the Policing Board in Northern Ireland has responsibility for policing. However, it guards that responsibility so jealously that when we considered the Crime and Courts Bill a few months ago, the Northern Ireland Assembly did not consent for the National Crime Agency to operate in Northern Ireland, because it is a UK-wide body, accountable to the Secretary of State.

My purpose in tabling the amendments is, first, to ask the Minister—this may help us tremendously—whether the Northern Ireland Assembly is content with the clause. As I read it, there is only a requirement to consult the Northern Ireland Department of Justice Minister, and therefore there is no guarantee that those consultations would result in a change if the Northern Ireland Assembly wished to comment on the appointment. It would be helpful to have some clarity from the Minister about what discussions he has had with the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland about these matters, whether the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland has discussed them with the Northern Ireland Assembly and whether there have been representations from any of the political parties in Northern Ireland about the proposals for the Police Negotiating Board.

In my view, these issues could cause difficulty downstream. I hope they do not, but I want assurance from the Minister that it is acceptable to the Northern Ireland Assembly, which has devolved responsibility for policing, that the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland is only consulted on a board appointed by officers of the British Government in the House of Commons. As the clause is drafted, the Department of Justice does not even have a definite place on the board review body, which is appointed by the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister. It would be a great help if the Minister reassured me on that matter.

I raise those points only because of the lamentable failure to reach agreement, when we were considering the Crime and Courts Bill, on the operation of the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland. As we discussed this morning, we still do not have agreement across the board about the operation of the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland by the Northern Ireland Assembly. Nor do we have agreement on issues relating to asset recovery in Northern Ireland. I want a cast-iron, rock-solid assurance from the Minister that if this legislation becomes law and the remuneration review body is established, it has the confidence of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Justice Minister, and that its recommendations will be effectively accepted in Northern Ireland, because of the historical challenges that we face in that country.

Amendment 126 simply tries to establish a quorum. There may be hidden in this mass of green paper, or somewhere in the guidance, provision for a quorum for the police remuneration body but if there is, I have missed it. If we are putting six people in place, we should at the very least have a quorum, which could be two out of six or three out of six. If, for example, there is a meeting and only the chair turns up, is that fair and proper? I do not think so. If provision has been made for a quorum, can the Minister point me to it, and if not, will he accept amendment 126 or reflect upon it for the future?

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

On a point of order, Sir Roger. May I ask for some guidance? Amendment 126 is actually an amendment to schedule 5 but is grouped in the debate on clause 113. We are going to move on to schedule 5, but I am happy to make now the point I wanted to make in support of the right hon. Member for Delyn, if it is in order for me to do so.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

The amendment is grouped with this whole group of amendments, so it is completely in order to make the comments now. We shall come to a stand part debate, if there is one, on schedule 5 later. The hon. and learned Gentleman could have a second bite at the cherry then, but he might wish to take the opportunity now.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I would not want to detain the Committee by eating too much of anyone’s cherry; I might live to regret that.

Moving on, I rise briefly to raise an issue which occurred to me when I read schedule 5, and which the right hon. Member for Delyn has raised, regarding the quorum of the review body. So far as I can see, there is nothing whatsoever that deals with this issue in the clauses being inserted into the Police Act 1996, or in schedule 5 to this Bill, which will form schedule 4B to the 1996 Act—should the Bill in due course complete its remaining stages in this House and the other place. It therefore seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman’s amendment is sensible, subject to one point. Through paragraph 11(1) of schedule 5, the review body can “determine its own procedure”. Perhaps the Government intend to give guidance on this issue, thereby enabling the review body, although setting its own procedure, to have regard to that guidance. If so, I would be grateful if the Minister said so in his response.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

This is clearly an opportunity to consider some important aspects of the provisions relating to the police remuneration review body. The police pay machinery is a technical but vital matter that has implications for officers across England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Its composition and operation will be vital to secure the confidence of officers. I am not persuaded that these amendments are necessary, or that they would improve the body’s ability to carry out its task.

Amendments 60 and 61 would reduce by one the number of members appointed to the police remuneration review body by the Home Secretary, and require the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland to appoint a member instead. As I hope the right hon. Member for Delyn is aware, the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland has been involved throughout the development of policy relating to this body, and the Bill was introduced with the Minister’s support.

I will explain why the amendments are unnecessary. The Committee will have seen that clause 113 provides that, before making an appointment, the Secretary of State—or, in the case of appointing the chair, the Prime Minister—must consult the Department of Justice. That duty to consult is for every member, not just the member with experience of the Northern Ireland context. This provision therefore ensures that the Minister of Justice will already have a statutory involvement in all appointments, not just one.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

According to my reading of my amendments, the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary are not prevented from consulting the Northern Ireland Department of Justice on the other appointments; the amendments simply allow the Department to make an appointment.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I am not suggesting that they are; I am making the point that the Northern Ireland Department of Justice will be consulted on each member, so it does have a significant input—as it should—into this important body. It is the right approach to ensure a varied selection of members suitable for considering the pay of officers across England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That arrangement is entirely consistent with other bodies that examine the remuneration of workers in two different jurisdictions, such as the Prison Service Pay Review Body, which makes recommendations on pay for prison officers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman may well be familiar with that from one of his previous jobs in government. This body will prove to be just as successful.

I hope I can also reassure the right hon. Gentleman that it is not only our intention that the Northern Ireland Department of Justice be consulted as part of the recruitment process, but that appointments to the body be regulated by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, ensuring that they will only be made on merit after a fair, open and transparent process. The key aspect of the membership of the body as a whole is that it is independent. All members of the body will be expected to make decisions on all aspects of policing, regardless of their previous experience and knowledge and without reference to who appointed them.

In short, the Bill as drafted provides for a fair and consultative appointment process to ensure an independent body that is perfectly able to consider pay and conditions in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, taking into account differences of approach between the jurisdictions where they exist. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.

The right hon. Gentleman asked perfectly reasonable questions about the Northern Ireland Assembly. He will know that the decision on the need for a legislative consent motion in the Assembly is a matter for the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland to determine, following an approach from the UK Government. UK Ministers approach the Minister of Justice in relation to this matter as required. The response advised that the legislative consent motion is not required in this case, on the grounds that the Police Negotiating Board is a UK-wide body for handling police officers’ pay and conditions and is to be replaced by a new body for the same purpose, of which the Ministry of Justice would like the Police Service of Northern Ireland to remain a part. In those circumstances the Northern Ireland Assembly does not have the delegated power to close the PNB, nor to establish its replacement.

As we would expect, the Home Office has had extensive discussions with the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland on the PRRB and, as I say, the provisions have been introduced with the full consent of the Minister of Justice, who believes that policing in Northern Ireland genuinely would be served by maintaining the link with Great Britain in terms and conditions to allow the free movement of officers. The Minister of Justice is continuing to engage with policing partners on that issue.

I turn now to the issues raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. The Bill does not require the membership of a former officer, but we have already published our criteria for membership in draft in the consultation response, which included a former police officer, preferably of superintendent rank or above. As my hon. and learned Friend will see in paragraph 2 of schedule 5, the Home Secretary has the power to determine the experience needed by members. That is our stated and published intention.

Amendment 62 relates to the Home Secretary’s power to change the name of the police remuneration review body by order, subject to the negative resolution procedure. That power would be used if there was any change to the remit of the body—for example, if regulations were made under section 14 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 giving the body functions in relation to the pay and allowances of officers of the National Crime Agency. The right hon. Member for Delyn proposes that the affirmative resolution procedure should be used instead.

Although this is a power to amend primary legislation, we regard the negative resolution procedure as sufficient, bearing in mind the limited scope of the amendments that could be made and the limited circumstances in which the power is likely to be exercised. When the Bill passes to the other place, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee will scrutinise all the delegated powers in the Bill. Should it make any recommendations in respect of this or any other delegated power in the Bill, we will give them careful consideration.

Amendment 126 relates to the Home Secretary’s ability to make a direction on the procedures of the police remuneration review body, and specifically concerns the body’s quorum. I agree with the principle that wherever possible all members of the review body should attend meetings of the body, but I am not persuaded that the amendment is appropriate or desirable to achieve that. Nor am I persuaded that it would improve the body’s ability to carry out the task set for it, for two reasons: first, I am not persuaded that issuing a direction on quorum would be desirable and, secondly, the drafting of schedule 5 already allows the Home Secretary to issue that direction if she thinks it appropriate.

Turning to the first, more substantive, point, while it is best practice for all members to be present at review body meetings, none of the other pay review bodies have quorum requirements. If a particular member of a body cannot attend for any reason, the Office of Manpower Economics ensures that they are given the opportunity to contribute to the meeting in writing so that their views are still taken into account. It will work in the same way with the PRRB, and I expect that all meetings will be scheduled with the aim of having all members in attendance wherever possible.

Indeed, the right hon. Member for Delyn will note that paragraph 11(3) of schedule 5 provides that the validity of proceedings will not be affected by a vacancy in membership. That provision was included to ensure that the important work of the review body is not delayed due to vacancies in the membership, and I expect the same principle to apply if a particular member or members are unable to attend a particular meeting.

The amendment is intended to create an expectation that specific members attend all meetings for them to be quorate. Some parties suggested in their response to the consultation that the member with policing experience should always be present at meetings for the meetings to be considered quorate, but the crux of how a review body operates and gains the confidence of its remit group is its independence from Government or any other organisation, so the suggestion flies in the face of that principle. The member with experience of policing is not there to represent the interests of police officers, any more than the member with an economic background is there to represent the interests of economists. If that were the case, the PRRB would not be independent of outside interests. The PRRB is not a representative body like the Police Negotiating Board, which it replaces, and as such all members are expected to contribute equally and disinterestedly on all matters being considered.

I repeat that schedule 5 already provides the Home Secretary with an overarching power to give directions to the PRRB on any aspects of its procedure. Specifically, the schedule outlines that the Home Secretary may give directions on matters relating to the gathering of evidence, where she might have a legitimate wish to ensure that the representatives of specific interested parties are consulted. As drafted, however, the power would also allow the Home Secretary, if she so wished, to direct that specific members or a number of members were present at a meeting, as that is a matter of procedure. The amendment is therefore unnecessary to the body’s working, and it does not confer upon the Home Secretary any power that she does not already have under the Bill.

I hope, having heard my assurances, that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham is reassured, and that the right hon. Member for Delyn is both reassured and prepared to withdraw his amendment.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I was only trying to get the Minister to put the Secretary of State’s power to set a quorum into the Bill, but it appears that even that is a step too far in establishing the PRRB. It seems reasonable to put that power formally in legislation.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

She has.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The Minister says the Home Secretary has the power; I can tell when I am not going to get very far. On important matters, I will continue to press the points; on less important matters, I will chill and live long and prosper.

The Minister has been very clear about his consultation with relevant parties in Northern Ireland. I welcome that and hope he understands why I was testing him on those issues. There is still concern that even if the Minister has agreed them, Members of the Legislative Assembly may have a view on them in due course. This is a new piece of legislation creating a new body and giving a view on issues to do with Northern Ireland, which, as the Minister is aware, can still cause difficulties. Given the experience with the National Crime Agency, I wanted to test the Minister’s understanding on this matter. He has partially satisfied me; as for the quorum, we can have that fight another day. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Schedule 5 - Schedule to be inserted as Schedule 4B to the Police Act 1996

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

It is with a bite of a different cherry that I wish to tackle the Minister now. Paragraph 12 of schedule 5, which will form schedule 4B to the Police Act 1996, gives permission to the Secretary of State to give

“directions to the review body about the matters that it is to consider when making decisions.”

I am interested in the Minister’s interpretation of what “when making decisions” might mean in this context. From the debate we have just had, my understanding is that the review body will not, in fact, decide anything; instead, it will make a report, potentially with recommendations, on matters referred to it by the Secretary of State.

I therefore seek assurance from the Minister that the Government will consider whether those words are the most appropriate ones, given that, at least as I understand it, the remuneration review body will not be making decisions at all, but instead will make recommendations to the Home Secretary on the basis of matters submitted to it by her for consideration.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

The answer to my hon. and learned Friend’s point is that the body will be making decisions on the recommendations it makes. Clearly, as he knows, the legislation means that the power ultimately to make the award lies with the Home Secretary, but the body itself will decide what recommendations it will make.

As I said earlier, the Home Secretary might wish to ensure that all relevant evidence had been heard and that everyone had had the right to give their point of view. There may well be other, external matters, such as wider public sector pay restraint, that a Home Secretary would legitimately wish to draw to the attention of the body as it was making its recommendations. Those are the kinds of contexts in which paragraph 12 of the schedule will be used.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Will the Minister give an undertaking to look at the legislation establishing the other remuneration review bodies, and at the terms used for similar powers relating to the relevant Secretaries of State who deal with those review bodies, and either make the wording in the Bill conform with the other legislation or, if that power for the Secretary of State is not present in other legislation, look at ways of making the Bill clearer? That way, when reading what will be schedule 4B to the Police Act 1996, we will not be under the misapprehension that the review body is deciding pay and conditions, when that will still remain a matter for the Home Secretary, albeit on the recommendations of the review body.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I happily give that undertaking. As I have already said, many provisions in this part of the Bill mirror those for similar bodies in other parts of the public sector, so that has very much been something that we looked at, with the added proviso that precisely because this part of the legislation deals with England, Wales and Northern Ireland, we also need to consider the sensitivities legitimately brought up by the right hon. Member for Delyn. Again, that is an area where one can imagine a Home Secretary wanting to draw the attention of the PRRB to the specifics.

Clause 116 - Application of IPCC provisions to contractors

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I beg to move amendment 98, in clause 116, page 85, line 39, after ‘Part’ insert

‘and of any regulations made under this Part’.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 99.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

Clause 116 extends the oversight of the Independent Police Complaints Commission to cover employees of private sector organisations contracted by the police, who are increasingly delivering services for police forces. The power is intended to recognise the changes in the way that forces operate, and ensures that the public can call on the commission to investigate complaints, whether they relate to contractors or their police counterparts. The technical amendments further support that intention.

Part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002 contains a provision that allows the Home Secretary to make secondary legislation in relation to the procedures in investigations carried out or overseen by the commission. We want it to be absolutely clear that the complaints framework, whether set out in primary or secondary legislation, fully covers additional private sector contractors. The amendments, along with the provisions already in the Bill, will contribute towards improving public confidence in both the powers of the IPCC and the police complaints system more generally.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 12—Status of off-duty civilian police staff—

‘In section 29 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (Interpretation of Part 2), at the end of subsection (4)(a) there is inserted “except where that person was a member of the civilian staff of the police force and was off-duty at the time when the conduct is supposed to have taken place.”.’.

New clause 13—Treatment of police support volunteers—

‘The Secretary of State may make regulations providing that, for the purposes of this Part, a police support volunteer is to be treated as a person serving with the police.’.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The Opposition welcome the provisions in clause 116, because they extend the role and remit of the Independent Police Complaints Commission to treat contractors, subcontractors and employees of a contractor or subcontractor as persons serving with the police. The Opposition have been calling for such a provision for the past couple of years and we welcome the Government’s committing to it. Clause 116 will receive no trouble from the Opposition and has our blessing. However, I tabled new clauses 12 and 13 to examine possible extensions to the role of the IPCC to look at two particular groups.

New clause 13 would close a loophole in the current legislation that prevents the IPCC from investigating complaints against a police support volunteer, which is the police staff equivalent of a special constable. With Home Office encouragement, an increasing number of forces are using volunteers to carry out work previously undertaken by police staff. That is a debate for another place, but the argument being made in Committee, and outside, is that those volunteers should be subject to the same degree of scrutiny by the IPCC as police officers, special constables and, under clause 116, contractors. What does the Minister believe is the current status of police staff volunteers and what should it be in future? In the event of a police staff volunteer doing something of concern, should the IPCC have the power to investigate, in the same way as it would any other person working for the police service in any authority?

New clause 12 would reform the Police Reform Act 2002, adding at the end of section 29(4)(a),

“except where that person was a member of the civilian staff of the police force and was off-duty at the time when the conduct is supposed to have taken place.”

The purpose of the new clause is to put in place provisions to allow police staff who are not on duty who have a grievance against their police force—I will give examples in a moment—to raise that grievance with the IPCC. The suggestion was made by, among others, Unison the trade union. It is fair and proper that it has the opportunity to have the points put before the Committee. For the record, I am not a member of Unison, I am not involved in Unison, it has not given me any money, and I am not under the yoke of a trade union in bringing the matter forward. Unison has legitimately raised those points and they should be discussed.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Under the new clause from the unions, why is it limited to civilian staff of the police to refer matters to the IPCC? Why has the right hon. Gentleman not included all police officers who are off-duty, rather than just civilian staff who are off-duty? There seems to be a discrepancy. Is he aware of that? Is it intentional? Or are the unions looking after their own and ignoring police officers?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

No, it is not. The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a valid point. The measure has been proposed because of police staff. There is a real difference in my view, and in the view of the trade union that has raised the issue independently: police officers are commissioned police officers at all times. When they are off-duty they are still commissioned police officers. Off-duty police officers make arrests and still act as police officers. They are warranted police officers at all times. Civilian staff are employed by the police force, but when they are off-duty they no longer have the powers associated with being police civilian staff.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman needs to look at section 29(4). If the argument he has just advanced is correct, off-duty civilian staff of the police are not caught by section 29(4). Those who are caught are serving police officers because they are always under the control of the same chief officer as the person against whom they want to make the complaint. On that basis, the new clause is unnecessary and fails to protect the police at all when a constable is off-duty and wants to make a complaint against another constable who is under the command of the same chief officer.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

It is always tempting, as someone with no legal training, to argue with a judge and a QC. I am tempted to do so on this occasion. The legal advice given by those who wish to raise the matter is that there is a distinct difference between police warranted officers and the staff of a police service. That is a matter for debate and discussion. I do not intend to press the matter to a vote; I want to test the Minister on the principle.

The key point that the hon. and learned Gentleman may wish to reflect on is that at the moment the rationale for the new clause is that police staff, when off duty, are private citizens and not in the same relationship as an officer sworn into the office of constable. Although it is understandable that officers and staff should not be able to raise vexatious complaints to the IPCC about work-related matters, there is a view that natural justice is denied if there are real complaints by individuals working for the police who are private citizens. At the moment, if they have grievances they are not able to raise them with the IPCC.

Perhaps I can give the hon. and learned Gentleman three examples, which were drawn to my attention as part of the preparation for this debate. They illustrate the type of incident that is of concern to people who currently work for the police, and who cannot, as civilians, refer matters to the IPCC. Three examples were given to me—admittedly again by the trade union, because it has an interest in standing up for its members and reflecting these concerns during the passage of the Bill. The three examples it has given, which are live and real examples, are as follows.

An individual who worked for the police force was concerned about the lack of response to a firearm incident by the individual’s own force. They wished to make a complaint to the IPCC, but were advised that they could not complain because they worked for the police force concerned. The case concerned a serious incident. The individual’s young son was sitting in the back garden when air pellets were fired into the garden by people outside. The individual called the police station. There was no response. They called the police again, and still there was no response. Given the police’s failure to respond to the incident, the individual wished to make a complaint about the conduct of the police. They were a civilian member of staff, so they could not do that. Had they been a member of the public, they could have. That is the dichotomy faced in that particular case.

Another example given to me by the trade union concerned two police community support officers. An allegation of theft was made against them by the force, which was not investigated prior to their arrest for theft. The property subsequently turned up in a different building, but the individuals had effectively been falsely arrested with no interrogation beforehand. They wished to make a complaint about their treatment when they were off duty. They could not do so because they worked for the force itself.

The third example concerned a member of staff who was out with her husband for the evening. An altercation was involved, and they were “manhandled by officers” who attended. The husband ended up with a dislocated shoulder, and he complained to the IPCC about his treatment by the police. His wife, who was also injured, could not complain because she was a civilian member of staff of the force in question. Those are three real-life examples given to me by people who represent civilian staff.

I felt it was my duty to reflect on the issues and to table a new clause for the Minister’s consideration. I would welcome his view as to whether we should look at extending the IPCC provisions to civilian police staff. Again, I am not wedded to the wording of the new clause, as it is the principle that I wish to explore with the Minister. I also hope that he will look at the other new clause. It effectively closes an anomaly in new clause 13 about police support volunteers, so that they are treated in the same way as special constables with regard to the IPCC. As I understand it, at the moment they are not. I hope that the Minister will respond to new clause 12 and new clause 13, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

As the right hon. Gentleman said, the new clauses raise distinct issues, so I will deal with them individually. The first, new clause 12, seeks to make express provision to allow police staff to make a complaint about the conduct of another person serving in the same force, provided that the complainant was off duty at the time when the conduct occurred.

I should say at the outset that I have some sympathy with the call to treat police staff as ordinary members of the public while they are off duty, for the purpose of making such a complaint. Despite that sympathy, I am not sure that the new clause is either practicable or in the best interests of the police.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

If the Minister has some support in principle, I am very happy to withdraw the clause right now and for him to take away the issues, so as not to waste the time of the Committee. He could reflect on it and, if he feels it to be appropriate, bring it back at a later date.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

The right hon. Gentleman cannot withdraw the clause, because it has not been moved.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The principle is there in terms of the intent, Sir Roger.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I am grateful for that indication. Perhaps I should explain why, although I have some sympathy with it, I do not think that the change would be in the best interests of the police.

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the police complaints system, as overseen by the IPCC, is designed to allow members of the public to complain about the conduct of those serving with the police and to hold them to account for any wrongdoing. It was not designed to provide an avenue for individuals serving in the same force to complain about each other because of treatment at work, for example, for which existing internal force processes are in place.

It is vital to ensure the integrity of the police complaints process and its essential role in ensuring public confidence. The current restrictions that prevent it from being used to consider grievances that members of forces raise about their colleagues are part of achieving that. If such restrictions were removed there is a danger that, in some instances, the police complaints system could be misappropriated by a small minority of officers or staff raising what are essentially internal issues about each other’s conduct.

Having the IPCC dealing with these additional complaints could also unnecessarily burden the police complaints system, resulting in its dealing less speedily with complaints made by members of the public against the police.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

One can see that police officers or police civilian staff should not use the IPCC to resolve their disputes and whatever has gone on to make them averse to one another.

What if, for example, a police officer or civilian member of staff of a police force goes on a demonstration and is beaten to the ground quite unjustifiably by police officers? We all know that that has happened from time to time, particularly in London. On the basis of what the Minister says, at the moment that person has no route of complaint through the IPCC at all. Does he not agree that that is deeply unsatisfactory? When officers and civilian staff are off duty, they ought to have the same rights of complaint as any other member of society.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I take the point; for similar reasons, I have some sympathy with it. One can envisage the circumstances. Obviously, everyone is protected by the law of the land. In the instance that my hon. and learned Friend has just raised, what happened would be an assault if it was unjustifiable, so normal legal processes could be allowed to go through.

The employers of police staff and the IPCC need certainty about the nature of the complaints they handle, to deal with them appropriately. New clause 12 does not provide that clarity because it blurs the lines between complaints about behaviour which began on duty and ran into off-duty hours. That makes it difficult to distinguish whether the police staff member was in fact acting in their capacity as a member of the public, rather than as an employee of a force.

However, that is not to say that serious conduct matters should not be brought to the attention of chief officers—or even, in the most serious cases, the IPCC. I remind the Committee that the IPCC is there to deal with the most serious and sensitive issues and the vast majority of complaints against the police are dealt with internally by the force.

It is right and proper that particularly the serious matters are addressed robustly and there are already other avenues for doing so. For example, it is open to the appropriate authority to record an issue as a conduct matter if the allegation is sufficiently serious to warrant its being dealt with in that way. Therefore it is primarily the responsibility of forces to ensure that they have adequate systems in place to support and protect those serving with them. Where confidentiality is required for serious cases, the IPCC has a dedicated phone line and e-mail address for those wishing to report behaviour that could constitute criminal offences or would justify misconduct proceedings.

As it stands, there are existing provisions and systems that would allow the sorts of cases that the right hon. Member for Delyn brought up or the example that my hon. and learned Friend produced.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way and being so generous. Could he confirm to the Committee that if Ian Tomlinson, who was beaten to the ground and suffered his heart attack not too far from here, had been an employee of the Metropolitan or City of London police—I know not whom—the IPCC could not have investigated that case? Is that the position as the law at present stands and is it a position that the Government support?

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

As I have just explained, systems are in place that allow existing officers and staff to go through internal mechanisms and if they regard confidentiality as important there is a dedicated IPCC phone line and e-mail address to allow confidentiality to be maintained. That system has been developed to deal with either the actual or the hypothetical cases that have been described. Those systems work well. I meet Unison representatives regularly and they have not brought the matter up as a particular issue. I have sympathy, but I think the system is working reasonably well. If it is not, I will happily go away and look at it.

New clause 13 seeks to add police support volunteers to the existing categories of persons in respect of whom the IPCC has oversight. The Government recognised the inspirational police support volunteers last month at the annual Lord Ferrers awards. The nominations reflected the increasing variety of roles that police support volunteers are undertaking around the country and the significant impact they are having on fighting crime and supporting victims.

The public are right to expect a high standard of conduct and integrity from police support volunteers, who are representatives of the police, particularly where they are undertaking roles that involve interaction with the public. However, I am not persuaded that the new clause is appropriate for a number of reasons.

Police support volunteers are non-attested, non-uniformed citizen volunteers with no policing powers; they give their time freely to perform tasks that complement the duties performed by police officers and staff, which helps free up officers and staff to perform key operational duties. As police support volunteers tend to work in fairly low-risk roles, the likelihood of their being exposed to the kind of serious or sensitive complaints that would result in referral to the IPCC is slim. The types of complaint police support volunteers may be more likely to be subject to in the course of their duties—perhaps rudeness or incivility—are matters that would be dealt with locally, even for a warranted police officer.

Furthermore, those who manage or work with police support volunteers will be covered by the IPCC legislation, so it is possible that the IPCC could investigate them in respect of any alleged misconduct. The new clause would be disproportionate. There is no contract of employment between volunteers and police forces. That means that, unlike special constables or police staff employed by the force, police support volunteers are not subject to the formal procedures set down in the police performance and conduct regulations.

To subject police support volunteers to the IPCC complaints and conduct regime, without recourse to formal disciplinary procedures, would raise serious issues of proportionality. I am not saying that police support volunteers should not be subject to any form of grievance or disciplinary process. We hope that police forces have their own procedures for handling complaints against police support volunteers, which reflect the voluntary nature of the relationship between the force and the volunteers, including the fact that they do not have access to trade union representation.

Finally, I reiterate the fact that police support volunteers provide the police with invaluable support in the fight against crime; we would not want to undermine that role by making legislative changes that may have far-reaching implications, including putting potential volunteers off from providing support in future. That is why I emphasise the point about proportionality; I am sure no member of the Committee would wish to discourage anyone from becoming a police support volunteer. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree not to press his new clauses. I am grateful to him for his overall support for clause 116.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

First, I am grateful for the support of the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham on potential issues relating to off duty civilian police staff. The example he gave of Ian Tomlinson is a very live one.

It would be possible for a police staff member to have a whole weekend off to join a demonstration in London, throw something against something and come into contact with the police in a way that led to their wanting to complain formally about the police. At the moment they could not make a formal complaint about such contact. It might not even be their own force—it might be another force, but they still could not do so. That gap does not redress the balance in respect of an individual’s rights. As the Minister said, the provisions are for serious incidents. The three real-life examples I gave were brought to my attention by those interested in these matters; the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has done similarly.

I note that the Minister had some sympathy for the point. I will withdraw new clause 12 in due course, although I accept that, as I have not moved it, I cannot withdraw it—even after 30-odd such Committees, one can still occasionally get shell-shocked in terms of the discussions. At the appropriate moment later on, I will not move new clause 12, but I hope that the Minister will reflect on its substance. That may be something to return to on Report or in another place.

On new clause 13, the Minister said that the chances of serious activity taking place with a police support volunteer were “slim.” That does not mean impossible; “slim” means that it could happen. At the moment, if a special constable—a civilian police support staff member—had an incident that required IPCC investigation, such an investigation could be undertaken. However, if a police support volunteer—as the Minister said, they are increasingly taking on roles once undertaken by people covered by the IPCC—was involved in an incident sufficiently serious to require IPCC involvement, because of their status that could not be brought forward.

There is still a gap. As the Minister said, there is a “slim” chance, but “slim” means that there is a possibility. I will reflect on his words. When the time comes, I suspect that I will not move new clause 13, but I reserve the right to return to the issue it raises at a later stage.

Clause 118 - Provision of information to IPCC

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I beg to move amendment 100, in clause 118, page 86, leave out lines 35 to 37.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 101 to 108 and 112.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

Clause 118 introduces a broad new power that will substantially improve the evidence gathering capability of the Independent Police Complaints Commission in carrying out serious investigations, which include those where a death or serious injury, police corruption or allegations of perverting the course of justice are involved. The clause goes to the heart of ensuring that the Commission is properly equipped to investigate such matters on behalf of the public by providing it with the power to require the disclosure of necessary material following the service of an information notice.

In supporting the Commission to receive the information it requires to discharge its statutory functions, we have a clear obligation to put in place the necessary safeguards to prevent the inadvertent disclosure of material that, if made public, would damage national security, international relations or the United Kingdom’s economic interests. The amendments build on and refine the protections from onward disclosure for information originating from security agencies already included in clause 118 to ensure a wider category of sensitive material is protected.

That category includes a number of types of information. First: information originating from another state or an agency of another state. Amendment 102 provides that that will be disclosable to the Commission only with the originator’s consent. That protection accords with the so-called control principle and is consistent with other recent legislation, including the Justice and Security Act 2013.

Secondly, amendment 112 strengthens the non-disclosure provisions in relation to intelligence service information and intercept information. It will ensure that all of the Commission’s reporting requirements, particularly those relating to sharing information with third parties, will be subject to the consent requirements in respect of sensitive material. That is an important safeguard, which requires the Commission to seek consent expressly from the relevant security and intelligence agency before making onward disclosure of material.

Thirdly, amendments 104 to 108 extend the requirement for the IPCC to obtain consent from the originator before disclosure of an additional category of material. That is material that is not intelligence or intercept material——those are already protected by existing provision—but sensitive material that if disclosed would, in the opinion of the relevant Secretary of State or Minister of the Crown, be damaging to national security, international relations or the economic interests of the United Kingdom.

Finally, amendments 100, 101 and 103 have the effect of amending the exclusion for communications data under chapter 2 of part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 in the list of material that is excluded from the scope of an information notice served by the IPCC. That exclusion preserves the status quo so that the IPCC will continue to use RIPA to secure communications data from any communications service provider, rather than through the broad information notice power. The current exemption is, on reflection, too wide and might prevent a person who is the subject of an information notice from legitimately passing on to the IPCC relevant communications data that that person has acquired from a third party under the terms of RIPA.

In short, the amendments strengthen the safeguards surrounding the application of the IPCC’s new power to require the disclosure of information. They are designed to protect information that, if disclosed, would be damaging to the UK’s national interest. In practice, in the vast majority of IPPC investigations there is no relevant information that falls into those categories. The Commission will retain a broad new ability to obtain evidence and improve its investigative capabilities.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

May I inquire gently why the Minister has spent so long preparing a Bill—it was published only a few weeks ago, on 9 May 2013—and yet within three days of our reaching clause 116 he has tabled a raft of amendments that deal with national security issues, information being shared through the IPCC and a whole range of issues to do with service providers? What has sparked such a massive rethink, given that the Bill is almost as fresh as the morning dew? What has changed in the past few weeks to bring such issues to light? I am particularly concerned to know, for example, in what situation information from an IPCC investigation would not be intelligence service or intercept data but would still be damaging to national security. Either something has happened in the past few weeks to change things, or he and his officials planned the Bill very badly.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

In this context, I commend to the right hon. Gentleman the speech I gave yesterday to Reform, in which I made the point, drawing on the analogy of British cycling, that there is nothing so good that it cannot be improved and that 1% improvements across a wide range lead to major improvements across the board. As he well knows from his time in government, improvements can often be made to a Bill during deliberations on it. The arrival of Government amendments during proceedings is not a new phenomenon; indeed, I suspect that that has happened in every Bill that the House has ever considered. His describing the amendments as a massive rethink is slightly over-egging the pudding. We are making some refinements to clause 118 in the light of the sorts of discussions that, as he knows perfectly well, go on inside Government all the time.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I fear that there is a story behind this, which will emerge on Report. For the moment, however, we will reflect on it, and we will tease out in due course the basis on which the coalition has introduced the proposals.

Clause 120 - Recommendations by IPCC and requirement to respond

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I beg to move amendment 124, in clause 120, page 91, line 12, after ‘period’, insert

‘but not by more than 20 days.’.

This is a small matter that I hope will not detain the Committee for very long. The clause legislates for recommendations by the Independent Police Complaints Commission and a requirement by organisations to respond. A period of 56 days is set for a response to the Commission, beginning on the day on which recommendations were made. That is a 56-day period unless the provisions of new paragraph 28B(3) apply. It states:

“The Commission may extend the period of 56 days following an application received before the end of the period”.

I have picked a random figure of 20 days at the end of that, because I feel that we need to have an end to the period of recommendation and response. At the moment, as is proposed, the Commission may allow for a 56-day period, and then it can extend the period of 56 days following an application received. If the Commission grants an extension, the person must provide a response before the end of the extended period, but there is no indication of a maximum period for that extended period under new paragraph 28B(3).

So my question to the Minister is: why is there no finalised period for the extension, because 56 days is already quite a long time for a response to a Commission recommendation? If I were the subject of a recommendation, and if I went to the Commission on day 55 and said, “I need more time,” the Commission could grant me more time, but that could be indefinite. There is no definitive period. So I have added the period of 20 days, which is a completely random figure, but I want to hear from the Minister whether we should have a final period whereby, ultimately, the Commission says, “We have asked for a response; this is the time limit; you have not given a response, so we can take action accordingly.” At the moment, under clause 120, it seems we have an unending commitment to not receive a response to a recommendation by the Commission.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for explaining that 20 days was a random figure. It solves the minor mystery in my mind of why it was 20.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

It is a test.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

Indeed. The problem with the amendment is that it would be overly prescriptive and inflexible. I will explain why. The clause reflects the power of the coroner pursuant to rule 43 of the Coroners Rules. We are clear that responses should be provided within 56 days, unless there is a very good reason why the timetable cannot be adhered to. But there will undoubtedly be cases where the recipient of a Commission recommendation does have a well founded reason for seeking an extension of time, and this could take them beyond the 20 additional days provided for in the amendment. It will naturally be dependent on the circumstances of each particular application.

The direct answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question about not having a time limit is that the Commission is best placed to take a robust view if recipients of recommendations seek extensions when there is no valid reason for the delay. It is therefore right and proper for the Commission, on receipt of an application to extend the time limit, to retain discretion in determining whether any extension of time is merited, and, if it is, the appropriate amount of extra time that should be given.

I hope I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman further by pointing out that an application by a recipient to extend time does not constitute a response, and the recipient who ultimately fails to respond in accordance within the period of any extension agreed by the Commission will be in breach of a statutory duty. It will then be open to the Commission to refer to such failure publicly.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Does the Minister therefore envisage that if a request came in for an extension beyond 56 days, the amount of time by which the period was extended would become public knowledge for all interested parties? Is there a definitive end time beyond which the Minister would think it was too long for an extension to be undertaken?

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

In both cases, it is sensible to leave that decision to the commission. It is independent, and the measures obviously relate directly to how it does its job in unusual individual circumstances. Most bodies can and should reply within 56 days, so I am reluctant to give ministerial guidelines because the issue will arise only in special circumstances, and it is important that the commission retains and can visibly display its independence. I hope that reassures the right hon. Gentleman and that he can withdraw the amendment.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I tabled the amendment to test the provision, because it currently says that there must be a response within 56 days and an extension may be granted, but no end time to the extension is indicated. Why give 56 days as the starting point? The extension could be 100 days, 20 days or 10 days. I sought from the Minister some idea of what he envisaged as the maximum time for a response to a recommendation from day one through to its completion. Interested parties will be worried about something going into the ether and not emerging for 56 days, an extension being requested and granted, but with no definitive time for that extension—it could go on and on. Individuals with an interest in the matter being referred and discussed will still not have clarity about when the end result should be achieved.

I will withdraw the amendment, but I hope that the Minister gives some thought as to whether there should be either a definitive end time, or at least some sort of public accounting for why the response was not made within 56 days or any future extended period. In all cases, there is more than one interested party. In cases such as those on Hillsborough, there could be interested parties who will want to know, for example in response to a recommendation from the IPPC, why another interested party has not responded within 56 days. If they do not respond within 56 days and an extension is granted, how long will it be before they respond? Those are valid questions. I hope that the Minister will reflect on them, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 122 - Grants to local policing bodies

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I beg to move amendment 125, in clause 122, page 95, line 11, leave out subsection (2).

The clause relates to grants to local policing bodies. Currently, under section 46 of the Police Act 1996, entitled “Police grant,” subsection (1) provides the Secretary of State with the ability to make grants to police authorities. Clause 122 makes changes to ensure that the modern policing framework of police and crime commissioners and the changes in the Greater London and mayoral authorities are accounted for, reflecting the changes in policing structures that have happened in the past three years or so. I understand why that is the case.

However, subsection (2) of the clause removes the words “for police purposes” where they are currently in the 1996 Act in relation to capital expenditure and grants by local authorities. I tabled the amendment to test the Minister’s rationale for that removal. Whatever changes are made by the role of police and crime commissioner, which I accept has a crime element, and whatever the role of the Mayor of London’s Office for Policing and Crime—the Mayor’s role also has a crime element—the core function of both is to support policing services and policing purposes.

If the Bill is passed as currently drafted, the deletion of the words “police purposes” by subsection (2) of the clause means that the 1996 Act will allow for police grants to be made yearly to police and crime commissioners, the Mayor of London and the common council for their functions—that is in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1)—but the crucial words “for police purposes” would be left out. Therefore, there could be greater emphasis on “non-police purposes”, which are important, but the crucial part of the role of a police and crime commissioner or that of the Mayor of London is to make provision for policing purposes for the communities that they represent. Under subsection (2), I am worried that we will be downgrading the policing element in such roles. I hope that the Minister can alleviate my concerns.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

As we have just heard from the right hon. Gentleman, the amendment relates to the purposes for which funding can be provided to police and crime commissioners. To some extent, he has answered his own question: they are police and crime commissioners, and have a key role to play in ensuring efficient and effective policing, and holding the police to account on behalf of the public. It is therefore right that central and local government should be able to provide funding to police and crime commissioners for policing, which is one of the things the clause achieves.

Police and crime commissioners have a much broader remit, beyond just policing. To fulfil that broader role, it is essential that they can commission a wider range of local services, including for the support of victims and witnesses of crime and antisocial behaviour. The clause both clarifies and extends the powers of PCCs to provide or commission support services for victims and witnesses of crime and antisocial behaviour, which we shall come to in due course. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the clause amends the statutory basis on which the Government can fund police and crime commissioners, and their equivalents in London, to allow them to commission a wider range of services. That will not in any way detract from what he rightly described as their central role in the oversight of policing. As we all know, cutting crime is not only about policing; it is about a wide range of other services. Police and crime commissioners themselves all recognise that their work, which is not related directly to the overseeing of police, is also extremely important in helping the police to cut crime.

The amendment would limit the Government to providing capital funding to police and crime commissioners for “police purposes” only, and would limit local authorities to providing funding to the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime for “police purposes” only, as is currently the case. That would hinder PCCs in fulfilling their broader remit and would be inconsistent with subsection (1) of the clause, which broadens the purposes for which the bulk of central Government resource funding to the police can be provided.

I hope that I have reassured the right hon. Gentleman that, in no way, does the clause detract from the capacity of central or local government to grant PCCs money to help policing directly. It will just extend the power to enable both central and local government to help PCCs undertake their wider role in crime prevention, victim support and so on.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I accept the Minister’s comments. It was my intention to test him on the purposes behind the provision, and I am content with his explanation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 123 - Powers of local policing bodies to provide or commission services

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 123, page 95, line 16, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘shall’.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 35, in clause 123, page 95, line 27, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘shall’.

Amendment 36, in clause 123, page 95, line 29, at end insert—

‘(3A) The Secretary of State shall from time to time publish guidance as to the quality standard of service expected under this section.’.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The clause allows the police and crime commissioner or local policing body to provide or commission services. As currently drafted, subsection (1) says:

“A local policing body may”—

“may” is the crucial word—

“provide or arrange for the provision of services that…will secure…crime and disorder reduction in the body’s area”.

In particular, it will help

victims or witnesses of, or other persons affected by, offences and anti-social behaviour.”

Subsection (3) states:

“A local policing body…may make grants in connection with the arrangements.”

At the moment, the Government are giving considerable thought on how best to provide victim and witness services to the great British public. Currently, after much cogitation, deliberation and thought, the Government decided to split the current national contract on witnesses and victims in a way that provides for a national witness service to be established in England and Wales, and for police and crime commissioners to have responsibility to commission services for victims at local level. Currently, around £66 million is being distributed for victim support nationally. Some time later this year, possibly in October, a further announcement will be made by the Ministry of Justice to ensure that the financial split is taken by the Ministry to establish a witness service nationally and, at some point in the future, to devolve victim services to police and crime commissioners.

My worry with the Bill as currently drafted is the use of the word “may”. Under the clause, a local policing body “may provide” help to victims or witnesses. Currently, under the national contract in England and Wales, it “will provide”. That service is provided now. If I go to Mold Crown court in my constituency, I will see Victim Support operating at local level, providing victims and witnesses with help and support in difficult circumstances.

On Saturday, I met some people at a local fête, who said, “What’s happening to the victim support service at Mold Crown court?” I said that I did not know, because under this Bill, it will come under the responsibility of the police and crime commissioner for north Wales. He will decide whether he wants to provide a victim service. My worry, and the point I make with the amendment, is that at the moment there is a local victim support service. It is mostly provided by Victim Support on a national contract, and the Government want to break that up and allow local commissioning.

The purpose of my amendment is not to challenge local commissioning or even to say that a certain amount of money should go into it, but to focus on the fact that at the moment a police and crime commissioner may or may not choose to provide a service for victims and witnesses. When Adam Pemberton of Victim Support gave evidence to the Committee, I asked him for his view about the £66 million going to victim support issues, distributed nationally. I said:

“If there is a split, with a portion of the money for the witness services, which is done nationally, and a portion of money is devolved to 43 police and crime commissioners, what guarantees have you got that they will do what is currently being done?”––[Official Report, Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Public Bill Committee, 20 June 2013; c. 85, Q170.]

Adam Pemberton replied: “There are no guarantees.”

Tracey Crouch (Conservative, Chatham and Aylesford)

Is this not, in general, about the principle of police and crime commissioners and the fact that they are democratically accountable for the services they provide? In Kent, our PCC has indeed signed Victim Support’s charter, thereby signing up to the five promises it gives victims. I noticed that the independent PCC for north Wales has not signed the charter. Surely, when it comes to the next election for PCCs, it will be up to the electorate to be aware of such issues and to understand which PCCs prioritise victim support.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Let me meet the hon. Lady halfway. There is responsibility under current legislation for police and crime commissioners to account locally for their actions. At the moment there is a national contract and a victim support service in every local police authority area. The Government are breaking up that national contract, keeping the national part of it for witnesses. Under clause 123 a local policing body “may provide” the service locally. Equally, it may not. I accept that might be a decision for the local electorate to take with the police and crime commissioner at a future election.

I would rather give statutory responsibility to police and crime commissioners to provide some level of service. My amendment would not say how much they had to provide or with whom they had to provide it. It would say that as part of their police and crime commissioner responsibility they have to provide some form of victim service. There is a crucial difference between some of the choices that a police and crime and commissioner could make by commissioning the service from body X or body Y, or deciding to put in £5 million, £3 million, £1 million or whatever it might be at a local level. That is a legitimate decision.

At the moment, without “may” turning into “shall”, as provided by my amendment, there is no guarantee that a victim service will be provided locally. I say that because in oral evidence Adam Pemberton said:

“During the election campaign, we asked PCCs to sign a series of pledges, and 33 out of the 41 who were elected last November signed up to those promises.” ––[Official Report, Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Public Bill Committee, 20 June 2013; c. 86, Q7.]

That means, however, that eight did not. At the moment there are eight areas in England and Wales where a victim service is provided nationally by the Ministry of Justice, but if the Bill is enacted there may not be in future, because the police and crime commissioner may choose to spend the resources devolved to them on whatever they want: pot plants in their office, police community support officers, police constables or whatever. There is a real gap that changing “may” to “shall” would fill. It would give the sense that it is the responsibility of police and crime commissioners to provide a victim support service locally.

Under clause 123 if amended, PCCs could choose how to supply the service. They could choose how much money they want to put into it and be held accountable for that. That is why I go halfway to meeting the hon. Lady. However, without the amendment, they do not have to do it at all. We are not adding to the Bill; we are potentially taking something away. I think there is a real issue and I would welcome the Minister’s reflecting on it as my starting bid to replace “may” with “shall”.

The other amendments would allow the Minister to give guidance on the quality standard that anybody who is commissioned to provide a victim service should meet. At the moment there is a national contract with Victim Support, a national charity with national standards and it is accountable through the wonders of Parliament to the Minister who awards the contract and can re-award it to somebody else at a later date. The Minister can set whatever standards he or she wants. The Minister awards the contract through officials to Victim Support.

Under the new arrangements proposed in clause 123

“the local policing body may provide”

a service, but there is no guarantee of the quality or structure of that service at local level. In theory, anybody could set themselves up as a victim support service in north Wales; anybody could bid for the commissioned contract. There is no quality standard and no price standard, and nothing set down by the Minister on the basic standards of that victim support service. Even if a police and crime commissioner decides to provide the service, there is no standard for what is expected. All I ask for through the other amendments is that the Minister issues guidance to police and crime commissioners on the standards for any victim support service the Government shall—not, I hope, may—commission.

There are two key issues. First, should we supply a victim support service locally? Should we tell police and crime commissioners in statute, “One of your duties is to supply a victim support service locally. Do it with who you like and spend what you want, but you have a duty to supply it”? Secondly, should we allow the Minister, through his officials, to issue guidance to police and crime commissioners about the quality standard we expect in that service? Those are both reasonable propositions, which the Minister should be able to accept, and I hope he does so.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

The amendments bring us to the subject of the provision of services for victims and witnesses. We all agree that it is important to provide proper support to help victims and witnesses recover, in so far as it is possible to recover from the sometimes devastating effect of a crime. That is why we are legislating to provide police and crime commissioners with the power to commission a wide range of support services using the widest possible means. PCCs are ideally placed to understand the support needs of victims and witnesses in their area—more so than a single Minister sitting in Whitehall—and, therefore, to commission services to meet those needs.

Let me try to reassure the right hon. Member for Delyn. It is our intention to provide police and crime commissioners with specific and protected funding for victims’ services by way of a grant issued under section 56 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. The grant will be made for the purpose of funding victims’ services provided or arranged by PCCs and could not be spent on anything other than victims’ services.

Victims and witnesses are a key priority for police and crime commissioners, as shown by the police and crime plans they all published earlier this year. They are already engaging with victims, witnesses and service providers to assess current provision and to develop their understanding of the needs of victims in their community. Indeed, a key benefit of local commissioning is that police and crime commissioners will be able to commission services to meet the specific needs of victims in their community. I have no doubt that PCCs will want to provide victims’ services, and this power allows them to do so in a way that tailors service provision to local needs. Converting it into a duty to commission victims’ services would give rise to a need to specify how the duty should be discharged, which would diminish that crucial element of local determination.

Subsection (3) provides police and crime commissioners with the power to issue grants for the purposes of providing or arranging services. A specific statutory power is required to issue grants, whereas contracts can be entered into without such a power. The intention in the clause is to ensure that police and crime commissioners can commission services using the widest possible means—by grant, by contract or by providing the services themselves—to suit the service and local circumstances. They may choose to provide victims’ services directly or they may wish to enter into a collaboration arrangement with a neighbouring force area, agreeing that the neighbouring PCC contracts for the provision of victims’ services, which will be available across both force areas. It is therefore important that PCCs have sufficient powers to arrange for victims’ services to be provided in the most appropriate way. We do not, therefore, want to restrict local flexibility by imposing a duty to make grants.

On amendment 36, I started by highlighting the importance of providing victims and witnesses of crime with the support they need. Although quality standards can be important in specific circumstances, the Government have gone further by stating that services should be assessed on the basis of the difference they make to victims. All support services, whether commissioned by PCCs or central Government, must aim to help victims to cope with, and to recover from, the effects of crime, and success in achieving those outcomes is the measure against which services will be judged. The focus on outcomes clearly tells police and crime commissioners what is required of them as they commission services, but it allows them discretion in how to achieve those outcomes for victims. When they consider bids to provide services, commissioners will clearly want to see evidence of an organisation’s ability to meet those outcomes for victims, and they will want to set clear specifications for monitoring and quality assurance in any grant or contract. In May, we provided commissioners with a commissioning framework to support them in delivering the Government’s aims for victims and witnesses. A quality standard across the breadth of victims’ services is, therefore, neither desirable nor necessary to ensure the commissioning of truly effective services.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is reassured that we are committed to providing victims and witnesses with the best quality support, which is commissioned by police and crime commissioners who understand the needs of their communities and delivered by organisations that have the proven ability to meet those needs. With that reassurance, I hope that he will be content to withdraw the amendment.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am afraid that I am not. I would rather listen to Mr Adam Pemberton, the assistant chief executive of Victim Support, who said, in answer to question 176:

“I therefore think it is important that there is a quality threshold”.

In answer to the following question, he said:

“If the Committee wanted to endorse that and say that a clear quality standard has to be met, that would be welcome.”––[Official Report, Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Public Bill Committee, 20 June 2013; c. 87, Q177.]

I know that Mr Pemberton has an interest in the provision of services because he works for Victim Support, but we want to have a quality service and a quality threshold. The Government are devolving to police and crime commissioners that they may provide a service to victims, but the Government have not issued any guidance about what that service should consist of and they have not set a quality threshold.

That is not a satisfactory way forward, especially since 33 of the 41 elected commissioners have pledged to provide victim support but eight have not done so. Taking up the point made by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford, if those eight commissioners say that they do not want to provide a victim service locally, will the Government be satisfied with that, given that such a service currently exists? In my area of north Wales, as has been said in an intervention, the police and crime commissioner has been elected—albeit on 6% of a 13% poll—so is it reasonable, if he is devolved a proportion of the £66 million that is intended for victim services nationally, for him to spend that money on something else and be held accountable for that decision in three years’ time?

A statutory duty on local policing bodies to provide victim services and a duty on Ministers to publish guidance would be helpful. Such duties would not be controversial, especially given that the amendments do not prescribe that commissioners must do something in-house or do something with commissioners elsewhere; they would be able to provide such services with whom they want and for how much they want, but they would have to provide a basic service of some sort and the Minister would have to issue guidance. I am not convinced, so I would like to test the view of the Committee on amendments 34 and 36.

Schedule 6 - Port and border controls

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I beg to move amendment 111, in schedule 6, page 132, line 28, at end insert—

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I rise briefly to ask the Minister one simple question. At the moment, paragraph 11 of schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 permits the powers to which he referred during his remarks to be exercised by either a police officer or a UK Border Agency officer. The proposed new paragraph inserts a new power in relation to copying, but it can be exercised only by a constable and not a border official. Why do the Government think that the power should be limited in that way when the similar power in the preceding paragraph can be exercised by anyone who is an examining officer for the purposes of the schedule?

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

The brief answer to my hon. and learned Friend’s question is that some border officials have the powers of a constable and some do not. The long-term aim is to ensure that the several powers and capacities of customs officers, border officials and police officers are in some instances joined in individuals. The particular powers can only be exercised by a constable and therefore the safeguards in the amendment are relevant only to that particular group of people.

Stephen Phillips (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Paragraph 1 of the schedule says that an examining officer is either a constable, an immigration officer or a customs officer who is designated for those purposes. I obviously have not been particularly clear: the amendment applies only when the examining officer is a constable—not when they have the powers of a constable, but when they are a constable. That is what the Government amendment says. I am interested in why the Government wish to limit the scope of the amendment to a situation in which the examining officer is a constable, so that when the examining officer is not a constable but is a UK border official or a customs official, they will not have this particular power.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

The answer is a practical one: currently, the powers are exercised only by constables. They are not exercised by immigration or customs officers, who, as I have said, have different, overlapping but not identical powers. Where immigration officers or customs officers exercise some of the powers in the schedule, they do not examine property, nor do we envisage them doing so. That skill and operational exercise is not a specialism of either customs officers or of border officers, but is particular to police officers. That is why the schedule and amendment are worded as they are: property is examined only by police officers.