Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Lyn Brown and Mike Penning

Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 26th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Lyn Brown]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that, and I shall return to the point a little later in my speech.

[The Minister for Policing, Fire, Criminal Justice and Victims (Mike Penning)]

I listened carefully to the quotations, and I would be chilled if any part of what was said were factually true. If there were an attempt to combine the emergency services, fire and police, we would have moved to one funding stream. I categorically ruled that out, so this sort of scaremongering—not from the shadow Minister but from others—is flawed. There is a separate funding stream in the precept for the police. The only bit that is going to be amalgamated, should the PCCs be like the Metro Mayors in this respect, would relate to the back office and the administrative side.

[Lyn Brown]

But should a PCC take over the fire service, we would have a person in charge whose main attention was on policing and all that policing involved. The media focus much more on policing than they do on the fire service. The fire service will be secondary. Although the Minister rightly says—I do not doubt him—that the two funding streams will be different, I do not know how long that will last, and in truth, neither does he, because things move on. We had police and crime commissioners under the last Government; this Government are now proposing police, crime and fire commissioners. What will happen in a couple of years’ time? I do not know. There might be accounting efficiencies in order to save costs, and the budgets might well be merged. I do not think that these proposals make any sense.

A further risk is that these proposals will make mergers of fire services more difficult, which would be a real setback, as inter-fire mergers increase resilience and achieve significant savings. The 2007 merger of the Devon and Somerset fire services was supposed to deliver £3 million of savings in the first five years. It actually bettered that target by £600,000.

The Minister will know that Martyn Underhill, the Independent PCC for Dorset—I am trying to keep this politically neutral—has said that he has no interest in running the fire service. Why? It is because Dorset and Wiltshire fire service has undergone a merger that proposes to bring significant savings and increase the resilience in that area. He does not want to interfere with the process, and he is really wary about his office having responsibility for Wiltshire. I admire this decision, made by Commissioner Underhill, but how many potential mergers of fire services will not even be considered as a result of PCC takeovers and the need for coterminosity? I remind the Minister that until a few months ago, this Government trumpeted mergers as a key to the future of the fire service; yet they are now, sadly, going to slip off the agenda.

I know that the Minister has little sympathy with the particular argument I am about to make, but I am a brave soul. A large proportion of the work carried out by the fire service is preventive. There is a danger that these proposals will make this preventive work a little more difficult. It is a humanitarian service. We need to be honest: the police service is not a humanitarian service. The two services are seen differently by some communities, and these proposals could make the fire service’s preventive work more difficult.

There are some people who would not welcome a policeman into their home without a warrant. Police officers turning up at the door can be a scary experience. Firefighters go into people’s homes and work spaces, and check that smoke alarms and electrical appliances are safe. They fit sprinklers and even look for worrying signs that might concern other services, such as the NHS and council care services. This preventive work is not an add-on to the fire service’s work; it is at the core of what it does—keeping people safe, so that they do not have to be rescued further down the line.

[Mike Penning]

I do not quite understand—perhaps I do, but I do not think it is fair—why the shadow Minister is conflating operational work that the police do with operational work that the fire service does. Of course, a lot of work is done together, particularly at road traffic collisions, but there is nothing in the Bill that would conflate the two in the way that the shadow Minister suggests.

[Lyn Brown]

First, they will not be equal partners, because we are talking about a big service and a small service. Secondly, in the minds of some of our communities, the police and the fire service will become one and the same. They will have one boss, and there will be an anxiety that someone coming through the door to fix a smoke alarm might have a different agenda.

[Mike Penning]

The hon. Lady’s constituency is in London, where there is a Mayor, and the mayoral system will take over fire. Is there the same concern in London and in Manchester? Actually, the Labour candidate in Manchester wants the powers as a Metro Mayor.

[Lyn Brown]

In London, the service is run by a Mayor and elected councillors. It is not run by an individual whose other job is to be the police commissioner. I think there is a difference, and I believe that our communities will think there is a difference. We cannot prescribe how people think and what they worry about, but this concern has been raised with me.

[Lyn Brown]

The police I meet on my doorsteps and streets are dead pragmatic souls. They understand the sensitivities that some communities have: they treat some of my refugee communities with extraordinary sensitivity to overcome the natural barrier that is there. What I am saying to the hon. Gentleman is that there is a natural barrier. That is no slur on our police force; our police force are an enforcement agency, and not really a humanitarian service. The police are there to implement the law. Let us move on.

The Minister is not passing over a service that does not have some difficulties. The fire and rescue service has been subject to a cumulative cash cut of £236 million or 12.5% since 2010—and, of course, there is more to come. [Interruption.] Is the Government Whip trying to engage me? Does he want to intervene? It seems not. I just thought I would give him a chance.

[Mike Penning]

I believe that what one of my colleagues was trying to say from a sedentary position is that we should not wash over the debacle and the huge costs of the regional fire control centres that the previous Labour Administration forced on the fire service. [Interruption.]

[Lyn Brown]

Is that right? When I was a Whip, I was taught that I should be seen and not heard. I am sure that the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) did not want to intervene on me at all. The issue of regional fire control centres has been well thrashed out in this Chamber. There were a myriad reasons why they did not work, and I accept that they did not.

Let us return to what the Government have been doing. Here we are in 2016, and it feels as though they have been here forever. The fire and rescue service has been subject to a cumulative cash cut of £236 million, or 12.5%, since 2010, and, of course, there is more to come. We know from the local government funding settlement that fire and rescue services are expected to cut spending by a further £135 million by the end of the Parliament. A stretched service will be squeezed even further.

As a result of these cuts, 7,600 firefighters have already been lost, and the Government have repeatedly ignored warnings that the cuts may be putting services at risk. Their proposals will not protect a single firefighter’s job, or put a single firefighter back in service. I have been told by fire chiefs that their services will “not be viable” under the Government’s proposed spending plans, and I am sure that they have told the Minister exactly the same thing.

The National Audit Office has calculated that there was a 30% reduction in the amount of time spent on home fire checks and audits over the last Parliament. That is a huge reduction. The NAO has said that the Government have “no idea” of the impact of that on public safety. It has also said that, as the Government refuse to model the risk of cuts, they may only know that a service has been cut too long after the fact—that is, after public safety and the lives of the public have been put at risk.

I was not surprised, although I was dismayed, by the latest English fire statistics, which cover the period between April and September 2015. They show that there were 139 fire-related fatalities during that time, 31 more than occurred during the same period in 2014. There were 1,685 non-fatal fire casualties that resulted in hospital treatment, a 10% increase on 2014. Fire and rescue services attended about 93,200 fires, 7% more than in 2014.

The Government have cut the fire service, cut firefighters, and overseen a massive reduction in the amount of preventive work undertaken. I know that we are talking about a spike over just a couple of quarters, but there are statistical signs that the service may be feeling the awful effects of the cuts that have been made. So what do the Government do? Do they stop the cuts while they undertake a proper risk assessment? Do they begin to develop minimum standards for the number of stations and firefighters, and for preventive work? No. The Government want to pass on the responsibility to police and crime commissioners, who have had to deal with similar cuts in police budgets, and who have lost 12,000 front-line police officers. They are not even assessing the level of funding that PCCs would need to maintain resilience and keep the public safe.

This is a good line. By passing the buck without the bucks, the Government could be asking PCCs, who will be new to the fire service and its complexity, to undertake further potentially dangerous cuts. The PCCs will not know what the risks are, because the Government refuse to model them. That is why we tabled amendment 20, which would require the Home Secretary to carry out an assessment of the level of funding that fire services need to keep the public safe.

Our fire and rescue authorities are trusted experts on the fire service. The councillors who serve on them often have years of experience, and have gained a genuinely deep knowledge and judgment from overseeing the strategic direction of fire services in their areas. Given the trust and respect that local fire authorities have, allowing PCCs to take over a fire and rescue service without their support poses the clear risk that employees, and the public, will perceive newly empowered PCCs as an unwelcome central imposition. Our amendment 6 would ensure that a PCC who does take over a fire and rescue service can do so only with the approval of the locally elected representatives on the relevant councils, or, alternatively, of local people through a referendum.

Policing and Crime Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Lyn Brown and Mike Penning

Committee Debate: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th April 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Lyn Brown]

I am grateful to the Minister for that clear and concise answer to the points that I made. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 92 to 102 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 12 agreed to.

Clauses 103 to 107 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Initiation of investigations by IPCC

‘(1) Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 (handling of complaints and conduct matters etc) is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 4 (reference of complaints to the Commission), in sub-paragraph (7), in the words before paragraph (a), after “occasion” insert “, or that has been treated as having been so referred by virtue of paragraph 4A”.

(3) After paragraph 4 insert—

“Power of Commission to treat complaint as having been referred

4A (1) The Commission may treat a complaint that comes to its attention otherwise than by having been referred to it under paragraph 4 as having been so referred.

(2) Where the Commission treats a complaint as having been referred to it—

(a) paragraphs 2 and 4 do not apply, or cease to apply, in relation to the complaint except to the extent provided for by paragraph 4(7), and

(b) paragraphs 5, 6, 6A, 15 and 25 apply in relation to the complaint as if it had been referred to the Commission by the appropriate authority under paragraph 4.

(3) The Commission must notify the following that it is treating a complaint as having been referred to it—

(a) the appropriate authority;

(b) the complainant;

(c) except in a case where it appears to the Commission that to do so might prejudice an investigation of the complaint (whether an existing investigation or a possible future one), the person complained against (if any).

(4) Where an appropriate authority receives a notification under sub-paragraph (3) in respect of a complaint and the complaint has not yet been recorded, the appropriate authority must record the complaint.”

(4) In paragraph 11 (recording etc of conduct matters otherwise than where conduct matters arise in civil proceedings), omit sub-paragraph (5).

(5) In paragraph 13 (reference of conduct matters to the Commission), in sub-paragraph (7), in the words before paragraph (a), after “occasion” insert “, or that has been treated as having been so referred by virtue of paragraph 13A”.

(6) After paragraph 13 insert—

“Power of Commission to treat conduct matter as having been referred

13A (1) The Commission may treat a conduct matter that comes to its attention otherwise than by having been referred to it under paragraph 13 as having been so referred.

(2) Where the Commission treats a conduct matter as having been referred to it—

(a) paragraphs 10, 11 and 13 do not apply, or cease to apply, in relation to the matter except to the extent provided for by paragraph 13(7), and

(b) paragraphs 14 and 15 apply in relation to the matter as if it had been referred to the Commission by the appropriate authority under paragraph 13.

(3) The Commission must notify the following that it is treating a conduct matter as having been referred to it—

(a) the appropriate authority;

(b) except in a case where it appears to the Commission that to do so might prejudice an investigation of the matter (whether an existing investigation or a possible future one), the person to whose conduct the matter relates.

(4) Where an appropriate authority receives a notification under sub-paragraph (3) in respect of a conduct matter and the matter has not yet been recorded, the appropriate authority must record the matter.”

(7) In paragraph 14A (duty to record DSI matters), omit sub-paragraph (2).

(8) In paragraph 14C (reference of DSI matters to the Commission), in sub-paragraph (3), after “occasion” insert “, or that has been treated as having been so referred by virtue of paragraph 14CA,”.

(9) After paragraph 14C insert—

“Power of Commission to treat DSI matter as having been referred

14CA (1) The Commission may treat a DSI matter that comes to its attention otherwise than by having been referred to it under paragraph 14C as having been so referred.

(2) Where the Commission treats a DSI matter as having been referred to it—

(a) paragraphs 14A and 14C do not apply, or cease to apply, in relation to the matter except to the extent provided for by paragraph 14C(3), and

(b) paragraphs 14D and 15 apply in relation to the matter as if it had been referred to the Commission by the appropriate authority under paragraph 14C.

(3) The Commission must notify the appropriate authority that it is treating a DSI matter as having been referred to it.

(4) Where an appropriate authority receives a notification under sub-paragraph (3) in respect of a DSI matter and the matter has not yet been recorded, the appropriate authority must record the matter.”

(10) In section 29 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (interpretation of Part 2 of that Act), in subsection (1), in paragraph (a) of the definition of “recordable conduct matter”, for “or 11” substitute “, 11 or 13A”. —(Karen Bradley.)

This new clause is intended to take the place of clause 14. The amendments of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 in the new clause are aimed at giving the IPCC the ability to consider whether or not it is necessary for a complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter to be investigated and, if so, to determine what form the investigation should take, as soon as the IPCC becomes aware of the complaint or matter.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

Sensitive information received by IPCC: restriction on disclosure

‘(1) Part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (complaints and misconduct) is amended as follows.

(2) After section 21 insert—

“21A Restriction on disclosure of sensitive information

(1) Where the Commission receives information within subsection (3), the Commission must not disclose (whether under section 11, 20 or 21 or otherwise) the information, or the fact that it has been received, unless the relevant authority consents to the disclosure.

(2) Where a person appointed under paragraph 18 of Schedule 3 to investigate a complaint or matter (a “paragraph 18 investigator”) receives information within subsection (3), the paragraph 18 investigator must not disclose the information, or the fact that it has been received, to any person other than the Commission unless the relevant authority consents to the disclosure.

(3) The information is—

(a) intelligence service information;

(b) intercept information;

(c) information obtained from a government department which, at the time it is provided to the Commission or the paragraph 18 investigator, is identified by the department as information the disclosure of which may, in the opinion of the relevant authority—

(i) cause damage to national security, international relations or the economic interests of the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom, or

(ii) jeopardise the safety of any person.

(4) Where the Commission or a paragraph 18 investigator discloses to another person information within subsection (3), or the fact that the Commission or the paragraph 18 investigator has received it, the other person must not disclose that information or that fact unless the relevant authority consents to the disclosure.

(5) In this section—

“government department” means a department of Her Majesty’s Government but does not include—

(a) the Security Service,

(b) the Secret Intelligence Service, or

(c) the Government Communications Headquarters (“GCHQ”);

“intelligence service information” means information that was obtained (directly or indirectly) from or that relates to—

(a) the Security Service,

(b) the Secret Intelligence Service,

(c) GCHQ, or

(d) any part of Her Majesty’s forces, or of the Ministry of Defence, which engages in intelligence activities;

“intercept information” means information relating to any of the matters mentioned in section 19(3) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000;

“Minister of the Crown” includes the Treasury;

“paragraph 18 investigator” has the meaning given by subsection (2);

“relevant authority” means—

(a) in the case of intelligence service information obtained (directly or indirectly) from or relating to the Security Service, the Director-General of the Security Service;

(b) in the case of intelligence service information obtained (directly or indirectly) from or relating to the Secret Intelligence Service, the Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service;

(c) in the case of intelligence service information obtained (directly or indirectly) from or relating to GCHQ, the Director of GCHQ;

(d) in the case of intelligence service information obtained (directly or indirectly) from or relating to Her Majesty’s forces or the Ministry of Defence, the Secretary of State;

(e) in the case of intercept information, the person to whom the relevant interception warrant is or was addressed;

(f) in the case of information within subsection (3)(c)—

“relevant interception warrant” means the interception warrant issued under section 5 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 that relates to the intercept information.

21B Provision of sensitive information to the Commission and certain investigators

‘(1) A person who provides information that is intelligence service information or intercept information to the Commission or a paragraph 18 investigator (whether under a provision of this Part or otherwise) must—

(a) make the Commission or the paragraph 18 investigator aware that the information is intelligence service information or (as the case may be) intercept information, and

(b) provide the Commission or the paragraph 18 investigator with such additional information as will enable the Commission or the paragraph 18 investigator to identify the relevant authority in relation to the information.

(2) In this section, “intelligence service information”, “intercept information”, “paragraph 18 investigator” and “relevant authority” have the same meaning as in section 21A.”

(3) In Schedule 3 (handling of complaints and conduct matters etc), in Part 3 (investigations and subsequent proceedings)—

(a) omit paragraph 19ZD (sensitive information: restriction on further disclosure of information received under an information notice);

(b) in paragraph 22 (final reports on investigations: complaints, conduct matters and certain DSI matters)—

(i) after sub-paragraph (6) insert—

“(6A) Where a person would contravene section 21A by submitting, or (as the case may be) sending a copy of, a report in its entirety to the appropriate authority under sub-paragraph (2) or (3)(b), the person must instead submit, or send a copy of, the report after having removed or obscured the information which by virtue of section 21A the person must not disclose.”;

(ii) in sub-paragraph (8), at the end insert “except so far as the person is prevented from doing so by section 21A”;

(c) in paragraph 23 (action by the Commission in response to an investigation report under paragraph 22), after sub-paragraph (2) insert—

“(2ZA) Where the Commission would contravene section 21A by sending a copy of a report in its entirety to the appropriate authority under sub-paragraph (2)(a) or to the Director of Public Prosecutions under sub-paragraph (2)(c), the Commission must instead send a copy of the report after having removed or obscured the information which by virtue of section 21A the Commission must not disclose.”;

(d) in paragraph 24A (final reports on investigations: other DSI matters), after sub-paragraph (3) insert—

“(3A) Where a person would contravene section 21A by sending a copy of a report in its entirety to the appropriate authority under sub-paragraph (2)(b), the person must instead send a copy of the report after having removed or obscured the information which by virtue of section 21A the person must not disclose.”” —(Karen Bradley.)

Paragraph 19ZD of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 currently imposes restrictions on the further disclosure by the IPCC of certain sensitive information received by it under an information notice. This new clause replaces paragraph 19ZD with new section 21A of the 2002 Act, which applies irrespective of how the IPCC has obtained the information. New section 21A also applies to investigators appointed under paragraph 18 of Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act (investigations by an appropriate authority under the IPCC’s direction). New section 21A is supplemented by new section 21B, which is intended to assist those needing to comply with section 21A.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

Release without bail: fingerprinting and samples

(1) The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 61(5A) (fingerprinting of person arrested for a recordable offence) —

(a) in paragraph (a) omit “in the case of a person who is on bail,”, and

(b) in paragraph (b) omit “in any case,”.

(3) In section 63(3ZA) (taking of non-intimate sample from person arrested for a recordable offence)—

(a) in paragraph (a) omit “in the case of a person who is on bail,”, and

(b) in paragraph (b) omit “in any case,”.—(Karen Bradley.)

Sections 61(5A) and 63(3ZA) of PACE allow fingerprints and samples to be taken from persons released on bail. Because of changes in the Bill, persons will be released without bail (rather than on bail) unless pre-conditions are met. The amendments change those sections so they cover persons released without bail too.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4

Release under section 24A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003

(1) Section 24A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (arrest for failure to comply with conditions attached to conditional caution) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2) for paragraphs (b) and (c) substitute—

“(b) released without charge and without bail (with or without any variation in the conditions attached to the caution) unless paragraph (c)(i) and (ii) applies, or

(c) released without charge and on bail if—

(i) the release is to enable a decision to be made as to whether the person should be charged with the offence, and

(ii) the pre-conditions for bail are satisfied.”

(3) In subsections (3)(a) and (4) for “subsection (2)(b)” substitute “subsection (2)(c)”.

(4) After subsection (8) insert—

(8A) In subsection (2) the reference to the pre-conditions for bail is to be read in accordance with section 50A of the 1984 Act.”—(Karen Bradley.)

This new clause changes the provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 relating to persons who are arrested because they are believed to have failed to comply with conditions attached to a conditional caution. To reflect the changes made in the Bill, those persons will be released without bail (rather than on bail) unless pre-conditions are met.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

Duty to notify person released under section 34, 37 or 37CA of PACE that not to be prosecuted

(1) The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 34 (limitations on police detention) after subsection (5A) (inserted by section 42 of this Act) insert—

(5B) Subsection (5C) applies where—

(a) a person is released under subsection (5), and

(b) the custody officer determines that—

(i) there is not sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence, or

(ii) there is sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence but the person should not be charged with an offence or given a caution in respect of an offence.

(5C) The custody officer must give the person notice in writing that the person is not to be prosecuted.

(5D) Subsection (5C) does not prevent the prosecution of the person for an offence if new evidence comes to light after the notice was given.

(5E) In this Part “caution” includes—

(a) a conditional caution within the meaning of Part 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003;

(b) a youth conditional caution within the meaning of Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;

(c) a youth caution under section 66ZA of that Act.”

(3) Section 37 (duties of custody officer before charge) is amended as follows.

(4) After subsection (6) insert——

(6A) Subsection (6B) applies where—

(a) a person is released under subsection (2), and

(b) the custody officer determines that—

(i) there is not sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence, or

(ii) there is sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence but the person should not be charged with an offence or given a caution in respect of an offence.

(6B) The custody officer must give the person notice in writing that the person is not to be prosecuted.

(6C) Subsection (6B) does not prevent the prosecution of the person for an offence if new evidence comes to light after the notice was given.”

(5) After subsection (8) insert—

(8ZA) Where—

(a) a person is released under subsection (7)(b) or (c), and

(b) the custody officer makes a determination as mentioned in subsection (6A)(b),

subsections (6B) and (6C) apply.”

(6) Section 37B (consultation with Director of Public Prosecutions) is amended as follows.

(7) After subsection (5) insert—

(5A) Subsection (5) does not prevent the prosecution of the person for an offence if new evidence comes to light after the notice was given.”

(8) Omit subsection (9).

(9) In section 37CA (release following arrest for breach of bail) after subsection (4) insert——

(5) Subsection (6) applies where—

(a) a person is released under subsection (2), and

(b) a custody officer determines that—

(i) there is not sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence, or

(ii) there is sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence but the person should not be charged with an offence or given a caution in respect of an offence.

(6) The custody officer must give the person notice in writing that the person is not to be prosecuted.

(7) Subsection (6) does not prevent the prosecution of the person for an offence if new evidence comes to light after the notice was given.”

(10) In section 24B(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (application of provisions of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984)—

(a) in paragraph (d) for “(5)” substitute “(5E)”, and

(b) in paragraph (f) for “(6)” substitute “(6C)”.—(Karen Bradley.)

This new clause requires a custody officer to notify a person released under section 34(5), 37(2) or (7)(b) or (c) or 37CA(2) of PACE if it is decided not to prosecute. So the person is put in the same position as a person released under section 37(7)(a) (who is notified under section 37B(5)).

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.



New Clause 6

Duty to notify person released under any of sections 41 to 44 of PACE that not to be prosecuted

(1) The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 41 (limits on period of detention without charge) after subsection (9) insert—

(10) Subsection (11) applies where—

(a) a person is released under subsection (7), and

(b) a custody officer determines that—

(i) there is not sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence, or

(ii) there is sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence but the person should not be charged with an offence or given a caution in respect of an offence.

(11) The custody officer must give the person notice in writing that the person is not to be prosecuted.

(12) Subsection (11) does not prevent the prosecution of the person for an offence if new evidence comes to light after the notice was given.”

(3) In section 42 (authorisation of continued detention) after subsection (11) insert—

(12) Subsection (13) applies where—

(a) a person is released under subsection (10), and

(b) a custody officer determines that—

(i) there is not sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence, or

(ii) there is sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence but the person should not be charged with an offence or given a caution in respect of an offence.

(13) The custody officer must give the person notice in writing that the person is not to be prosecuted.

(14) Subsection (13) does not prevent the prosecution of the person for an offence if new evidence comes to light after the notice was given.”

(4) In section 43 (warrants of further detention) after subsection (19) insert——

(20) Subsection (21) applies where—

(a) a person is released under subsection (15) or (18), and

(b) a custody officer determines that—

(i) there is not sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence, or

(ii) there is sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence but the person should not be charged with an offence or given a caution in respect of an offence.

(21) The custody officer must give the person notice in writing that the person is not to be prosecuted.

(22) Subsection (21) does not prevent the prosecution of the person for an offence if new evidence comes to light after the notice was given.”

(5) In section 44 (extension of warrants of further detention) after subsection (8) insert——

(9) Subsection (10) applies where—

(a) a person is released under subsection (7), and

(b) a custody officer determines that—

(i) there is not sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence, or

(ii) there is sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence but the person should not be charged with an offence or given a caution in respect of an offence.

(10) The custody officer must give the person notice in writing that the person is not to be prosecuted.

(11) Subsection (10) does not prevent the prosecution of the person for an offence if new evidence comes to light after the notice was given.” —(Karen Bradley.)

This new clause requires a custody officer to notify a person released under section 41(7), 42(10), 43(15) or (18) or 44(7) of PACE if it is decided not to prosecute. So the person is put in the same position as a person released under section 37(7)(a) (who is notified under section 37B(5)).

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 22

Combined authority mayors: exercise of fire and rescue functions

‘(1) The Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (4).

(2) After section 107E insert—

“107EA Exercise of fire and rescue functions

(1) This section applies to a mayor for the area of a combined authority who—

(a) by virtue of section 107D(1), may exercise functions which are conferred on a fire and rescue authority in that name (“fire and rescue functions”), and

(b) by virtue of section 107F(1), may exercise functions of a police and crime commissioner.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order make provision—

(a) authorising the mayor to arrange for the chief constable of the police force for the police area which corresponds to the area of the combined authority to exercise fire and rescue functions exercisable by the mayor;

(b) authorising that chief constable to arrange for a person within subsection (4) to exercise functions exercisable by the chief constable under arrangements made by virtue of paragraph (a).

(3) An order under subsection (2) may provide that arrangements made under the order—

(a) may authorise the exercise of any fire and rescue functions exercisable by the mayor;

(b) may authorise the exercise of any fire and rescue functions exercisable by the mayor other than those specified or described in the order;

(c) may authorise the exercise of fire and rescue functions exercisable by the mayor which are specified or described in the order.

(4) The persons mentioned in subsection (2)(b) are—

(a) members of the chief constable’s police force;

(b) the civilian staff of that police force, as defined by section 102(4) of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011;

(c) members of staff transferred to the chief constable under a scheme made by virtue of section 107EC(1);

(d) members of staff appointed by the chief constable under section 107EC(2).

(5) Provision in an order under section 107D(1) for a function to be exercisable only by the mayor for the area of a combined authority is subject to provision made by virtue of subsection (2).

(6) This section is subject to—

(a) section 107EB (section 107EA orders: procedure), and

(b) section 37 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 (prohibition on employment of police in fire-fighting).

107EB Section 107EA orders: procedure

‘(1) An order under section 107EA(2) may be made in relation to the mayor for the area of a combined authority only if the mayor has requested the Secretary of State to make the order.

(2) A request under subsection (1) must be accompanied by a report which contains—

(a) an assessment of why—

(i) it is in the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness for the order to be made, or

(ii) it is in the interests of public safety for the order to be made,

(b) a description of any public consultation which the mayor has carried out on the proposal for the order to be made,

(c) a summary of the responses to any such consultation, and

(d) a summary of the representations (if any) which the mayor has received about that proposal from the constituent members of the combined authority.

(3) Subsections (4) and (5) apply if—

(a) the mayor for the area of a combined authority has made a request under subsection (1) for the Secretary of State to make an order under section 107EA(2), and

(b) at least two thirds of the constituent members of the combined authority have indicated that they disagree with the proposal for the order to be made.

(4) The mayor must, in providing the report under subsection (2), provide the Secretary of State with—

(a) copies of the representations (if any) made by the constituent members of the combined authority about that proposal, and

(b) the mayor’s response to those representations and to the responses to any public consultation which the mayor has carried out on that proposal.

(5) The Secretary of State must—

(a) obtain an independent assessment of that proposal, and

(b) in deciding whether to make the order, have regard to that assessment and to the material provided under subsection (4) (as well as the material provided under subsection (2)).

(6) An order under section 107EA(2) may be made only if it appears to the Secretary of State that—

(a) it is in the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness for the order to be made, or

(b) it is in the interest of public safety for the order to be made.

(7) The Secretary of State may, in making an order under section 107EA(2) in relation to the mayor for the area of a combined authority, give effect to the mayor’s proposal for the order with such modifications as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.

(8) Before making an order which gives effect to such a proposal with modifications, the Secretary of State must consult the mayor and the combined authority on the modifications.

(9) In this section—

“constituent council”, in relation to a combined authority, means—

(a) a county council the whole or any part of whose area is within the area of the combined authority, or

(b) a district council whose area is within the area of the combined authority;

“constituent member”, in relation to a combined authority, means a member of the authority appointed by a constituent council (but does not include the mayor for the area of the combined authority).

107EC  Section 107EA orders: further provision

‘(1) An order under section 107EA(2) may make provision for the making of a scheme to transfer property, rights and liabilities (including criminal liabilities) from a fire and rescue authority or the combined authority to the chief constable (including provision corresponding to any provision made by section 17(4) to (6) of the Localism Act 2011).

(2) A chief constable to whom an order under section 107EA(2) applies may appoint staff for the purpose of the exercise of functions exercisable by the chief constable by virtue of the order.

(3) A chief constable to whom an order under section 107EA(2) applies may—

(a) pay remuneration, allowances and gratuities to members of the chief constable’s fire and rescue staff;

(b) pay pensions to, or in respect of, persons who are or have been such members of staff;

(c) pay amounts for or towards the provision of pensions to, or in respect of, persons who are or have been such members of staff.

(4) In subsection (3) “allowances”, in relation to a member of staff, means allowances in respect of expenses incurred by the member of staff in the course of employment as such a member of staff.

(5) Subject to subsections (6) to (8), a person who is employed pursuant to a transfer by virtue of subsection (1) or an appointment under subsection (2) may not at the same time be employed pursuant to an appointment by a chief constable of the police force for a police area under Schedule 2 to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011.

(6) Where an order under section 107EA(2) is in force in relation to the chief constable of the police force for a police area, the person who is for the time being the police force’s chief finance officer is to be responsible for the proper administration of financial affairs relating to the exercise of functions exercisable by the chief constable by virtue of the order.

(7) Subsection (5) does not prevent a person who is employed as a finance officer for fire functions from being at the same time employed as a finance officer for police functions.

(8) In subsection (7)—

“finance officer for fire functions” means a member of a chief constable’s fire and rescue staff who—

(a) is not a chief finance officer of the kind mentioned in subsection (6), and

(b) is employed to carry out duties relating to the proper administration of financial affairs relating to the exercise of functions exercisable by the chief constable by virtue of an order under section 107EA(2);

“finance officer for police functions” means a member of a chief constable’s civilian staff within the meaning of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 who—

(a) is not a chief finance officer of the kind mentioned in subsection (6), and

(b) is employed to carry out duties relating to the proper administration of a police force’s financial affairs.

(9) Where an order under section 107EA(2) is in force, the combined authority to which the order applies must pay—

(a) any damages or costs awarded against the chief constable to whom the order applies in any proceedings brought against the chief constable in respect of the acts or omissions of a member of the chief constable’s fire and rescue staff;

(b) any costs incurred by the chief constable in any such proceedings so far as not recovered by the chief constable in the proceedings;

(c) any sum required in connection with the settlement of any claim made against the chief constable in respect of the acts or omissions of a member of the chief constable’s fire and rescue staff, if the settlement is approved by the authority.

(10) Where an order under section 107EA(2) is in force, the combined authority to which the order applies may, in such cases and to such extent as appears to the authority to be appropriate, pay—

(a) any damages or costs awarded against a member of the fire and rescue staff of the chief constable to whom the order applies in proceedings for any unlawful conduct of that member of staff;

(b) costs incurred and not recovered by such a member of staff in such proceedings;

(c) sums required in connection with the settlement of a claim that has or might have given rise to such proceedings.

(11) In this section “fire and rescue staff”, in relation to a chief constable to whom an order under section 107EA(2) applies, means—

(a) staff transferred to the chief constable under a scheme made by virtue of subsection (1);

(b) staff appointed by the chief constable under subsection (2).

107ED Section 107EA orders: exercise of fire and rescue functions

‘(1) This section applies if—

(a) an order under section 107EA(2) makes provision in relation to the area of a combined authority, and

(b) by virtue of the order, fire and rescue functions exercisable by the mayor for the area of the combined authority are exercisable by the chief constable of the police force for the police area which corresponds to that area.

(2) The chief constable must secure that good value for money is obtained in exercising—

(a) functions which are exercisable by the chief constable by virtue of the order, and

(b) functions relating to fire and rescue services which are conferred on the chief constable by or by virtue of any enactment.

(3) The chief constable must secure that other persons exercising functions by virtue of the order obtain good value for money in exercising those functions.

(4) The mayor must—

(a) secure the exercise of the duties which are exercisable by the chief constable or another person by virtue of the order,

(b) secure the exercise of the duties relating to fire and rescue services which are imposed on the chief constable by or by virtue of any enactment,

(c) secure that functions which are exercisable by the chief constable or another person by virtue of the order are exercised efficiently and effectively, and

(d) secure that functions relating to fire and rescue services which are conferred or imposed on the chief constable by or by virtue of any enactment are exercised efficiently and effectively.

(5) The mayor must hold the chief constable to account for the exercise of such functions.

107EE Section 107EA orders: complaints and conduct matters etc

‘(1) If an order is made under 107EA(2) that enables arrangements to be made for the exercise of functions by members of a police force or the civilian staff of a police force, the Secretary of State may by order amend Part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (persons serving with the police: complaints and conduct matters etc) in consequence of that provision.

(2) If an order is made under section 107EA(2) that enables arrangements to be made for the exercise of functions by members of staff transferred to a chief constable under a scheme made by virtue of section 107EC(1) or appointed by a chief constable under section 107EC(2), the Secretary of State may by order make provision of the type described in subsection (3) in relation to those members of staff.

(3) The provision referred to in subsection (2) is—

(a) provision corresponding or similar to any provision made by or under Part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002;

(b) provision applying (with or without modifications) any provision made by or under Part 2 of that Act.

(4) The Secretary of State may by order, in consequence of any provision made under subsection (2), amend Part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002.

(5) Before making an order under this section the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales,

(b) the Independent Police Complaints Commission,

(c) such persons as appear to the Secretary of State to represent the views of police and crime commissioners,

(d) such persons as appear to the Secretary of State to represent the views of fire and rescue authorities, and

(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

107EF Section 107EA orders: application of local policing provisions

‘(1) The Secretary of State may by order—

(a) apply (with or without modifications) any provision of a local policing enactment in relation to a person within subsection (2);

(b) make, in relation to such a person, provision corresponding or similar to any provision of a local policing enactment.

(2) Those persons are—

(a) a mayor for the area of a combined authority to which an order under section 107EA(2) applies,

(b) a chief constable to which such an order applies, and

(c) a panel established by virtue of an order under paragraph 4 of Schedule 5C for such an area.

(3) The power conferred by subsection (1)(a) or (b) includes power to apply (with or without modifications) any provision made by or under a local policing enactment or make provision corresponding or similar to any such provision.

(4) The Secretary of State may by order amend, revoke or repeal a provision of or made under an enactment in consequence of provision made by virtue of subsection (1).

(5) In this section “local policing enactment” means an Act relating to a police and crime commissioner.

(3) In section 107D(6)(b) (general functions exercisable by the mayor for the area of a combined authority) after “section 107E” insert “or 107EA”.

(4) In section 120 (interpretation) after the definition of “EPB” insert—

““fire and rescue authority” means a fire and rescue authority under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004;”.

(5) In section 26 of the Fire Services Act 1947 (firefighters’ pension scheme) (as continued in force by order under section 36 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004) in subsection (5A) (as inserted by paragraph 12 of Schedule 1)—

(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (a), and

(b) after paragraph (b) insert—

“(c) a transfer to the chief constable under a scheme made by virtue of section 107EC(1) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, or

(d) an appointment by the chief constable under section 107EC(2) of that Act.”

(6) In section 63 of the Police Act 1996 (Police Advisory Board for England and Wales) in subsection (4) (as inserted by paragraph 15 of Schedule 1) for “also imposes a requirement” substitute “and section 107EE of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 also impose requirements”.

(7) In section 38 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (police powers for civilian staff) in subsection (11A) (as inserted by paragraph 17 of Schedule 1) after paragraph (b) insert—

“(c) any member of staff transferred to that chief constable under a scheme made by virtue of section 107EC(1) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (transfer of property, rights and liabilities to chief constable to whom fire functions of combined authority may be delegated);

(d) any member of staff appointed by that chief constable under section 107EC(2) of that Act (appointment of staff by chief constable to whom fire functions of combined authority may be delegated).”

(8) In section 34 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 (pensions etc) in subsection (11) (as inserted by paragraph 9 of Schedule 1)—

(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (a), and

(b) after paragraph (b) insert—

“(c) transferred to the chief constable under a scheme made by virtue of section 107EC(1) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, or

(d) appointed by the chief constable under section 107EC(2) of that Act.”

(9) In section 37 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 (prohibition on employment of police in fire-fighting) (as substituted by paragraph 10 of Schedule 1) in subsection (3)—

(a) after “whom” insert “—(a)”, and

(b) after paragraph (a) insert “, or

(b) functions of a fire and rescue authority which are exercisable by the mayor of a combined authority have been delegated under an order under section 107EA(2) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.”

(10) In Schedule 8 to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (appointment, suspension and removal of senior police officers) in paragraph 2 (no appointment until end of confirmation process) in sub-paragraph (1AA) (as inserted by paragraph 23 of Schedule 1) after “section 4F of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004” insert “or section 107EA(2) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009”.

(11) In Schedule 1 to the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 (persons in public service: definitions) in paragraph 6 (fire and rescue workers) in paragraph (aa) (as inserted by paragraph 24 of Schedule 1)—

(a) omit the “or” at the end of sub-paragraph (i), and

(b) for the “or” at the end of sub-paragraph (ii) substitute—transferred to the chief constable under a scheme made by virtue of section 107EC(1) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, orappointed by the chief constable under section 107EC(2) of that Act, or”.”

(i) transferred to the chief constable under a scheme made by virtue of section 107EC(1) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, or

(ii) appointed by the chief constable under section 107EC(2) of that Act, or”.” —(Mike Penning.)

This new clause makes provision for and in connection with enabling the mayor of a combined authority by whom fire and rescue functions are exercisable to delegate those functions to the chief constable for the police area which corresponds to the area of the combined authority.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[The Minister for Policing, Fire, Criminal Justice and Victims (Mike Penning)]

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

[Mike Penning]

New clause 22 applies the single employer model to combined authority mayors to enable mayors with both policing and fire functions to delegate fire functions to a single chief officer, who will employ both police and fire personnel. This allows combined authority mayors to realise the core benefits of collaboration between the police and fire services, for example by bringing together a senior management team or allowing rapid consolidation of back-office functions. The candidates for metro mayor who are coming forward are particularly looking for that collaboration: it will be essential to producing the efficiencies, economy and effectiveness needed. The new clause will give metro mayors the ability to function in the way we all expect them to.

[Lyn Brown]

The new clause will give metro mayors the power to put in place a single employer model for the fire service and for the police force, where they have taken on the role of fire and rescue authority and police and crime commissioner. There are already provisions in the Bill that enable metro mayors to take on responsibility for the governance of policing and fire, but there is no existing legislation to give a mayor who has taken on both roles the power to implement the single employer model.

As we discussed in a previous sitting, the Bill provides for police and crime commissioners who have taken responsibility for fire and rescue to put in place a single employer model; the new clause extends this power to mayors. Since we were opposed to the single employer model then, it will be no surprise to the Minister or the Committee that we are still opposed to it now. The Committee will be relieved to hear that I am not going to repeat the arguments I made on the first day against the single employer model in quite as much detail today—the Committee has heard my concerns, and I am sure the Minister took note of them—but I would like to re-address the important arguments.

A large proportion of the work carried out by the fire service is preventive: smoke alarms are checked, sprinklers are fitted and homes are made safer. This preventive work is not an add-on to the fire service’s work; it is at the core of what it does. We need to be honest: there are some people who would not welcome a policeman into their homes without a warrant. Police officers turning up at their door can be a scary experience. There are fears that under the single employer model it may be more difficult for the fire service to carry out vital preventive work if a member of the public is concerned that the firefighters coming into their home may have to share information with or report back to their boss, the police.

There is a fundamental difference between the humanitarian service that the fire and rescue service provides and the law enforcement service carried out by the police. This is not an attack on our police, who provide an important public service, as we all know. However, for the public to allow firefighters into their homes for preventive checks, there has to be a level of trust in the fire service, which is quite simply not paralleled elsewhere.

There is also the issue of workers in the police force and the fire and rescue service enjoying different terms and conditions of employment, not least around the right to strike. I think there are legitimate fears that the single employer model will be used as a means of cutting back on the workers’ rights of those in the fire service.

Finally, I am concerned about extending the power of the single employer model to metro mayors at this late stage in the legislative process. By including that in a late amendment, the Government have not given those living in metropolitan areas the time to consider and be consulted about what is on offer. Will the Minister explain why this important part of the Government’s reform is being made via an amendment at this late stage?

[Mike Penning]

I am, sadly, not surprised that Her Majesty’s Opposition continue with the concern that they raised about the PCCs. The principle here is pretty simple: that it will have no operational effect on the fire service. There are two separate pillars of funding—two separate positions to be in. We have tabled numerous amendments, which is quite normal; we are making sure that there is no anomaly between PCCs and mayors.

There was initial support from Her Majesty’s Opposition. The shadow Policing Minister said:

“I think that police and fire services logically sit within the context of a combined authority.”—[Official Report, 14 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 376.]

I agreed with him at the time. What we are now discussing—who trusts whom going into homes—has nothing to do with that; it is to do with whether we have the same system for PCCs as we have for mayors. That is the reason for the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

The Minister has obviously delighted me. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Schedule 1

Disciplinary proceedings: former members of MoD Police, British Transport Police and Civil Nuclear Constabulary

“1 The Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987 is amended as follows.

2 (1) Section 3A (regulations relating to disciplinary matters) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (1A) insert—

“(1B) Regulations under this section may provide for the procedures that are established by or under regulations made by virtue of subsection (1A) to apply (with or without modifications) in respect of the conduct, efficiency or effectiveness of any person where—

(a) an allegation relating to the conduct, efficiency or effectiveness of the person comes to the attention of the chief constable of the Ministry of Defence Police, the Ministry of Defence Police Committee, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner or the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland,

(b) at the time of the alleged misconduct, inefficiency or ineffectiveness the person was a member of the Ministry of Defence Police, and

(c) either—

(i) the person ceases to be a member of the Ministry of Defence Police after the allegation first comes to the attention of a person mentioned in paragraph (a), or

(ii) the person had ceased to be a member of the Ministry of Defence Police before the allegation first came to the attention of a person mentioned in paragraph (a) but the period between the person having ceased to be a member of the Ministry of Defence Police and the allegation first coming to the attention of a person mentioned in paragraph (a) does not exceed the period specified in the regulations.

(1C) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (1B) must provide that disciplinary proceedings which are not the first disciplinary proceedings to be taken against the person in respect of the alleged misconduct, inefficiency or ineffectiveness may be taken only if they are commenced within the period specified in the regulations, which must begin with the date when the person ceased to be a member of the Ministry of Defence Police.”

(3) In subsection (2), for “The regulations” substitute “Regulations under this section”.

3 In section 4 (representation etc at disciplinary proceedings), in subsection (4)—

(a) in the definition of “the officer concerned”, after “member” insert “or, as the case may be, the former member”;

(b) in the definition of “relevant authority”—

(i) after paragraph (a) insert—

(ii) after paragraph (b) insert—

4 In section 4A (appeals against dismissal etc), in subsection (1)(a), after “member” insert “, or former member,”.

5 Regulations made in pursuance of section 3A(1B) of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987 (as inserted by paragraph 2)—

(a) may not make provision in relation to a person who ceases to be a member of the Ministry of Defence Police before the coming into force of paragraph 2 of this Schedule;

(b) may make provision in relation to a person who ceases to be a member of the Ministry of Defence Police after the coming into force of paragraph 2 of this Schedule even though the alleged misconduct, inefficiency or ineffectiveness occurred at a time before the coming into force of that paragraph, but only if the alleged misconduct, inefficiency or ineffectiveness is such that, if proved, there could be a finding in relation to the person in disciplinary proceedings that the person would have been dismissed if the person had still been a member of the Ministry of Defence Police.

Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 (c. 20)

6 The Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 is amended as follows.

7 In section 36 (police regulations: general), after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) To the extent that subsection (1) concerns regulations made in pursuance of section 50(3A) of the Police Act 1996, or matters that could be dealt with by such regulations, the reference in subsection (1) to constables or other persons employed in the service of the Police Force includes former constables and other persons formerly employed in the service of the Police Force.”

8 In section 37 (police regulations: special constables), after subsection (1) insert—

“(1ZA) To the extent that subsection (1) concerns regulations made in pursuance of section 51(2B) of the Police Act 1996, or matters that could be dealt with by such regulations, the reference in subsection (1) to special constables of the Police Force includes former special constables of the Police Force.”

9 In section 42 (police regulations by Secretary of State), in subsection (3)—

(a) after “50(3)” insert “or (3A)”;

(b) after “51(2A)” insert “or (2B)”.

10 Regulations made under section 36, 37 or 42 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 that make provision that applies regulations made in pursuance of section 50(3A) or 51(2B) of the Police Act 1996, or that deals with matters that could be dealt with by such regulations, in relation to former constables, and former special constables, of the British Transport Police Force and other persons formerly employed in the service of the British Transport Police Force—

(a) may not make provision that would not be permitted in relation to former members of a police force and former special constables by section 22(7)(a);

(b) may make provision that would be permitted in relation to former members of a police force and former special constables by section 22(7)(b).

Energy Act 2004 (c. 20)

11 The Energy Act 2004 is amended as follows.

12 In section 58 (government, administration and conditions of service of Civil Nuclear Constabulary), in subsection (1)(a), after “members” insert “or former members”.

13 (1) In Schedule 13 (directions by Secretary of State about Civil Nuclear Constabulary), paragraph 3 (government, administration and conditions of service) is amended as follows.

(2) After sub-paragraph (2) insert—

“(2A) To the extent that sub-paragraph (2) concerns provision that may be made in pursuance of section 50(3A) of the Police Act 1996, the reference in sub-paragraph (1) to members of the Constabulary includes former members.”

14 Provision made by the Civil Nuclear Police Authority that relates to former members of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and matters which are the subject of regulations made in pursuance of section 50(3A) of the Police Act 1996—

(a) may not be provision that would not be permitted in relation to former members of a police force and former special constables by section 22(7)(a);

(b) may be provision that would be permitted in relation to former members of a police force and former special constables by 22(7)(b).”—(Mike Penning.)

This new Schedule includes amendments relating to the Ministry of Defence Police, the British Transport Police Force and the Civil Nuclear Constabulary which produce an equivalent effect to the amendments at clause 22 of the Bill.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 2

Office for Police Conduct

Part 1

Amendments to Schedule 2 to the Police Reform Act 2002

Introductory

1 Schedule 2 to the Police Reform Act 2002 is amended in accordance with this Part of this Schedule (see also paragraph 54 below for further minor and consequential amendments).

Director General

2 (1) Paragraph 1 (chairman) is amended as follows.

(2) For sub-paragraph (1) substitute—

(1) The Director General holds office in accordance with the terms of his or her appointment.

(1A) A person who holds office as Director General must not be an employee of the Office (but may have been such an employee before appointment as the Director General).”

(3) In sub-paragraph (2) for “chairman of the Commission” substitute “Director General”.

(4) In sub-paragraph (3)—

(a) for “chairman of the Commission” substitute “Director General”;

(b) for “chairman” substitute “Director General”.

(5) In sub-paragraph (4)—

(a) for “chairman of the Commission” substitute “Director General”;

(b) for “chairman” substitute “Director General”.

(6) In sub-paragraph (5) for “chairman” substitute “Director General”.

Appointment etc of members

3 After paragraph 1 insert—

“Appointment of members

1A (1) The non-executive members of the Office are to be appointed by the Secretary of State.

(2) A person who is a non-executive member must not be an employee of the Office (but may have been such an employee before appointment as a non-executive member).

1B (1) The employee members of the Office are to be appointed from the staff of the Office by the non-executive members.

(2) If the non-executive members propose to appoint an employee member, the Director General must recommend a person to the non-executive members for appointment.

(3) The Director General may also recommend a person to the non-executive members for appointment as an employee member without any proposal having been made under sub-paragraph (2).

(4) On a recommendation of a person for appointment under sub-paragraph (2) or (3), the non-executive members may—

(a) appoint the person, or

(b) reject the recommendation.

(5) If the non-executive members reject a recommendation they may require the Director General to recommend another person for appointment (in which case this sub-paragraph applies again and so on until somebody is appointed).”

4 (1) Paragraph 2 (ordinary members of the Commission) is amended as follows.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1) for “an ordinary” substitute “a non-executive”.

(3) Omit sub-paragraph (2).

(4) In sub-paragraph (3) for “an ordinary” substitute “a non-executive”.

(5) In sub-paragraph (4)—

(a) for “an ordinary”, in both places, substitute “a non-executive”;

(b) for “five” substitute “three”.

(6) In sub-paragraph (5) for—

(a) for “An ordinary” substitute “A non-executive”;

(b) for “his office as a member of the Commission” substitute “from being a non-executive member of the Office”.

(7) In sub-paragraph (6)—

(a) for “an ordinary” substitute “a non-executive”;

(b) omit paragraph (b).

(8) Omit sub-paragraph (8).

5 After paragraph 2 insert—

“Terms of appointment etc: employee members

2A (1) A person holds office as an employee member in accordance with the terms of his or her appointment (subject to the provisions of this Schedule).

(2) Those terms may not include arrangements in relation to remuneration.

(3) An appointment as an employee member may be full-time or part-time.

(4) The appointment of an employee member terminates—

(a) if the terms of the member’s appointment provides for it to expire at the end of a period, at the end of that period, and

(b) in any event, when the member ceases to be an employee of the Office.

(5) An employee member may resign by giving written notice to the non-executive members.

(6) The non-executive members may terminate the appointment of an employee member by giving the member written notice if they are satisfied that any of the grounds mentioned in paragraph 2(6)(a) to (g) apply in relation to the employee member.”

6 Omit paragraph 3 (deputy chairmen) (including the italic heading before that paragraph).

7 Omit paragraph 5 (chief executive) (including the italic heading before that paragraph).

Vacancy or incapacity in office of Director General

8 After paragraph 3 insert—

“Director General: vacancy or incapacity

3A (1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) the office of Director General is vacant, or

(b) it appears to the Office that the ability of the Director General to carry out the Director General’s functions is seriously impaired because of ill health (whether mental or physical).

(2) The Office may, with the agreement of the Secretary of State, authorise an employee of the Office to carry out the functions of the Director General during the vacancy or period of ill health.

(3) A person who falls within section 9(3) may not be authorised under this paragraph to carry out the functions of the Director General.

(4) A person who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three months or more may not, at any time in the five years following the day of sentence, be authorised under this paragraph to carry out the functions of the Director General.

(5) Paragraph 1(6) applies for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4).

(6) Authorisation of a person under this paragraph ceases to have effect—

(a) at the end of the vacancy or period of ill health,

(b) on the Office revoking the authorisation for any reason, or

(c) on the Secretary of State withdrawing agreement to the authorisation for any reason.”

Remuneration arrangements

9 (1) Paragraph 4 (remuneration, pensions etc of members) is amended as follows.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1), for the words from “the chairman” to the end substitute “the Director General as the Secretary of State may determine”.

(3) In sub-paragraph (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for “chairman, deputy chairman or member of the Commission” substitute “Director General”;

(b) in the words after paragraph (b) for “Commission” substitute “Office”.

(4) After sub-paragraph (2) insert—

(3) The Secretary of State may make remuneration arrangements in relation to non-executive members of the Office.

(4) Remuneration arrangements under sub-paragraph (3)—

(a) may make provision for a salary, allowances and other benefits but not for a pension, and

(b) may include a formula or other mechanism for adjusting one or more of those elements from time to time.

(5) Amounts payable by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) are to be paid by the Office.”

Staff

10 (1) Paragraph 6 (staff) is amended as follows.

(2) For sub-paragraph (1) substitute—

(1) The Office may appoint staff.”

(3) In sub-paragraph (2) for “Commission”, in both places, substitute “Office”.

(4) In sub-paragraph (3)—

(a) for “Commission” substitute “Office”;

(b) after “staffing” insert “(including arrangements in relation to terms and conditions and management of staff)”;

(c) for “it” substitute “the Director General”.

(5) In sub-paragraph (4)—

(a) for “Commission”, in the first place, substitute “Office”;

(b) for “Commission”, in the second place, substitute “Director General”.

(6) After sub-paragraph (4) insert—

(4A) The powers under this paragraph are exercisable only by the Director General acting on behalf of the Office (subject to the power under paragraph 6A(1)).”

(7) In sub-paragraph (5) for “by the Commission of its” substitute “of the”.

Delegation of functions

11 After paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 insert—

“Delegation of functions

6A (1) The Director General may authorise a person within sub-paragraph (2) to exercise on the Director General’s behalf a function of the Director General.

(2) The persons within this sub-paragraph are—

(a) employee members of the Office;

(b) employees of the Office appointed under paragraph 6;

(c) seconded constables within the meaning of paragraph 8.

(3) The reference in sub-paragraph (1) to a function of the Director General is to any function that the Director General has under this Act or any other enactment.

(4) A person (“A”) who is authorised under sub-paragraph (1) to exercise a function may authorise another person within sub-paragraph (2) to exercise that function (but only so far as permitted to do so by the authorisation given to A).

(5) An authorisation under this paragraph may provide for a function to which it relates to be exercisable—

(a) either to its full extent or to the extent specified in the authorisation;

(b) either generally or in cases, circumstances or areas so specified;

(c) either unconditionally or subject to conditions so specified.

(6) Provision under sub-paragraph (5) may (in particular) include provision for restricted persons not to exercise designated functions.

(7) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (6)—

(a) “designated functions” are any functions of the Director General that are designated by the Director General for the purposes of this paragraph (and such functions may in particular be designated by reference to the position or seniority of members of staff);

(b) “restricted persons” are, subject to any determination made under sub-paragraph (8), persons who fall within section 9(3).

(8) The Director General may, in such circumstances as the Director General considers appropriate, determine that persons are not to be treated as restricted persons so far as relating to the exercise of designated functions (whether generally or in respect of particular functions specified in the determination).

(9) The Director General must publish a statement of policy about how the Director General proposes to exercise the powers conferred by sub-paragraphs (7)(a) and (8).

(10) The statement must in particular draw attention to any restrictions on the carrying out of functions imposed by virtue of their designation under sub-paragraph (7)(a) and explain the reasons for imposing them.

(11) The exercise of the powers conferred by sub-paragraphs (7)(a) and (8) is subject to any regulations under section 23(1) of the kind mentioned in section 23(2)(g) (regulations limiting persons who may be appointed to carry out investigations etc).

(12) An authorisation under this paragraph does not prevent the Director General from exercising the function to which the authorisation relates.

(13) Anything done or omitted to be done by or in relation to a person authorised under this paragraph in, or in connection with, the exercise or purported exercise of the function to which the authorisation relates is to be treated for all purposes as done or omitted to be done by or in relation to the Director General.

(14) Sub-paragraph (13) does not apply for the purposes of any criminal proceedings brought in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by the authorised person.”

Protection from personal liability

12 After paragraph 7 insert—

“Liability for acts of the Director General

7A (1) A person holding office as the Director General has no personal liability for an act or omission done by the person in the exercise of the Director General’s functions unless it is shown to have been done otherwise than in good faith.

(2) The Office is liable in respect of unlawful conduct of the Director General in the carrying out, or purported carrying out, of the Director General’s functions in the same way as an employer is liable in respect of any unlawful conduct of employees in the course of their employment.

(3) Accordingly, the Office is to be treated, in the case of any such unlawful conduct which is a tort, as a joint tortfeasor.”

Regional offices

13 For paragraph 9 (power of Commission to set up regional offices) substitute—

9 (1) The Office may set up regional offices in places in England and Wales.

(2) But the power under sub-paragraph (1) is exercisable only by the Director General acting on behalf of the Office (subject to the power in paragraph 6A(1)).

(3) The power under sub-paragraph (1) may be exercised—

(a) only with the consent of the Secretary of State, and

(b) only if it appears to the Director General necessary to do so for the purpose of ensuring that the functions of the Director General, or those of the Office, are carried out efficiently and effectively.”

Proceedings

14 In paragraph 10 (proceedings), after sub-paragraph (1) insert—

(1A) But the arrangements must include provision for—

(a) the quorum for meetings to be met only if a majority of members present are non-executive members of the Office, and

(b) an audit committee of the Office to be established to perform such monitoring, reviewing and other functions as are appropriate.

(1B) The arrangements must secure that the audit committee consists only of non-executive members of the Office.”

Part 2

Minor and Consequential Amendments to the Police Reform Act 2002

15 The Police Reform Act 2002 is amended in accordance with this Part of this Schedule.

16 For the italic heading before section 9, substitute “The Office for Police Conduct”.

17 (1) Section 10 (general functions of the Commission) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)(a) omit “itself”.

(3) In subsection (1)(e) for “its” substitute “the Director General’s”.

(4) In subsection (1)(f) for “it” substitute “the Director General”.

(5) In subsection (3) for “it” substitute “the Director General”.

(6) In subsection (3A) (as inserted by this Act), for “it” substitute “the Director General”.

(7) In subsection (3B) (as inserted by this Act), for “it” substitute “the Director General”.

(8) In subsection (4), in paragraph (a)—

(a) for “it”, in both places, substitute “the Director General”;

(b) for “its” substitute “the Director General’s”.

(9) In subsection (6)—

(a) for “it” substitute “the Director General”;

(b) for “its” substitute “the Director General’s”.

(10) In subsection (7)—

(a) for “it”, in both places, substitute “the Director General”;

(b) for “its”, in both places, substitute “the Director General’s”.

18 (1) Section 11 (reports to the Secretary of State) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) for “its”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “the Office’s”;

(b) for “Commission shall” substitute “Director General and the Office must jointly”;

(c) for “its”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “their”.

(3) For subsection (2) substitute—

(2) The Secretary of State may also require reports to be made (at any time)—

(a) by the Director General about the carrying out of the Director General’s functions,

(b) by the Office about the carrying out of the Office’s functions, or

(c) jointly by the Director General and the Office about the carrying out of their functions.”

(4) After subsection (2) insert—

(2A) The Director General may, from time to time, make such other reports to the Secretary of State as the Director General considers appropriate for drawing the Secretary of State’s attention to matters which—

(a) have come to the Director General’s notice, and

(b) are matters which the Director General considers should be drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State by reason of their gravity or of other exceptional circumstances.”

(5) In subsection (3)—

(a) for “Commission” substitute “Office”;

(b) for “Commission’s” substitute “Office’s”.

(6) After subsection (3) insert—

(3A) The Director General and the Office may jointly make reports under subsections (2A) and (3).”

(7) In subsection (4)—

(a) for “Commission” substitute “Director General”;

(b) for “it”, in both places, substitute “the Director General”;

(c) for “its” substitute “the Director General’s”.

(8) In subsection (6) for “Commission” substitute “Office”.

(9) After subsection (6) insert—

(6A) The Director General must send a copy of every report under subsection (2A) —

(a) to any local policing body that appears to the Director General to be concerned, and

(b) to the chief officer of police of any police force that appears to the Director General to be concerned.”

(10) In subsection (7) for “Commission”, in both places, substitute “Office”.

(11) In subsection (8)—

(a) after “subsection” insert “(2A) or”;

(b) for “Commission” substitute “Director General or the Office (as the case may be)”.

(12) In subsection (9)—

(a) after “subsection” insert “(2A) or”;

(b) for “Commission” substitute “Director General or the Office (as the case may be)”.

(13) In subsection (10) for “Commission” substitute “Director General”.

(14) In subsection (11)—

(a) for “Commission”, in each place, substitute “Director General”;

(b) for “it” substitute “the Director General”;

(c) for “(3)” substitute “(2A)”.

(15) After subsection (11) insert—

(12) The Office must send a copy of every report made or prepared by it under subsection (3) to such of the persons (in addition to those specified in the preceding subsections) who—

(a) are referred to in the report, or

(b) appear to the Office otherwise to have a particular interest in its contents, as the Office thinks fit.

(13) Where a report under subsection (2A) or (3) is prepared jointly by virtue of subsection (3A), a duty under this section to send a copy of the report to any person is met if either the Director General or the Office sends a copy to that person.”

19 In section 12 (complaints, matters and persons to which Part 2 applies), in subsection (6)(a) for “Commission” substitute “Director General”.

20 (1) Section 13B (power of the Commission to require re-investigation) (as inserted by this Act) is amended as follows.

(2) For “Commission”, in each place (including the heading), substitute “Director General”.

(3) In subsection (1)—

(a) for “it”, in both places, substitute “the Director General”;

(b) in paragraph (b), before “under” insert “(or, in the case of an investigation carried out under paragraph 19 of Schedule 3 by the Director General personally, is otherwise completed by the Director General)”.

(4) In subsection (2) for “it” substitute “the Director General”.

(5) In subsection (3) for “it” substitute “the Director General”.

(6) In subsection (9)—

(a) for “it” substitute “the Director General”;

(b) for “its” substitute “the Director General’s”.

(7) In subsection (10)—

(a) for “it” substitute “the Director General”;

(b) for “its” substitute “the Director General’s”.

21 (1) Section 15 (general duties of local policing bodies, chief officers and inspectors) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (3), in the words after paragraph (c) after “Director General” insert “of the Agency”.

(3) In subsection (4)—

(a) for “Commission”, in each place, substitute “Director General”;

(b) for “Commission’s” substitute “Office’s”.

22 (1) Section 16 (payment for assistance with investigations) is amended as follows.

(2) For “Commission”, in each place except as mentioned in sub-paragraph (3), substitute “Director General”.

(3) In subsection (4), for “the Commission”, in the second place where it occurs, substitute “Office”.

(4) In subsection (5)(b), after “Director General” insert “of that Agency”.

23 (1) Section 17 (provision of information to the Commission) is amended as follows.

(2) For “Commission”, in each place (including the heading), substitute “Director General”.

(3) In subsection (2)—

(a) for “it” substitute “the Director General”;

(b) for “its” substitute “the Director General’s”.

24 (1) Section 18 (inspections of police premises on behalf of the Commission) is amended as follows.

(2) For “Commission”, in each place (including the heading and provisions inserted by amendments made by this Act), substitute “Director General”.

(3) In subsection (2)(b), for “its” substitute “the Director General’s”.

25 (1) Section 19 (use of investigatory powers by or on behalf of the Commission) is amended as follows.

(2) In the heading, for “Commission” substitute “Director General”.

(3) In subsection (1), for “Commission’s” substitute “Director General’s”.

26 (1) Section 20 (duty to keep complainant informed) is amended as follows.

(2) For “Commission”, in each place (including provisions inserted by amendments made by this Act), substitute “Director General”.

(3) In subsection (1)(b) for “its” substitute “the Director General’s”.

(4) In subsection (3) for “it”, where it occurs after “as”, substitute “the Director General”.

(5) In subsection (8A) (as inserted by this Act)—

(a) for “its” substitute “their”;

(b) after “submitted”, in the first place it occurs, insert “(or finalised)”;

(c) after “submitted”, in the second place it occurs, insert “(or completed)”.

(6) In subsection (9) for “its” substitute “their”.

27 (1) Section 21 (duty to provide information for other persons) is amended as follows.

(2) For “Commission”, in each place (including provisions inserted by amendments made by this Act), substitute “Director General”.

(3) In subsection (6)(b) for “its” substitute “the Director General’s”.

(4) In subsection (8) for “it”, where it occurs after “as”, substitute “the Director General”.

(5) In subsection (11A) (as inserted by this Act)—

(a) for “its” substitute “their”;

(b) after “submitted”, in the first place it occurs, insert “(or finalised)”;

(c) after “submitted”, in the second place it occurs, insert “(or completed)”.

28 In section 21A (restriction on disclosure of sensitive information) (as inserted by this Act), for “Commission”, in each place, substitute “Director General”.

29 In section 21B (provision of sensitive information to the Commission and certain investigators) (as inserted by this Act), for “Commission”, in each place (including the heading), substitute “Director General”.

30 (1) Section 22 (power of the Commission to issue guidance) is amended as follows.

(2) For “Commission”, in each place (including the heading), substitute “Director General”.

(3) In subsection (3)(c) for “it” substitute “the Director General”.

31 (1) Section 23 (regulations) is amended as follows.

(2) For “Commission”, in each place, substitute “Director General”.

(3) In subsection (2)(o) for “it” substitute “the Director General or the Office”.

32 In section 24 (consultation on regulations) for paragraph (a) substitute—

“(a) the Office;

(aa) the Director General;”.

33 In section 26 (forces maintained otherwise than by local policing bodies), for “Commission”, in each place, substitute “Director General”.

34 In section 26BA (College of Policing), for “Commission”, in both places, substitute “Director General”.

35 (1) Section 26C (the National Crime Agency) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General”;

(b) before “and other” insert “of the National Crime Agency”.

(3) In subsection (2) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “the Office or its Director General”.

(4) In subsection (4) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission”, in both places, substitute “Director General”.

(5) In subsection (5)—

(a) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General”;

(b) for “Commission’s”, in both places, substitute “Director General’s”;

(c) for “Commission” substitute “Director General”.

36 (1) Section 26D (labour abuse prevention officers) is amended as follows.

(2) For “Commission”, in each place, substitute “Director General”.

(3) In subsection (4), for “Commission’s”, in both places, substitute “Director General’s”.

37 (1) Section 27 (conduct of the Commission’s staff) is amended as follows.

(2) For “Commission’s”, in each place (including the heading), substitute “Office’s”.

(3) In subsection (4) for “Commission” substitute “Office and the Director General”.

38 Omit section 28 (transitional arrangements in connection with establishing Commission etc).

39 (1) Section 28A (application of Part 2 to old cases) is amended as follows.

(2) For “Commission”, in each place other than in subsection (3) of that section, substitute “Director General”.

(3) In subsection (1), for “it” substitute “the Director General”.

(4) In subsection (4), for “it” substitute “the Director General”.

40 (1) Section 29 (interpretation of Part 2) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) omit the definition of “the Commission”;

(b) after the definition of “death or serious injury matter” insert—

““the Director General” means (unless otherwise specified) the Director General of the Office;”;

(c) after the definition of “local resolution” insert—

““the Office” means the Office for Police Conduct;”.

(3) In subsection (6)—

(a) for “Commission” in each place substitute “Director General”;

(b) omit “itself”.

41 In section 29C (regulations about super-complaints) (as inserted by this Act), in subsection (3) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission”, in both places, substitute “Director General”.

42 (1) Section 29E (power to investigate concerns raised by whistle-blowers) (as inserted by this Act) is amended as follows

(2) For “Commission”, in each place, substitute “Director General”.

(3) In subsection (2) for “it” substitute “the Director General”.

43 (1) Section 29F (Commission’s powers and duties where it decides not to investigate) (as inserted by this Act) is amended as follows.

(2) For “Commission”, in each place, substitute “Director General”.

(3) In the heading—

(a) for “Commission’s” substitute “Director General’s”;

(b) for “where it decides” substitute “on decision”.

44 (1) Section 29G (special provision for “conduct matters”) (as inserted by this Act) is amended as follows.

(2) For “Commission”, in each place, substitute “Director General”.

(3) In subsection (2)—

(a) or “it”, in both places, substitute “the Director General”;

(b) for “its” substitute “the”.

45 (1) Section 29H (Commission’s powers and duties where whistle-blower is deceased) (as inserted by this Act) is amended as follows.

(2) For “Commission”, in each place, substitute “Director General”.

(3) In the heading for “Commission’s” substitute “Director General’s”.

(4) In subsection (1) for “it” substitute “the Director General”.

46 In section 29HA (duty to keep whistle-blowers informed) (as inserted by this Act), in subsection (1)—

(a) for “Commission” substitute “Director General”;

(b) for “it” substitute “the Director General”.

47 In section 29I (protection of anonymity of whistle-blowers) (as inserted by this Act) for “Commission”, in both places, substitute “Director General”.

48 In section 29J (other restrictions on disclosure of information) (as inserted by this Act), for “Commission”, in both places, substitute “Director General”.

49 In section 29K (application of provisions of Part 2) (as inserted by this Act), for “Commission”, in each place, substitute “Director General”.

50 In section 29L (regulation-making powers: consultation) (as inserted by this Act), for “Commission” substitute “Director General”.

51 In section 29M (interpretation) (as inserted by this Act), in subsection (1)—

(a) omit the definition of “the Commission”;

(b) after the definition of “conduct” insert—

““the Director General” means the Director General of the Office for Police Conduct;”.

52 In section 36 (conduct of disciplinary proceedings), in subsection (1)(a) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General of the Office for Police Conduct”.

53 In section 105 (powers of Secretary of State to make orders and regulations), in subsection (5) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General of the Office for Police Conduct”.

54 (1) Schedule 2 (the Independent Police Complaints Commission) is amended as follows.

(2) For the italic heading before paragraph 1 substitute “Director General”.

(3) For the italic heading before paragraph 2 substitute “Terms of appointment etc: non-executive members”.

(4) In paragraph 7—

(a) for “Commission”, in each place, substitute “Office”;

(b) for “chairman or as a deputy chairman of the Commission” substitute “Director General”;

(c) omit “or as a member of it”.

(5) In paragraph 8—

(a) for “Commission”, in both places, substitute “Office”;

(b) for “Commission’s”, in both places, substitute “Office’s”.

(6) In the heading before paragraph 9 omit “of Commission”.

(7) In paragraph 10—

(a) for “Commission”, in each place, substitute “Office”;

(b) for “Commission’s”, in each place, substitute “Office’s”;

(c) in sub-paragraph (5)(c) omit “by the chief executive or”.

(8) In paragraph 11—

(a) for “Commission”, in each place, substitute “Office”;

(b) in paragraph (a) for “chairman, a deputy chairman” substitute “Director General”;

(c) in paragraph (b) for “chairman” substitute “Director General”.

(9) In the italic heading before paragraph 12, for “Commission’s” substitute “Office’s”.

(10) In paragraph 12—

(a) in the words before paragraph (a), for “Commission” substitute “Office”;

(b) in paragraph (a) for “Commission” substitute “Office”;

(c) in paragraph (b) for “Commission” substitute “Director General”.

(11) In paragraph 13 for “Commission” substitute “Office”.

(12) In paragraph 14—

(a) for “Commission” substitute “Office”;

(b) in paragraph (a), after “it” insert “or the Director General”;

(c) in paragraph (b)—

(i) after “it”, in both places, insert “or the Director General”;

(ii) for “its” substitute “their”.

(13) In the italic heading before paragraph 15, for “Commission” substitute “Office”.

(14) In paragraph 15 for “Commission” substitute “Office”.

(15) In paragraph 16 for “Commission” substitute “Office”.

(16) In paragraph 17 for “Commission”, in each place, substitute “Office”.

(17) In the italic heading before paragraph 18, for “Commission” substitute “Office”.

(18) In paragraph 18 for “Commission”, in both places, substitute “Office”.

55 (1) Schedule 3 is amended as follows.

(2) For “Commission”, in each place where it occurs, substitute “Director General”.

(3) For “Commission’s”, in each place where it occurs, substitute “Director General’s”.

(4) For “it”, in each place where it occurs and is used as a pronoun in place of “the Commission”, substitute “the Director General”.

(5) For “its”, in each place where it occurs and is used to mean “the Commission’s”, substitute “the Director General’s”.

(6) The amendments made by virtue of sub-paragraphs (2) to (5)—

(a) include amendments of provisions of Schedule 3 that are inserted, or otherwise amended, by other provisions of this Act (whether or not those other provisions come into force before or after the coming into force of this paragraph);

(b) do not apply if otherwise provided by another provision of this paragraph.

(7) In paragraph 19 (investigations by the Commission itself)—

(a) in the heading omit “itself”;

(b) in sub-paragraph (1) omit “itself”;

(c) for sub-paragraph (2) substitute—

(2) The Director General must designate both—

(a) a person to take charge of the investigation, and

(b) such members of the Office’s staff as are required by the Director General to assist the person designated to take charge of the investigation.

(2A) The person designated under sub-paragraph (2) to take charge of an investigation must be—

(a) the Director General acting personally, or

(b) another member of the Office’s staff who is authorised to exercise the function of taking charge of the investigation on behalf of the Director General by virtue of paragraph 6A of Schedule 2 (delegation of Director General’s functions).”;

(d) in sub-paragraph (4) for “member of the Commission’s staff” substitute “person”;

(e) in sub-paragraph (5) for “member of the Commission’s staff” substitute “person designated under sub-paragraph (2)”;

(f) in sub-paragraph (6) for “members of the Commission’s staff” substitute “persons”;

(g) in sub-paragraph (6A) for “member of the Commission’s staff” substitute “person designated under sub-paragraph (2) who is”.

(8) In paragraph 19ZH (further provision about things retained under paragraph 19ZG) (as inserted by this Act)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (2) for “Commission’s” substitute “Office’s”;

(b) in sub-paragraph (4)(a) for “Commission’s” substitute “Office’s”.

(9) In paragraph 19A (as substituted by this Act), in sub-paragraph (2)(b) after “investigating” insert “or, in the case of an investigation by a designated person under paragraph 19, the Director General,”.

(10) In paragraph 19F (interview of persons serving with police etc during certain investigations), in sub-paragraph (1)(b) for “the Commission itself” substitute “a person designated under paragraph 19 (investigations by Director General)”.

(11) In paragraph 20 (restrictions on proceedings pending conclusion of investigation), in sub-paragraph (1)(b) at the end insert “or, where under paragraph 19 the Director General has personally carried out the investigation, a report has been completed by the Director General”.

(12) In paragraph 20A (as substituted by this Act)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1)(a) after “investigating” insert “or, in the case of an investigation by a designated person under paragraph 19, the Director General,”;

(b) in sub-paragraph (3) after “and” insert “(where the person investigating is not also the Director General carrying out an investigation under paragraph 19 personally)”;

(c) in sub-paragraph (4)(b) after “investigation” insert “or, where the investigation is carried out under paragraph 19 by the Director General personally, finalise one,”.

(13) In paragraph 21A (procedure where conduct matter is revealed during investigation of DSI matter)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1), omit “or designated under paragraph 19”;

(b) after sub-paragraph (2A) (as inserted by this Act), insert—

(2B) If during the course of an investigation of a DSI matter being carried out by a person designated under paragraph 19 the Director General determines that there is an indication that a person serving with the police (“the person whose conduct is in question”) may have—

(a) committed a criminal offence, or

(b) behaved in a manner which would justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings,

the Director General must proceed under sub-paragraph (2C).

(2C) The Director General must—

(a) prepare a record of the determination,

(b) notify the appropriate authority in relation to the DSI matter and (if different) the appropriate authority in relation to the person whose conduct is in question of the determination, and

(c) send to it (or each of them) a copy of the record of the determination prepared under paragraph (a).”;

(c) in sub-paragraph (5), after paragraph (a) insert—

(aa) is notified of a determination by the Director General under sub-paragraph (2C),”.

(14) In paragraph 22 (final reports on investigations: complaints, conduct matters and certain DSI matters)—

(a) for sub-paragraph (5) substitute—

(5) A person designated under paragraph 19 as the person in charge of an investigation must—

(a) submit a report on the investigation to the Director General, or

(b) where the person in charge of the investigation is the Director General acting personally, complete a report on the investigation.”;

(b) in sub-paragraph (6) after “submitting” insert “or, in the case of an investigation under paragraph 19 by the Director General personally, completing”;

(c) in sub-paragraph (8) after “submitted” insert “or, in the case of an investigation under paragraph 19 by the Director General personally, completed”.

(15) In the italic heading before paragraph 23 (action by the Commission in response to investigation reports), for “response” substitute “relation”.

(16) In paragraph 23—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1)(b) before “under” insert “, or is otherwise completed,”;

(b) in sub-paragraph (1A) (as inserted by this Act), after “submission” insert “or completion”;

(c) in each of the following places, after “receipt of the report” insert “(or on its completion by the Director General)”—

(i) sub-paragraph (2);

(ii) sub-paragraph (5A) (as inserted by this Act);

(iii) sub-paragraph (5F) (as inserted by this Act).

(17) In paragraph 24A (final reports on investigations: other DSI matters)—

(a) after sub-paragraph (2) insert—

(2A) Sub-paragraph (2)(a) does not apply where the person investigating is the Director General carrying out an investigation personally under paragraph 19, but the Director General must complete a report on the investigation.”;

(b) in sub-paragraph (3) for “this paragraph” substitute “sub-paragraph (2) or completing one under sub-paragraph (2A)”;

(c) in sub-paragraph (4) after “receipt of the report” insert “(or on its completion by the Director General)”;

(d) in sub-paragraph (5) (as inserted by this Act) after “receipt of the report” insert “(or on its completion by the Director General)”.

(18) In the italic heading before paragraph 24B (action by the Commission in response to an investigation report under paragraph 24A), for “response” substitute “relation”.

(19) In paragraph 28A (recommendations by the Commission)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1)—

(i) after “received a report” insert “(or otherwise completed one in relation to an investigation carried out under paragraph 19 by the Director General personally)”;

(ii) in paragraph (b) for “Commission itself” substitute “or on behalf of the Director General”;

(iii) in paragraph (c) after “24A(2)” insert “or (2A)”;

(b) in sub-paragraph (4)(a) after “receipt” insert “or completion”.

(20) In paragraph 28B (response to recommendation), in sub-paragraph (12) (as inserted by this Act) after “received a report on” insert “(or otherwise completed one on in relation to an investigation carried out under paragraph 19 by the Director General personally)”.

56 (1) Schedule 3 is further amended as follows (but these amendments apply only if this Schedule comes into force before the coming into force of Schedule 4 to this Act).

(2) In paragraph 19B (assessment of seriousness of conduct under investigation), in sub-paragraph (1) after “investigating” insert “or, in the case of an investigation by a designated person under paragraph 19, the Director General,”.

(3) In paragraph 20A (accelerated procedure in special cases)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1)—

(i) for “his” substitute “an”;

(ii) after “conduct matter” insert “or, in the case of an investigation by a designated person under paragraph 19, the Director General,”;

(iii) for “he” substitute “the person investigating”.

(b) in sub-paragraph (3) for “his belief” substitute “the belief referred to in sub-paragraph (1)”.

(4) In paragraph 23 (action by the Commission in response to an investigation report), in sub-paragraph (6) after “receipt of the report” insert “(or on its completion by the Director General)”.

57 (1) Schedule 3A (whistle-blowing investigations: procedure) (as inserted by this Act) is amended as follows.

(2) For “Commission”, in each place, substitute “Director General”.

(3) In paragraph 1(1) omit “itself”.

(4) In paragraph 4(2)—

(a) for “it”, where it occurs in the first place, substitute “the Director General”;

(b) for “its” substitute “the”.

Part 3

Other Minor and consequential amendments

Superannuation Act 1972 (c. 11)

58 In Schedule 1 to the Superannuation Act 1972—

(a) in the list of entries under the heading “Royal Commissions and other Commissions”, omit the entry relating to the Independent Police Complaints Commission;

(b) in the list of entries under the heading “Other Bodies”, insert at the appropriate place—

“The Office for Police Conduct.”;

(c) in the list of entries under the heading “Offices”, omit the entries relating to—

(i) the Chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Commission;

(ii) the Commissioners of the Independent Police Complaints Commission;

(iii) the Deputy Chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (c. 24)

59 In Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (bodies of which all members are disqualified), omit the entry relating to the Independent Police Complaints Commission and insert at the appropriate place—

“The Office for Police Conduct.”

Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (c. 25)

60 In Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (bodies of which all members are disqualified), omit the entry relating to the Independent Police Complaints Commission and insert at the appropriate place—

“The Office for Police Conduct.”.

Police Pensions Act 1976 (c. 35)

61 In section 11 of the Police Pensions Act 1976 (interpretation), in subsection (2A)(ba) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Office for Police Conduct”.

Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987 (c. 4)

62 In section 4 of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987 (representation etc at disciplinary proceedings), in subsection (5)(a) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Office for Police Conduct”.

Aviation, Maritime and Security Act 1990 (c. 31)

63 In section 22 of the Aviation, Maritime and Security Act 1990 (power to require harbour authorities to promote searches in harbour areas), in subsection (4)(b)(i) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General of the Office for Police Conduct”.

Police Act 1996 (c. 16)

64 (1) The Police Act 1996 is amended as follows.

(2) In the following provisions, for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General of the Office for Police Conduct”—

(a) section 50(3A)(a) (regulation of police forces) (as inserted by this Act);

(b) section 51(2B)(a) (regulations for special constables) (as inserted by this Act);

(c) section 87(1) (guidance concerning disciplinary proceedings etc) (as amended by this Act).

(3) In the following provisions, for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Office for Police Conduct”—

(a) section 84(5) (representation etc at disciplinary and other proceedings);

(b) section 88C(5)(d) (effect of inclusion in police barred list) (as inserted by this Act);

(c) section 88K(3)(d) (effect of inclusion in police advisory list) (as inserted by this Act).

(4) In section 54(2D) (appointment and functions of inspectors of constabulary)—

(a) in paragraph (a)—

(i) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General of the Office for Police Conduct (“the Director General”)”;

(ii) for “that Commission” substitute “the Director General”;

(b) in paragraph (b)—

(i) for “that Commission”, in both places, substitute “the Director General”;

(ii) for “its” substitute “his or her”.

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c. 36)

65 In Part 6 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (other public bodies and offices: general) omit the entry relating to the Independent Police Complaints Commission and insert at the appropriate place—

“The Office for Police Conduct”.

Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 (c. 21)

66 In section 4I of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 (as inserted by this Act), in subsection (5)(b) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General of the Office for Police Conduct”.

Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (c. 11)

67 (1) The Commissions for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 18 (confidentiality), in subsection (2)(g)—

(a) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General of the Office for Police Conduct”;

(b) for “its” substitute “the Director General’s”.

(3) In section 28 (complaints and misconduct: England and Wales)—

(a) in subsection (1), for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General of the Office for Police Conduct (“the Director General”)”;

(b) in subsection (2)—

(i) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission”, in both places, substitute “Director General”;

(ii) for “its” substitute “the Director General’s”;

(c) in subsection (3) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General”;

(d) in subsection (4) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission”, in both places, substitute “Director General”.

(4) In section 29 (confidentiality etc), in subsection (3)—

(a) in the words before paragraph (a), for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General of the Office for Police Conduct”;

(b) for “its” substitute “the Director General’s”;

(c) in paragraph (a), for “Commission” substitute “Director General”;

(d) in paragraph (b), for “Commission” substitute Director General”.

Police and Justice Act 2006 (c. 48)

68 (1) In section 41 of the Police and Justice Act 2006 (immigration and asylum enforcement functions and customs functions: complaints and misconduct)—

(a) in subsection (1) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General of the Office for Police Conduct (“the Director General”)”;

(b) in subsection (2A) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General”;

(c) in subsection (3) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General”;

(d) in subsection (4)(b), for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General”;

(e) in subsection (5) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General”;

(f) in subsection (6) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission”, in both places, substitute “Director General.

(2) In the heading before that section for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General of the Office for Police Conduct”

Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (c. 20)

69 In section 107EE of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (section 107EA orders: complaints and conduct matters etc) (as inserted by this Act), in subsection (5)(b) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General of the Office for Police Conduct”.

Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (c. 25)

70 In section 47 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (meaning of “interested person”)—

(a) in subsection (2)(k) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General of the Office for Police Conduct”;

(b) in subsection (5) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General of the Office for Police Conduct”.

Equality Act 2010 (c. 15)

71 In Part 1 of Schedule 19 to the Equality Act 2010 (public authorities: general), under the heading “Police” omit the entry relating to the Independent Police Complaints Commission and insert at the appropriate place—

“The Office for Police Conduct”.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (c. 13)

72 (1) The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 65 (disqualification from election or holding office as police and crime commissioner: police grounds), for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Office for Police Conduct”.

(3) In Schedule 7 (regulations about complaints and conduct matters), for “Independent Police Complaints Commission”, in each place, substitute “Director General of the Office for Police Conduct.”—(Mike Penning.)

This new Schedule contains amendments to the Police Reform Act 2002 and other enactments in connection with the re-naming of the Independent Police Complaints Commission as the Office for Police Conduct and the creation of the new position of Director General.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clauses 108 and 109 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 110

Extent

Amendments made: 149, in clause 110, page 109, line 23, leave out “paragraph” and insert “paragraphs 15E and”.

This amendment and amendment 150 provide for the consequential amendment to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in amendment 108 to extend to the whole of the United Kingdom, reflecting the geographical extent of that Act.

Amendment 150, in clause 110, page 109, line 23, leave out “that paragraph” and insert “those paragraphs”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 149.

Amendment 216, in clause 110, page 109, line 24, at end insert—

“() section (Combined authority mayors: exercise of fire and rescue functions)(11);”.

This amendment provides for the amendment to Schedule 1 to the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 in NC22 to extend to the whole of the United Kingdom, reflecting the geographical extent of that provision.

Amendment 154, in clause 110, page 109, line 28, at end insert—

“( ) section 22(8), so far as relating to paragraphs 1 to 5 of Schedule (Disciplinary proceedings: former members of MoD Police, British Transport Police and Civil Nuclear Constabulary), and those paragraphs;”.

This amendment is consequential on NS1.

Amendment 217, in clause 110, page 109, line 28, at end insert—

“( ) section (References to England and Wales in connection with IPCC functions)(2) and (3);”.

This amendment is consequential on NC23.

Amendment 218, in clause 110, page 109, line 39, after “sections” insert “62(2) to (5),”.

This amendment, together with amendment 219, provides expressly for the procedure relating to the exercise of the regulation-making power in clause 62(3)(f) to form part of the law of the United Kingdom. The regulation-making power may be used to add to the list of persons who are law enforcement officers for the purposes of Chapter 4 of Part 4 and who may therefore exercise the maritime enforcement powers in hot pursuit by virtue of clause 64 (which also extends to the United Kingdom).

Amendment 219, in clause 110, page 109, line 39, leave out from “73” to end of line 40.

Please see the explanatory statement to amendment 218.

Amendment 220, in clause 110, page 109, line 40, at end insert—

“( ) sections (Application of maritime enforcement powers in connection with Scottish offences: general)(2) to (7), (Exercise of maritime enforcement powers in hot pursuit in connection with Scottish offences) to (Maritime enforcement powers in connection with Scottish offences: other supplementary provision) and (Maritime enforcement powers in connection with Scottish offences: interpretation);”.

This amendment, together with amendment 224, set out the extent of NC29 to NC39.

Amendment 151, in clause 110, page 110, line 3, leave out “and 13” and insert “, 12E to 12G, 12L, 12N, 12AE, 12AH, 12AL to 12AS, 14A to 14D, 15D and 17C”.

This amendment provides for certain of the consequential amendments in amendments 106 to 109 to extend to England and Wales and Scotland, reflecting the geographical extent of the Acts they amend.

Amendment 221, in clause 110, page 110, line 5, at end insert—

“() section (Combined authority mayors: exercise of fire and rescue functions)(5) and (8);”.

This amendment provides for the amendments to section 26 of the Fire Services Act 1947 and section 34 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 in NC22 to extend to Great Britain, reflecting the geographical extent of those provisions.

Amendment 152, in clause 110, page 110, line 7, leave out “and 104” and insert “, 104 and 114”.

This amendment provides for the consequential amendment to the Equality Act 2010 in paragraph 114 of Schedule 2 to extend to England and Wales and Scotland, reflecting the geographical extent of that Act.

Amendment 153, in clause 110, page 110, line 7, at end insert—

“( ) section22(8), so far as relating to paragraphs 6 to 14 of Schedule (Disciplinary proceedings: former members of MoD Police, British Transport Police and Civil Nuclear Constabulary), and those paragraphs;”.

This amendment is consequential on the new Schedule NS1.

Amendment 222, in clause 110, page 110, line 7, at end insert—

“() section (Office for Police Conduct)(9), so far as relating to paragraphs 61 and 71 of Schedule (Office for Police Conduct), and those paragraphs;”.

This amendment provides for specified amendments in Part 3 of NS2 to have the same extent as the provisions amended.

Amendment 223, in clause 110, page 110, line 15, at end insert—

‘( ) Section (Office for Police Conduct)(9), so far as relating to paragraphs 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 65, 67 and 68 of Schedule (Office for Police Conduct), and those paragraphs, extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.”.

This amendment provides for specified amendments in Part 3 of NS2 to have the same extent as the provisions amended.

Amendment 226, in clause 110, page 110, line 17, after “paragraphs,” insert

“and sections (Offence of breach of pre-charge bail conditions relating to travel) and (Offence of breach of pre-charge bail conditions relating to travel: interpretation)”.

This amendment provides for NC41 and NC42 to extend to England and Wales and Northern Ireland.

Amendment 224, in clause 110, page 110, line 19, leave out “extends” and insert

“and (Application of maritime enforcement powers in connection with Scottish offences: general)(1) and (8), (Restriction on exercise of maritime enforcement powers in connection with Scottish offences) and (Maritime enforcement powers in connection with Scottish offences: obstruction etc) extend”.—(Mike Penning.)

Please see the explanatory statement for amendment 220.

Clause 110, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 111

Commencement

Amendment made: 225, in clause 111, page 110, line 41, at end insert—

‘( ) Before making regulations appointing a day for the coming into force of any provision of sections (Application of maritime enforcement powers in connection with Scottish offences: general) to (Maritime enforcement powers in connection with Scottish offences: interpretation) the Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers.”. —(Mike Penning.)

This amendment provides that the Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers before bringing NC29 to NC39 into force.

Clause 111, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 112 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[Mike Penning]

On a point of order, Mr Howarth. As is customary as we come to the conclusion of the Committee stage, we as joint Ministers will put some votes of thanks together, particularly to you, Mr Howarth, and to your co-chair, Mr Nuttall. Both of you have been very pragmatic in expediting the Bill.

I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. She is the new crime Minister, having taken over crime responsibilities from myself, when I took on something called fire.

I turn to the Opposition Front Bench, and I hope that this goes on the record. I think that this is the way that Bills should be scrutinised: agree on what we agree on, disagree on what we disagree on and talk sensibly inside and outside the Committee. We will never agree on everything but we can see that a rather large Bill has gone through Committee stage in probably record time, but with scrutiny in the areas of disagreement. I think that that is right. I pay tribute to the Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople.

My own Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, has expedited these discussions brilliantly, together with his opposite number, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington: the Whips Office has done expertly. We have to say that, don’t we?

My Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley is missing—it is outrageous —so I have a trainee PPS, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes, who has been doing absolutely brilliantly. I do not think she managed to pass me anything at all, which is very good.

The Bill managers have done brilliantly well. If I have the list right, the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, the Treasury, the Department for Transport, the Department of Health, the Department for Communities and Local Government, the devolved Assemblies and Administrations, and the Wales Office, the Scotland Office and the Northern Ireland Office—I have probably missed one or two off—have all been part of a very large but very important Bill, and been part of the process. Legislation will obviously come forward through the Bill based on that.

Hansard, who hate me, because I never pass any notes to them—thank you very much indeed. The Doorkeepers have also done brilliantly well. Can I particularly thank the people who I give the hardest time to: the lawyers in the Home Office?

Policing and Crime Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Lyn Brown and Mike Penning

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th April 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Mike Penning]

I will come on to that.

[Lyn Brown]

Oh heavens!

The Bill exempts airsoft weapons from the 1 J limit. If we pass the Bill without making the amendment, airsoft weapons will be allowed to exceed that limit; instead, they will not be able legally to exceed 1.3 J, or 2.5 J for a single-shot weapon. Why has the exemption for airsoft weapons been put in place? If the Home Office is of the view that a 1 J threshold successfully identifies a lethal weapon in other instances, why are airsoft weapons any different?

Deputy Chief Constable Andy Marsh has cited evidence from the Forensic Science Service that the 1.3 J and 2.5 J thresholds would not be lethal for airsoft weapons, as was noted by the Law Commission, but that research is from 2001 and therefore more than 14 years old. There must surely be something more recent. If there is not, why is that? Why have we not commissioned something?

[Mike Penning]

Unless my information is wrong, that research was done in 2011.

[Lyn Brown]

Well, my research tells me it was in 2001. We will wait for some inspiration on that.

There is some dispute about whether airsoft guns can be converted into weapons that can shoot lethal ammunition. I am told that numerous YouTube videos exist in which enthusiasts claim that they can do exactly that. It was revealed by a 2013 freedom of information request that the American Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives believes that some airsoft weapons can be converted. Given that, the Minister needs to explain the rationale behind the exemption of airsoft weapons from the standard 1 J limit. If 1 J is the definition of lethality and airsoft weapons can, as we understand, be converted to be lethal, it seems to me that they should comply with the 1 J limit and not be allowed a 1.3 J limit.

I accept that the Minister might well talk about the fun he has on his holidays playing these weird games.

[Mike Penning]

As well as this one.

[Karen Bradley]

This is the weirdest game!

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

Absolutely, Mr Howarth. My mind is boggling. I think I need to get back to the issue at hand.

The Minister may argue that the 1.3 J threshold is necessary to protect the airsoft industry, but the truth is that airsoft weapons could still be produced and carried without a firearms licence without this exemption; they would just have to be below the 1 J threshold of lethality. If airsoft guns are toys and not weapons, I do not see the problem with them being less powerful than lethal weapons. If airsoft enthusiasts still wish to have a powerful airsoft gun over the 1 J threshold, they could still do so without the exemption; they would just have to apply for the same licence and subject themselves to the same checks that we would expect for any other weapon that powerful. It does not seem to be too onerous a set of regulations to comply with.

Britain rightly prides itself on having among the most stringent gun control laws in the world. We see the public and their safety as the primary clients of gun control legislation. Elsewhere in the world, the so-called rights of gun owners are given preference, with tragic consequences. In this context, the Committee will be interested to know that Japan—where airsoft was invented and is profoundly popular—imposes a single 0.98 J limit on all guns, including airsoft weapons. Japanese manufacturers of airsoft weapons were happy to sign up to those regulations so, again, I do not see the need to exempt airsoft.

There must be a case for saying that a single power limit for all weapons, without exemptions or loopholes, would be legally preferable and more enforceable. That is what our amendment would achieve, and I know it is something for which the Gun Control Network, which was founded in the aftermath of the Dunblane tragedy, has campaigned. I look forward with interest to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Before I finish, I will talk about the use of airsoft weapons as realistic imitation firearms. These weapons are designed to look almost exactly like real firearms, and are only exempt from laws against the manufacture of realistic imitation firearms because of a set of defences provided in the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006. In other countries, such as Canada, airsoft weapons are treated as realistic replica weapons and regulated as such.

On seeing these guns, I was immediately worried that they could easily be used to threaten and intimidate. There is no doubt that the owners and manufacturers of these weapons pride themselves on their guns looking exactly like the most deadly of weapons. I urge members of the Committee to go online and look for themselves. Websites such as Patrol Base sell guns that look exactly like military assault rifles.

I was not surprised to read that a cache of airsoft weapons was seized in December from an ISIS terror cell in Belgium. Two men were arrested and military fatigues, airsoft weapons and ISIS propaganda were found in their property. Brussels’s main new year’s eve fireworks display was cancelled as a result of the find.

Let’s face it: if a terrorist walked down Whitehall with one of these guns and threatened to shoot us, we would fear for our lives and comply with the instructions given by the bearer of the gun if we were unable to run for our lives. Even if these weapons are not lethal, they can certainly bring fear and terror. I ask the Minister whether any thought has been given to reviewing the exemption for airsoft guns from the laws against realistic imitation firearms in the light of the incident in Belgium. If not, I strongly urge him to think about it.

I feel so passionately about this matter that if the Minister is unable to help us today, I would be happy if he would consider it further, write to me and perhaps come back to it on Report.

[Mike Penning]

As the shadow Minister indicated, we have some of the toughest firearms laws in the world. That is how it should be, and we will continue to strengthen and tighten the laws, providing clarity for the police and the public. I have looked at several aspects related to this matter.

I have two girls and I used to see toy guns when I went to toy shops with them when they were very young. Even as an ex-military man, I would not know the damn difference, from a distance, if someone came down Whitehall with one. Nevertheless, we are not going to ban all children’s toy guns. It is an offence to use a toy gun, or any other kind of replica, in that way. There are powers on the statute book.

I should declare that I have never used an airsoft weapon and I have never been to one of the play sites, but nearly 50,000 people do have the kind of fun that I have not enjoyed. Given the days I spent with real weapons, I would not fancy taking up such an invitation, but plenty of people do.

We looked carefully at proportionality and whether or not the 1 J limit recommended in the Law Commission’s report would have an adverse effect on the public’s enjoyment. We looked carefully at whether the police or the National Ballistics Intelligence Service had reported any instances of airsoft guns causing serious injuries, and they had not. We had to look at whether the effect would be proportionate on people who were enjoying an activity against which there was no evidence whatever. The Law Commission itself discussed in its report whether changing the limit would be proportionate. We have looked into the matter and can find no evidence of injuries.

We already have restrictions. I accept that other countries have made different legal decisions. I lived in Canada for a short time. Interestingly, hunting rifles and other weapons are freely available there, yet the velocity of airsoft weapons is restricted. We think that the existing legislation is proportionate. If someone wants to adapt one of these guns, other legislation is immediately triggered. For example, if it becomes a weapon and they are unlicensed, the sanction is five years or a fine. If someone creates a weapon from something that is not designed to be one and it becomes a firearm, that is captured by a completely different piece of legislation. If someone comes wandering down the street with a toy gun, let alone one of the weapons we are discussing, it is an offence if they use it inappropriately or in a threatening manner.

We do not want to prevent 50,000-odd people from enjoying themselves, even if they are enjoying themselves in ways that are slightly different from how the shadow Minister and I enjoy ourselves.

[Mike Penning]

We looked at the evidence from the police and the National Ballistics Intelligence Service. Yes, there have been injuries, in which there might have been other factors, but the police have not reported any instances of serious injuries.

I understand the shadow Minister’s concern about something that neither of us are likely ever to enjoy, but 50,000-odd people do and I do not want to prevent them from doing so. I hope she will withdraw her amendment.

[Lyn Brown]

I hear what the Minister says, but I have not heard an explanation of why an airsoft weapon could not be 1 J or less than 1 J, as is the case in Japan. No evidence has been put forward today to suggest that that would stop the enjoyment of people who want to run through forests waving firearms. The other point that I do not understand is why it would spoil their enjoyment if airsoft weapons were a different colour—pink, red or green—so that they did not look as realistic as they do at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

I have finished. I am sorry, but I do not agree.

Amendment 227 negatived.

Clause 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 78 and 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.



Clause 80

Applications under the Firearms Acts: fees

[Lyn Brown]

I beg to move amendment 228, in clause 80, page 83, line 31, leave out

“the amount of any fee that may be charged”

and insert

“that the fee charged must be equal to the full cost to the tax payer of issuing a licence.”.

This amendment would ensure that the firearms licensing system achieves full cost recovery.

[Lyn Brown]

These amendments would be a first step towards ending state subsidy of gun ownership. They would achieve that goal by ensuring that the full costs of licensing prohibited weapons, pistol clubs and museums are recovered.

Full cost recovery was a Labour manifesto pledge. It is a key objective of the Gun Control Network, and it is even stated as a policy goal in the explanatory notes accompanying the Bill. It would therefore appear that we are all united in wanting to achieve the same end. However, the Bill would bring the licensing fee regime of prohibited weapons, pistol clubs and museums in line with the fees regime that exists for standard section 1 firearms. That is a problem. I do not believe that the fees regime for section 1 firearms provides for full cost recovery, so I do not have the confidence that these proposals will achieve full cost recovery for the licences that they control.

The Bill deals with relatively narrow issues around licensing fees. At the moment, there is no system to recover costs from the licensing of prohibited weapons. Subsection (1) will allow authorities to set fees for very powerful, prohibited weapons, such as rocket launchers, which can only be obtained with the permission of the UK Defence Council. The fee will be variable and set by the Secretary of State by regulations, just as is presently the case for ordinary section 1 firearms.

Subsections (2) and (3) deal with the licensing of pistol clubs and museums respectively. At the moment, such fees are fixed under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, and the Secretary of State does not have the power to change them by secondary legislation. The Bill will bring the licensing system for those institutions in line with the licensing system for individual firearm owners by granting the Secretary of State the power to change the fees by regulation and by allowing variable fees. The Bill does not actually propose any change in the fees for pistol clubs or museums, and as a result the amount of money that these proposals involve is relatively small.

The Government estimate that these changes will bring in £570,000 a year for the Home Office, £78,000 for the English and Welsh police, £42,000 for the Scottish Government and £6,000 for Police Scotland. As it is said, every little helps. That increased revenue is welcome, as is the capacity for the Secretary of State to change the fees when the costs of licensing increase; but however welcome these changes are, the unfortunate truth is that these proposals will only make a small dent in the gun ownership subsidy that still persists in this country.

In the previous Parliament, the Labour party campaigned on full cost recovery. Fees for section 1 firearms had remained frozen for too long, and as a result the taxpayer was subsidising gun ownership to the tune of £17 million a year. That is insane. The police estimated that the cost of licensing a firearm was £196, yet the fee was stuck at £50. The taxpayer was paying three quarters of the cost of a gun owner getting a licence.

To be fair to the coalition Government, they did respond to the pressure. A working group was set up by the Home Office, the police and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation to consider the matter. After negotiations, it proposed that an £88 fee would be mutually acceptable to the police and shooters. The £88 fee was considerably short of the £196 that the police had independently estimated to be the true cost of licensing guns, but it was still a welcome increase. The £88 fee was finally introduced just before the general election. However, the fee was frozen for 14 years before it was finally increased. The £88 fee was arrived at only after negotiations with BASC and was not imposed following independent estimates.

Our amendments to the Bill would mandate the Secretary of State to set the cost of a licence for prohibited weapons, pistol clubs and museums at the full cost to the taxpayer. A legal requirement that the fee match the full cost would take some of the politics out of the process. The fee decisions would be based on an evidential analysis, conducted by the Home Office, of the true cost to the taxpayer. If the process proved to be successful for prohibited weapons, pistol clubs and museums, the Minister could consider extending it to section 1 firearms. This legislation could be a first step to true full cost recovery.

I will be interested to hear the Minister’s views on the issue. I urge him to accept amendments 228, 229 and 230. The taxpayer should not have to subsidise gun ownership, as it currently does. Our amendments would be a first step to bringing that unfairness to an end once and for all. Labour pushed hard for full cost recovery in the previous Parliament, and we have seen some movement from the Government on the issue. I urge the Minister to work with us, both by accepting our amendments today and by looking at the issue of section 1 licences in the future, to achieve what seems to be a realistic and realisable common goal.

[Mike Penning]

We are as one on the fact that the taxpayer should not subsidise licensing. The Bill, which is about Home Office licences, will not have an effect on police fees. However, given that the shadow Minister referred to police licence fees, I will respond to that as well. I completely agree that this should have been done years and years ago, under several Administrations. I will therefore look at police licence fees, which the Bill does not do, but which the hon. Lady was referring to.

The legislation has been changed. As from April 2015, police licence fees increased by between 23% and 76%, depending on the certificate type. That is the first increase since 2001. Once the new police online system, eCommerce, is introduced, fees will recover the full costs of licensing. That is specific: it is in the legislation. I had problems myself with the coalition Government, along with several of my colleagues.

Let us look briefly at the Home Office licence fees. I completely agree that it is wrong that the taxpayer is subsidising other organisations. Currently, combined, the authorisation and licensing of prohibited weapons, shooting clubs and museums costs the taxpayer an estimated £700,000 a year. I do not feel that the amendment is necessary: I will explain why. Clause 80 will create a consistent set of charging powers across all Home Office firearms licences and authorities. The Government’s intention is that licence holders, and not the taxpayer, should pay the full cost. The Government will set fees at the appropriate level, based on clause 80, but with agreement from the Treasury. Fees will be set out in a public consultation later this year, which will give affected organisations the chance to raise any issues. Final fee amounts will be introduced via regulations subject to the negative procedure.

[Lyn Brown]

What is the need for consultation on this? If the Home Office is going to impose the full cost of the licence fee on the person who is applying for the licence, what are we consulting about? If the consultation comes back with some interested group saying, “We can’t afford this—we only really want 50% or 30%,” might the Government be minded to agree with that, rather than impose the full 100% of the cost?

[Mike Penning]

There are frustrations in being a Minister, as former Ministers know. Consultation is a requirement, because we are likely to be challenged in law. That is why we consult. We will say what we want to do and then consult. One area where there may be real concern is the cost to museums. That is right. Other organisations may want to put their four pennyworth in, as often happens in consultations. We would not want to have a massively adverse effect on museums, though, so we will need to look at that. When proposing changes to legislation or to use delegated powers, it is always best to consult.

Policing and Crime Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Lyn Brown and Mike Penning

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Lyn Brown]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. The amendments would place the duty to collaborate on all NHS and public health bodies, not just NHS ambulance trusts. They would increase the scope of collaboration agreements to include local authorities. We have tabled these amendments in recognition of the fact that much of the work undertaken by the fire service and, indeed, the police service has a much broader health and social impact than just the immediate emergency response. That needs to be recognised in the Bill.

I have no doubt that NHS ambulance trusts can and do benefit from collaborating with the police force and the fire service. In many parts of the country, the fire service plays a really important role in the first response to medical incidents. In Cornwall, the fire and rescue service works with the South Western Ambulance Service to respond to medical incidents when it can get to a location first. Firefighters have received medical training and know how to use defibrillators and carry out oxygen therapy. As we are all aware, Cornwall is a rural county with many isolated communities, which is why that sort of work is so important there. In fact, over the past three years, firefighter co-responders have made a total of 1,848 life-saving interventions, which is impressive.

Cornwall is far from alone in that activity. I have been to Lincolnshire and heard about the life-saving work of its co-responding scheme. Lincolnshire is another sprawling county with isolated communities, some of which lie close to fire stations—or rather, they are closer to fire stations than ambulance stations. I was told that the most common shout or call-out was to road traffic accidents in country lanes. Similar collaborative projects are going on up and down the country.

In addition, the fire and rescue service is playing an ever more important role in medical incidents. This support is particularly important in rural and semi-rural areas, where it is difficult to provide a comprehensive and rapid response service. The Somerset fire and rescue service attended 3,525 co- and first-responding incidents in 2012-13, equivalent to 41% of its road traffic collisions and special service calls.

English fire and rescue services attended 14,688 co- and first-responding medical incidents in 2012-13, including cardiac arrests, unconscious casualties, people with breathing difficulties and other serious conditions such as anaphylactic shock. The number of co- and first-responding incidents attended by the fire and rescue services is rising by about 10% or more each year, and is expected to treble to more than 30,000 by 2020. The number of category A ambulance incidents has more than doubled since 2002-03. The fire and rescue services have helped to achieve emergency response targets for an ever-increasing number of critical medical incidents.

It is clear that our two humanitarian services—fire and ambulance—are very effective when they work together, side by side. Without getting too far into the Bill, I have raised concerns before that police and crime commissioner takeovers of fire and rescue services may lead to fewer of these sorts of collaboration. The focus and energy of administrators will instead be devoted to responding to Whitehall’s agenda or the Government’s agenda of combining the police with fire services, and not necessarily working on the area of collaboration that will have the most positive benefits for the community.

Has the Minister carried out an assessment of the risk of a reduced collaboration between the ambulance and fire services, if mergers with PCCs go ahead and, if so, what mitigation has he put in place to try to prevent that? There is stark evidence that collaboration between ambulance services and the fire and rescue services saves lives. We cannot afford to see it crowded out by a top-down decision and Government imposition from Whitehall. It makes no sense, and it could take lives.

Having established the importance of collaboration between the blue light services, I will now argue that we are far from the limit of where collaboration can improve public services. In particular, the police force and fire service can and do play a vital role in early intervention and prevention programmes that aid public health, social care and social welfare. One of the many examples I could cite is the Springboard initiative carried out by Cheshire’s fire and rescue service. Firefighters on home visits go well beyond carrying out the traditional home safety assessment, which looks at fire alarms, electrical appliances, and the like. Instead, they use their time to spot the challenges that residents face regarding their health and well-being. Firefighters then report to the relevant parts of social services and other departments in local authorities, the health service, or, indeed, various local charities so that they can meet the needs that have been identified.

This is not insignificant. If hon. Members think about referrals such as those being made in their own area and multiply that by the number of fire and rescue services in the country, one can see the real value of making that first contact with vulnerable people, the preventive actions undertaken and, frankly, the savings for the NHS or social care in catching such issues early.

From May, the Cheshire scheme will focus on smoking cessation and alcohol consumption reduction—it is Lent and I have not had some for a while—as well as reducing hypertension and blood pressure, and informing residents about bowel cancer screening. That public health duty is carried out at the behest of the local authority, and it is innovative and important. The scheme makes a vast difference to the quality of life of many elderly residents in Cheshire, and there are 25,000 of those safe and well visits each year. That really shows what an asset public trust in the fire service can be, and how the subsequent reach in communities can help to improve public health and prevent harm.

In Gloucestershire, the fire and rescue service utilises public trust to aid Public Health England to prevent winter deaths from the cold. The Gloucestershire fire and rescue service is doing its bit to aid public health on its patch by installing thermometers in the homes of over-65s and referring elderly residents to their GP for a winter flu jab. That is just a local pilot at the moment but I look forward to hearing about the results as that type of scheme may become valuable in our quest to aid older constituents to stay healthy during the cold winter.

There are many more such schemes. I could talk about them today, but I am not going to because I hope that hon. Members will mention their own schemes. The schemes lead me to ask the Minister why the Bill limits collaboration agreements to ambulance trusts. Local authorities play a vital role in all the existing schemes and, under this Government, they have been given responsibility for public health, so why are they excluded from the new duty to collaborate? The provision, as written, seems arbitrary in scope. If we are to have a duty to collaborate—although I am rather surprised that the Minister thinks it necessary—why not use the duty as an opportunity to encourage more collaboration with more partners in more ventures such as the projects I described in Cheshire, Cornwall and Lincolnshire?

I say gently to the Minister—he knows that I like him quite a lot—that I fear that the decision to limit collaboration agreements to ambulance trusts speaks to a poverty of ambition for the fire service, which was, I am afraid, a hallmark of the previous Government. The Minister has been a firefighter and I am sure that he knows how much we can use a trusted set of skilled public workers in many different scenarios in the public health arena. Rather than using the Bill as an opportunity to recast and improve our public services to have the best and most resilient services possible, the Government seem driven only by the desire to pair with the police services in the hope that, by doing so, they will be able to find some immediate cuts.

The Government can see that savings can be made by sharing back-office functions in emergency response centres, so they make that their only legislative priority, but I fear that they simply cannot see past it. It is a missed opportunity and I genuinely do not understand why. Perhaps it is because preventive and early intervention work requires the investment of resources today to reap rewards in future. Perhaps it is because it is really difficult to quantify the savings that are made in this public health agenda. For example, we do not know how many older people who did not have the flu jab would have got influenza, found themselves in hospital and been unable to go back home. It is really difficult to quantify a “what if” scenario and offer it to the Treasury as a justification for the work that is done.

The Opposition believe in collaboration between the emergency services, but we recognise that services can benefit and improve when there is collaboration in as many areas as possible. The Government’s narrow vision does not seem to recognise vital preventive health work or its potential for public and preventive health improvement. If the Minister wants to convince the Opposition that these reforms are driven by the best interests of public services, and are not merely a fig leaf for hunting for spending cuts, I urge him to look at our amendments and broaden the scope of the collaboration agreements. He is a good man; I am sure that today we will have a good response from him to our very helpful interventions.

[Mike Penning]

As the shadow Minister said, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth, and that of Mr Nuttall on Thursdays.

I fully understand where the shadow Minister is coming from. However, the Bill is concerned with emergency services. If we were looking at only fire and police and the so-called takeover for savings, which I obviously disagree with substantially, we would not have included the ambulance service. The ambulance service is specifically in the Bill in the duty of collaboration.

The shadow Minister and I could read all day about areas where collaboration has taken place. From my experience, it has not gone far enough in most cases and we need an awful lot more. Someone said to me when I was on a recent visit, “We carry defibrillators on front-line appliances these days, Minister.” That is fantastic news, but so does the cashier at Tesco and Sainsbury’s. We need to go much further than that. In some parts of the country we have done so, particularly in Hampshire, where the collaboration is such that a firefighter could not be distinguished from an ambulance technician, because they have those skills. We need to do an awful lot more of that.

I understand the shadow Minister’s point, but nothing in the Bill will stop the collaboration that is already taking place. As Fire Minister, as well as Police Minister, I am adamant that the fire service measures outcomes, although that is difficult. Where does the finance come from for that? Should that come out of the fire budget or the health and social services budget, and should they be paid? That is one of the big discussions at the moment.

The principle the shadow Minister talks of is right, but the Bill applies to the three emergency services. As a former shipping Minister, I would also like to have seen collaboration with the coastguard service, but that is probably a little step further on. Nothing in the Bill would prevent the sort of thing that the shadow Minister wants to continue to thrive and move on. With that in mind, sadly at the start of the Committee, I have to say I am sorry.

[Lyn Brown]

I am genuinely glad that the Minister and I seem to be on the same page, and that he is talking about evaluation and who is going to pay for it. I believe that the only way that we are collectively going to learn about how our services work together and the impact they can make is by evaluating them properly. With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Duties in relation to collaboration agreements

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

As I am dyslexic, I doubt it.

[Lyn Brown]

I doubt it.

Frankly, I worry that, under this Government, efficiency is synonymous with spending cuts. That is not good enough when it is targeted at a life-saving, trusted service.

Furthermore, there appear to be important discrepancies in the Bill. Clause 2(4)(a) places a duty on services to collaborate if

“the proposed collaboration would be in the interests of its efficiency or effectiveness”.

However, clause 2(4)(b) states that collaboration is required to be

“in the interests of its efficiency and effectiveness”.

First, will the Minister confirm whether he believes there is a difference in meaning between the two? Secondly, why is there such inconsistency?

Clause 3(1) makes provision that clause 2

“does not require a relevant…service in England to enter into a collaboration agreement if the service is of the view that the proposed collaboration would have an adverse effect on its efficiency or effectiveness.”

Let us follow the logic. Clause 2(4)(a) states that a proposed party must give effect to the proposed collaboration, as set out in subsection (5), if

“a proposed party is of the view that the proposed collaboration would be in the interests of its efficiency or effectiveness”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

Just to clarify, clause 2(4)(b) is wrong and I will amend it later. It should state “or” not “and”.

[Lyn Brown]

It should say “or effectiveness”. That is not good, is it?

[Mike Penning]

I think it is brilliant.

[Lyn Brown]

No, it is not.

Let us imagine that the relevant services deem that collaboration would have a positive impact on efficiency, regardless of the impact on effectiveness. Under clause 2(4)(a), those services would be duty bound to collaborate. However, if the relevant services deemed that collaboration would have an adverse impact on effectiveness, under clause 3(1) they would not be required to collaborate. That gives rise to an absurd situation whereby a service can be both duty bound and not required to collaborate simultaneously. It is, quite simply, nonsensical.

It would be very efficient to close half the fire stations in the country and halve the number of fire engines. It would certainly save money, but it would not be effective in saving lives and buildings. It would undoubtedly increase response times. Should not collaboration be both efficient and effective, saving money if possible, while providing equal if not superior effectiveness in the service? I am sure that the Minister understands my logic. I hope that he will go away and have a conversation with his team and then come back to this provision, because the Bill risks prioritising spending cuts over an effective emergency service. It is inconsistent, confusing and ambiguous.

I know that the Minister cares deeply about the emergency services that keep us all safe. I know he believes that collaboration should always be done in the name of service improvement. I therefore hope that when he leaves here and has a cup of tea for his lunch, he will consider the amendment properly. I do not mind whether he accepts it today or uses it as a drafting amendment later in the progress of the Bill.

Amendment 169 would require emergency services to consider whether collaboration would improve their capacity to respond to major incidents, such as flooding. The Bill fails to create a specific statutory duty to collaborate on major incidents. We believe that collaboration can be at its most effective when militating against major risks and responding to the worst disasters. Our amendment would direct collaboration agreements towards such major incidents, particularly floods and—as is sadly pertinent—terrorist incidents.

Unfortunately, major incidents are on the rise. As the climate has changed, flooding has become increasingly common across the country. Although we have not suffered a major terrorist attack since 2005, I think we would all agree that the threat of terrorism still looms. MI5 has set the current threat from international terrorism in the UK at “severe”.

In December, we saw much of the north of England devastated by flooding. I know that this is not news to the Government. On 5 January, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs informed the House that 16,000 properties had been flooded during the wettest December for 100 years. Many homes were flooded, bridges connecting communities were washed away, major roads were blocked and, in Lancaster, a substation was flooded, leaving tens of thousands of homes without power. In December alone, firefighters responded to more than 1,400 flood incidents across the north-west. On Boxing day, 1,000 people were rescued in Greater Manchester alone.

This winter’s example is not an isolated incident, nor is this a regional problem. In the winter of 2013-14, the south of England experienced devastating flooding. The Environment Agency reported that at least 6,000 properties were flooded, and damage to the rail network meant that a key transport link to the south-west was severed for many weeks.

Major incidents are not limited to flooding. We all remember 7/7 and the devastation caused on our streets in London. I am thankful that we have not seen another major terrorist incident of that nature. However, the recent atrocities in Paris and what is going on in Brussels today are clear reminders that we must remain prepared to deal with terrorist attacks in our major cities.

The Minister is well aware of the disaster training exercise that was carried out in a mocked-up Waterloo station two weeks ago. I really wish that I could have seen it. Firefighters and other emergency service workers carried out the UK’s largest ever simulated rescue to improve co-ordination and planning during a major incident. It was a practical demonstration of the range of demands on modern firefighters, paramedics and police officers.

Fire and rescue services’ responsibility to provide national resilience is set out in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and the national framework of 2013. Fire and rescue services are required to respond to several national and international risks, including extreme weather, terrorist threats and industrial incidents, as well as prolonged energy shortages or outages. The chief fire officers would welcome a statutory duty on resilience and the funding to support it, as the only thing for which they currently receive stand-alone funding is aerial search and rescue. That is simply not good enough.

Weather incidents are on the rise and emergency services must remain vigilant and prepared for the threat of terror, yet the mantra to justify cuts to fire and rescue services is that demand for the fire service is falling. The explanatory notes to the Bill argue that the relevant policy background is a “fall in incidents” to which the fire service responds, but we cannot even begin to measure demand on the basis of the number of times it is called out to deal with situations. We need our fire service to militate against the most severe risks and prepare the best response to those risks.

Equating demand for the fire service with call-outs, as this Government persistently do, not only overlooks the important work that our emergency services carry out in fire prevention, but fundamentally misunderstands the evolving role of the emergency services in the 21st century. There has indeed been a reduction in the number of fires in the home and in the number of fire deaths and injuries, and there has been a rise in the proportion of homes with smoke alarms from 74% to 88%, as was reported by the English housing survey. We must all welcome that important change. It is the result of fire and rescue services undertaking millions of home fire safety checks and installing fire safety products in homes, which began in earnest in 2004 with the installation of long-life smoke alarms.

Despite the focus on prevention, more than 2.5 million English homes remain without a smoke alarm, and the alarms installed in 2004 are, sadly, coming to the end of their life. Understandably, the fire and rescue services are revisiting homes and continuing to seek to reach the remaining 2.5 million-plus homes. The English fire and rescue service completed 747,990 home fire safety checks in 2012-13. I am sorry, but that is the latest year for which I have figures. The number of home safety checks peaked at 811,132 in 2008-09.

Fire and rescue services undertake other forms of community fire safety work, with 164,064 school visits, arson prevention work and youth diversion events, and 75,543 statutory fire safety inspections taking place in 2012-13. Fire safety education has become a standard feature in primary schools, with the support of fire and rescue services. All forms of community fire safety work have increased in quantity and sophistication.

Fire and rescue services are responsible for far more than responding to fires. They attend a wide range of emergencies, including road traffic collisions, floods and medical incidents. A Department for Communities and Local Government report in 2012 noted that there were 51,982 rescues and extrications of casualties by the fire and rescue service between April 2009 and September 2011 at road traffic collisions, other transport incidents, suicide attempts and other special service incidents. There are more than 20,000 rescues and extrications each year. The decline in the number of fires should not distract us from the continued important and valued life-saving role of fire and rescue services at such incidents.

Additionally, as we discussed earlier, the fire and rescue service is playing an ever more important role in attending medical incidents—termed first and co-responding incidents—at the behest of the ambulance service. That support is particularly important in rural and semi-rural areas, where it is difficult to provide a comprehensive and rapid ambulance service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

I say at the outset that I understand the intention and good will behind the amendments. I put my hand up to a typo where “and” appears instead of “or”, which will be corrected later.

I say to the shadow Minister that the duty in clause 2 would be subject to the restriction in clause 3. Clause 3(1) sets aside the duty to enter into a particular collaboration agreement if that agreement would negatively impact on efficiency or effectiveness. Therefore, the Bill specifically addresses the point she raised. I will not dwell on that because it is not a matter of semantics. She is quite right, but clause 3 addresses that.

[Lyn Brown]

Could the Minister say those words again: “She is quite right”? I love them.

[Mike Penning]

On that narrow point. I have no idea why the shadow Minister was not invited to the brilliant exercise, which was the largest we have ever seen. I was not there either, although I had been invited, because I was at Didcot, for reasons colleagues will understand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

We have discussed that with all the devolved Administrations. This proposal refers to the concordat within England, because obviously that is devolved, but I do not think that any devolved Administration would not want to do what we are discussing. They might have a different mechanism for implementing it, but nobody wants somebody with a mental illness episode to be treated any differently from someone with a broken leg or other physical injury; hopefully we have moved on from that. That is what we are trying to do.

The shadow Minister has made a point on a couple of occasions about co-responding. This is not just about rural communities—thank goodness London is now doing co-responding through a pilot. I served in areas that were quite rural areas and in areas, like the M25, that could not be described as rural—it is more like a giant car park at most times. For one reason or another, the other emergency services often did not arrive for some time.

We want to save lives. That is part and parcel of what the emergency services do. Co-responding is critical to that, as is moving on, in training terms, way beyond some of the things that we have discussed today. For instance, in Hampshire, the service was desperate to get the necessary qualifications to give fluids by IV. We know from Afghanistan and Iraq that that saves lives.

I understand the theme, but I do not agree with the amendments, because I think that they are unnecessary. Sadly, yet again, I will oppose them.

[Lyn Brown]

I thank the Minister for his response. I have not been to see London since my early days, and my early stint as the shadow Fire Minister before the election, so I am grateful to him for letting me know about the pilot. I will get in touch with London so that I can find out more, because I am interested. I have also not been to Hampshire; I do not believe that I have been invited yet. I deliberately did not go to see the flooding. I felt that it was inappropriate for me to be a water tourist, and that I would merely get in the way, so I have not been up or down to flooded areas.

[Mike Penning]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right: neither of us should be at an incident. Having politicians there is dangerous. Once it is finished and we are starting to learn, the experience that she will get from the frontline is better than any briefing she will ever get.

[Lyn Brown]

The Minister is absolutely right, which is why I spent my time as shadow Fire Minister during my first stint popping up and down the country, going to many fire and rescue authorities in constituencies represented in this room. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

I said to the people affected by flooding that when they had dried out, I would be grateful for the opportunity to come and talk to them, although I have not yet had an invitation. In my second stint as shadow Fire Minister, I look forward to renewing my request to be talked to and to pop up and down the country yet again, as part of this impressive, exciting and enjoyable part of my brief.

I am grateful to the Minister for being open to the idea of a statutory duty on flooding. We both know that professionals in the fire service have called for that duty since the last days of the last Labour Government, and I genuinely think that it would be welcome and useful. If nothing else, the fire service would welcome some kind of acceptance, understanding or acknowledgment of its work on flooding.

I have talked about major incidents, and the Minister tried to reassure me on that, but the chief officers of six metropolitan fire and rescue services recently warned that they feel that the UK’s resilience to major incidents is at threat. They genuinely believe that the reduction in plant and firefighters would make us weaker in our resilience to a terrorist threat. I do not want to ramp that up into a big issue—I am not fearmongering—but we all need to recognise that that is what our professionals are saying to us. Collectively, we do not want to get into a position where our fire services cannot respond to incidents, where they are needed.

I leave it at that. The Minister has been very generous, and very sweet in offering to invite me to the next big event, so long as the gift is in his hand and there is no other reason for me not to go.

[Mike Penning]

Scotland is waiting for you.

[Lyn Brown]

I am sure that Scotland loves me very much. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.



Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Order. I have been very generous with interventions, I remind Members that interventions need to be short and to the point, and should contain a question. So far, I do not think that any of the interventions have fulfilled any of those requirements, and I expect interventions to do so in future.

[Mike Penning]

Finally, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree that I will listen to Opposition Members and I will particularly listen to the shadow policing Minister, the hon. Member for West Ham. The duty of collaboration is welcome; there is no doubt about that. I agree with my hon. Friend completely; that is why the duty is in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.



Clause 6

Provision for police and crime commissioner to be fire and rescue authority

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Lyn Brown]

The Opposition do not believe that the Government have even begun to make the case for the fundamental governance reforms to the fire and rescue service that would be introduced by clause 6, so we will vote to remove it, and consequential schedule 1, from the Bill.

Clause 6 and schedule 1 contain provisions that allow for a police and crime commissioner to become a fire and rescue authority and, in so doing, effectively assume control of a fire and rescue service. I will have plenty to say in later debates about the lopsided process by which the Government are proposing that these takeovers should happen, and what the governance and scrutiny of the fire and rescue service would look like once the takeovers have gone ahead, but I will take this opportunity to discuss the merits of the proposal in the first place.

I know that that is not the way the Government think things should be done. They have been quite happy to go through a consultation exercise that does not ask stakeholders what they think of the merits of the proposals, and they have completely ignored the recommendation of Sir Ken Knight that these proposals need to be put through a rigorous pilot programme so that we can know whether they are likely to bring about any benefits.

It was not really a consultation, was it? It was stuffed full of leading questions that were not about whether the plans were right or about what should be done, but about how to implement them. The Government have ignored the evidence-based strategy suggested by Sir Ken. Why did the Government not undertake a pilot, as recommended by the Knight review? Why not undertake a proper risk assessment and outline the implications of the plans, alongside those of the budget cuts that are now starting to take effect and affect response times? The Government have acted on the assumption that it is a given that police and crime commissioners will get powers to take over the fire and rescue services. Why is that reasonable? They need to present arguments as to why that is a good idea. In whose interest is it? It is not right simply to propose reforms to a vital public service without producing a detailed set of arguments as to why those reforms are in the best interests of that service and the public.

Government impact assessments always start with the same two questions: “What is the problem under consideration?” and “Why is Government intervention necessary?” Those are two very conservative questions: if there is no evidence that something is not working as well as it should or that there is a problem that needs to be solved, the Government simply do not have reason to act. They should certainly not be legislating for its own sake. If the problem is London, legislate on London.

There is absolutely nothing in the impact assessment identifying tangible problems with the governance of the fire service, nor is there any attempt to explain why the legislation is necessary. The only relevant reason in the impact assessment is the fact that the Conservative manifesto pledged to “develop the role” of police and crime commissioners. Why is that? What did the fire service do to deserve this? It is an extraordinary way to go about the business of government. I am not surprised that civil servants at the Home Office could not come up with any tangible reasons why PCCs need to play a role in the governance of the fire and rescue service; there are plenty of reasons to think it is a bad idea.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

I often agree with the shadow Minister, but on this one she has taken her feed from the FBU too far.

[Lyn Brown]

What?

[Mike Penning]

That is my view. I have listened to the shadow Minister’s view, and that is my view.

I quite like some of Sir Ken Knight’s comments, which the shadow Minister quoted extensively. Sir Ken is probably the biggest reason why the measure is in the Bill. I do not know whether the Committee noticed, but the shadow Minister’s argument is almost identical to the one against PCCs taking over the police. It was a Labour party manifesto commitment to abolish PCCs. Labour lost and changed its mind. This measure is a Conservative manifesto commitment, and we will take it through Parliament.

Sir Ken Knight was specific. He said that collaboration between the emergency services across the whole country is patchy and will not begin to change consistently without more joined-up and accountable leadership. The police and crime commissioners are uniquely placed to provide that leadership, which is why we support clause 6.

[Lyn Brown]

Is that it?

[Mike Penning]

The rest of it was rubbish, so I am not going to bother responding to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

That is poor from the Minister, really poor indeed. There are serious issues here. If he wants to quote Ken Knight, let us quote Ken Knight. I ask the Minister yet again why he has not conducted the pilot that Ken suggested in his report. Why not do the pilots? My second question is: why now? We have PCC elections in a couple of months’ time, and this is not even in the manifestos of the candidates who are standing in those elections. The public will not be given an opportunity to decide whether they want X running their fire services, as well as their police services. In fact, the PCC candidates have not really been given an opportunity to debate fire services and what they would actually do with them, such as whether they would choose to take the option of putting them under the control of—

[Mike Penning]

FBU feed.

[Lyn Brown]

It is not an FBU line, and I really, really resent that suggestion. In previous discussions, the Minister and I have managed to be courteous to each other. I urge him not to diminish my political concerns by telling me that they come from someone else. They do not; they come from my being a local councillor for 18 years and my belief that local councillors and local democracy matter. The Minister has done the Committee no favours at all with his very short answers in response to the comments and concerns that my hon. Friends and I have expressed. Perhaps he would like to take some time and do it again.

Policing and Crime Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Lyn Brown and Mike Penning

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Lyn Brown]

For the time being. I did not see that when I read the Conservative manifesto last year. When I was walking around the country talking to firefighters and trying to persuade them to vote Labour, if I had realised what the Government intended to do from reading that sentence, I am sure I would have persuaded an awful lot more of them to vote red, rather than blue.

For the benefit of openness and transparency, and so that we may underpin governance with democracy, I urge the Government to accept amendment 178. What kind of localism agenda do the Government have if they are willing to force through a takeover when they have the support of neither local representatives nor the relevant electorate? This proposal was not clearly stated in the Government party’s manifesto. If the Minister rejects the amendment, his and the Home Secretary’s centralist and non-democratic agenda will be clear for all to see.

I hope that the Committee can see that the Bill is a recipe for the hostile takeover of fire and rescue authorities. Experience has shown that reorganisation without local consent and approval can lead to chaos, low morale, disorganisation and dysfunction—we only have to look at what happened in the health service. As the health service has also shown, reorganisation can waste an awful lot of money. The Minister does not want to be responsible for a top-down reorganisation as dysfunctional and anarchic as Lansley’s reforms of the NHS. He should take the opportunity to accept amendment 173. Our fire and rescue authorities need a say.

If the Minister truly believes in localism, he should also accept either amendment 177 or amendment 178. The Government have persistently argued that these reforms are part of a localism agenda, but they empower the Home Secretary to overrule the wishes of local people and their representatives. That simply cannot be right and it is not localism.

[The Minister for Policing, Fire, Criminal Justice and Victims (Mike Penning)]

From a sedentary position I accused the shadow Minister of reading a speech written by the Fire Brigades Union. It clearly was not written by the FBU because there were some really big words in there. However, some of the language in there was quite similar to what I have heard from the FBU. That was not personal and we beg to differ.

[Lyn Brown]

I am glad they listened to me.

[Mike Penning]

I apologise to the Committee but I intend to speak at length on this part of the Bill, because the previous debate on clause 6 stand part was to introduce schedule 1. I had always intended to do that because I knew the shadow Minister had extensive comments.

I will not get into top-down discussions about what happened in other Departments. I remind the shadow Minister of what happened with fire control centres being regionalised. That was probably the biggest disaster and waste of money that the fire service has seen in our lifetimes. I am still dealing with the leases and trying to get rid of them. The fire Minister at the time, a good friend of mine, was highly embarrassed about that. He was moved on to other things, wrongly in my view because he was a damn good fire Minister who stood up for what he did.

At the end of the day, the decisions on whether PCCs should take control of fire authorities will be part of a negotiation package. Let me explain what the Bill says. A PCC would need to make a local case and canvass the views of local people, including the fire authorities. If, and only if, an agreement cannot be made, then he can ask the Home Secretary to have a look at it, who then would have an independent view. Anyone who knows Tom Winsor—the shadow Minister does—will know that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary is mightily independent of the Home Office. It would be interesting for him to read that he is just a civil servant or Home Office apparatchik. He is very independent, so it does not need to be that way.

We are trying to look at this. Where collaboration has worked and where services want to come together, that is fine; and where collaboration has taken place and they do not want to come together, and nor does the PCC in that area, that is fine. Perhaps the fire authorities might want to look carefully at what is happening with the mayoral system. The shadow Minister freely admits that it has not worked in London. There will be a duly elected mayor who will be running the fire and police administratively, not operationally.

I listened carefully to what the shadow Minister had to say about councillors who have sat on committees for years. They are not elected to that role.

[Mike Penning]

It does and it allows people who do not live in London or one of the larger metropolitan areas with a mayor to have that elected person responsible. It might be difficult for councillors who have been sitting on committees for years to turn around and impartially say, “Hey, we have been doing it this way for years. There may be a better way to do this.” I fully understand why some of the councillors who have spoken to me do not want change. That is the same argument we had when police authorities were removed and the PCCs came in. The PCCs are an unmitigated success—they must be, because Her Majesty’s Opposition are supporting them. Therefore, given that the Government had a manifesto commitment to push forward with giving them this role—it is there in black and white—why would we not do so?

To mitigate the concern raised several times by the shadow Minister that money that comes from the fire precept could be offset and used for police, those are two separate funding streams that cannot—

[Lyn Brown]

Currently.

[Mike Penning]

No, not currently, because under the legislation they cannot be used across. Of course, common sense could be used. For instance, if a new police station is being built, we could bring joint funding together for that, but the accounting officer would have to agree to that.

Why do we need to do that? In my visits around the country I have been shown brand spanking new police stations—lovely! When we asked whether there was a consultation with fire to see whether they could be in there, we were told, “Well, we did think about it, but actually we needed it quite quickly and we needed it here.” The real difficulty is that we cannot put a fire station into a police station—those big, red engines do not fit in so well—but we can do it the other way around. We have seen that, and it has operated well. The rationale behind what we are trying to do is that when common sense cannot be agreed on, there must be a mechanism. The cost of a referendum would be astronomical and disproportionate. I did not hear of referendums when the fire control centres were regionalised either, but that was an unmitigated disaster.

I will touch on a couple of other points. The PCCs categorically have to make sure that they consult, because otherwise they will put their business case to the Home Secretary and when the independent review is provided their case will be rejected. The Bill confers a duty on PCCs to

“consult each relevant authority about the proposal”.

That ensures that consultation requirements capture all local authorities that operate fire and rescue committees or nominate members to a combined or metropolitan authority. That is in the Bill—it is physically there.

The other thing that I thought was somewhat concerning in one of the amendments was the concept that we would have to combine a referendum with when a local election takes place. In my part of the world in Hertfordshire, if that was talked about just after county elections it would be four years before we would have the next all-up county elections, and I do not think that would be acceptable.

The Bill’s concept is to try to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent more efficiently and to keep separate emergency services. The hon. Member for North Durham touched on where ambulance services were and, interestingly enough, plans are already coming forward to some PCCs for triage ambulances to be brought in by local health service commissioners. That will evolve, but we are trying to have two blue lights working closely and the ambulance service working in two-tier collaboration. With all due respect to the shadow Minister, I think all the amendments are a delaying tactic for people who do not want that. If we are really honest about it, that is what they are about.

I respect that the Labour party does not want PCCs to run fire authorities, but I humbly disagree. I want duly elected people accountable to the public running the fire and rescue service where agreements can be made, based on existing fire authorities. That is crucial. There are other areas where there will be difficulties, but why should it be different for someone who lives in a metropolitan area from someone who lives in Hertfordshire? That is fundamentally wrong, so I ask the Committee to reject the amendments, which in my opinion are a delaying tactic.

[The Chair]

When the hon. Lady responds, will she give some indication of which amendments—if any—she wishes to proceed with?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

Actually, I will be very generous and write to the whole Committee. I say subtly to the shadow Minister that she may find, when I get a chance to speak, that I have a degree of sympathy with what she is saying, although I will probably not be able to accept the new clause.

[Lyn Brown]

That is the best news I have had all day, but I will still go on.

If I were the Minister, there are three features of fire and rescue services and flood services on which I would want to be assured, so that I slept well at night. In homage to the three E’s of the post-1997 Labour Government of economy, efficiency and effectiveness—how could we forget?—I will name them the three R’s. As a Minister, I would want to know the following. Is each fire and rescue service robust—does it have the capacity to carry out the functions expected of it? As for resilience, can it continue to function under conditions of emergency and strain? On resources, does it have an adequate and sustainable budget to provide the resources it needs to undertake its functions? Those are the matters that I would expect the chief inspector of fire and rescue to support. In speaking to new clause 13, I am inviting the Minister to share with us how he envisages being assured that the fire and rescue services in England and Wales are robust, resilient and resourced.

New clause 14 would make the scrutiny and inspection regime I am calling for more rigorous by introducing a set of national standards into the fire service. The standard of protection and care that somebody receives from the fire and rescue service should not depend on where they live. Fire and rescue services have the freedom to develop their own standards of emergency cover, and that means that there is no national coherence in service standards. Across the country, despite the hard work of our dedicated and professional fire service, response times are increasing and fewer hours are being spent on preventive work as a result of the budget cuts imposed by the Government.

Being an ex-firefighter himself, I know that the Minister is aware that when dealing with a risk to life, every minute counts. Studies on response times have shown that if a person survives near to a fire for nine minutes, by one minute later the fire can increase in size by such an extent that they will die. More worryingly, if that is possible, nine minutes after ignition, a fire might still be small enough for the first crew in attendance to put it out with a hose reel, whereas one minute later, the fire could have grown by so much that it cannot be extinguished until another crew arrives and more complex firefighting systems are set up. The difference between arriving after nine and 10 minutes is not just a minute worse—response times do matter. I know that the Minister agrees with me on that, so I will not embarrass him by asking him to agree. He has been a professional, and he understands the issue.

A Government who were interested in leadership and the improvement of public services would introduce minimum standards across the country to tackle that issue. Those would provide a warning sign when reductions in spending and service provision created an unacceptable level of risk. It might also encourage an improvement in the slipping response times if standards were set starting from the principle of providing genuine and progressive improvement in the service that is provided to the public. Sadly, given the budget reductions before us, things will get worse.

The National Audit Office produced a report in November last year on the sustainability of fire services. It found that the Government did not know whether service reductions were leading to increased risk, and that they will only become aware of imprudent service reductions after the fact. That, the National Audit Office argued, was in large part because the Government do not model risk and have not sufficiently scrutinised the processes.

New clause 14 would provide national standards below which no fire and rescue service should drop. We would like to see national standards for response times; preparedness for major incidents; the quantity and quality of preventive work; firefighter fitness; equipment, including personal protective equipment; and training. Such a move would deal with many of the alarming findings in the National Audit Office report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

I can well believe it. Where was I?

[Mike Penning]

Finishing.

[Lyn Brown]

In his dreams. Currently, each fire and rescue authority carries out its own integrated risk management plan. Using the level of risks and the resource available to the service, they set their own standards. Those standards can vary both in outcome and in how they are measured. For example, in 2013-14 Merseyside fire and rescue service had a three-tier target for response standards. The standard for incidents that were considered high risk was set at 5 minutes, 59 seconds; medium risk at 6 minutes, 59 seconds; and low risk, 7 minutes, 59 seconds. In the same year, Cheshire fire and rescue service replaced its variable response standards with a blanket 10-minute response standard for all incidents where someone’s life might be at risk. That is particularly shocking in light of the information regarding response times I referred to earlier. It really is time for us to begin to think about what a standard response time should look like across the country. I know that the term “postcode lottery” has become a cliché when we talk about public services, but those figures show that the standard of service people are receiving really does depend on where they live. We do not accept that inequality in service in our schools or in our hospitals, and we should not accept it in our fire service.

There is another concern. While I believe that most people understand that the fire and rescue service is delivered by their local authority, people still have some concept of fire and rescue as a national service that should be delivered in a uniform fashion. Therefore, even where people understand that it is provided locally, failure to deliver a reasonable standard in one area will directly affect people’s trust in their own fire and rescue service.

In conclusion, the system as it stands is unfair and quite possibly unsafe. National standards have worked in our schools and hospitals, but the Government have not introduced national standards in the fire service. This is not just about creating national standards for national standards’ sake, but trying to use them to improve the service. They can be used as a tool to arrest slipping response times and ensure that everybody receives an acceptable level of service from their fire and rescue service. If the Minister truly wants to show leadership—and I know that he does—and if the Government are interested in improving public services, I urge him to support our new clause 14, along with new clause 13 and amendment 179. Inspection, scrutiny and standards are all central to public service delivery.

[Mike Penning]

I will deal with the bit I cannot agree with. We probably could have saved the Committee 25 minutes, because I agree with most of the latter part of the hon. Lady’s comments, and we can do something about them. It was not the latter part of her speech that convinced me, but the first line, because it is common sense.

On amendment 179, when a PCC takes responsibility for the fire and rescue service, the remit of the associated police and crime panel will be extended to include scrutiny of the PCC’s fire and rescue function. Under the balanced appointment objective, which was set out in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, the panel has to have the skills to make sure that it can act, as the hon. Lady requested. Not one of them has come to me and indicated that they are so rushed that they could not do this. Bringing other skills to that panel would be really good.

On inspection, the present peer review is something that the Home Secretary and I, and all the chiefs I have spoken to, believe is not acceptable, and we are going to review it. I will not set up a brand spanking new one because it was abolished for a reason, as it was very expensive. However, we will have a non-peer review. If someone is reviewing their mates down the road, the assumption, although I know they are all professionals, is that they will look at what they want to look at, not at what they do not. We will look at that, although I am not certain I will have a provision ready for Report. We will work together on that, because it is particularly important. It is also important that we get together all the professionals in the fire service, including the unions, to ensure that we can do that.

I am sympathetic, too, to the point on national standards. This is where I will be gentle. We were not in government 13 years ago when national standards were abolished and it was decided to make decisions locally, as the hon. Lady remarked. However, we need to have something not dissimilar to the College of Policing, so that we can bring professionals together to have a better understanding of response.

This is a really complicated area. I am conscious that the workforce in the fire service has moved an awfully long way in the past couple of years. However, to get this right we may need to do more. In the north-west, referred to by the hon. Lady, there are only 24 retained firefighters in the whole of Merseyside. In my part of the world, we have an awful lot. As for the hon. Lady’s constituency, there are none in London. It is ludicrous in the 21st century that stations are closing when we could have day manning—eight hours—and night retained.

I have said before that I was an Essex fireman. This is very important—not that I was a fireman, because I was not a very good one—because I was a qualified fireman who went to work and did my job. However, when something happened on the hon. Lady’s patch and they needed mutual aid from Essex, believe it or not, we had to come from Southend, Leigh or Basildon to go to London ground, because London would not allow retained firefighters to come to London ground, even though they needed the help. I know the reason why but I will not bring it up in Committee because it would not help. They had to come and back-fill for us, so we as whole-timers came into London. In the 21st century, when so many of those retained firefighters are whole-time, certainly in my part of the world, that is the sort of thing we are looking at.

In the north-west, Lancashire has moved to an 8/8 system. The whole-time firefighters do the busy times—they are all there at the same time—then they move to a whole-time retained situation at night. That is why one size is not going to fit all for the whole country; it cannot. The hon. Member for North Durham, who is not in his seat at the moment, might be interested to know that there are police community support officers in that part of the world who are retained firefighters. I cannot think of anything more community spirited in this wonderful country where volunteering is widespread. I know we will talk about volunteering again later. What more could we want?

One size is not going to fit all, which is why 13 years ago, the Labour party abolished response times. It is for locals to make up their own mind. However, I take on board the fact that we need to look carefully, as we have done with the police and the College of Policing, at a better way to ensure that we have a common standard that includes recruit training. Admittedly, many fire services around the country have not recruited for many years, but they will do so eventually, because that is the nature of the job as people retire. We should also include training through the system and the ranks, as we get skills coming forward.

I fully understand that point, and I will do as much as I can to work together with the relevant bodies on that. I think the hon. Lady might agree, as she indicated this was a probing amendment, and withdraw it.

[Lyn Brown]

The Minister has just made my day. What can I say? I am a very happy shadow Minister standing here. It is lovely to be so loved. I also want to pay respect to the retained firefighters, but, if the Minister does not mind, I am not going to be drawn into a debate about crewing, although I recognise what he says about boundaries. For me, that is where the Bill does not do it. We need to make sure our borders are softer than they actually are in order to keep our communities safe. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

Fire services, like the rest of local government, asked for a four-year settlement and were given one. They know exactly where their budgets are. The Government amendment to schedule 1, to which we will come later, ensures that there will remain clear, transparent accounting arrangements for fire funding, and that effective scrutiny and accountability arrangements are in place. I reiterate that a PCC will not be able to use a fire budget for policing or vice versa. It says specifically on the face of the Bill that that cannot be done. Nothing in the Bill indicates anything to do with privatisation. I never heard of the fire service being privatised in the whole time that I served in it. I know that a bit of scaremongering is going on, but the Bill is absolutely rigid on that.

It is for Parliament to decide the funding arrangements, but the funding is set in statute, and everybody knows exactly where they are. There will be separate paths. Of course accountability is necessary, for instance on procurement, as we discussed earlier. I intend to publish a procurement table soon, like the one I published for the police, so that everybody in the country will know the main items purchased by the fire authorities, how much they paid for them and any discrepancies, so we can bring things together. I have used white shirts as an obvious example. At the moment, I can guarantee that most white shirts are being bought by the police and not by the fire service. There is no collaboration in the purchasing requirements. Surely that is logical, but the accounting for that will not come out of one budget; naturally enough, it will be done across the piece.

I think that generally, the shadow Minister feels that money could be taken from one pot and put in the other, but it does not say that on the face of the Bill, and I give guarantees on the Bill. She looks at me very nicely, as if she might not believe me. The Bill is quite specific that there will be two separate funding streams, to be accounted for with the accountability and scrutiny required. Only when collaboration occurs do we want to consider joint purchasing, and then it will be separated out. I honestly do not see the need for the amendment. If people keep talking about privatisation of the fire service, somebody somewhere might believe it, although not anyone on the Government Benches.

[Lyn Brown]

I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. It has gone further than what is written on the face of the Bill. I ask him to take our amendment away and think about it, and consider whether he can make what is on the face of the Bill just a little more convincing. At the moment, we are not convinced, and there are people out there who are not either. We would be grateful if he considered doing so, but we will not push the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 1, in schedule 1, page 114, line 34, at end insert—

‘(3A) A fire and rescue authority created by an order under section 4A must appoint a person to be responsible for the proper administration of the authority’s financial affairs (a “chief finance officer”).

(3B) A fire and rescue authority created by an order under section 4A must appoint a person to act as chief finance officer of the authority if and so long as—

(a) that post is vacant, or

(b) the holder of that post is, in the authority’s opinion, unable to carry out the duties of that post.

(3C) Section 113 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (qualifications of responsible officer) applies to a person appointed under subsection (3A) or (3B) as it applies to the persons having responsibility for the administration of financial affairs mentioned in that section.”—(Mike Penning.)

This amendment and amendment 2 require a fire and rescue authority created by an order under new section 4A of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 to appoint a chief finance officer who is responsible for the proper administration of the authority’s financial affairs.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 2 to 24 and 26.

[Mike Penning]

I am pleased to say, based on my scribbled notes from earlier discussions, that these are consequential amendments.

[Lyn Brown]

I would like to speak about amendment 8, which is part of this group. If the Minister wanted to call for a comfort break and a cup of tea, I would not object.

The amendment states that a chief constable, when playing the role of a fire and rescue authority, must secure “good value for money” from the fire and rescue service and from persons exercising functions delegated by the chief constable. I genuinely do not understand why the Government have tabled the amendment. I honestly do not get it. Would a chief constable performing the role of a fire and rescue authority in this scenario not already be covered by the obligation for local authorities to seek best value? If so, what is different and additional about the amendment? It appears to have an exclusively monetary focus on value, but does the Minister really think that fire and rescue authorities are not already trying to deliver the best service they can with the budgets they are set? If he does, why is he not confident that chief constables will also be honest and diligent administrators under his single employer model?

I must say that the task of deciphering the Government’s intentions is sometimes made more difficult by the process whereby they carry out legislation. The amendment was one among 56 pages of amendments that were dumped on my desk just a few days before this sitting. That meant that my whole weekend—Friday night, Saturday and Sunday—was taken up by working on the Bill. If the Bill had been in better order before it came before the Committee, the Minister would not have had to table so many amendments just before the sitting.

These are amendments, rather than original clauses, so they do not come with explanatory notes. I have not had the time to scrutinise or study them properly. I wonder whether this is the right way to go about parliamentary process. I have stood up to speak on this amendment so I can draw to the Committee’s attention the concerns that have been brought to me. The amendment might be used as a justification for the outsourcing of front-line services. One could imagine a situation where a chief constable outsources services to a private contractor and argues that his hands were tied as the contractor could deliver the service at a lower cost than the direct provision by the fire and rescue service.

We will get to privatisation later, but I am sure that the Minister would like to take the opportunity to put those fears to bed by offering a comprehensive reason as to why the Government felt the need to table amendment 8.

[Mike Penning]

I cannot believe that we are talking about privatisation again, especially on this group of amendments, but let me reiterate what I said earlier. There is absolutely no pressure, innuendo or anything else in the Bill on privatisation. The shadow Minister mentioned best value and asked why we are doing this. When I became the Fire Minister, I took a look at type-approved procurement. Our police service desperately needs body armour, and there was nearly £300 difference between one force and another. Where is the best value there? On batons, there was a difference of nearly £80. I would love to say that every single force will do exactly what we would expect them to do and get best value for the taxpayer, but with the Bill we are ensuring that that is exactly what they do and that is what it says on the tin. It has nothing to do with private provision. I hope that I have helped the hon. Lady out once and for all, but perhaps not.

[Lyn Brown]

I will press the Minister further on privatisation a little later, but I genuinely do not understand: first, why amendment 8 was not in the Bill in the first place; secondly, why it does not come with an explanatory note; and, thirdly, why the chief constable is not already covered by the obligation on local authorities to seek best value. I genuinely do not get it, and I would be grateful if the Minister let me know why the amendment is here in this form. It is being added late to the Bill with no explanatory note and, because there is no explanatory note, it is open-ended.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

No, no, I do not need that, but I happily accept that the contracts I have spoken of came under a Labour Administration.

We all benefit from full and proper mitigation of the dangers posed by fire, flooding and other natural disasters. If a factory is ablaze, it is not just the factory owner and the workers who benefit from a swift response, but all the people in surrounding buildings who do not see the fire spread. It follows that we put all that at risk when provision of fire services moves away from the desire to increase resilience and mitigate risk.

If resources are diverted away from unprofitable and risky objectives into covering profitable but comparatively less risky objectives, we all suffer and are slightly less safe. Make no mistake: if and when a fire service is allowed to be run for profit, that is what may well happen. Businesses with big pockets but relatively low fire risks will divert resources away from where they are really needed. We cannot allow that to happen. The principle that protection from the risk of fire is a public good and a universal public interest is what makes privatising the fire and rescue service a fundamentally bad idea.

When the Government abandoned their plans for back-door privatisation in Cleveland, the then Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government offered what was, to be fair, an unequivocal commitment to prevent privatisation of fire and rescue services in future. This is what he said:

“Let me be absolutely clear. We will make no move, directly or indirectly, that involves the privatisation of the fire service. It is not our intention, nor will we allow, private firms to run the fire service.”

I invite the Minister to make a similar unequivocal statement today. In fairness, I have asked him to do so before, but I feel that he has ducked the question. If he does it again today, I put it to him that people have every right to be worried that the reforms are intended to be a pathway to back-door privatisation, especially if he rejects our amendments ruling out front-line privatisation.

If the reforms are intended as a back door to the privatisation of the fire and rescue service, that is a disaster. Privatisation is not in the interests of public safety, it is not popular and when it has been tried, it has failed. No wonder the Government would not contemplate privatising the service in the open. I hope that they do not try to get there covertly. I am looking for an absolutely clear statement that this Government will not allow privatisation.

[Mike Penning]

Let me make it clear that there are no plans to change the legislation to enable privatisation of the fire service—end of story. I completely agree with what the Secretary of State said. Hopefully, the scaremongering can now cease. However, I say to the shadow Minister that there are measures restricting what work can be done by our fire services that is presently being done by the private sector. I am looking very carefully at them, because I am not happy with them.

Going back all those years to when I was a young fireman, one thing that I used to do was fire prevention officer work. We would go out and do inspections of care homes and old people’s homes. We had a relationship. Let me give the Committee an example of what happened in my own constituency. I got a phone call from the warden of a residential home saying that some of the residents were in tears and very upset because the fire brigade had been there to do an inspection and had told them they had to remove their mats, all the pictures from the corridor and their plastic flowers from the windowsills. Why would the fire service do that? I shot over there and said, “I have no idea why the fire service would dream of doing such a thing,” because personally, as an ex-fireman, I could not see the risk. “Let me ask the chief constable.” The chief constable wrote back to me and said, “It’s a private company doing it for the local authorities. We can’t bid for that work, because we are not allowed to show that we make a profit from it.” That is not privatisation of the fire service; it is doing work at cost so that the private sector does not scare people in my constituency. That is one reason why I am considering the measures carefully.

To give another example, I went into the workshops in Hampshire; they have some fantastic workshops. They are not allowed to bid for work from local government agencies, because they are not allowed to make a profit. I do not think that the shadow Minister does not want those facilities to be used in the right sort of way, but I categorically reject the need for this change, because there are no plans to change the legislation, which is not in this legislation. For instance, a firefighter has a right of entry. That right is reserved to firefighters. That cannot be done. The police have rights and the fire service has rights. That is in statute.

I say, very respectfully, that we should just nip this in the bud here and now. I cannot be any more adamant. Actually, perhaps I could go a little bit further: I would not be the fire Minister should we privatise the fire service. I would not do that job. And there is no plan.

[Lyn Brown]

I am really grateful to the fire Minister for making that clear. What I do not understand is why he will not accept amendment 189.

[Mike Penning]

Because there is no need for it.

[Lyn Brown]

I do not care whether there is a need for it or not. I do not understand why the Minister will not accept it. I will push it to a vote, but I would be really grateful if he came back with a form of words that were his own and that he felt made this position absolutely clear in the Bill.

[Mike Penning]

I could not have been any more explicit. I do not think any Minister ever has been more explicit about the lack of a need for an amendment, because the legislation is not even here to allow that to happen. So why would I accept an amendment that is on a false premise? That is why not. I suggest the hon. Lady pushes the amendment to a vote—let the Committee decide.

[Lyn Brown]

The Minister understands where this is coming from, because he understands what fissures were rocketed through the fire service community when the whole Cleveland debate was happening, and when his own Ministers were talking so expansively about how this would be a jolly good thing.

[Mike Penning]

Then push it to a vote.

[Lyn Brown]

I know the former Secretary of State was quite clear and unequivocal in what he said, but surely the Minister can see the desire to have this in the Bill, because it would completely and utterly allay all worries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

I beg the Committee’s pardon, but I shall not respond to the comments on privatisation again; I have addressed them and we are where we need to be.

If I accepted amendment 75, it would remove a key advantage of the Bill: the ability of local areas to realise the benefits of the single-employer model where the local case is made. In doing so, it would restrict the options available to local areas in driving further collaboration between the police force and fire services. It would destroy a key part of the Bill.

Although the shadow Minister seems to think that I will be the Minister for ever such a long time, that is not the case, because I am an old man. It is imperative that we keep the three options as they are. The key to the Bill is giving the options for collaboration. The single-employer model is vital to that. I therefore urge the shadow Minister to withdraw her amendment. Otherwise, we will have to vote it down.

[Lyn Brown]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: 6, in schedule 1, page 118, line 1, after “(7)” insert

“Subject to subsections (7A) to (7C),”

This amendment and amendment 7 apply where fire and rescue functions are delegated to a chief constable by an order under new section 4F of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004. They require the police force’s chief finance officer to be responsible for the proper administration of financial affairs relating to those functions and enable other employees to be responsible for financial affairs relating both to fire and to policing.

Amendment 7, in schedule 1, page 118, line 5, at end insert—

‘(7A) Where an order under section 4F is in force in relation to the chief constable of the police force for a police area, the person who is for the time being the police force’s chief finance officer is to be responsible for the proper administration of financial affairs relating to the exercise of functions delegated to the chief constable under the order.

(7B) Subsection (7) does not prevent a person who is employed as a finance officer for fire functions from being at the same time employed as a finance officer for police functions.

(7C) In subsection (7B)—

“finance officer for fire functions” means a member of a chief constable’s fire and rescue staff who—

(a) is not a chief finance officer of the kind mentioned in subsection (7A), and

(b) is employed to carry out duties relating to the proper administration of financial affairs relating to the exercise of functions delegated to the chief constable under an order under section 4F;

“finance officer for police functions” means a member of a chief constable’s civilian staff within the meaning of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 who—

(a) is not a chief finance officer of the kind mentioned in subsection (7A), and

(b) is employed to carry out duties relating to the proper administration of a police force’s financial affairs.”

See the explanatory statement for amendment 6.

Amendment 8, in schedule 1, page 118, line 45, at end insert—

‘( ) The chief constable must secure that good value for money is obtained in exercising—

(a) functions which are delegated under the order, and

(b) functions relating to fire and rescue services which are conferred on the chief constable by or by virtue of any enactment.

( ) The chief constable must secure that persons exercising functions delegated by the chief constable under the order obtain good value for money in exercising those functions.”

This amendment places a duty on a chief constable to whom functions are delegated under an order under new section 4F of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 to secure good value for money in the exercise of the chief constable’s fire and rescue functions.

Amendment 9, in schedule 1, page 118, line 48, leave out “and” and insert—

“() secure the exercise of the duties relating to fire and rescue services which are imposed on the chief constable by or by virtue of any enactment,”

This amendment and amendments 10 and 11 ensure that a fire and rescue authority created by an order under new section 4A of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 may scrutinise the exercise of fire and rescue functions conferred on a chief constable by any enactment as well as functions delegated to the chief constable under an order under new section 4F of that Act.

Amendment 10, in schedule 1, page 119, line 2, at end insert “, and

() secure that functions relating to fire and rescue services which are conferred or imposed on the chief constable by or by virtue of any enactment are exercised efficiently and effectively.”

See the explanatory statement for amendment 9.

Amendment 11, in schedule 1, page 119, line 4, leave out

“the functions which are delegated under the order”

and insert “such functions”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 9.

Amendment 104, in schedule 1, page 120, line 11, at end insert—

In section 5A (powers of certain fire and rescue authorities) in subsection (3) (authorities to which powers apply)—

(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (c), and

(b) at the end of paragraph (d) insert “, or

(e) created by an order under section 4A.””

This amendment and amendment 105 make provision for the general powers of fire and rescue authorities in section 5A of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 to apply to a fire and rescue authority created by an order under new section 4A of that Act.

Amendment 105, in schedule 1, page 120, leave out lines 13 to 27.—(Mike Penning.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 104.

Amendment proposed: 178, in schedule 1, page 123, line 17, at end insert—

‘(4) An order under section 4A, where modified or not by the Secretary of State, may only be made with either: consent of the relevant local authority and relevant fire and rescue authority, or a majority vote by local people through referendum.”—(Lyn Brown.)

This amendment would ensure that a PCC can only take over a Fire and Rescue Service with the approval of local people or their local representatives.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

I beg to move amendment 185, in clause 7, page 6, line 16, after “functions”, insert

“, with the decision of the monitoring officer in that authority being final in the event of a dispute on fire related business,”

This amendment would empower the monitoring officer to deal with any disputes in county or unitary fire and rescue authorities about what matters a police and crime commissioner could vote on.

As drafted, the Bill fails to deal with any disputes in county or unitary fire and rescue authorities about what matters a police and crime commissioner should be able to vote upon. Amendment 185 would remove any ambiguity and empower the relevant monitoring officer to rule on any disputes. This is a dead simple amendment, and I would be really surprised if the Minister did not accept it.

Clause 7 would allow a police and crime commissioner to attend, speak and vote at meetings of county or unitary fire and rescue authorities where the business relates to the functions of the council as a fire and rescue authority. This is the so-called representation model: PCCs have a role in the governance of fire and rescue services. In the case of the 15 county fire and rescue authorities—such as Cumbria, Gloucestershire, Northamptonshire and Suffolk, as well as the case of Cornwall—that means they could attend full council meetings when business relating to the functions of the fire and rescue authority was being discussed.

For some items of business, it will be easy to decide whether the business relates to the function of the fire and rescue authority, and therefore whether the PCC is able to speak and vote on it. However, there is a danger that a PCC may use his or her voting rights on fire matters to proliferate their influence throughout local government. Even if they do not wish to do so, there is plenty of scope for dispute about what voting and speaking rights they have. A PCC could potentially make the case that almost any area of business relates to the fire service. Planning could have an effect on response times. Should a PCC be able to speak and vote, therefore, on all matters relating to planning? The fire service clearly has a role to play in any local government public health strategy. Does that empower a PCC to speak on any matter pertaining to public health?

At council budget-setting meetings in February each year, councils discuss their whole budgets. One may decide to invest more in adult social care and less in the fire and rescue service as part of a balanced budget package. During the meeting, the council will vote on whether to agree the overall budget proposals. The PCC may not wish to see reductions in the fire and rescue service budget. Is the PCC entitled to vote on the budget as a whole? That would have implications for who gets social care, the safeguarding of children, waste disposal and even road repairs.

It is not sensible for us in Westminster to try to answer such questions legislatively. They are better answered locally by those who intimately understand how their council works. Our amendment would give the local authority’s monitoring officer the final adjudicating authority in county or unitary fire and rescue authorities about what matters the police and crime commissioner can and cannot vote on. They will do so by weighing up what business relates to the functions of the council as a fire and rescue authority. I look forward with much interest to what the Minister has to say about our excellent amendment.

[Mike Penning]

If clause 7 were not in the Bill, I would expect the shadow Minister to introduce it. The clause provides for PCCs to request to be represented on the fire and rescue authorities where they do not take responsibility for governance of the fire and rescue service. Where such a request is accepted, PCCs would have full voting rights to ensure that they take part in the business of the fire and rescue authority in a meaningful and effective way. Where the county or unitary FRAs do not have a dedicated committee for fire, the Bill provides for the PCCs’ ability to attend, speak and vote to be restricted to matters relating to the functions of a fire and rescue service authority, and local appointing committees to consider how these arrangements work in practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

We support the reforms to the governance of the London fire brigade. I will not oppose the clause, but I will speak with some sadness about why we have come to support the abolition of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority.

It is fair to say that the effectiveness of the authority has been hampered by the London Mayor and his use of direction. He has repeatedly used direction to overturn the democratic decisions of the fire authority members. The power of direction was intended to be used only in exceptional circumstances; unfortunately, the Mayor has used it almost routinely. He has made more than a dozen formal directions, including to secure the biggest cuts to the London fire brigade in its 150 years, closing 10 fire stations, losing 552 firefighters’ posts and axing 14 fire engines. Alternative proposals would have meant that stations did not need to close, but despite nine out of 10 of those taking part in a public consultation being opposed to the closures, the Mayor prevailed.

The Mayor did not stop there. Fire authority members have a duty to sell former fire stations for the best consideration, but they were unable to sell them, for example, for key worker or social housing. I understand that the Mayor then intervened in the sales process, trying to sell former fire stations to the Education Funding Agency for free schools at lower than the market price. The Mayor’s involvement even politicised the process to recruit a replacement commissioner for the London fire brigade. Traditionally, there has been cross-party consensus on the approach to take, but now the whole recruitment process has been deferred until after the election this May, in effect creating a two-year hiatus. There are more examples, but the point is clear: Labour supports the clause and the abolition of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority because the Mayor has made the existing arrangements untenable through disregard of the views of other elected representatives.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2

The London Fire Commissioner

[Mike Penning]

I beg to move amendment 27, in schedule 2, page 132, line 36, at end insert—

“In section 21 (disqualification from being the Mayor or an Assembly member) after subsection (1) insert—

‘(1A) Subsection (1)(a) does not prevent a person appointed under section 67(1)(b) as the Deputy Mayor for Fire, or appointed under section 67(1)(b) and designated as the Deputy Mayor for Fire, from being elected as or being an Assembly member.’”

This amendment has the effect that a person who is appointed or designated by the Mayor of London as the Deputy Mayor for Fire may be elected as, or may continue to be, a member of the London Assembly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

Amendment 186 would expand the remit of the fire and emergency planning committee, which is the body that the Bill will create to scrutinise the performance of the London Mayor, the deputy mayor for fire and the London fire commissioner on fire matters. Amendment 187 would slightly expand the role of the London fire commissioner by giving him or her equivalent delegated powers over economic development and the environment to those held by the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime.

I tabled amendment 186 because the Bill envisages a very narrow remit for the fire and emergency planning committee. Under the Government’s proposals, the committee will be able to look only at fire matters. That does not acknowledge the changing nature of the fire service in London, which, like brigades up and down the country, is increasingly playing a role in resilience and flooding issues as part of its day-to-day role. For example, we recently saw the London fire brigade take a lead on Exercise Unified Response, which brought together key stakeholders in the capital to test their ability to deal with a large-scale building collapse.

In the last month, the London fire brigade has launched a co-responding trial in four boroughs in the capital—Merton, Lambeth, Wandsworth and, happily, the amazing borough of Newham—as part of the national joint council’s workstream on the 21st-century firefighter. If the trial is a success, the new committee will want to scrutinise closer working with the ambulance service in London to promote accountability and good-quality service delivery.

Given the changing role of the fire service and the greater collaboration we are likely to see in the capital, we propose that the committee should be able to investigate and consider all matters relevant to the London fire commissioner. That would ensure that the London Assembly’s scrutiny was as robust as it could be and allow members of the committee to cover everything from prevention and community safety to closer working with the other emergency services and local authority partners.

The Government and the Opposition support greater collaboration between the emergency services. We need to ensure that where that collaboration takes place, there is not a gap in the scrutiny of our public services, with the various scrutiny bodies staring at each other and wondering whether the projects fall under their remit. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to clarify his plans on how we will deal with those situations, both in London and elsewhere in the country.

Amendment 187 would ensure that the London fire commissioner had the delegated powers he needs to use the fire service to help Londoners. Section 30 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 gives a general power to the GLA to do anything it considers will further any one or more of its principal purposes—namely,

“promoting economic development and wealth creation in Greater London; promoting social development in Greater London; and promoting the improvement of the environment in Greater London.”

The Mayor has the ability to delegate those powers to MOPAC, which is the equivalent office to the London fire commissioner, but for policing. That enables the police to engage in any work that they think is for the good of London.

Allowing the Mayor to delegate those powers to the London fire commissioner would mean that the London fire brigade could do the same. It is really important that we accept the amendment for two reasons, and I reckon that the Minister can find it in his heart to give Londoners what they want. First, all of us want to see all of our emergency services working together to serve their communities. That is the spirit behind the duty to collaborate, and it is the spirit behind this amendment. Secondly, it is important that we accept the amendment so as to formally recognise the parity of esteem that fire has with the police service, which is something I have tried to talk about this afternoon—I think I have managed to get Government Members to understand that that is what I am attempting to do.

There is no reason to think that the London fire brigade is not just as capable of finding innovative ways to serve and aid Londoners as the Metropolitan police. To do that, its commissioners require equivalent powers. I look forward with interest to what the Minister has to say, with great hope that he will accept our amendments.

[Mike Penning]

As always, the shadow Minister has put her amendments forward in good faith. In respect of amendment 187, however, I think that she is slightly misguided about the current powers. The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority does not have the GLA’s general powers delegated to it, and nor does the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. On that basis, I could not bring that across to the London fire commissioner, as I think she understands.

On amendment 186, under proposed new section 327I(3), which will be inserted into the Greater London Authority Act 1999 by schedule 2, the fire and emergency committee will be able to scrutinise any actions, decisions or matters relating to the functions of the London fire commissioner and any officer of the London fire commissioner. The powers are already in the legislation, and surely we do not need more legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lyn Brown and Mike Penning

Monday 22nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

The local community may want a more efficient service, which could be the case in Hampshire. I accept that Hampshire is particularly good, but that is not the case all over the country. Even when I was in Hampshire, there were people asking me for more collaboration and more work to be done together, and that request came particularly from the front-line operatives, who are probably the most important people in all this.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Given the funding cuts to the police service and the fire and rescue services already budgeted for by this Government, can the Minister guarantee that placing fire and rescue services under PCC control will not lead to further cuts in the number of front-line firefighters?

[Mike Penning]

Thank goodness the Chancellor did not listen to Labour Front-Benchers when we looked at police funding to 2020, because they wanted a 10% cut, and there will be no cut. We must make sure that we have an efficient service—the sort of efficient service I would have liked to have had when I was in the fire service—and that will be going forward.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [Lords]

Debate between Lyn Brown and Mike Penning

Wednesday 20th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice (Mike Penning)]

I am conscious that this is an intervention and not a speech. Later on, when I have a chance to respond to the debate in the tone that has been used throughout the passage of this Bill, the shadow Minister will be pleased to hear that the ACMD will start the process. That is something that I have initiated in the past couple of days.

[Lyn Brown]

I am pleased to hear that, and I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [Lords] (Third sitting)

Debate between Lyn Brown and Mike Penning

Thursday 29th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Lyn Brown]

It is terrifying. All these clauses have been going by and I have been thinking, “Should I say something?”

[The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice (Mike Penning)]

If you say no to anything now, Sir David will have to stand up again.

[Lyn Brown]

We are keeping our powder dry.

On Second Reading, I made it clear that the blanket ban created by the Bill would only partially tackle the problem of new psychoactive substances. The measures in the Bill are an appropriate way to disrupt supply, but if we really want to protect public health, we must also work to reduce the demand for those dangerous drugs. I firmly believe that that requires a comprehensive drugs education and awareness strategy, which is why I have tabled amendment 57 and new clause 4. Amendment 57 would put a duty on the Secretary of State to update Parliament on the quality and reach of new psychoactive substances education in its statutory report. New clause 4 would amend the Education Act 2002 to make drugs education, including a focus on NPS, part of the personal, social, health and economic education foundation subject in the national curriculum.

I will start by speaking about new clause 4 and comprehensive drug education in our schools. In 2010, the coalition Government launched a new drug strategy, which contained some really sensible approaches to reducing demand for drugs. The Government stated that they wanted to

“provide good quality education and advice so that young people and their parents are provided with credible information to actively resist substance misuse”

and to

“intervene early with young people and young adults”.

A preventive and proactive education policy based on information and resilience training is exactly the sort of approach that the Government ought to be taking.

As we know, however, actions speak louder than words. The Government reversed Labour’s plans to make PSHE a statutory requirement, even though that was recommended by the Macdonald review. They also closed the Drug Education Forum, a source of expertise on drugs education in England that disseminated research on drugs and drugs education to teachers across the country, as part of a drastic 80% cut in drugs education spending. Figures from the Department of Health show that drugs education spending was reduced from £3.9 million in 2009-10 to £500,000 in 2010-2011. The Department for Education revealed that there was a 22% cut in spending on drug and alcohol services for young people between 2011 and 2014.

Statistics provided by Mentor, the drug and alcohol charity, show how disastrous those decisions were. Only 15% of schools teach drugs and alcohol education for one hour or more a term, and 59% of young people say that they cannot even remember having a drugs education lesson in the last year. Media reports on the impact of cuts to drugs education included a 2011 survey of staff at 79 local education authorities. More than a quarter of the staff reported that there had been no specialist drugs education support in the past three months. Paul Tuohy, chief executive of Mentor, told The Guardian:

“We are probably in the worst situation for drug education for decades”.

It would appear that where there is drugs education in our schools, sadly it is often of poor quality, incomplete or totally irrelevant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In Wales, which I will discuss next, some really excellent work is taking place and we might learn from it; it would be good if we did.

In 2012, Ofsted concluded that,

“the quality of PSHE education is not yet good enough in a sizeable proportion of schools in England. These deficiencies in learning result in part from inadequacies in subject-specific training and support for PSHE education teachers, particularly in the teaching of sensitive and controversial issues.”

And those are issues such as drugs.

Ofsted also found that in 60% of schools PSHE training was not good enough and certainly needed to improve, and the evidence from the Government’s own inspectors suggests that the Government’s approach to PSHE just is not working. And all this is happening while the presence of NPS has begun to grow in our communities.

Figures from Wales show us just what is possible with a different approach. The Labour Administration in Wales has put drugs education at the forefront of its drugs prevention policy, and there is now a core substance misuse education programme in 97% of Welsh primary and secondary schools, ensuring that almost all Welsh children receive accurate, consistent and credible information about the potential harms of drugs, rather than having to rely on myths, part-information and basic guesswork.

That degree of comprehensive drugs education is possible in England but it is not happening at the moment, and I suggest that that is because of a lack of political leadership. That lack of political will is all the more unjustifiable given that parents want these sorts of issues discussed in schools. For example, a survey by Parentline Plus found that 97% of parents believe that drug and alcohol education should be delivered in schools.

There are signs that the comprehensive approach to drug awareness in Wales is working. The school programme is complemented by the Welsh emerging drugs and identification of novel substances project, an NPS-specific information and harm reduction programme, as well as measures designed to help to educate parents. These are all part of a £50 million investment in reducing drug harms, which has coincided with a rapid reduction in drug deaths in Wales; they are down by 30% since 2010. By contrast, drug-related deaths have been creeping up here in England; there was a 17% increase in the last year and the Office for National Statistics says that drug deaths are now at the highest level since records began in 1993. And according to the national records of Scotland, drug-related deaths in Scotland went up by 16% and are also at a record high.

[Mike Penning]

I am sure that members of the Committee are aware of these worrying figures. Although this is not the whole answer, when we look at the figures, we see that we had an epidemic of heroin addicts of a certain generation, and that certain generation is coming to a certain age. If we look carefully—I am doing some analysis as chair of the interministerial group on drugs—we see that it seems that the increase has come from within that age profile. There was an increase in deaths, but that was particularly among a group that had no treatment at all. A lot more research is needed—I know that it is being done across the devolved Administrations—but we must look carefully at the figures to find out the reasons, instead of just taking a block figure, although I know the hon. Lady too well to think that she would do that. There are reasons for the increase, and we need to get to the bottom of them, but clearly part of that was the heroin epidemic of the 1980s.

[Lyn Brown]

I am grateful for that intervention, but we are considering this Bill because the number of NPS-related drugs deaths has been rising. I am desperately looking for the figure in Hansard, but I think it is three hundred and something in a year. Those are the deaths of people’s loved ones and children, many of whom would have been young people who had no idea that they were taking something harmful. I am thinking about preventing those deaths, as there will be empty seats at tables at Christmas time.

[Mike Penning]

I emphasise that that is absolutely why we are here. Those big figures for deaths will include people affected by the heroin epidemic that I mentioned as well as the people whom we are trying to save through the Bill. I said on Second Reading that the Bill is not a silver bullet, and we must work with other Departments to get out information, health provisions and treatment plans.

[Lyn Brown]

I totally agree with the Minister. The Bill is not a silver bullet, but we need a comprehensive education programme if we are to be as effective as possible.

[Lyn Brown]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We need a holistic approach and education must be a part of that. We therefore need what the Welsh Government have: a 10-year plan. Theirs culminates in 2018. I know that it is too early for us to draw conclusions about what its outcomes will be, but the early signs are good, especially with regard to reducing drug harms. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Gentleman has not just received a note from his Whip suggesting he should shut up, because I have enjoyed his interventions in Committee. I have passed those notes, so I know that that happens.

[Mike Penning]

It would usually be a much bigger note.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

I totally and utterly agree.

It is clear that there is no evidence that increased knowledge leads to reduced drug use. The EMCDDA came to that conclusion in its 2006 report. Frankly, too much of the drugs education in our schools is focused on providing information. The Department for Education’s review of PHSE found that students find drug education “boring” because what they did in PHSE too closely mirrored what they learned in science lessons. The review found that staff thought that the issue should be addressed from a different direction in PHSE. That point was made to the Home Affairs Committee during its review of UK drug policy in 2012. Paul Tuohy of Mentor, which is a strong advocate of good-quality drug education, stated starkly:

“We are spending the vast majority of the money we do spend on drug education on programmes that don’t work”.

The Home Affairs Committee asked a number of local authorities to survey secondary schools in their area to ask whether they used the life skills programmes it learned about while gathering evidence for its report. None said that they used any of the programmes.

A narrow focus on providing information to students is likely to be holding us back. Evidence suggests that to get drugs education right, information has to be taught alongside a focus on the life skills that empower young people to resist peer pressure and make informed decisions. When young people go into a head shop and see these lovely coloured sachets, it will be good for them to know that they contain illegal substances that are not safe—[Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position—

[Mike Penning]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

I will let the Minister make his point.

[Mike Penning]

I apologise for chuntering. Of course, the head shops will not be there. I accept that people may still try to sell these products, but instead of being legal highs, they will be illegal highs. The head shops as such will vanish, as has happened in Ireland.

[Lyn Brown]

I hope that the Minister is right. I fear that the head shops will transmogrify and change what they do. They will still exist, selling bath salts and other things, and it will be up to us and local authorities to prove that the substances they are selling—ostensibly to go into the bath or to feed fish—are in fact being used for nefarious purposes and are illegal highs. Although I genuinely hope that the Minister is right, I fear that these head shops will not necessarily go away. Irrespective, however, drug dealers and pushers are still going to exist, so we need to educate our children and make them resilient to the messages from such people.

Life skills can be taught effectively only by helping children to think about the challenges and dangers that they face, including about how drugs are often followed by bullying, debt and exploitation. We need information, values and context to deliver quality drugs education, which is why that education should be part of a comprehensive personal and social education that can be provided only by PHSE. I have voted to make PHSE a statutory requirement—I am sure that I will do so again—because it is an important tool in our fight against psychoactive drugs and those who push them.

As we know—many Members will be parents—every child is different, so universal drugs education must be complemented by specifically tailored messages and support for those who are most vulnerable to the messages of drugs and drug abuse. Universal drugs education makes it easier to identify those who need early intervention. Schools ask children at an early age to draw pictures of what they understand by common drugs terms. That enables educators to know which children are more familiar with substance abuse than one would expect of a child growing up in a safe environment. There is no trade-off between universal and targeted education; they naturally complement each other.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

That is exactly what is No. 1 on the agenda with the Schools Minister next week. We need to share information. As the scientists and the ACMD develop the knowledge base, we need to share that knowledge base. It is not something we want to hold in, and that is why we have made the review as open as possible. If we do not share that knowledge, we will have people out there trying generally to help people, but probably not sending the message out and doing the work that needs to be done.

If I not only write to everyone on the Committee but develop extensively what we are going to do based on what I have said today—admittedly, most of this particular area is devolved—I hope the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment. If I update everyone as we develop that, she can see what we are doing as we move forward and we can give her as much help as possible, as we have all the way through the Bill. However, if she does press the proposals to a vote, I will sadly oppose both the new clause and the amendment.

[Lyn Brown]

I really am grateful to the Minister for outlining what is going on. It is clear that some activity is happening. Bilaterals with the Schools Minister and action across all Departments are to be welcomed. I also welcome the Minister’s suggestion that he write to us about all the education programmes that are happening, about to happen, or being considered. I am sure that would be really useful to us all.

However, given that the Education Committee will receive a report on the education about these substances and the issues involved in reducing demand for them, it would not be a huge step to include that report within the review and to accept amendment 57. In fact, amendment 57 is very gentle. It is not really asking for very much more than that Parliament be kept informed of the way forward regarding our reducing the demand for these drugs. If the Education Committee can be kept informed, I cannot see why Parliament cannot be.

I ask the Minister to think again and consider accepting amendment 57 if he cannot go all the way and accept new clause 4, although it would also be a great pity if he cannot accept new clause 4. I am sure that the Department for Education would actually thank him for accepting new clause 4, which would alter its curriculum, because the DFE possibly needs a bit of a jolt, and the impact of new clause 4 on PSHE would be to give it an amazing boost to its arm.

The Minister does not look as if he is rising right now to assure me that he will accept new clause 4, so I ask him to spend the weekend and maybe next week—I know he will not have an awful lot on now that consideration of this Bill is coming to a close—thinking about amendment 57 and new clause 4, and perhaps on Report he will make my day. Then I can buy that bottle of champagne for us all to share.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

Guinness, please.

[Lyn Brown]

Guinness is not a problem.

I will probably come back to this issue on Report, but today I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58

Interpretation

Amendment made: 38, in clause 58, page 36, line 23, after “Court” insert

“, other than the reference in section 30(1) in relation to a prohibition order made under section 18,”—(Mike Penning.)

This amendment disapplies the transitional provision in clause 58(5) in relation to appeals under clause 30(1) about variation and discharge in relation to prohibition orders made under clause 18.

Clause 58, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4

Consequential Amendments

Amendment proposed: 39, in schedule 4, page 48, line 16, at end insert—

“Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985

(1) The Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985 is repealed.

(2) In consequence of the repeal made by sub-paragraph (1), in Schedules 3 and 6 to the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, omit the entry relating to the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985.”—(Mike Penning.)

This amendment repeals the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

This is my era; I kind of get it.

Even if the issue with selling solvents to adults is resolved, the issue of sentencing remains. The 1985 Act does not provide for sentences longer than six months; as we know, the maximum tariff in the Bill is seven years. Selling to a child is an aggravated offence, so is more likely to lead to harsher penalties. There is an enormous gulf in the sentences provided for in the two pieces of legislation. I wonder whether it is sensible for the Bill to try to control the specific offence of selling solvents to children.

Are we confident that solvents are captured by the definition of psychoactive substances? We do not want to repeal the 1985 Act if it in any way weakens the law. Are we satisfied that it is appropriate to extend the 1985 Act’s provisions on sales to under-18s to everyone? If it is, why has it not been done already? I can imagine there might be unintended consequences. My anxiety is over how, when I walk in tomorrow and buy a solvent, my local newsagent is going to know whether I am going to use it for sniffing. One would assume that someone of my age was not, but that is not necessarily the case.

The change seems to be a significant one to make in an amendment: there is a significant extension of the punishment. Does the Minister think that is justified? There have been very few recent prosecutions under the 1985 Act for the sale of solvents to children. I do not know why the Government expect to enforce the offence more with this Bill than it has been enforced under the 1985 Act. I would be grateful for some help from the Minister.

[Mike Penning]

I can understand the shadow Minister’s concerns—I come from that era as well. The interesting thing is that the existing legislation was targeted at a specific age profile and worked. We keep talking about children, but the Bill is not specifically targeted at them. When the 1985 Act was introduced, the same argument was made about how individual shopkeepers would know, but we have proven that it can work.

[Lyn Brown]

Yes, but there are few prosecutions now.

[Mike Penning]

Fortunately, there are now few prosecutions because people know. That is the principle behind the Bill. The maximum penalty will be seven years, but we would expect the job to be done by trading standards in a non-legislative way, so we would not be penalising anyone. I have obviously taken all the legal advice on this matter, and we feel that the change is needed and that this is the right way to do it. I repeat that we are not trying to protect children only; we are also trying to protect adults, some of whom are also very vulnerable.

[Lyn Brown]

I am still concerned by the issue of sentencing, because the punishment will be extended significantly. I do not know whether the Minister thinks that is justified. Also, there have been so few prosecutions under the 1985 Act. Lastly, I genuinely do not understand how a shopkeeper would know if the Minister or I were walking in to buy our solvent of choice to sniff away tonight in front of the TV. When young children went into a shop to purchase solvents it was often quite obvious that they had in mind some activity other than that for which the solvent was designed, for which they probably would not have had a purpose.

[Mike Penning]

I do not want to detain the Committee any further, but the change has not come as a particular shock to the British Retail Consortium or the Association of Convenience Stores, because we have been working with them. It is designed not to penalise small shopkeepers, but to ensure that they are confident, and we will work with them as the Bill proceeds. We will have considerable time, even after Royal Assent, but I am already working with the relevant bodies, which represent a significant part of the industry.

Amendment 39 agreed to.

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 60 to 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 2

Possession of a psychoactive substance in a custodial institution

‘(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) the person is in possession of a psychoactive substance in a custodial institution,

(b) the person knows or suspects that the substance is a psychoactive substance, and

(c) the person intends to consume the psychoactive substance for its psychoactive effects.

(2) In this section “custodial institution” has the same meaning as in section 6.

(3) This section is subject to section (Exceptions to offences) (exceptions to offences).’.—(Mike Penning.)

This new clause provides for a new offence of possession of a psychoactive substance in a custodial institution.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

Exceptions to offences

‘(1) It is not an offence under this Act for a person to carry on any activity listed in subsection (3) if, in the circumstances in which it is carried on by that person, the activity is an exempted activity.

(2) In this section “exempted activity” means an activity listed in Schedule (Exempted activities).

(3) The activities referred to in subsection (1) are—

(a) producing a psychoactive substance;

(b) supplying such a substance;

(c) offering to supply such a substance;

(d) possessing such a substance with intent to supply it;

(e) importing or exporting such a substance;

(f) possessing such a substance in a custodial institution (within the meaning of section (Possession of a psychoactive substance in a custodial institution)).

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend Schedule (Exempted activities) in order to—

(a) add or vary any description of activity;

(b) remove any description of activity added under paragraph (a).

(5) Before making any regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and

(b) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(6) The power to make regulations under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument.

(7) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’.—(Mike Penning.)

The new clause inserted by this amendment (which will replace clause 10) provides that it is not an offence under clauses 4 to 8, or the offence under the new clause inserted by NC2, for a person to carry on an “exempted activity” listed in the new Schedule inserted by NS1. The new clause also provides a power to add or vary any description of activity specified in the new Schedule.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

Breach of a premises notice

‘(1) A senior officer or a local authority may issue a notice requiring a premise to cease trading if conditions A, B and C are met.

(2) Condition A is that the premise has been issued a premises notice under section 13 of this Act.

(3) Condition B is that in the view of the senior officer or a local authority that issued the premises notice, the terms of that notice are not being complied with.

(4) Condition C is that the senior officer or local authority has made an application to an appropriate court for a premises order under section 19 of this Act.

(5) A notice issued to a premise under subsection 1 shall cease to have effect when a court has considered an application for a premises order in respect of that premise.

(6) In a case where a court has decided not to issue a premises order to a premise that has been subject to a notice under this section, the court may order the local authority or the senior officer’s organisation to pay compensation to the owner of the premises in respect of income lost due to the suspension in trading.

(7) For the meaning of “senior officer”, see section 12(7).’.—(Lyn Brown.)

This new clause’s intention is to allow a senior officer or local authority to comply a premises to stop trading while it applies for a premises order.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Lyn Brown]

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

The new clause was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness, who has a long-standing interest in the issue. Unfortunately, he is unable to be here today, as he is at a funeral, so I am moving the new clause on his behalf. I make it clear that the broad thrust of the Bill is welcome; the new clause is intended to add to, rather than contradict, its provisions.

I want briefly to set out the context in which the new clause sits. My hon. Friend has been campaigning on legal highs for several years following a series of incidents in his constituency involving such drugs. He is, understandably, especially concerned about the drugs’ damaging effects, especially on young people, and the police’s inability to take swift action to deal with the suppliers and distributors of legal highs. He has also been a strong supporter of the successful “Ban Them Now” campaign against legal highs in Cumbria that has been run by the North-West Evening Mail, a fabulous campaigning newspaper that has done a huge amount to raise awareness of the issue in the region.

[Mike Penning]

Is that the press release?

[Lyn Brown]

I am not sure that I am going to get any votes there.

The new clause, which is supported by the Local Government Association, is intended to address the potential delay between the point at which the police believe a premises order has been breached and the point at which a court authorises a closure order. During such a delay, there is a worry that a premises may be able to continue to trade prohibited substances without the police being able to take appropriate action. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has found nefarious tactics when that happens, including NPS sales. Pushers may offer offer two-for-one deals, which encourage binging and stockpiling.

Premises that are found to be trading illicit substances can be dealt with under part 4, chapter 3 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. The closure orders contained within the Act do not apply specifically to psychoactive substances—they are more of a catch-all—but they have nevertheless been used to take action against shops that trade in legal highs. Under the existing power, a court is obligated to hear a case for a closure order within 48 hours of the application being made by the police. That is not necessarily a guarantee of no delays, as the police are advised in the legislation to delay applications to court until they believe that the case can be heard within the 48-hour limit. Nevertheless, that limit provides some assurance that cases will be heard swiftly and that the police will be able to act accordingly.

In the absence of a similar provision in the Bill, there is a concern that delays may occur at that point in the process. In fact, the Bill imposes no time limit between a notice and a court order. We know that our courts are facing mounting pressures due to their case loads, which heightens the fear that the provisions in the Bill will cause further delays.

New clause 1 is a modest proposal that would allow senior police or local authority officers to obtain an order to require a premise to cease trading, provided that certain conditions are met. That action would be taken only when a premises order had already been made; when, in the opinion of the officer, the business was in breach of the order; and when the application to a court had already been made. There is also provision for compensation to be paid to businesses if the power is ever used in error.

Of course, we would hope that the power would have to be used only sparingly. The new clause would be a safeguard to ensure that no offenders slipped through the gaps and to give the police the powers they need to take action as soon as possible. I hope that the Minister agrees that the new clause is limited, proportional and considered. It is very much in the spirit of the Bill, and I hope it will command broad support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness—he is my hon. Friend really, although he probably would not like to admit that to some of his colleagues—for his campaigning. Many members of the Committee have been campaigning for many years on this subject.

Of course, the police and the courts are the end of the process for most cases. We know that powers are already there for local authorities and trading standards, which have been doing a lot of this work, so a problem arises only when there is a breach of a notice. Significantly, the new clause would give local authorities and senior officers the power to require specific premises to cease trading while an application is made. I have seen no evidence from the police that they feel that is necessary. Actually, new clause 1 could weaken judicial oversight, which none of us wants. This is a specific issue for England, of course. I think I am right about that, but it could be England and Wales—[Interruption.] I have got it wrong then; when I get things wrong, I always say so as soon as I can.

I fully understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from in tabling the new clause, but I do not feel that he needs to have such concerns. The measure would be used right at the very end of the process. We would hope, as the hon. Member for West Ham said, that it would be used in very few cases, not least because of the number of civil sanctions in the Bill.

I am absolutely confident—I have been assured by the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney-General—that we will not have a problem, but the matter will be part of the review, so we can keep our eyes open to see exactly what is going on. Even though I fully understand and respect the reasons why the new clause was tabled. I am afraid I do not see the need for it and I am concerned that it might weaken judicial oversight. Sadly, towards the end of our time in Committee, I must disagree with the hon. Lady.

[Lyn Brown]

Do you know, Sir David, this Minister is just not giving me satisfaction?

Given that we sprung the new clause on the Minister in the last knockings of this Bill Committee, will he take it away and have a quick look at it? Perhaps after talking to the LGA and his fabulous civil servants, he might find that there is a need for it. We love humility, so if he comes back to us on Report and tells us that he has thought again, we will applaud him to the rafters, rather than making any political capital.

[Mike Penning]

Assuming that the new clause is not pressed to a Division, I will take a long look at it, as if I take a quick look at it, I will be criticised for not taking a long look at it. I will seek advice from not only my Department, but the other relevant Departments, as well as my excellent Bill team. We will probably discuss this on Report but, at present, I cannot support the new clause.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Debate between Lyn Brown and Mike Penning

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Mike Penning]

I accept the point. I know exactly what it says. I beg to differ with the report and the work that was done by colleagues because of the principle of the blanket ban. If we have exemptions, what other types will be brought forward by others at other times? The principle of the blanket ban would be affected if we accepted the amendment, so I ask the hon. Member for Midlothian not to move it, or to withdraw it. Other Members may of course pursue that.

I have one final point to make. I am conscious that presumably—although we will wait for the business managers—we are not going to have a huge amount of time on Report. If we leave too much to Report, I am conscious that we might not have the time to debate the issues that we have already agreed to in the length of time available.

[Lyn Brown]

The Minister says that possession is not an offence. We are going to come to clauses later where I want to probe that. One of the issues around clubbing is that one person out of a group of six may well find themselves getting the poppers for the group and then doling them out to the group when they get to a club. In those circumstances, because there would be an “intent to supply”, the possession of poppers would be an offence. However, again, that is about using resources on something that has not been shown to have a harmful effect or to cause harm.

The Minister said that he wants to review, and in the review we can look at whether poppers have been particularly targeted. Can he confirm that when we get the review it will have a breakdown of which psychoactive substances action has been taken on? The issue is again that of resources. To show that action has been taken on psychoactive substances by any particular police force, it would be quite easy to take action on those who are using poppers. I want the action taken on those who are selling really harmful substances, not on the type of substances where the Select Committee’s report suggests there is no evidence of harm. Can the Minister confirm that in that review we will be able to see the types of substances that police forces have concentrated on when they have been taking action?

The Minister also talks about a blanket ban. We have a blanket ban but we also have an exemptions list. We have an exemptions list that includes incense, and coffee—I am grateful for that as I am not sure how I would have managed to get up this morning without it. When we are talking about a blanket ban, we want that to be on harmful substances—substances that cause harm, not substances that do not harm. Would the Minister consider publishing the evidence he has that poppers have entered a realm where they may well be causing harm? That would be helpful.

I think this will be revisited at Report; if not by either of the Front Benches, my guess is that there will be others who will have been moved by the letters and emails that they will be getting over the next week or so, who have perhaps been part of the Home Affairs Committee and are aware of the Committee’s recommendation that this is placed on the exemption list. Could I ask the Minister to genuinely reconsider on this issue? It is not that we are soft on drugs. We are hard on drugs and we want to be hard on the harmful drugs that could cause massive harm to many within our communities. Will the Minister take that on board?

[Mike Penning]

I assure the shadow Minister that in the evidence I send back to the Select Committee on that report, I most certainly will indicate the concerns that we have around harm to do with poppers.

The blanket ban is not targeted, because it is a blanket ban. It is obviously for trading standards, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to make the decisions. When we come to the review, data will be available to ensure that we understand how the new Act is being implemented.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

I was just coming on to that. When the Bill was going through the Lords I expected that the matter would be debated and extensively lobbied, but it was not. I understand that it was not raised at all. I also expected my door to be bursting open following requests for meetings from the different lobby groups, but I have not received any delegations. I am slightly surprised. One of the Justice Ministers raised the matter when a group was seeing them on a separate issue. I am well aware that colleagues were lobbied when they were named as members of the Committee. However, if the matter was of such concern, I would have expected representations, but I have not had any, and I am not the shyest person if people want to see me.

That is not a criticism. It is just that the question was asked and the answer is that I have not had any representations.

[Lyn Brown]

I know that this is not scientific, but my Facebook pages had not included anything about the matter until the end of last week. Perhaps the Minister’s door has not yet been knocked on, but my guess is that it might be knocked on, fairly loudly, by those groups as the issue becomes more apparent and the community becomes more aware of it.

[Mike Penning]

Possibly, not least because of what I have just said.

[Lyn Brown]

Indeed.

[Mike Penning]

I have made a rod for my own back but, as I said, my door is always open.

The news that we were going to have a blanket ban is not new; everybody has known about the ban. Several other organisations, including the Churches, were worried about this issue. It has been debated extensively within the Lords. I accept that there is now a campaign on this issue, which seems to have started quite vigorously, but during the progress of the Bill in the other place and throughout the investigations that I have carried out, it was not raised with me.

[Lyn Brown]

May I just say to the right hon. Gentleman that I think one of the reasons that the issue was not raised with him is that there has been an assumption that the legal highs that we are banning are the bad stuff—the materials that actually cause harm? Therefore, there has perhaps been an assumption that poppers, which do not cause harm or at least have not been considered to cause harm, would not fall within the scope of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

I certainly have not taken advice on that and I do not have that information at my fingertips.

[Mike Penning]

May I help the shadow Minister?

[Lyn Brown]

I am always happy to be helped.

[Mike Penning]

The provision in the Bill mirrors the position of substances that are subject to a temporary class drug order. The Bill replicates a piece of legislation that we have been using for some considerable time. The amendment would move us away from that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

Just as importantly, the Home Office and enforcement agencies would still be able to control substances without having to prove that they are harmful. This amendment would therefore not place the authorities one step behind the market, which is the problem the Bill is designed to solve.

Section 1 of the Drugs Act 2005 included aggravation within its scope. I understand that this is hardly used. Does the Minister know how often it has been used successfully in court? He may seek inspiration on this one, or I am happy for him to write to me with the answer.

[Mike Penning]

I will write to the hon. Lady.

[Lyn Brown]

I am looking forward to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

I thank colleagues for their contributions. The last point raised by the shadow Health Minister, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, is probably the most difficult for me, not least because we would be moving away from the blanket ban. That is something that we have tried to introduce for many years. I fully understand the way in which the courts have historically looked at drugs sentencing, but this is new. However, the principle should not be any different. I highlight the fact that I will correspond with the Sentencing Council, as I alluded to earlier on. The situation in Scotland and Northern Ireland is different, but I am sure that they will follow that lead, not least because of the work the Scottish Government have done.

I fully support the principles behind the amendments, and it is clearly right that the courts should take account of the harms and the type of offence, but I feel that this is very much a matter for the independent Sentencing Council. The aggravating factors proposed in the amendments are already broadly covered by the Sentencing Council’s guidelines for drug offences, which we will be replicating. I take the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate made about the speed at which the Sentencing Council may need to move, and the speed at which we in Government need to move to give it the facts it needs to make decisions.

The process will be an evolutionary one. We do not want a young person—we keep referring to young people—or a person who had a small amount of a substance and sold it on to someone else because they were broke to be treated exactly the same as a drug dealer who has imported two tonnes of the stuff in a container through one of our ports. Clearly, in sentencing, that would be wrong. I am committed to writing to the Sentencing Council—it already knows that I am going to do this—to say that we expect it to take into consideration not only what the Committee and both Houses decide, but the relevant parts of the Home Affairs Committee report. The part that we have been discussing, in particular, is enormously helpful as we move forward. We do not want people to be treated differently under the law, but we want dealers, as we understand dealers, to be treated differently.

I cannot agree that we should move into the territory of harm, because to do so would completely damage the principle of our thinking. I accept that that thinking is completely new, and it will be quite interesting for the courts, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is important that the Sentencing Council does its job in England and Wales, and that a similar thing happens in Northern Ireland and Wales. I noted the agreement of the hon. Member for Midlothian and the hon. Member for West Ham on that; when the hon. Gentleman suggested that it would be appropriate, there was a nod from Her Majesty’s Opposition. I have taken that on board, and I will write to the Sentencing Council. We could work together on the content of the letter.

[Lyn Brown]

I am grateful to the Minister for stating that he agrees with the principle behind the amendments and that he will write to the Sentencing Council to urge it to take note of what the Committee and the Home Affairs Committee have said. That is very welcome, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

Again, I thank both the shadow Minister and the SNP spokesman for indicating that these are probing amendments, so my colleagues can relax.

The shadow Minister summed up exactly why I will not accept the amendment. We are not trying to pick on individuals who purchase these products for personal use but, as we close head shops and other avenues, there will clearly be an increase, as the expert panel highlighted. As the Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice, the National Crime Agency is my responsibility. I have been working with the NCA and other agencies, and I have particularly been working with my colleague, the Minister for Immigration, because obviously Border Force will have a crucial role.

If we accepted the amendment, the debate would be about what is personal use. During this debate we have heard about cigarettes and alcohol. My family was in the pub trade for many, many years, and there has been an issue with Transit vans—I apologise for picking on Ford—and other large vans going across to Calais and coming back full of cigarettes and alcohol. When those vans are stopped by borders, immigration and customs, the driver says, “This is completely for personal use.” That opens up a difficult area.

The amendment would make it difficult for Border Force to do the job we need it to do. As has been highlighted, we absolutely need the expertise in that relevant area. On the point that the hon. Member for Midlothian made about the difficulties that exist online, some of the expertise that we increasingly need is there, but a lot of this is organised crime, and those are the people we are after. I am absolutely determined that the NCA and the other agencies should have the powers and the expertise they need to go after those people, not the little guy who is in possession for personal use.

The difficulty in law—this has been an issue in the courts—is personal use. It is a really difficult area, and that is why I sadly cannot support the amendments. I understand fully their probing nature. I always argue that it is all too easy to build up points as a constable by picking on the little guy, when the others are the guys that we want. I assure the Committee that we have introduced the measures to allow us to get the big guys, not to pick up the little guys. We will keep a close eye on the situation, but I think we have what we need.

[Lyn Brown]

Has the Minister given any thought to how purchasers will know whether they are buying from a UK site? I do not think that they will be able to tell whether they are committing an offence. There will be criminals out there who will trick people into believing that they are buying from a UK site.

[Mike Penning]

If they buy from a UK site, it is illegal under the Bill, because it is selling. If those who run the site try to represent themselves as a UK site to sell the product, that is just as illegal as being a head shop. What we have said all the way through the Bill is that it is not legislation that is the silver bullet but education and understanding. It will be generational for some people, but that is where the proportionality that we talked about earlier in the criminal justice system, in local government and in trading standards comes in. It is important that we discuss this point, but we need to ensure that there are no loopholes and that the agencies that we are asking to look after us and the legislation have the powers that they need.

[Lyn Brown]

We are not prosecuting people who have possession, and we are not going to prosecute somebody who purchases.

[Mike Penning]

I understand that.

[Lyn Brown]

But if somebody purchases from abroad or from a site that is based abroad, we will be prosecuting them. I am worried about somebody who unwittingly purchases from a foreign website.

[Mike Penning]

I understand fully the point that the hon. Lady is making, and it is a difficult area. What I cannot do is to open up the whole Bill because of what will, I hope, be a small group of people. The likelihood of their being prosecuted in that area is very unlikely, because of everything that we have debated. Purchase and possession would be legal—we have discussed that—so there would be no illegality on the part of the individual. It is the seller or the dealer we are after. I think I am right on that point.

[Lyn Brown]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 9, in clause 8, page 5, line 6, leave out from “subject to” to end of line 7 and insert

“section (Exceptions to offences) (exceptions to offences).”.—(Mike Penning.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 11 and NC3.

Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Penalties

Amendment made: 10, in clause 9, page 5, line 26, at end insert—

“( ) A person guilty of an offence under section (Possession of a psychoactive substance in a custodial institution) is liable—

(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales—

(i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months (or 6 months, if the offence was committed before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003), or

(ii) to a fine,

or both;

(b) on summary conviction in Scotland—

(i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or

(ii) to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum,

or both;

(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland—

(i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or

(ii) to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum,

or both;

(d) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine, or both.”.—(Mike Penning.)

This amendment is consequential on NC2. It provides that the new offence of possession of a psychoactive substance in a custodial institution, as inserted by that new clause, attracts a maximum penalty on conviction on indictment of two years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both.

Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Power to provide for exceptions to offences

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mike Penning]

This is a technical thing, but it is important. The clause confers on the Home Secretary the power to specify exceptions to the offences in clauses 4 to 8 by regulations. As we have already debated, new schedule 1 lists certain excepted activities on the face of the Bill, so clause 10 is not required.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 10 accordingly disagreed to.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.— (Jackie Doyle-Price.)

Psychoactive Substances Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between Lyn Brown and Mike Penning

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Mike Penning]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I also look forward to serving under Sir David’s chairmanship. Thank you for setting out so concisely how the Committee will proceed.

I thank Her Majesty’s Opposition and the Scottish National party for being so supportive of the principle behind the Bill, on which there was extensive discussion in the other place. One area that was discussed extensively in the other place is the use of psychoactive substances in prisons and other custodial places. The Lords sought to address the issue by amending clause 6 to make the supply of psychoactive substances, and offers to supply psychoactive substances, on prison premises a statutory aggravating factor. On reflection, we are content with the Lords amendment, not least because the governors and the Prison Officers Association support making possession a specific offence.

We also support the Lords amendment following the campaigning by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester and the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who has spoken to me privately about this matter on more than one occasion—I can see the shadow Front-Bench team nodding. He really understands the matter and has been campaigning on it for many years, and it would be inappropriate if we did not acknowledge that.

I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester is a member of the Committee. He knows all too well that the substances are a dangerous and pervasive problem in prisons and other secure estates, not only for prison officers but for other staff and prisoners. Having reflected on the Lords amendment we are content to retain it; Government amendment 7 simply makes some drafting improvement so as to ensure that the measure is tight and, in particular, to provide a definition of a custodial institution.

We have concluded, however, that we need to go further, with new clause 2 introducing a new offence for a person who is in possession of a psychoactive substance in a custodial institution. I think everyone agrees that the use of psychoactive substances needs to be addressed, and it is not about just prisoners; it is about other staff who may, sadly, wish to bring such substances on to the premises, and visitors. The safety of visitors, prisoners and staff is, of course, paramount.

The introduction of a possession offence in prison would enable the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to pursue cases of prisoners, visitors or staff being found with small quantities of psychoactive substances in prison, and would support the stance that psychoactive substances are not to be tolerated in prison. The measure is fully supported across the House, by all the experts and panels, and within the Prison Service and other custodial suites. The measure concerns not just prisons, but any form of custody, particularly immigration detention centres and youth detention centres. I hope that in that way, along with the help we have had from the Lords, a simple case will be made about the possession of a psychoactive substance in prisons and other custodial centres, as opposed to in the community where it is not an offence. That is needed, to make a difference. We have listened carefully, and that is exactly what we will do.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Mr Howarth, I look forward to serving under your chairmanship and receiving your guidance. This is my first outing as a shadow Minister on a Bill, and I know that I am sitting under two experienced Chairs who will make my life so much easier than it might otherwise have been. That is a plea, in case you had not worked it out.

As I made clear during my speech on Second Reading, we support the Bill’s principles and general approach. The 2015 Labour manifesto included a commitment to ban the sale and distribution of dangerous psychoactive substances. A blanket ban with listed exemptions appears to be the most effective means of beginning to tackle the serious public health problems that the drugs have brought about. During the Committee stage, we will look at the weaknesses in the drafting of the Bill, and will table amendments to try to improve it. I hope that the Government take our critique and suggestions in the constructive manner in which they are intended. We want to work with the Government, through the Committee, to make the Bill as effective and robust as possible.

The Government have elected to insert a new clause into the Bill, which will make it an offence to possess a psychoactive substance in a custodial institution. The new clause amends clause 1, which is consequential on the new offence. The Bill already contains offences of supply, and of possession with intent to supply, psychoactive substances, which apply to prisoners and staff as much as to the rest of the public. The new clause makes it an aggravating factor to supply such substances in or around a prison, meaning that the only new power would be the ability to further punish those involved with psychoactive substances. Although I share the Government’s concern about the problem of such substances in our prisons, I am not convinced that we lack enough statutes to bring charges against prisoners, staff and visitors.

I also assume that many of the prisoners in possession of and taking psychoactive substances in our custodial institutions are likely to be addicted and are possibly in prison because they needed to feed their habit. It would perhaps be better to treat such instances as a health issue rather than one of enforcement. As I have said, the Bill already contains offences of supply and possession with intent to supply in or near a prison as an aggravated offence, so I am not convinced that the addition of possession is necessary.

As I said on Second Reading, I am concerned by the findings in the prisons and probation ombudsman’s report of July of this year that new psychoactive substances had been a factor in at least 19 prisoner deaths between 2012 and 2014. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons’ annual report was just as concerning. It found that the availability of new psychoactive drugs has

“had a severe impact and has led to debt and associated violence.”

New psychoactive substances are undoubtedly a real problem for our prisons, which I am sure is what motivated the Minister to table the amendment. However, neither of the reports asked for legislation to help deal with the problem. Indeed, the drugs that the reports mention as causing problems, Black Mamba and Spice, are already controlled by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, meaning that possessing the most problematic substances in our prisons is already a crime. In addition, the Prison Service already has powers to discipline and punish prisoners for possessing psychoactive substances though prison rules.

Both reports stress that better detection mechanisms for new psychoactive substances need to be in place. HMIP stated that many new psychoactive substances do not show up in mandatory drug tests, making it difficult for prison officers to know what they are dealing with and the scale of the problem they face. Too few drugs tests are taking place, due to inadequate staffing. The prisons ombudsman highlighted that the sniffer dogs used by prisons to detect drugs often could not identify new psychoactive substances, and that it was still waiting for X-ray body scanners to detect substances concealed in body cavities.

I understand that the prevalence of Spice in prisons can be high. Will the legislation have a deterrent effect? Is it practically possible to enforce, or will it be like handing out speeding tickets at a grand prix? Will the Minister explain what prompted his desire to introduce criminal sanctions for possessing a psychoactive substance in a prison? Does he genuinely feel that the prison system has enough resources to tackle the direct supply and demand of such substances? It does rather feel that the amendment has been tabled out of a desire to do something about the problem in our prisons because the Minister and the Government have not been able to do the right thing, which is to address the staffing and resources issues raised by HMIP and the prisons and probation ombudsman.

During my Second Reading speech, I stressed that we have to reduce supply and demand for such drugs, meaning that we need to focus on education, including education for prisoners and, I suggest, their families. The Minister’s letter to the Chairs of the Committee states that the new offence provided by this amendment will complement the work of the National Offender Management Service to

“educate prisoners, staff and visitors.”

Will the Minister update us on what changes the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice have made to the drug education strategy since July, which is when the prisons and probation ombudsman report recommended that the Prison Service should put in place a specific education programme about the dangers of psychoactive substances?

In conclusion, I am unconvinced that the new offence would provide any useful tools in tackling the problem of novel psychoactive substances in our prisons. It is already against prison rules to possess a psychoactive substance. It is also against the law to possess Black Mamba and Spice—the NPS that currently cause the most damage in our prisons. They are already banned. Custody professionals seem clear that the priority needs to be ensuring that prisons have the resources to deal with these substances and to educate their staff and prisoners. I think that makes sense and I agree with them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

The Government made a commitment in the other place during the Bill’s passage there to review the existing exemption for research activities and to strengthen it. That commitment was important and we shall push forward with it now, as we would all agree that bona fide research is a vital area. In doing so, we are following the consultation of the Academy of Medical Sciences and others, and we are confident that this exemption is necessary, sufficient and robust.

The new schedule also provides an exemption for healthcare-related activities, which I think we would all support. That is obviously very important. We do not want to make a problem for individuals. We see that this exemption has a complement in the exemption of medical products in schedule 1. In providing the new exemption we are going for a belt and braces approach, and we fully accept that that is what we are doing. I think that is very important.

New clause 3 enables the Home Secretary to add and vary a list of exempted activities in a new schedule. This regulation-making power replaces that in clause 10 of the Bill which covers the same ground, so we will effectively be removing clause 10 and replacing it with new clause 3. In the light of what we have seen in the other place, we felt that that is important. When we get to clause 10, obviously we will not move it. Hopefully we can move on, because I think this is an agreed part of the Bill. It is important that as different substances become available, the Home Secretary has the powers to add to and vary the list.

[Lyn Brown]

Government amendment 2 is consequential on later Government amendments, providing for exceptions for medical and academic research. One of the concerns raised by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs was about the impact of this legislation on legitimate scientific work. As the ACMD made clear, in the original drafting there was an exemption for clinical trials but no mention of exemption made for laboratory research in academia or industry.

The Academy of Medical Sciences also wrote to the Home Secretary to raise its concerns. An example picked out by the AMS is that the Bill could criminalise neuroscience researchers using psychoactive substances as experimental tools to help us better understand the causes of some mental illness. Several Members of the House of Lords raised that as an issue prior to Report in that place. Lord Rosser, who led on the Bill for Labour in the House of Lords, highlighted on Second Reading that it is of vital importance that the Bill does not

“inhibit or restrict important medical research that will help us to improve our knowledge of drugs and their impact”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 June 2015; Vol. 762, c. 1964.]

I thank Lord Rosser for highlighting that, and for seeking assurances from the Government that the original clause 10 of the Bill will not inhibit or restrict legitimate research by the terms of the Bill. I also thank him for emphasising the need for procedures relating to medical research to be made exempt under the Bill. Without his diligent work, the Government’s new clause, which deals with many of the inadequacies of the original drafting, may not have been possible.

I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, who spoke passionately on Second Reading about the need for clearer exceptions for medical research. He was absolutely right to raise concerns that the vague definition of psychoactive substances in the Bill will impede legitimate research.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

I certainly agree. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend said:

“Would it not be a tragedy if the United Kingdom, one of the leading research nations in the world, avoided finding a cure for some awful psychiatric disorder due to our failure to include the appropriate exemptions for scientists?”—[Official Report, 19 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 779.]

Thanks to pressure exerted on the Government, Lord Bates, who led the Bill through the Lords for the Government, wrote to Lord Rosser and other peers to state that the Government were actively considering the issue and were in discussion with the ACMD. He pledged that the Government would table amendments addressing concerns about medical research during the Commons Committee stage. His colleague, Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen, stated that the Government have no intention of stopping “bona fide research”. I am glad that the Government listened to Labour’s concerns and have delivered on Lord Bates’s promise by introducing a new clause that will specifically exempt academic activities. I absolutely support the amendments.

However, I cannot help but feel that the Government could have avoided the need hastily to draft the amendments and table some significant information if they had properly consulted the ACMD before they produced the first draft of the Bill. This has been a very quick—I would not say rushed—Bill. We had Second Reading in the Commons a week ago and here we are in Committee, and there are still issues that are yet to be completely ironed out in Committee to make the Bill enforceable in our courts of law.

We need to take into consideration organisations such as the ACMD, which consists of leading experts on drugs, many of whom work in academia. If they had been consulted on the original draft of the Bill, they would undoubtedly have spotted the problems with the Government’s original plans. The amendment could have been in the Bill from the beginning, and parliamentary time could have been spent more productively in looking at the goals of the Bill and how well the Bill will help the Government to achieve them.

[Mike Penning]

At the outset, I want to say that legislation is passed in Parliament by introducing a draft Bill, which is then scrutinised. I welcome the scrutiny that took place in the Lords. The reason why the Bill started in the Lords—this is probably above my pay grade—is that there are so many genuine experts there. Perhaps if it had started in this House the same amendments would have been introduced by colleagues on both sides of the House. I do not mind that; colleagues who know me well enough know that I am pragmatic.

I have a couple of points about the shadow Minister’s comments. This should have been done years ago under previous Administrations—I think we all know that. For every day that we do not do this, people are dying. I accept that it is rushed, to a degree—there was a huge gap between the Bill being in the Lords and coming to us—but it is right and proper for this House to expedite the Bill, while doing everything possible about any anomalies that generally concern groups of people, in particular on the research side. If there were any such anomalies in the legislation, I would let no one prevent us from changing things. That is why we have tabled the amendments. Unashamedly, I have already mentioned belt and braces. If we need to amend things further as we go on, we will do so, so that we do not prevent research in such an important area.

I wanted to touch on the scrutiny work done in the other House. I sat in on the debate on Second Reading and Report, on the steps of the Throne—it is a great honour to be able to do such things—and it was fascinating. One group of people was fundamentally opposed, as in our House, but it was a tiny group. We got around bits such as “Will this affect people in churches with incense?” and, once we had got rid of that stuff, we could actually ask, “Does the Bill do what it says on the tin?” and “Does it allow the research to continue to take place?” which is absolutely vital. New clause 3 would improve the Bill, and that is why we can take out clause 10. That is because we were listening, and this is the way forward.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that data sharing across police forces is essential to ensure we get the right information and can prosecute cases where possible. Police Scotland has voiced similar concerns, stating that a successful case would require evidence from a qualified expert with experience of working with NPS who could identify the substance and prove its psychoactivity. Furthermore, Police Scotland also states that every case that involved NPS offences would require the suitably qualified medical expert to provide evidence in court, which would also incur a cost.

The critical issue in the Bill—the definition of psychoactivity—still has to be addressed, although I suppose there might be something in the letter that has been submitted to the Committee. The ACMD published further advice on 23 October and is still of the view that

“the current definition on the face of the Bill is too unspecific and does not adequately define a psychoactive substance”.

Essentially, the Home Secretary has rejected any qualification of psychoactive substances—for example, by including only synthetic products. The definition in clause 2 remains as originally drafted, without reference to harm, to which we will come later.

Much of the detail of the Government’s discussions has not been published, so the reasoning behind their position is not entirely clear to me. They have not accepted any suggested amendment to the wording of clause 2. It is unfortunate that there has been no agreement between Ministers and the statutory body of expertise, the ACMD. I fear that that risks destabilising the overall soundness and public perception of the proposals, by which I mean the ability to prosecute successfully. If the definition remains largely unchanged, there will be consequences relating to harm measurement, proportional sentencing and credible messaging. If the criminal sanctions apply equally to substances of widely different harm thresholds, that will remove the possibility that sensible and honest messages about health harms can be created.

We tabled our amendments not to be difficult or party political but to try to secure clarification from the Government on the intended scope of the Bill. We need to know that they are certain that they can legally prove that a substance is psychoactive and secure prosecutions. We want to know what provisions they have made to ensure that the necessary funds and resources are available to conduct extensive and expensive tests for psychoactivity.

[Mike Penning]

I thank the shadow Minister for her detailed and extensive comments, which I take in the context in which they were delivered.

I want to address some of the points that were made. The SNP spokesman mentioned the idea of a toolkit—we do not need to reinvent the wheel every time, do we? In England, local authorities, which have responsibility for public health, spend £830 million a year on tackling drug and alcohol misuse. That is 30% of the national budget, which makes it logical to address the issue.

The explanatory notes set out that the measures will be cost-neutral to the police and local authorities. Let me use some anecdotal evidence to show why. Take, for example, Belfast and Lincoln, two very diverse communities where head shops were banned using local powers. I still do not understand why other local authorities have not used those powers, but there we are. The cost and type of policing in those communities changed dramatically, without the Bill, just by banning head shops. Belfast, which I know all too well from my time as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, was transformed simply by people saying, “We do not want that sort of product sold in shops in our communities because people will think it is legitimate and safe.”

I understand that there are concerns, and I know that there are different views coming back from the Republic of Ireland. I went and met the Irish Minister and his scientific experts. I asked why there had been five prosecutions, and the answer was twofold, and not exactly what we have heard so far today. In Ireland, they felt that they had got the prosecutions they wanted using powers that are also in the Bill. A huge part of the Bill has nothing to do with the CPS and the police prosecuting, but is about local authorities. What happened almost overnight after using those powers was that the head shops and the industry collapsed, because people had been educated correctly. Where the local authorities were using their powers—powers that are also in the Bill—it transformed the communities in the way we would all like to see. The Bill is not designed to pick on people who have been using these products perfectly legally and, they feel, safely; it is designed to get the really bad guys—the dealers and those sorts of people. The seven-year prison sentence is in the Bill as a last resort.

In terms of applied science and technology, the Home Office will identify and bring forward the capability throughout the UK on the forensic requirement. We are going to do that. I accept that we will have to give more detail, perhaps on Report, and we are happy to do so.

I am sorry we disagree so early in the Bill, but I have real concerns about amendment 51, which runs counter to the blanket ban. If we are going to go for a blanket ban, we are going to go for a blanket ban. If we start fiddling around the edges, that blanket ban becomes difficult, so I do not support the amendment. I fully accept the fact that the shadow Minister and other members of the Committee have not had enough time to read the ACMD’s latest correspondence. Perhaps that can be addressed on Report. The ACMD understandably moves with debate, as it moves in different areas. As I said earlier, using “synthetics” in the Bill is wrong. A blanket ban is a blanket ban. We have to get ahead the game, and that is what we have been trying to do.

I fully understand why the amendments have been tabled, and that the one from the hon. Member for Midlothian is probing, but sadly at this stage I cannot support amendments 51, 43 and 44 for the reasons I have given. If more discussion and investigation is needed, the Report stage may be a better time for that. A lot of the concerns are that we will not be able to prosecute, but we will. It happens in other parts of the world and in Ireland. There were concerns about harm, but if a blanket ban happens, we are ahead of harm, rather than waiting for harm to happen and for people to die. On that basis, I hope that colleagues will not press their amendments to a Division.

[Lyn Brown]

I hear entirely what the Minister is saying, and I have some sympathy, but may I push him on a couple of things? The first is the issue of the definition. I did not hear him explain why we cannot use the words “new” or “synthetic”. That would give us a better focus on the things we want to ban. Secondly, I did not hear why we were not able to put the organic substances that we know to be harmful, such as salvia and kratom, within the scope of the 1971 Act. That just seems logical. We know that those substances are harmful and we know what they are. People will not be able to graft new bits on to plants to create new organic substances—certainly not at the rate at which they have managed to create new synthetic substances.

The Minister talked about costs. I used the words “immediately become cost-neutral” in my notes, but I say gently to him that while I accept that there may be savings to the local community and the local police from banning head shops, cutting the supply and getting rid of the demand from our streets, I genuinely do not believe that those savings will be immediate. I gently suggest that one reason why there have not been more prosecutions by local authorities is that they have not had the wherewithal—the finance— to know that what they are taking to court will actually stand up. There is a cost issue that we need to look at.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

I am grateful, Mr Howarth.

[Mike Penning]

I do not want to go round in circles, as I have made the points that I would almost certainly make again. At this point I would like to make some progress. “New or novel” substances have, according to my legal team, no legal meaning within the law, which is why we are not going with that.

[Lyn Brown]

Okay.

[Mike Penning]

Ireland is a much smaller country and, if we proportionally move the percentage in population up from 5%, we would see substantially more prosecutions. I am really pleased that I went to Ireland as I was amazed at the amount of work done by local government on prevention. One reason why the measure will not come into force until April is to allow what happened in Ireland to happen here. Prosecutions did take place and were not thrown out of court; the evidence base was almost identical to what we have. We are slightly tougher, but only marginally, and perhaps learning from some of the mistakes. They have said they will probably follow us and our legislation going forward, which is exactly what New Zealand and Western Australia are doing as well.

We have to be careful not to pre-empt something that might happen but which has not happened in countries where measures have been taken. I am conscious that the measure needs to be tight and a blanket ban is needed. I am happy and confident that we will have the scientific evidence and the experts out there to make sure that we can do this. Let us hope that, before the legislation comes in, and as they did in Ireland, we get into the schools, we get into local government and talk to communities, and that we get programmes out there that we will all support to make sure, categorically, that everybody is aware not only that the substances are no longer legal, but that they have definitely never been safe and, by the way, there are severe penalties for importing, manufacturing or selling these products.

[Lyn Brown]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for clarification on the words “new or novel”. That is the first time I have heard that they might not have a legal standing as a definition. May I push him, therefore, on the definition and ask if he is confident that the definition in the Bill will be robust enough for us to deal with provability within a court? Secondly, may I ask him to address the issue of cost?

[Mike Penning]

The answer to the first question is yes; I am more than confident about that. As the explanatory notes say, the CPS is responsible for the costs in prosecution terms. We do not think that will be an enormous burden. I am responsible for 43 police authorities, and the costs of policing this type of problem in our communities is huge. Public health is obviously for local authorities. I used to be shadow Minister for public health, and the cost burden is very interesting. We have seen in Ireland that the number of people who turn up to A&E has dropped dramatically. The number of people needing rehabilitation and treatment has also dropped. Those are all cost negatives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

I beg to move amendment 45, in clause 3, page 2, line 14, at end insert—

‘(3A) The Home Secretary must consider making regulations under subsection (2) if she receives a recommendation from the Advisory Council of Misuse of Drugs to bring forward such a regulation in respect of a psychoactive substance.”

This would enable the ACMD to proactively request that the Home Secretary consider regulations.

On Second Reading, I asked whether the Minister had considered providing credible measures for relatively harmless substances to be excluded from the controls introduced by the Bill. That, after all, is something the expert panel envisaged as a potential part of the Bill when it made its recommendation, following the Irish model. Amendment 45 would be one way of providing such measures, as it would allow the ACMD to proactively request that the Home Secretary consider adding a substance to the exempted list.

There is broad support for the Bill across the political spectrum. However, we know one concern is that it may restrict trade in harmless substances. I put it to the Committee that if people knew it was possible to make representations to the ACMD about substances they wish to exempt and for convincing and evidence-based arguments to make their way up to the Home Secretary, the Bill might have even broader support than it currently does.

As we know, the Home Affairs Committee received much written and oral evidence about the issue of poppers. Colleagues in the SNP have tabled an amendment about them and I will have more to say about poppers in that debate.

[Mike Penning]

I think there is a very important debate to be had on poppers. That will be the Chair’s decision when we get to poppers—however, at the present time I did not realise we were talking about poppers.

[Mike Penning]

I was trying to help.

[Lyn Brown]

I like help, so do not stop trying to help.

I admit that I am sympathetic to the SNP’s amendment. If the ACMD, through Professor Iversen’s evidence, is suggesting that poppers pose a low risk of harm, it would be within the scope of the Bill to place poppers on the exemption list—but I am not an expert.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

The shadow Minister would have a point if not for section 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which allows the council—or ACMD—to issue advice to Ministers when it considers it expedient to do so. That provision is in the Act. A protocol between the Home Secretary and the ACMD allows the council to consider drug issues without any advice from us at all. That is in the Act.

[Lyn Brown]

The issue that we are trying to push is on exemptions.

[Mike Penning]

We will come to that.

[Lyn Brown]

Okay, but we have tried to helpfully suggest that there might be a way of making this a cost-neutral thing with the industry, proving that a substance should go on to the exemption list because it is harmless. The Bill and the public’s acceptance of it will be strengthened if harmless substances are put on an exemptions list, as we have done with incense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

That was looked at extensively by the expert panel before the legislation was introduced, and it was rejected. The panel looked particularly at New Zealand, which had already introduced a licence, basically, which is what we are alluding to—to people applying for a licence—for low-harm substances. That has not worked.

[Lyn Brown]

No, it did not work.

[Mike Penning]

No one has applied for a licence and there is basically a blanket ban. The experts, who are much more expert than I am, looked at it extensively. They examined it and rejected it and were happy with the way we are moving forward. With that in mind, I am more than happy—as I suggested earlier to the hon. Member for Midlothian—to look again at that between now and Report to make sure that I am 100% comfortable with the proposals, because I understand the hon. Lady’s passion for this issue.

[Lyn Brown]

I am grateful.

[Mike Penning]

However, at this stage I am comfortable, unless something comes forward between now and Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

Some of them are. Some of them are genuinely and legitimately people doing business, for example, selling a certain gas that is inappropriately used by other people, such as laughing gas. The Bill is specific in that area to make sure that we protect people. We cannot protect everybody who completely ignores what a label says, but if someone is selling certain products, they will get up to seven years in prison. That is why the harshness is there at that end of the scale, although I fully understand and do not want to penalise people at the other end, who perhaps take the products—in my opinion wrongly, and I am sure that everyone would agree—thinking they are safe. We do not want to criminalise that. I hope that the hon. Lady will not press her amendment. We can look at this carefully again, if necessary, on Report.

[Lyn Brown]

I am really delighted that the Minister has agreed to take this matter away and think again on exemptions and the two-way street with the ACMD. It is really helpful and I am very grateful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

Therefore, Mr Howarth, I happily beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

Exempted substances

[Mike Penning]

I beg to move amendment 3, in Schedule 1, page 38, line 7, leave out from “products” to end of line 12 and insert—

‘“Medicinal product” has the same meaning as in the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (S.I. 2012/1916) (see regulation 2 of those Regulations).’

This amendment replaces the definition of “medicinal product” in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1. The revised definition adopts that in regulation 2 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012, which includes, but is wider than, medicinal products for which a marketing authorisation or an Article 126a authorisation is in force.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

I rise to speak to Government amendments 3 and 4, which would replace the passages on investigational, homeopathic and traditional herbal medicine in the list of exempted substances with a single wide definition of a medicinal product. Will the Government provide further detail on the exempted substances list and the forensic strategy that underpins the Bill? Some representations, including from the ACMD, have described the exemptions list as potentially unworkable, particularly if there is no inclusion list in the definition of psychoactive substances, as recommended by the ACMD. It is possible that adding an inclusion list into the definition of psychoactive substances makes the management of the exclusion list much more manageable. I would be grateful for the Minister’s view.

[Mike Penning]

I am really sorry if I am looking slightly puzzled, but I did not think that we were considering these matters at the moment. I will get some notes passed to me, a service which the hon. Lady does not receive. I am puzzled.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [Lords]

Debate between Lyn Brown and Mike Penning

Monday 19th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

The hon. Gentleman makes a comment when he is not even in the Chamber—he should know better, as he has been here long enough.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I am a little confused by the diversion from where I thought we were going. Would not a purchaser need to know that the substance was illegal when purchasing it? If so, we will need a definition of what psychoactive means. Is that not right?

[Mike Penning]

That is exactly the situation, and that is exactly what the Bill says. I do not understand the diversion either.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right; I completely and utterly agree. Education is the key to this. We need to reduce the demand for the supply.

Thus far, a mere £180,556 has been spent on education programmes on new psychoactive substances, as the Minister told the House in a written answer on 2 June. Sadly, the Government rejected Labour’s amendment to the Bill in the Lords which would have placed a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to increase public awareness and help schools to educate children about the dangers of these drugs. Let me say gently that that is a wholly inadequate response given that the Government themselves recognise that these drugs are a serious problem. If we want young people to have the resilience, the confidence and the knowledge to say no, we have to be fully committed to a comprehensive education programme across the UK.

The next area where the Minister needs to exercise care and caution is proportionality of sentencing. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act, sentences are linked to the harm caused by the drug possessed, supplied or produced—the more harmful the drug, the harsher the maximum sentence. Of course, there is judicial discretion in applying individual sentences, but the general approach of linking to relative harms is important.

The Bill represents a radical departure from previous attempts to control drugs, because it legally decouples controlled substances from an independent and objective assessment of the harm they cause. We understand why that may be appropriate. The process by which the ACMD determines the harm of a substance can be lengthy and resource intensive, which is precisely why the Home Office cannot keep up with the illicit market. It is difficult to introduce the concept of harm to the Bill without denying the Home Office the tools it needs to deal with that central problem.

It is because this Bill suggests such a radical change that we need carefully to consider the impact it will have when implemented. I am worried that we might end up in a situation where someone who is prosecuted for selling a weak psychoactive substance faces the possibility of the same seven-year custodial sentence as someone who sells a very dangerous substance. The Bill contains no classification system to differentiate between those two crimes. I fear that the proposed laws could lose the confidence of the public and the judicial system if the issue of proportionality is not looked at carefully. As the Minister will be aware, the issue has exercised the Home Affairs Committee.

I am particularly worried about the proportionality of sentencing for young people involved in social supply. It is not unusual for a number of young people to club together and for one person to buy substances off the internet and distribute them among friends, or even for one individual to sell a small amount to a friend. The Bill makes no distinction between those people and large-scale importers. We need to look at that.

Has the Minister considered providing credible measures for a relatively harmless substance to be excluded from the controls, if that is deemed appropriate? Conversely, if a new psychoactive substance proves to be particularly harmful, surely it should be removed from the scope of the Bill and controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Reviewing that may be an appropriate responsibility of the ACMD.

Another issue that needs careful consideration is how the police and prosecutors can both determine and prove that a substance is psychoactive. I am sure the Minister is aware that Professor Iverson, chair of the ACMD, has previously written to the Home Secretary warning her that we will have to rely on proxy measures of psychoactivity, such as in vitro neurochemical tests, in order to prove psychoactivity, but that they may not stand up in court.

We should take Professor Iversen’s warnings seriously. Although similar legislation in Ireland appears to have been broadly successful—given the statistics I quoted earlier—there have been only five successful prosecutions. Police in Ireland have admitted that that is because they find it difficult to prove the psychoactivity of substances. We want sellers to stop selling psychoactive substances voluntarily, and for consumers to stop purchasing the drugs. However, it is hard to imagine that that would work without any prosecutions at all. The law simply would not provide a credible deterrent.

[Mike Penning]

I raised this issue with the Minister in Ireland, where local authorities and others can use the powers they have been given without having to go all the way to the criminal courts. This Bill also gives extensive powers to local authorities. That addresses some of the hon. Lady’s concerns, but the Bill Committee will look at the issue in more depth.

[Lyn Brown]

I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance. If the ban pushes supply away from the high street and increases online sales, there will be a need for resources and to look at how technology and international co-operation can disrupt supply and delivery routes. Is the National Crime Agency going to take the lead on online sellers? Does the Minister have the information to hand? Perhaps he could inform us of the plans when he winds up the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

I am clearly being far too subtle. I am not often accused of that. I talked about resources and clearly we understand that that will be an issue. I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for drawing the point out and for being so succinct.

The Home Secretary has said that the Home Office is actively considering the point about prisons and intends to table an amendment in Committee. I hope that that is still the Government’s intention. I will examine any such amendment carefully.

[Mike Penning]

Perhaps I was a bit too subtle as well, because I think I said that we would do that.

[Lyn Brown]

We are not often accused of that, are we?

[Mike Penning]

No.

[Lyn Brown]

In conclusion, the Opposition want the best possible Bill so that young people are not exposed to these dangerous, untested substances and so that we reduce the harm that they do. I want to work with the Government to ensure that that happens. That means looking seriously at the potential weaknesses in the Bill. We will stress throughout the legislative process and beyond that this problem cannot be tackled through law enforcement alone. We need to restrict supply and demand. That means looking once again at the state of drugs education in this country, alongside reducing the overall public health harms.