draft Licensing Act 2003 (Her majesty The Queen's Birthday Licensing Hours) order 2016

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2016 General Committees

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for explaining the purpose and intent of the order, which we support. The order will permit licensed premises to open for two additional hours, beginning at 11 pm, on 10 and 11 June. As we have already heard, that is the weekend of the Queen’s official birthday; I am sure that some public events are already being planned to celebrate the joyous occasion. This order would allow premises to stay open later without having to give a temporary event notice. We agree with the Government that it would not be appropriate to relax licensing hours for the sale of alcohol off licensed premises; I am sure that anybody who wishes to celebrate at home will buy alcohol in advance during normal trading hours.

Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 gives the Secretary of State the power to make a licensing hours order. As we have heard, that power has previously been used to extend licensing hours for the royal wedding, the diamond jubilee and the World cup. I am sure we all recall those occasions fondly and agree that, ignoring England’s performance in the football, they were a great success. What more significant an occasion is there than the birthday of our longest-reigning monarch? We saw only last week how keen people are to mark the occasion: even POTUS flew in to celebrate with the Queen on her actual birthday.

The consultation on the order sought a wide range of views. The Government consulted the Welsh Government; the national police lead on alcohol; the police and crime commissioners’ lead on alcohol; the Local Government Association; the Institute of Licensing; the National Organisation of Residents’ Associations; the British Beer and Pub Association; and the Association of Multiple Licensed Retailers. All of the respondents, with the exception of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, agreed that the plans should go ahead.

The Association of PCCs had concerns that the order would be disruptive and pose an increased risk of alcohol-related disorder. The concerns are indeed serious, especially as both Wales and England will play football matches on 11 June, which could lead to all-day drinking. However, I have been reassured that there is no evidence that there was serious disruption or disorder during the previous periods covered by licensing hour orders.

The near unanimous support for the order is in stark contrast to the consultation of 2011—the first time the power was used—when there was widespread concern about an increase in crime and disorder. The enthusiasm shown this time round is a testament to the success of previous licensing hours orders and to the magnitude of the occasion that we are about to celebrate.

I note that the last time the power was used for the 2014 World cup in Brazil, the impact assessment that was produced stated:

“While England are certain to be playing in the matches in the first period, there is a high probability that they will not be playing in the later matches.”

Sadly, the Government’s impact assessment was all too accurate. Reading it drew my attention to the fact that no impact assessment has been prepared this time round, so may I gently ask the Minister why?

I was encouraged to read in the explanatory memorandum that the order saves businesses the £21 fee for getting a temporary event notice. It is estimated that the pub industry will make a cumulative saving of between £240,000 and £480,000. I hope that the forecasts are as accurate this time as they were about England’s chances in the World cup.

This information on the benefits of the order is most welcome. However, the explanatory memorandum is a little thin on the ground when it comes to the costs of the order. The memorandum states:

“The impact on the public sector may comprise additional policing costs. However, the operational response will vary from force to force and within force, depending on the perception of likely crime and disorder associated with late night opening. The Government would expect forces to meet these costs from within their existing budgets.”

As the order has now been used on two separate royal occasions, I wonder whether the memorandum could have been slightly more helpful. The Government seem to be able to forecast the potential savings for businesses based on previous celebrations, but fail to do the same for the costs for the police. I say gently that providing that extra information might have eased the concerns that the PCCs expressed during the consultation.

We support the order. The Queen’s 90th birthday is a moment of national significance and celebration. Keeping the pubs open for an extra couple of hours will make the party all the more enjoyable, I am sure. I look forward to passing a similar order when England win Euro 2016 but, hopefully, that will come with a proper assessment of the costs and an improved explanatory memorandum.

Policing and Crime Bill (Seventh sitting)

Lyn Brown Excerpts

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

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

In conclusion [Laughter.] Financial sanctions are an important diplomatic and strategic power. Individuals or companies breaking financial sanctions are a serious threat to the national interest and must be stopped. We cannot allow the civil penalties introduced under the Bill to be perceived as a mere slap on the wrist, and a reasonable risk to take for those who would do business with people they should not. By accepting our amendments, the Minister could prevent that from happening.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

May I start by wishing the hon. Member for West Ham happy birthday for tomorrow? I hope we will not be sitting down to do this the day after her birthday, so I hope she enjoys her day without having to worry about getting up for Committee the next day, although she will obviously continue to represent her constituents in the excellent way that she does.

The enforcement of financial sanctions is vital to our foreign policy and national security, but it is also important to note that the size of a breach and the culpability of those involved in a breach will vary from case to case. It is therefore important to ensure that the enforcement of financial sanctions is both appropriately targeted and proportionate.

I will respond to some of the points made by the hon. Lady. I welcome her support for these measures. I reassure her that the new Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, or OFSI, and the increased resource behind sanctions enforcement will ensure that financial sanctions make the fullest possible contribution to the UK’s foreign policy and national security goals, as well as helping to maintain the integrity of and confidence in the UK financial services sector.

I would also like to reassure her that OFSI will not seek to use monetary penalties as an alternative to a criminal prosecution. Where a serious breach of the kind described by the hon. Lady is identified by OFSI, the full range of potential enforcement mechanisms will be considered. Although the monetary penalties set out in the Bill will provide a valuable contribution, prosecution and asset seizure under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 will also be available.

I note that the Crown court will, on conviction, be able to impose an unlimited fine. We intend to consult shortly on where and when to use monetary penalties. The proposed maximum limits of £1 million or 50% of the value of the breach are based on evidence about the value of breaches reported to the Treasury over the past two years. We believe that those levels are both proportionate and adequate to remove profits made from breaches of financial sanctions and provide a sufficient deterrent.

The hon. Lady will also be aware that the clause already obliges the Treasury to keep the maximum limits under review, and it includes a power to vary that figure by regulations. Clearly, if it turns out that the provisions are not appropriate, based on the evidence we have today, we can always vary that figure. Finally, I would like to reassure the hon. Lady that if evidence shows that the limits should be set at a higher level we can, and we will, change them.

In the context of the civil sanction regime, it is right that the legislation should provide clear and proportionate limits on the amount of the financial penalty. We believe that, based on the evidence, £1 million or 50% of the estimated value of the funds is an appropriate limit and, accordingly, I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.

[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 ---

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Everyone will know how to say “thank you” in Welsh by the end of the afternoon.

New clauses 19 and 20 relate to offences against children. New clause 19 relates to online offences against children and calls for modern technology specialist digital units for child abuse. Again, these are probing amendments and are pertinent to what we have just been discussing. New clause 19 would ensure that every local police force has a specialist digital child abuse unit with the latest equipment and expertise to analyse, investigate and take action in relation to online offences against children, including children being groomed and forced to commit sexual acts online, and the making and sharing of sexual images and videos involving children.

We have talked about the explosion of online crime, so I will not go through it again, but I echo the concerns that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Children’s Society and Barnardo’s raised during oral evidence to the Committee about the lack of capacity and expertise within local police forces to tackle these crimes. Beyond the cases that reach the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre threshold, local forces are left with a huge volume of other cases where children are at risk, which they do not have the expertise or capacity to deal with adequately.

Emerging findings from research by the NSPCC show that the scale of this type of offending is far greater than previously thought. The sheer volume of offenders, devices and images relating to online offences against children has left the police swamped and unable to protect children to the best of their ability. In one sense, the increase in recording and reporting is to be welcomed, as these crimes are now being recorded. None the less, they are increasing, which is an issue that we should be addressing.

Recent reports by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary on the responses of individual police forces to child protection cases have revealed significant delays—in some cases of up to 12 months—in the forensic analysis of the devices of suspected offenders. We are talking about children here. Some of those delays can pose serious risks to the safeguarding of children, leaving offenders free to continue abusing or exploiting other victims, not to mention the impact on the child victim. While the expertise and capacity of high-tech and cybercrime units are crucial, it is child protection and offender management knowledge and skills that are vital to ensuring that children are best protected.

The Prime Minster gave child sexual abuse the status of a “national threat” in the strategic policing requirement, but what assessment has been made of the increased policing capacity and expertise needed to deal with this issue, given the rise of online offences, and what reassurances can the Minister give that those will be made available? What steps are Ministers taking to ensure that police forces are trained and have the necessary technical capacity to investigate such offences using the newest technology available?

New clause 20 is concerned with preventing child sexual exploitation and with the establishment of specialist units for child sexual abuse. It would help to ensure that all police forces had the resource and support that they needed to work with other local agencies to prevent child abuse, including child sexual exploitation. This subject is particularly pertinent to me because I work with North Wales police. Of course, the Macur review, which discusses this area, was published recently. That review was based on the Waterhouse inquiry, one of the recommendations of which was that there should be a children’s commissioner for Wales. How forces operate in respect of these issues is very significant. I am glad to say that my force, North Wales police, has a child sexual exploitation unit.

In the current economic climate, the police and others face a significant challenge in focusing on prevention. By the time incidents of grooming or sexual abuse come to the attention of the police, it is too late. The Government need to send a clear message that the early identification of children at risk, and of adults and children at risk of offending, is vital. Improving identification of children at risk means confronting difficult issues. Around a third of sexual offences are committed by children under the age of 18. That is often called peer-on-peer abuse. Barnardo’s is currently running a cross-party inquiry into how we can improve our responses to such young people, many of whom have themselves been the victims of abuse or trauma. Police and local agencies must have the resources that they need to work together, and in partnership with charities and others, to prevent horrific crimes such as child sexual exploitation. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that that will happen?

[Lyn Brown]

I support new clauses 19 and 20. New clause 19 would ensure that there was a unit specialising in analysing and investigating allegations of online offences against children within each police force, and new clause 20 would ensure that there was a unit responsible for working with local agencies to co-ordinate early identification of children at risk of sexual abuse. This is important preventive work.

A report by the Children’s Commissioner in November last year showed that only one in eight children who are sexually abused are identified by professionals. I really do not think that that is good enough. Early identification is incredibly important. The National Police Chiefs Council lead for child protection and abuse investigation, Chief Constable Simon Bailey, has said that

“by the time a child reports sexual abuse the damage has been done and we must do more to stop the abuse occurring in the first place.”

I could not agree more.

We need to do better on early identification, and the specialist units provided for in new clause 20 would help towards that end. The provision for a specialist unit within each police force would mean that both the police and the Crown Prosecution Service had a specialist or specialists working exclusively on child sexual exploitation, just as now happens with domestic violence. Many police forces already have specialist units dealing with child sexual exploitation and that is to be welcomed, but it would be good to see this replicated across the country if possible. Making the provision of specialist units statutory will help to give vulnerable children in all areas of the country a much greater chance of having their abuse recognised before it is too late.

The last decade has seen a huge increase in the number of children with access to the internet, particularly using smartphones and tablets. Current data shows that 65% of 12 to 15-year-olds, and 20% of eight to 11-year-olds own their own smartphone. In 2004, Barnardo’s identified 83 children as victims of some kind of online abuse, but today that number is in the thousands. Clearly, the way in which perpetrators of child sexual abuse contact and groom vulnerable children is changing, and those of us who wish to prevent these awful life-damaging crimes must change the way that we work too.

Barnardo’s 2015 report states that

“young people at risk of harm online may not have any previous vulnerabilities that are often associated with being victims of sexual abuse and exploitation”.

As a result, these victims are less likely to be known to the authorities and the police may only identify cases of exploitation when it is really rather too late. Encouragingly, in July 2014, initial outcomes of Operation Notarise showed that 660 people suspected of sharing illegal images of children had been arrested and around 500 children had been safeguarded. I welcome the good work that the police and charities like Barnardo’s are doing to combat online child sexual exploitation, but this is not the time to be complacent. I am very interested in hearing the Minister’s response to the suggestions in these new clauses.

[Karen Bradley]

I fully understand why the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd has tabled these new clauses. I believe that they have been prompted at least in part by concerns about significant digital forensics backlogs in some forces, which were highlighted by the recent Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary national child protection investigations. I thank HMIC for the work that it did. It is very important that we all understand what is happening on the ground and that there is an honest appraisal of the work that local police forces are doing, so that police and crime commissioners and others can take the necessary steps to ensure that those issues are addressed.

It almost does not need saying, but I will say it anyway: we can all agree that child sexual exploitation, whether on or offline, is an abhorrent crime and that the police and other relevant agencies must up their game to effectively respond to such crimes and safeguard vulnerable children. The shadow Minister and others have made reference to last year’s report by the Children’s Commissioner. It is worth setting out the context in which we are operating.

The Children’s Commissioner estimated that there are about 225,000 cases of child abuse a year. Of course, the vast majority of that was intra-familial abuse and, as the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd mentioned, peer-on-peer abuse—children-to-children, or young people to children abuse. Child sexual exploitation online is part of the problem, but intra-familial abuse is an enormous part of it. The national policing lead, Simon Bailey, is very clear on the work that needs to be done in schools, with social services and others, working in multi-agency safeguarding hubs, to ensure that children are protected and that we have places for people to go. For example, the Government launched the child sexual abuse whistleblowing helpline, which was one of the recommendations in the Louise Casey and Alexis Jay report on Rotherham. The report said that there needed to be a safe place for professionals to report concerns that child sexual abuse that had been reported had not been dealt with. The NSPCC runs that helpline for the Home Office, and will help to make sure that children can be protected.

--- Later in debate ---

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for affording us the opportunity to debate this important issue. Having done so, I hope I have been able to reassure her that progress is being made on tackling online child sexual abuse.

[Lyn Brown]

May I probe the Minister a little on the idea that we do not need specialist units? We now have specialist units within our police forces for domestic violence, which are provided for across the country. They seem to me to have had a massive impact on the safety of women in our communities; they have raised the issue locally and have meant that we are tackling domestic violence so much better than we were. Since those units have had such an impact on domestic violence, may I ask her gently to go away and think about them a bit more, rather than rejecting them out of hand, because they may be the answer to child exploitation and child abuse within our localities.

[Karen Bradley]

I understand exactly the hon. Lady’s point, but I think we need to differentiate between online and offline exploitation of children. Policing online exploitation is a detailed, technical job that requires great skill and depth. CEOP, which is part of the National Crime Agency, leads on that nationally, with the child abuse image database that is rolled out to all forces, and with their expertise. The Prime Minister committed £10 million to CEOP at the first WePROTECT summit at Downing Street in December 2014; my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice was there. We have the specialist capability sitting within CEOP to give all local police forces access to data on online grooming and exploitation.

However, dealing with child sexual abuse in a wider context—not necessarily online—has to be part of every police officer’s work: working with the multi-agency safeguarding hub, with social services, with health professionals and others to ensure that we identify the victim. It is not as easy as finding a victim online—although that is not easy either—because these are very hidden crimes. We need to ensure that they are the business of every police officer, that all officers are aware of what is involved, and that we work within the multi-agency safeguarding hub.

Frankly, it is far too often the police who end up leading on this matter. When a crime is committed, the police absolutely have a role to play. But if there is an allegation of abuse within a family context, two big burly coppers turning up at the front door may not be as successful as a social worker or a health professional. We need to get the right professionals and it needs to be an operational local matter; it is not something that we should be mandating nationally. With that in mind, I hope I have persuaded the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd to withdraw her new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts]

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

Diolch yn fawr iawn eto byth. You may be glad to hear that this is the last time you will be hearing my voice on another aspect of children’s safeguarding in relation to abduction. Again, I shall not be pushing new clause 21 to a Division. This probing measure concerning child abduction warning notices, or CAWNs, would ensure that police can protect vulnerable 16 and 17 year- olds by the same method they use to protect younger children.

Child abduction warning notices are used by the police to disrupt inappropriate relationships between children and people who seek to groom them. We mentioned earlier that children are maturing sexually earlier, but not emotionally. There are, of course, people who are very vulnerable although they have reached the age of 16 or 17. These notices are civil orders stemming from the Child Abduction Act 1984. In addition to their use with under-16s, they can currently be used to protect very limited groups of vulnerable 16 and 17 year- olds—those children who have been formally taken into care under section 31 of the Children Act 1989, those subject to an emergency protection order and those in police protection. This, as you can imagine, accounts for a very small number of vulnerable 16 and 17 year-olds. Latest statistics for England show that just 190 16 and 17 year-olds were taken into care under section 31 last year. This left a further 4,320 young people of that age who became looked-after in the same year who would not have the same protections if they were at risk of sexual exploitation.

This is particularly concerning when reported sexual offences are on the rise. In Wales alone there was an increase from 1,545 incidents in 2013-14 to 1,903 in 2014-15. Anything we can do to prevent these offences, including using child abduction warning notices, is vital, as I am sure we would all agree. Professionals working with vulnerable young people and charities such as the Children’s Society and Barnardo’s have consistently argued that CAWNs should be available for police to use in the protection of all vulnerable 16 and 17-year olds. Will the Minister therefore consider closing this loophole in the law?

[Lyn Brown]

I do not want to repeat everything the hon. Lady has said, but I agree with much of it. Child abduction warning notices can only currently be issued with regard to children under the age of 16, or to 16 and 17 year-olds formally taken into social care under a section 31 notice. We believe that, when it comes to sexual exploitation, this is simply too narrow a definition of a child and that there are very vulnerable 16 and 17 year-olds who could be protected by a child abduction warning notice. The most recent annual statistics available show that only 190 children aged between 16 and 17 were taken into care by their local authorities under a section 31 notice and would thus be able to be protected by a child abduction warning notice. However, a further 4,320 young people of that age are looked after by their local authorities and, as the law currently stands, they are not able to receive that form of protection. The Children’s Society report, “Old enough to know better?”, calculated that the number of 16 and 17-year-olds who live outside the family and are vulnerable to sexual exploitation is actually as high as 7,200. Whatever the exact number, there is clearly a substantial gap between the number of vulnerable 16 and 17-year-old children and the number eligible to be protected by a child abduction warning notice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Bradley]

As with other amendments that the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd has tabled, I understand and have great sympathy for the intention behind the new clause, but there are problems, as I hope she and the shadow Minister would acknowledge. Sixteen and 17-year-olds are adults. They are lawfully able to get married. They are generally deemed capable of living independently of their parents and are otherwise able to make decisions affecting their way of life, not least in sexual matters. Extending the offence of abducting a child who is capable of exercising his or her own free will could therefore raise difficult issues. We therefore need to think very carefully about and debate this matter. I would be delighted to meet the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd and the shadow Minister to discuss it, and I have talked to the Children’s Society about it.

We have a very difficult balance to strike here. We discussed this issue—and will be discussing it shortly—in connection with the coercive control offence when we debated the Serious Crime Bill last year. The difficulties we have—of recognising and ensuring that we respect the rights of somebody who is legally able to leave home and legally able to engage in sexual intercourse, while recognising their need for protection and their vulnerabilities —are considerable, and there is a very fine line. The fact is that there are many 21 and 22-year-olds who are incredibly vulnerable people. It is about the nuance and where we draw the line on these matters.

[Lyn Brown]

I appreciate that the Minister is doing her best here and I appreciate having the opportunity to talk about this issue, but my colleague on the team—my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion)—who is not here today is probably the better person to talk to about it. However, I just say to the Minister that the children who have been in and out of care are so vulnerable. They are desperate for love, affection and to be able to put down roots. They are so vulnerable. We really should be able to find a way through the difficulties with the law with regard to 16 and 17-year-olds to provide protection for this small number of very vulnerable young people.

[Karen Bradley]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point. I am working closely with my colleagues in the Department for Education to ensure that children in care have special treatment. To be clear, children in care do get different treatment from those who are otherwise vulnerable.

I will give an example, which I raised with the Children’s Society when it gave evidence, of where that could create problems. In an honour-based violence situation, a young person may have chosen to leave home because they fear what might happen to them there. I have heard horrendous examples of 16 and 17-year-old girls who left home and were forced to go back to their parents because they were vulnerable and that was the best place for them. In some cases, that led to the most horrendous outcomes. We have to be very careful and mindful of the fact that we confer rights on 16 and 17-year-olds over and above the rights that are conferred on 14 and 15-year-olds.

I appreciate fully the hon. Lady’s point about ensuring that children in care have special protections and, as I say, I am working closely with the Department for Education to ensure that we deal with that. I hope that she will recognise that the Government have legislated to introduce new civil orders, sexual risk orders, and slavery and trafficking risk orders, which provide the police with powers to tackle predators of 16 and 17-year-olds. We need to use those orders and civil powers, not make a blanket decision at this stage without having thought very carefully about the consequences.

That is why I would appreciate having a discussion. I understand that the hon. Lady referred to the hon. Member for Rotherham. I would be happy to meet them both to discuss this issue further, but we need to be careful. Before making a blanket decision on a matter such as this, we need to think about all the risks and consequences for all young people, on whom, as I say, at 16 and 17 we confer rights of adulthood in many ways. We need to respect those rights. For that reason, although the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd said that she would not press the new clause to a Division, I would be happy to discuss this issue further.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd—I can say it—on the excellent way in which she presented her arguments on the measures tabled in both her name and mine. I support everything that she said.

New clause 44 would make controlling and coercive behaviour towards 16 and 17-year-olds a criminal offence. I cannot accept the argument that 16 and 17-year-olds are that capable of knowing their own minds; there seems to be a contradiction if they are capable of making decisions about their sexual behaviour but are not permitted to vote. That aside, this behaviour—child sexual exploitation—is happening every day in our constituencies and communities and in the homes of many young people. That behaviour takes many forms, and it is our job to ensure that the law is able to address them all.

Through the Serious Crime Act 2015, the Government introduced a new offence of coercive and controlling behaviour. That rightly seeks to prevent vulnerable individuals in intimate and family relationships from suffering abuse. It recognises that domestic abuse is wrong and illegal, and that individuals do not need to prove specific instances of sexual or physical violence. The 2015 Act focuses on habitual arrangements, but there are parallels to be drawn in other contexts. In the case of child sexual exploitation, police often struggle to prove specific instances of sexual or physical violence. Supplementary documents to the Government’s guidance, “Working Together to Safeguard Children”, acknowledged that

“Violence, coercion and intimidation are common, involvement in exploitative relationships being characterised in the main by the child or young person’s limited availability of choice resulting from their social/economic and/or emotional vulnerability.”

However, the current offence of child sexual exploitation is much more narrowly defined in legislation. It mentions power and coercion, but it must go further. In particular, we must recognise the role of drugs and alcohol in coercing a child into sexual activity in a private residence. Will the Minister commit to reviewing the offence in the 2015 Act, and will she consider what more can be done to ensure that those who are grooming children using drugs and alcohol receive appropriate sentences?

[Lyn Brown]

I speak in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East. As the Minister rightly said, children aged 16 and 17 are over the age of consent, but there is no doubt that they can still be victims of child sexual exploitation. Often without financial means and the life experience necessary for complete independence, children can be manipulated and pressured into complying with the wishes of those who have power over them. They may find themselves in a situation where they are frightened of saying no to someone, or stressed that if they say no they will lose the financial support and assistance that that person provides them with. However, under current legislation, it is very difficult for the police to prosecute in those situations, as they are required to prove specific instances of sexual or physical violence. The new clause would make it easier to protect that vulnerable group of people from grooming and sexual exploitation.

The Serious Crime Act 2015 introduced a new offence of coercive and controlling behaviour in the home and I welcomed that move, as it rightly seeks to protect those individuals in intimate and family relationships who suffer the agony of domestic abuse. It recognises that domestic abuse is wrong and illegal, and for the first time it established that individuals do not need to prove specific instances of sexual or physical violence in order to demonstrate they have been the victim of the crime of domestic abuse. A partner who manipulates, bullies and emotionally torments is an abuser and the law finally recognises that.

The new clause would extend the provisions on manipulative and controlling behaviour to protect 16 and 17-year-olds in non-habitual arrangements with their abuser. It would make any behaviour that has a serious effect on a child, such as increasing their levels of stress or creating the fear of violence, controlling and coercive. It would, for example, have applied to the girls in Rotherham who were described by the Jay report as fearing the violent tendencies of their abusers, even if the men had not directly and physically attacked them. I would be grateful if the Minister would seriously consider the new clause.

[Jake Berry]

I want to speak briefly to the new clause to say that I hope the Minister will listen to the arguments being made. It is a hugely important issue. I pay tribute to the work that she has done on violent and coercive behaviour.

This is not an issue that I was particularly aware of, though I was aware that the Government had taken action. If anyone is a fan of “The Archers”, they will have heard, I am sure, the sensitive and good way that the issue is being covered in a relationship on that programme, which has made huge steps in raising awareness. I have been deeply shocked by this form of abuse, to the point of being unable to listen to a programme that I have listened to for the last 15 years.

I am extremely proud of the Minister and our own Government for all that we have done so far, but I hope that she will listen to Opposition voices and perhaps take this away to review. Protecting 16 and 17-year-olds, in the way that we have already done, is something that we should investigate, even if just for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carolyn Harris]

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

Licensing authorities have a duty to protect children from harm. Horrific cases that we have seen on television, in connection with Rotherham, have highlighted the need for this amendment, which could bring us a step closer to making our communities safer for our most vulnerable children. We already place duties on authorities that license premises to sell alcohol to carry out functions with a view to protecting children from harm. This amendment would create similar duties for licensing authorities in relation to taxis and minicabs. We know that taxis and private hire vehicles often feature in cases of child sexual exploitation. Indeed, in February of this year, Mohammed Akram was found guilty of sexual activity with a child under the age of 16, which took place in the back of his cab. He was sentenced to five years in prison.

This is not to say that all drivers are inherently likely to be involved in these crimes. The vast majority of drivers are law-abiding citizens but, along with other night-time economy workers, they have a role to play in helping to keep young people safe. Licensing authorities have a role to play in raising awareness so that drivers can spot the signs of harm and know how to intervene. There have been examples of good practice in Oxford, but we should have good practice across the United Kingdom. We need much more consistency.

Barnardo’s has been working with a range of night-time economy workers across the country to help improve awareness of children at risk. It is a part of the move towards prevention, which we need to see in this area. Will the Government consider introducing new duties on licensing authorities so that communities can be confident that all taxi and minicab drivers are able to spot the signs of abuse, and can help to keep children safe?

[Lyn Brown]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East said, the new clause would place local authorities under a duty to consider child protection when they issue licences for drivers of taxis and private hire vehicles. We support it because we think it could lead to important safeguarding measures.

Taxi drivers do a fantastic job up and down the country. I could not happily live my life without them. More than 242,000 licensed vehicles in England provide transport for millions of people every day. Outside of rural areas, interestingly, there is a high satisfaction level—about 68%—with taxi and private hire services. The review of child exploitation in Oxford made it clear that taxi drivers can and do play a very positive role in tackling grooming and child exploitation. The report noted that taxi drivers had driven young girls to the police station when they were worried that the girls were being sexually exploited, and that they were well regarded across the city because of the role that they had played.

However, we have to recognise that in some of the grooming rings exposed in recent years taxi drivers have not played such a positive role. Taxi drivers have been reported as abusing their position of power when they collect young people. The independent inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham found:

“One of the common threads running through child sexual exploitation across England has been the prominent role of taxi drivers in being directly linked to children who were abused”.

This is, quite clearly, a problem that needs to be tackled. I believe that my hon. Friend’s amendment could pave the way for important safeguarding measures that, frankly, should already be in place. For example, a number of local authorities up and down the country have imposed “conditions of fitness” tests on taxi drivers. These can involve criminal record checks and even live reporting to licensing authorities if a taxi driver commits a criminal offence after they have been granted a licence. Realistically, I do not believe that a licensing authority could carry out its duty to promote the prevention of harm to children, which is what the new clause provides for, without conducting checks on all drivers.

The Department for Transport provides guidelines on how local authorities should assess the criminal records of those who wish to have a licence to drive a private hire vehicle. The guidelines state that authorities

“should take a particularly cautious view of any offences involving violence, and especially sexual attack.”

Those are proportionate and appropriate words. However, because local authorities have discretion to interpret what is meant by a “fit and proper” person to drive a private hire vehicle, not all private hire vehicle drivers outside London are even subject to a criminal record check. We should consider reversing that; I believe that this proposed statutory duty to protect would have precisely that effect.

Other good practice can be considered. In Oxford, taxi drivers have been trained how to respond if they believe that their customers are victims of sexual exploitation. The independent review suggests there is evidence that that training is working. With a statutory duty in place to promote the prevention of child sexual exploitation, we could see such practices replicated across the country. Will the Minister say what measures the Government have put in place to ensure that best practice, like that in Oxford, can be shared across the country?

[Karen Bradley]

I hope that I am going to cheer everybody up—spoiler alert! I am not going to repeat the arguments made by the hon. Member for Swansea East and the shadow Minister, who have summed up the problem exactly. We have been working closely with the Local Government Association and others to ensure that best practices are spread. I recently enjoyed a taxi ride from Stoke-on-Trent station to my constituency home, in which the taxi driver, without knowing who I was, told me all about the safeguarding training he had been through that day. It was very good to hear him share that knowledge with someone he thought was a complete stranger to it.

We still need to go further. I have been working with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) on the further reforms that are urgently needed on taxi and private hire vehicle licensing arrangements.

Although I absolutely agree with the spirit of the new clause, I suspect—the hon. Member for Swansea East may be shocked to hear this—that more will be required, with respect both to strengthening the Bill’s provisions and to making additional amendments to relevant legislation. I assure her that I am committed to delivering this change; we want to ensure, working with colleagues at the Department of Transport, that those exercising licensing functions have access to the powers and are subject to the appropriate duties that best ensure that our licensing arrangements provide the strongest possible protections. Once we have determined the best way forward, we will carefully consider what legislative vehicle is most appropriate to make any necessary changes. I cannot promise that that will be in this Bill, but it may be. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Lady will be content to withdraw her new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

The new clauses are probing. This afternoon we have talked about some of the issues surrounding child exploitation. This is about the support that should be given to the victims of child exploitation. The NSPCC and the Children’s Society have been campaigning very hard to ensure that victims of sexual and physical abuse have access, as a matter of course, to therapeutic services. It is true that these things are costly—we talked about that this morning—but in my experience of talking to organisations that deal with such cases, proper, early intervention, especially with young victims, can save money in the long term, by preventing greater trauma many years later.

New clause 46 says that where police or others receive a disclosure that a child has been sexually exploited or subjected to other forms of child abuse, they should refer them to mental health services. It comes back to the question we asked this morning about whether reference to mental health services is a police function. Yes, it is, in terms of investigating the crime that was committed, but how do we then put the holistic bubble around the victim and support them? We need to ensure that the perpetrator of the abuse is taken to court and dealt with, while making sure that the individual gets the emotional and mental health support that they need. Is that naturally a police issue? Directly, no, it is not, but as the Minister said this morning, it is about how we create a link-up between the police service, the health service and other support services.

I accept that some of the services will be provided not by statutory services but by the voluntary sector. A great organisation in my constituency called the Just for Women Centre works with women who have been victims of domestic violence or abuse. It was very interesting listening to the debate this afternoon about victims coming forward. The spike in Durham has come out of the Savile revelations, but it is not about well-known individuals; the issue in that local group is the number of people who have come forward to report family members who abused them over many years.

There has been huge concentration, nationally, on the more high-profile figures, but in local areas a lot of victims who have never come forward before have now done so and are in need of a huge amount of emotional support. This provision refers to children, but without the support given to many of the women at the Just for Women Centre in Stanley in my constituency, early abuse would have led to other problems. Talking to those individuals, we hear that their problems throughout life stem from the fact that they were abused as youngsters. I commend Durham police for their proactive approach to investigating such cases and ensuring that victims get the proper emotional support.

New clause 47 is about information sharing. It says that local policing bodies shall maintain a duty to disclose information about a child who has been a victim of sexual exploitation to the relevant mental health services. I can hear minds crunching among the civil servants in the room, saying that there are obviously problems about sharing information and so on. I accept that, but if we are to ensure that those young people do not fall through the cracks between our statutory services, some method of getting that information to the services that count needs to be put in place.

I accept that ultimately, victims cannot be forced to accept help, but it must be on offer for them. Many of the women whom I have met who have been supported by the Just for Women Centre in my constituency had years of anguish and torment, the root cause of which was not getting help and assistance when they were young. If we can put in place a system that prevents that for future generations, that early intervention could prevent a lifetime of mental health issues, relationship problems and other things. As I said, these are probing amendments to explore how we can put in place practical support for victims of sexual and physical child abuse.

[Lyn Brown]

New clauses 46 and 47 act on a recommendation made in a joint report by NHS England and the Department of Health in 2013 called “Future in mind”, which argued that we need to ensure that those who have been sexually abused and/or exploited receive a comprehensive assessment and referral to the services that they need, including specialist mental health services.

In 2014, the NSPCC produced a summary of the academic literature on the relationship between childhood sexual abuse and victims’ later mental health. In each instance, the NSPCC offered a conservative estimate of the known impact of one on the other. Despite that effort not to sensationalise, the numbers are truly shocking. Children who are victims of sexual abuse are twice as likely to suffer from depression as those who are not victims. They are three times as likely to attempt suicide, to self-harm or to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder at some point in their lifetime and twice as likely to become dependent on alcohol, meaning that their physical health as well as their mental health is endangered.

All the evidence shows that the trauma and emotional confusion that follows childhood sexual abuse leaves victims more likely to suffer from poor mental health. We should, as a matter of course, do all we can to prevent that from happening, or at least to ensure that those mental health issues are made easier for victims to manage. That involves high-quality and appropriate mental health treatment and professional emotional counselling. There is evidence, for example, that abuse-specific therapeutic interventions relieve depressive symptoms among victims.

New clause 46 would require police or local authorities to make a referral whenever they receive a disclosure that a child has been the victim of sexual or other abuse. They would have to make a referral even if they do not believe there is enough evidence or grounds to take further legal action. That is important, because the burden of proof necessary for law enforcement to use its full array of powers is obviously higher than the level of suspicion needed for our full safeguarding and health measures to be utilised.

The NSPCC has found that delays between children suffering from traumatic events and receiving treatment lead to exacerbated mental health issues and we know that victims of sexual abuse have often had difficulty in being believed by the professionals charged with their care and protection. Duties to refer are not new to our legal system when dealing with safeguarding measures. For example, some employers must refer an individual to disclosure and barring services whenever an allegation of a sexual or abusive nature is made. The provisions in the new clause would not charge local authorities or the police to carry out the task of diagnosis, which they are not trained to do. It would be a precautionary measure that applied to all those about whom they receive a disclosure, not just those they believe to be suffering from a mental or emotional health issue. It is a sensible proposal, in keeping with established safeguarding practice and the assignment of appropriate professional duties.

The proposals are also well thought out. New clause 47 would put a duty on the police to share information with the relevant mental health service commissioner in their area. I believe that that new clause would work with new clause 46 to create a culture of collaboration between law enforcement, health agencies and local government, which is needed if the victims of child sexual exploitation are to be given the care and support that they need.

[Karen Bradley]

I thank the hon. Member for North Durham for again raising a very important issue. He is absolutely right. We must make sure that vulnerable or traumatised children must never fall through the gaps between services. I would appreciate it if, when we meet, we could discuss the way that that might best be addressed, because I am not convinced that the best way is a mandatory way. For example, some young people who are abused or exploited do not develop mental health problems and I have a nervousness about intervening unnecessarily, which could create unintended harms. We need to make sure that we intervene where we need to and that each child is treated as an individual and has the care that they need; I do not think that it should be mandated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I thank the Minister for her reply. Discussing these issues is worth while. I know there is an onus on things somehow being about cash, especially in a time of austerity, but I have to say that, if properly implemented, the new clause would save money in the long term as well as help individuals. Nevertheless, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 51

Suspension of Licences

“(1) Licensing Act 2003 is amended as follows—

(2) After section 171 insert—

“171A Suspension of Licences

(1) A licensing authority may suspend a premises licence, or a club premises certificate if the holder of the licence or certificate has failed to pay the non-domestic rates due, from one or more previous financial years, to the licensing authority in respect of the premises for which the licence or certificate relates.

(2) A licensing authority may not suspend a premises licence or a club premises certificate using the powers granted by this section if—

(a) the licensing authority is unable to demonstrate that earlier efforts to secure payment of the debt have been made but have failed, or

(b) either—

(i) the licence holder failed to pay the required amount of non-domestic rates at the time it became due because of an administrative error (whether made by the holder, the authority or anyone else), or

(ii) before or at the time the non-domestic rates became due, the holder notified the authority in writing that the holder disputed liability for, or the amount of, the rates.

(3) If a licensing authority suspends a premises licence or club premises certificate under subsection (1), the authority must give the holder of the licence or certificate notice of the grounds on which the licence or certificate has been revoked and specify the day the suspension takes effect.

(4) The date specified in the notice under subsection (3) must be at least 10 working days after the day the authority gives the notice.

(5) The amendments made by this section apply in relation to any outstanding non-domestic rates which are owed to the licensing authority six months after the commencement of this section.””—(Lyn Brown.)

This new clause would enable a licensing authority to suspend a premises licence where a business has wilfully or persistently failed to pay the business rates due to the licensing authority.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Lyn Brown]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

New clause 52—Cap on Licensed Premises—

“(1) Amend the 2003 Licensing Act as follows.

(2) At the end of subsection 3 of section 18 insert—

“(c) have regard to the cumulative impact of granting the licence application given the number of other licensed establishments in the vicinity of the applicant premise.”

This new clause would allow local authorities to reject a licensing application on the grounds that there are already too many licensed premises.

New clause 53—Public health licensing objective—

“(1) The Licensing Act 2003 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 4(d) insert—

“(e) promoting public health.””

This new clause would make promoting public health a statutory objective for licensing authorities.

[Lyn Brown]

These new clauses have all been tabled to help local authorities to carry out their alcohol licensing function.

New clause 51 would enable a licensing authority to suspend a premises licence where a business had wilfully or persistently failed to pay the business rates due. It has been tabled with the support of the Local Government Association. New clause 52 would allow local authorities to reject a licensing application if they felt there were already enough licensed premises in a particular area. New clause 53 would make promoting public health a statutory objective for licensing authorities.

New clause 51 has been tabled because, as the law stands, local authorities must issue licences to businesses even when they may owe debts running into tens of thousands of pounds. I am told by the LGA that that has become a problem in some localities, such as West Sussex, where local authorities are struggling to collect the business rates to which they are entitled. The new clause would end the problem by allowing local authorities to suspend the licence of an establishment that has persistently failed to pay its business rates. The hope is that the power would rarely be used, as premises would change their behaviour as they would no longer have reason to see their local authority as a soft creditor.

The new clause is by no means an attack on drinking establishments. We recognise the role that they play in our communities as social hubs that are an important part of our cultural heritage. The Opposition want to ensure that we keep as many of our well-run drinking establishments open as possible. We understand that the proposal could be seen as a threat to that, which is why it contains a power for a local authority to revoke a licence that would apply only if it was able to demonstrate first that earlier efforts to secure payment of the debt had been made but failed. That safeguard is included to ensure that the power is used only as a last resort.

Furthermore, the power to revoke a licence would not apply if the business failed to make the payment because of an administrative error on the part of the holder, the authority or anybody else—for example, the business’s bank. Taken together, those safeguards would ensure that the power to revoke licences was used only as a very last resort and would protect well-run local pubs from accidentally having their licence removed because of an administrative error.

The Local Government Association predicts that the safeguards, alongside the Government’s extension of small business rate relief, would mean that we would not see important community pubs closing as a result of the new power. However, the power would enable local authorities to ensure that they do not lose out on important revenue to which they are entitled and on which many of our basic services rely.

New clause 52 would allow local authorities to reject a licensing application if they felt they were saturated with licensed premises in a particular area. The Licensing Act 2003 allows local authorities to reject licensing applications only in a limited and defined set of situations: either where the premises has not demonstrated that it will meet statutory licensing objectives, or where door or cover supervision is not provided for.

Home Office guidance suggests that a local authority can refuse a licence based on

“the potential impact on the promotion of the licensing objectives of a significant number of licensed premises concentrated in one area.”

However, a local authority can do so only if it demonstrates in its licensing statement that the number of licensed premises in its area has already had a negative cumulative impact on its licensing objectives. That is called a cumulative impact policy and means that local authorities have to wait until they can demonstrate a negative impact on the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance or the protection of children from harm. That leaves local authorities powerless to act until after the fact, and I just do not think that that is right. I believe that the licensing objectives are incredibly important and I want to give local authorities the power to be proactive to ensure that they are upheld.

For instance, a small town with two large nightclubs could not reject an application for a licence from a third nightclub even if the local authority believed that it would not be appropriate for the town to have yet another nightclub. It is of course important to consider the individual characteristics of the premises concerned, but it is also important to consider the individual characteristics of our towns and cities, which many residents want to see conserved. In effect, local authorities have no power to control the number of licensed premises in any given locality until they can demonstrate that it is having an adverse impact on one of their licensing objectives, by which point it would be rather late.

New clause 52 would allow a local authority to reject a licensing application based on the belief that an area is already saturated with drinking establishments. It would give local authorities a sure footing and a legal foundation to allow them to be proactive in ensuring that their licensing objectives are met, and more power over how their towns and cities look and operate.

New clause 53 would make promoting public health a statutory objective for licensing authorities. I do recognise—honest—the important place that pubs, clubs, bars and restaurants play in our society. Drinking is a social activity, and drinking establishments are essentially social places where people go for conversation, relaxation and pleasure. I understand that in our busy and stressful lives, the socially integrative, egalitarian environments in our favourite locals can be the perfect way to switch off and unwind. For me, a decent beer, a good meal, an engaging book and the company of my four-legged friend is a great joy and a perfect way to spend a weekend afternoon or an evening. I also acknowledge that that can provide significant public health benefits—it certainly does for me—but we must not lose sight of the significant impact that drinking can have on public health.

It is well known that there is a causal relationship between alcohol consumption and a range of health problems, including alcohol dependency, liver diseases, some cancers and cardiovascular diseases. Furthermore, it can lead to unsafe behaviour and thus the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. The World Health Organisation estimates that 5.1% of the global disease burden is due to harmful use of alcohol. New clauses 52 and 53 would enable local authorities to reject licensing applications on the basis that the number of premises in an area was having a negative impact on public health. We cannot ask local authorities to be responsible for public health and then not give them the powers that they say they need to have an impact upon it.

I understand that implementing public health as a licensing objective in Scotland has proved to be somewhat difficult; however, that should not deter us from at least considering it. Alcohol clearly has a major impact on public health, so local authorities should be enabled to consider that impact when undertaking their licensing function. I believe that we have to find a way of successfully implementing what was attempted in Scotland. Local practitioners certainly think so; a recent Local Government Association survey of directors of public health found that nine out of 10 were in favour of adding a public health objective to the Licensing Act 2003, saying that it would help them do their jobs more effectively. Our amendment has the support of the Local Government Association.

[Karen Bradley]

I thank the shadow Minister for her comments. I too have read the very informative LGA briefing. I ought to declare an interest in that I am not just an avid—and regular—user of licensed premises. I grew up in a licensed premises, and my brother still has a licence and runs the family pub, which has been in the family since 1967. I think we probably have some experience of these things. Perhaps I could deal with the new clauses in the order that I am attracted to them.

I will start with new clause 51. The four licensing objectives that local authorities have are the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance, and the protection of children from harm. It is very important that we stick to those when we come to look at the new clause. The hon. Lady will know that there is a provision in the 2003 Act for the licensing authority to suspend a premises licence or club premises certificate if the premises has failed to pay the annual fee. That power is directly linked to the local authority’s need to obtain a fee from premises in order to carry out its functions. If it is not paid it undermines licensing authorities’ ability to operate fully, and it is therefore right that they should have the corresponding power to suspend the licence and thus the legal operation of such premises.

Business rates are a different matter. They must be paid by not just licensed premises but all businesses. There are already enforcement remedies available to local councils for the non-payment of those rates. I am not sure that linking the payment of business rates to the right to hold a licence to sell alcohol is necessarily an appropriate route to take. I am therefore afraid that I cannot commend new clause 51 to the Committee.

New clause 53 seeks to introduce a health-based licensing objective. I want to assure the hon. Lady that the Government have sympathy for the view that considerations of public health should play a greater role in licensing, and we remain interested in the possibility of introducing a health-related licensing objective. However, this is neither the right time nor the legislative vehicle to do so. It may superficially seem straightforward, but licensing decisions must be proportionate and made on a case-by-case basis. To try to establish direct causal links between alcohol-related health harms and particular premises would be very difficult. Without the necessary processes and supporting evidence in place, licensing decisions based on health grounds would be unlikely to stand up to legal challenge.

[Lyn Brown]

I have an awful lot of sympathy with what the hon. Lady says, especially about this not being the right legislative vehicle. It was an opportunity for us to test the waters.

We did not envisage this new clause being about the health risk of a particular pub, premises or bar, but about the amount in a particular area, or possibly the type of risks in a particular area. Effectively, the new clause would allow local authorities to take that into consideration when making decisions on licences.

[Karen Bradley]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point. I should make the point that the public health requirement, in the case of two-tier authorities, is on the county council, as it is in my case, but the district council deals with licensing. Licensing decisions are taken on a case-by-case basis, so we would be asking a district or borough council to take a licensing decision on an individual premises on the basis of a public health implication that may or may not be properly founded. I want to assure the hon. Lady that Public Health England is looking at the lessons learned from the evidence-based work that was done in 2014-15. A consultation process would need to follow, but it is looking carefully at that point.

New clause 52 covers the cumulative impact. The hon. Lady linked new clauses 52 and 53, but I do not think we need to do that. I hope that she has read avidly the Government’s modern crime prevention strategy, which was published just last month, because in that we made a commitment to put cumulative impact policies on a statutory footing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that local authorities do not necessarily use the powers available to them and this measure will ensure that they understand those powers and use them. I hope that he and the hon. Member for West Ham understand that the change requires proper consultation with those affected. We need to consult the licence trade, the alcohol industry and local authorities. Therefore—I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me—we need a little time to undertake such consultations. We will do them as quickly as possible. I cannot promise that they will have been completed in time for Report, but suffice it to say that we support the objectives behind new clause 52 and will seek to bring forward proposals of our own as quickly as possible.

[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?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Monday 11th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

As I indicated, we have seen a significant reduction in the number of incidents; from 2004-05 to 2014-15, the number of incidents fire and rescue services went to declined by 42%. As I said in response to the question from the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), although firefighters do still find themselves being called to fires, a lot of their work is also about other services to the community. They are doing an excellent job but we want to see how that can be done even better and how they can work better in collaboration with the police, as we have seen in places such as Northamptonshire.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Cuts to the fire and rescue service have already cost us 6,700 front-line firefighters and cuts to the police have already cost us 12,000 front-line police officers. As the Home Secretary knows, reserves can be spent only once and there are significant, real cuts to come. With the public less well protected with every day that passes, will she admit that her cynical plan to merge both services will not protect or restore a single police officer or firefighter to the front line, or make a single member of the public safer?

[Mrs May]

Yet again, the Labour party goes down the road of thinking that the only thing that matters is the number of police officers or firefighters available. The hon. Lady talks about full-time firefighters, but may I pay tribute to those people who volunteer as firefighters in their community, as they are often overlooked when we examine the issue of firefighters? What matters is not just the number of people we have, but how we are spending the money and how we are deploying our resources. That is where the efficiencies we have seen and the collaboration we see will result in not just savings, but a better service to the public.

Policing and Crime Bill (Second sitting)

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Q 45 We will now hear evidence from Barnardo’s, the Children’s Society and the NSPCC. We have until 2.45 pm for this part of the session.

I thank the witnesses for coming along and providing us with the benefit of your advice. We really appreciate it. Perhaps you could introduce yourselves, starting with Iryna.

Iryna Pona: I am Iryna Pona, and I am a policy adviser at the Children’s Society. I lead on our policy work with vulnerable adolescents.

Cassandra Harrison: Hello, I am Cassandra Harrison, and I am deputy director for policy and public affairs at Barnardo’s.

Alan Wardle: I am Alan Wardle, head of policy and public affairs at the NSPCC.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Q I will ask an open-ended question. Is there anything more that the Bill could do that would prevent child exploitation online?

Alan Wardle: It is really good that the Bill covers child sexual exploitation, although it is a bit of a missed opportunity in that there is only one measure, which relates to the livestreaming of child abuse—that is obviously a very serious matter. In terms of the prevention agenda, there are some things that could be done on child abduction warning notices, which Cassie can talk about in particular. In terms of child sexual exploitation, we are increasingly seeing that so much of this is done online. It is about understanding how children increasingly live their lives. The child sexual exploitation plan brought out last year made no real mention of the online elements. Again, it is about thinking about how we can better integrate the online and offline aspects, particularly with local police forces. We are concerned that, although the capacity of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre has quadrupled recently, and it is doing some great work, local police forces do not necessarily have the skills or expertise to be able to deal with some of these crimes. Making sure that each police force has a dedicated online team that has the skills and capacity to look better at these issues would help to prevent child sexual exploitation. I am happy to talk about that in more detail later if that would be helpful.

[Lyn Brown]

Q Who will talk to us about it in more detail? Cassandra was it?

Cassandra Harrison: I can talk to you about some of the prevention measures that we would like to see. It is not specifically about online abuse. Like the NSPCC, we welcome the fact that the Bill is closing the loophole in relation to online streaming. Child abduction warning notices are used by the police to collect and document evidence in order to dissuade people they suspect of grooming children from contacting those children by saying they have no permission to associate with them. The effectiveness of those notices is limited because breaching them is not a criminal offence. The Government responded to this and created sexual risk orders and sexual harm prevention orders.

The Solicitor General, in the passage of the Serious Crime Act 2015, committed to reviewing the effectiveness of the notices, including how they interact with child abduction warning notices. The process is supposed to be that when child abduction warning notices are breached, things are escalated by the police, who can use one of the legally enforceable orders. However, there is no clear indication at present as to whether that is happening in practice. Some anecdotal evidence we have suggests that that is quite patchy and in some cases no further action is being taken, which is quite concerning. We would like the Government to use the Bill as an opportunity to commit to report publicly on the use of those different measures, and to make sure that they are working effectively to protect children. What we all want is early intervention and prevention of this terrible type of abuse, which we know can have a terrible impact on children.

Iryna Pona: To add to what Cass has said about child abduction warning notices, we would also like to see provisions in the Bill to enable police to use child abduction warning notices in relation to vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds, because 16 and 17-year-olds are a separate group. They are very vulnerable to being sexually abused. At the same time, because legally they can consent to sexual relationships, they are often seen and responded to in a different way. Practitioners and police are not always sure how they can best protect them.

We believe that the Bill should address the gap in the law that says that police cannot use child abduction warning notices to disrupt predatory individuals who are targeting vulnerable young people aged 16 and 17. Currently, child abduction warning notices can be used only in relation to a very small group of 16 and 17-year-olds—those who are in the care of the local authorities, but only those who are under care orders under section 31 of the Children Act 1989. The majority of young people aged 16 and 17 who are in care are looked-after children under section 20 of the Children Act, so the majority are not covered and are very vulnerable to being targeted.

In addition, we know that young people seek help from local authorities because they are homeless. We estimate that about 2,800 young people are accommodated by local authorities every year, often under section 20, but not under section 31 or other provisions, because sometimes local authorities do not accommodate them as looked-after children, so for years they live in hostels and other types of accommodation. We know from our practice that they are very vulnerable to being targeted for sexual exploitation and police have very limited powers to disrupt that exploitation.

The sexual risk orders that Cass mentioned are very helpful but they require a high evidential level of proof. The guidance on sexual risk orders says that child abduction warning notices are complementary to sexual risk orders and can be used as speedy early intervention tools, so not being able to use them for vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds is a big gap that it is to be hoped the Bill will address.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Q You mentioned in passing the College of Policing, and perhaps the interpretation of how to put this legislation into effect might vary from police force to police force. How serious an issue is that?

Alan Wardle: We think that it is worrying. In particular, as I mentioned, in the online space there is a huge variation in how police forces respond to this. The report last year by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary into online child sexual exploitation found that over half of police investigations were either inadequate or required improvement, which we think is not really good enough. It is quite often forgotten that what happens in some of these delays: computers which were seized had not been examined for up to six to 12 months, and in some cases that have been followed up, those delays meant that more children were abused in real time.

There is a serious issue. Particularly with the nature of CSE and online CSE, that whole idea that a victim, the offender and the police force are all in the same area is increasingly untenable. How do we ensure that police forces are not operating as individual businesses, and all have the best technology? Are they procuring that in the best way? How do we ensure that the best technological brains are helping the police to identify and track these children and offenders? The variety in performance across the country, in terms of how the police are dealing with online offences, presents real challenges—we do not underestimate the challenges for the police, who are making a lot of effort, but the pace at which technology is moving and offenders are operating mean that they are always playing catch-up.

We need to be much smarter about how police forces are resourcing each other, and crossing and supporting each other in terms of sharing best practice, technology and tools that identify risk, because we hear from forces that some of the tools are not being used for cost reasons. There is a lot of irregular or, I should say, uneven practice across police forces that needs to be levelled out on online grooming and the way in which online criminals are targeting vulnerable children.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Sorry to interrupt, but we have 10 minutes left and several people who have not yet had an opportunity want to ask questions.

[Lyn Brown]

Q I will ask three rapid questions about part 1 of the Bill. Where there is not a local agreement, the proposals allow the PCC unilaterally, in effect, to make the case for a takeover to the Home Secretary. Do you support the principle of hostile takeover? Given that the geographical areas of police forces and fire services are not coterminous, will that make reorganisations of these areas particularly challenging? Do you think that any of your members would be interested in raising revenue via the privatisation of front-line fire services?

[Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

Q Just picking up on various pieces of evidence and reviews, collaboration has been described as patchy, probably at best, although there are excellent examples of good practice. I am interested to understand your views on the duty to collaborate and, specifically, on looking to extend the powers of PCCs to include responsibility for fire and rescue, and whether that would address the barriers that you might have seen on getting collaboration between and integration of the two services.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I am required by the programme motion to bring proceedings to a halt at 3.15 pm. David Jamieson and Vera have slightly less than five minutes to share between them. I do not know which way round you want to do it.

[Lyn Brown]

Q Can I ask you to talk about privatisation?

David Jamieson: What has not been addressed in the Bill is this. There could be two reasons for a merger between police and fire. One is that there would be better governance—one assumes better governance of fire—but I have not yet heard a convincing case come out of the Home Office about whether the PCC role is a better way of handling a fire authority. When I hear that case, I will get much more excited about doing it.

The other thing is, would working together with the fire authority lead to benefits and savings? I would say that that depends on where you are in the country. The geographical differences make a lot of difference to what the benefits will be. We have begun to look at those benefits. In a large urban area such as mine—the second largest force in the country—they are much smaller than they would be in a large rural area, where there could be benefits from co-locating fire stations. The benefits in an area such as mine are very much smaller.

The issue of privatisation was raised. I suppose that that could happen anyway. That would be up to a PCC. Those are issues that Parliament has now delegated to PCCs to decide. I will not be going down that road, but there may be those who choose to do so. It will help PCCs during the passage of the Bill and when it becomes an Act for the Government to have the courage of their conviction. If they believe that PCCs are a better way of handling the fire governance, let them say so. I think it is wrong for PCCs to be able to make a unilateral decision in their area.

Vera Baird: I am in favour of the duty to collaborate. We already collaborate hugely with the fire service on day-to-day operations. The duty to collaborate will just mean that we all have to sit down. We have started a collaborative board in my area, which will have the fire chiefs, the chair of the fire authority, the portfolio holder from the county council that runs the other fire service—we have two forces—myself, the chief constable and the fire officers on it. We will have to go through our properties systematically to see what we can share. We already share some. We will go through things such as training and the great crime prevention work that the fire service already does through things such as the local intervention fire education course. It is out in areas where fires start and deprivation leads to crime. There are great opportunities for us to work collaboratively to provide a better services and make savings, and we will seize them with both hands.

Governance—takeover—is completely irrelevant until issues of governance actually arise. I think the Government have started at the wrong end in trying to press the change of governance, as David put it, without stating any rationale for it.

[Jake Berry]

May I just bring you back—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mims Davies]

Q Will you comment on the potential changes to the rank structure and whether there is a feeling at the moment that it is fit for purpose?

Sara Thornton: The College of Policing completed a leadership review last year. It made 10 recommendations, one of which was to look at the rank structure. As part of the debate about implementation, the question was asked, “Who owns the rank structure?”. It was unclear whether it was the Home Secretary, the chief constables or the college, thus the reason for this in the Bill.

My colleague, Francis Habgood, the chief of Thames Valley, is leading some work with the College of Policing to look at potentially rationalising the rank structure. Some of the work they are doing at the moment is looking at five key levels. It is very much a work in progress, but I think that all chiefs, when they read the leadership review, understood the issue and were pretty confident and supportive that we needed to do some work on it.

[Lyn Brown]

Q Police and firefighters perform very different roles. Firefighters have a right to strike, as is reflected in their particular terms and conditions. Police officers face significant restrictions on their public life and business interests that do not apply to firefighters. For many retained firefighters—part-time firefighters—a second job is essential. Do you think it would be unnecessary and inappropriate to inflict these terms and conditions on firefighters?

Sara Thornton: We already have experience in police forces. As a chief constable, I had police officers and police staff. Police staff were largely unionised, they could strike and they were not subject to the same terms and conditions. My argument would be that chief constables are quite used to running an organisation where there are different terms and conditions of service—some people can strike and some cannot. When I was a chief officer, on the few occasions when the unions did strike, it caused some minimal tension, but it was manageable.

[Mims Davies]

Q I was going to go on to ask about the changes to the firearms legislation and whether you believe it will help to keep the public safer.

Sara Thornton: My colleagues who run the National Ballistics Intelligence Service have been very involved with the work of civil servants and the Law Commission on this area. It is not an area I am expert in, but I understand from them that they are very supportive of the clarity of definition in the terms “lethal” and “component parts”, and of the offence for articles that would convert a firearm. Their one concern is on the definition of “antique firearm”. They would like the addition that it should be something that was manufactured prior to 1919, to make it absolutely clear. If that was added to the Bill, then they are very supportive of what is in there.

What is interesting, from doing some research for this appearance today, is just how many antique firearms are involved in crime. It is a significant number, and it is important that we deal with them.

Assistant Commissioner Rowley: If I may add to that, from a counter-terrorism perspective, one of the handful of factors that gives us an advantage in the UK is the low availability of firearms. It is not something that we should be at all complacent about because it is clearly not at zero and we have seen changes in the marketplace, so if Parliament is prepared to tighten up these loopholes, that is just another step in trying to maintain the competitive advantage that we have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Bradley]

I would really like to show you the triage, so let us talk about that outside here.

[Lyn Brown]

Q You talked about how local authorities and agencies need to talk together. The beginning part of the Bill is about having a duty of collaboration between the ambulance, police and fire services. If we had a magic wand, where would you want a duty of collaboration to lie?

Sally Burke: In regards to mental health?

[Lyn Brown]

Q In regards to Maisie. How would it make it better for Maisie?

Sally Burke: Maisie has got post-traumatic stress disorder, so she can go into crisis at any point—even from a song being played on the radio, if that takes her back to memories that are not very nice. It is about having somewhere that is safe and suitable. If she had a broken leg, you would not put her in a cell because the general hospital did not have a bed. It is about having a professional who is caring—the police do care, I do not mean that—and properly trained to deal with that, because it is a medical condition.

[Lyn Brown]

Q Dr Chalmers, if there was a duty of co-operation and you had a magic wand, where would you make it happen?

Dr Chalmers: If I had to choose one area—

[Lyn Brown]

You can give us as many areas as you like: we have got a listening Government.

Dr Chalmers: A duty of co-operation—and real co-operation—would be between NHS England, clinical commissioning groups and local services, to have a dialogue around crisis care.

[Lyn Brown]

Q Local council services?

Dr Chalmers: Yes, local authority, health and social care—and it should be accountable. There are two things that the college would like to bring to your attention for consideration. One is that there should be reporting through CCGs to the Secretary of State about the state of crisis services in the area and how they are developing, or not, against the concordat aims. There is also an anomaly within the code of practice to the Mental Health Act, which requires people like me—section 12 doctors, AMHPs—to be bound by the good practice in the code, but requires commissioners to just take account of it. They should have a statutory obligation to work within the code of practice, because the principles underpinning the code of least restrictive option would work. We should focus that on our area—what we are doing in our area to provide services that could avert crisis and alternatives to the dreadful situations that everyone finds themselves in, where they have to do the least worse thing.

[Mims Davies]

Q I want to ask Dr Chalmers about that place of safety and the work with CCGs and local authorities. I have experienced that in my patch: there is a kind of falling through the cracks, where the police do not want to use their cells as a place of safety. Do you feel that perhaps there should be some community hub, house or building? How would you term a place of safety? Is there some kind of crisis centre that we are missing, which CCGs could provide?

Dr Chalmers: I think we are always going to require the current, classic, hospital-based place of safety. In my ideal world that would be co-located with physical health services. In the use of section 136, among the problems that we see people presenting with, the problem of intoxication—not just with alcohol but now with so-called legal highs and synthetic cannabis—can cause people to crash very suddenly. Somebody who looks as though they are in crisis can become very physically unwell. There is an argument for having centres of excellence in urban areas, on the model of centres for stroke and cardiac emergencies, where the expertise is situated and you can move between one and the other.

For some people we also need some level of security. In its guidance the college specifies what a good section 136 suite looks like. I had the unfortunate news from a Health and Safety Executive investigator where someone was taken to a hospital-based place of safety where you could just open the door and walk out, and a tragedy ensued. For some people, there has to be a degree of security.

My colleagues in the child and adolescent faculty would highlight that a safe place for someone in crisis to be assessed is also necessary, particularly for children. The rough and ready survey that was done suggested that of the children who were picked up on a section 136, 30% do not have mental health needs and instead need social care and social responses. In an ideal setting, there would be a safe place for children to go that is age appropriate, too. Rooms have to be safe, so they look stark and sterile, but you can imagine a safe place for children where their families could come. Often with a section 136 suite there are no places for families to come and visit.

There is some evidence about alternative places before people are placed on a section 136, such as crisis houses. The crisis concordat is very good at flagging up areas of good practice. There was an initiative in Leeds that has been very successful. There was one using the Richmond Fellowship in Sussex, and that has been reported on. As I understand it—this may not be correct—the numbers were so small that they have expanded the resource to be a safe place to be in crisis. There is also the use of peer support. In London, users of service have provided safe places—they call them cafés—where people can go and be in a safe place with people to talk to.

I started by saying that you should not see 136 in isolation. I think you will get into trouble trying to fix one small part of the system; you will have knock-on effects and unintended consequences. You have to see it in the round of crisis responses.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

We support the order. As I am sure everyone will agree, proscription is a weighty matter. National security is the foremost responsibility of any Government and, indeed, of any Opposition, and we must continue to ensure that we take national security matters very seriously indeed.

The Opposition recognise that proscription is a vital part of our national security powers, which enable us to tackle and disrupt terrorist groups, but we also have to accept that proscription is a draconian power, and with that power comes great responsibility.

Proscribing a group makes it illegal to belong to or support it any way. It is, in and of itself, a curtailment of freedom of association. It is also possible that those who have associated with a proscribed organisation will have their ability to travel or an application for citizenship disrupted. Given those civil liberties implications, any proscription order should be considered very carefully, and we also need to keep the status of proscribed groups under review.

The issue of de-proscription, however, has been fraught. It was first raised in the context of the People’s Mujahedin of Iran and a judicial review launched against its continued proscription. In 2008, the Court of Appeal found in its favour and ruled that

“an organisation that has no capacity to carry on terrorist activities and is taking no steps to acquire such capacity or otherwise to promote or encourage terrorist activities cannot be said to be ‘concerned in terrorism’”.

Although the People’s Mujahedin of Iran was subsequently de-proscribed, that has not been followed by the implementation of a proper procedure for considering other groups.

That issue was raised by the independent reviewer of terrorism, David Anderson QC, in his 2011 report and it has been highlighted repeatedly since. Indeed, it was subsequently part of the focus of an excellent Home Affairs Committee report in 2012. It has been raised by many hon. Members, particularly my predecessor in this post, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, who have both addressed it in several proscription debates over the past five years.

Unfortunately, the Government have not engaged with the issue. In 2012, the then Security Minister promised the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee a response “shortly”. In 2013—a year later—the response had still not appeared. In another proscription debate, my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee made some prescient remarks about the lack of a proper de-proscription procedure. He said:

“That means, I am afraid, that the matter ends up not in this House, which is responsible for proscription, but in the courts…A Minister came before the House and said, ‘We are de-proscribing the People’s Mujahedeen, because they’ve gone to court and won their judicial review.’”—[Official Report, 10 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 464.]

In response to that pressure, the Government did concede that 14 groups no longer met the statutory test for proscription and so proposed annual reviews to assess the status of proscribed groups, but no de-proscription orders followed. In 2014, the Government announced that they were scrapping annual reviews and replacing them with a system whereby groups could be de-proscribed.

At the same time, the Opposition raised concerns about how the system worked, because some groups had ceased to exist and it was not clear how any group could make such an application given that it was illegal to be a member of the said group.

Three members of the Sikh community applied on 4 February 2015 for the organisation to be de-proscribed, because it has not existed in the UK since March 2001 and is not concerned in terrorism. That application should have been dealt with within 90 days, but the response was not received until 31 July 2015, and when it came, it asserted that the Secretary of State maintained a reasonable belief that the International Sikh Youth Federation is concerned in terrorism. That was July last year.

The Home Secretary said in a later communication that there had been extensive consideration and a full assessment of available information. No reasons were given for the continued proscription. The applicants filed an appeal and gave as grounds the failure of the Government to give any reason for the refusal to de-proscribe, which was contrary to the rule of law, and asserted that the ISYF is not concerned in terrorism.

The Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission directed the Home Secretary to provide reasons to support her position, but on the very day that the reasons and the evidence were due, the Home Secretary informed the commission that she would not defend the decision and would lay an order for de-proscription. The Home Secretary did not suggest that there was any change in the facts between 31 July and the day of the decision, which was just six months later.

The decision is particularly important given the special nature of proscription orders and the basis on which the Home Secretary makes her decision. Again, I want to go back to a contribution made to a previous proscription debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East, the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. He said:

“I can say that it is clear that when Ministers with the security portfolio come before the House to make a statement—some of it based on intelligence that cannot be shared with the House—the House always defers to them and accepts what they say.”—[Official Report, 10 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 462.]

My right hon. Friend was highlighting the wrong tradition of accepting security statements from Ministers in good faith.

If we are to take Ministers’ statements on proscription in good faith, the House also needs to trust Ministers to act in the same good faith when it comes to de-proscription. I say gently to the Minister—and I hope that he sums up and comes back to me with some kind of answer—that I genuinely do not understand how this could have happened. I really think that he needs to give this House some kind of explanation as to how, in July 2015, the organisation was still being proscribed, but in December of that same year it was not.

This de-proscription of the International Sikh Youth Federation raises questions about the continued proscription of other groups, particularly the 14 groups that the Home Office has conceded may no longer meet the statutory tests. It risks undermining the confidence in this vital part of our security system. Can the Minister now confirm that the ISYF was one of the 14 groups identified as not meeting the “concerned in terrorism” test? Will funds frozen for the last 15 years belonging to the International Sikh Youth Federation now be unfrozen, and will the Home Secretary ensure that the International Sikh Youth Federation name is removed as soon as possible from lists issued by the United Nations and the EU on financial restrictions imposed following 9/11?

While I support today’s order, I strongly urge the Minister to reflect on this case and the damage done, and to introduce a proper system for considering de-proscription that can restore confidence in the whole proscription process. In particular, I urge the Minister to reconsider the merits of the annual reviews of proscribed organisations, and reinstate them.

I want to highlight the argument made by the independent reviewer, David Anderson, QC, that annual reviews of proscription orders should mirror the requirements of the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010—to review annually the necessity of continued asset freezes, which leads to the delisting of individuals on the initiative of the Treasury. Indeed, there is a strong argument that that is already a requirement of the Terrorism Act 2000. In a judgment from 2007, the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, headed by High Court Judge Sir Harry Ognall, ruled:

“It cannot have been Parliament’s intent that an organisation which the Secretary of State historically had reasonable grounds for believing was ‘concerned in terrorism’ but for which there are no reasonable grounds for believing that it is currently ‘concerned in terrorism’ should remain on Schedule 2 for any longer than absolutely necessary. As such, it is incumbent on the Secretary of State to consider at regular intervals whether or not the power under section 3(3)(b) should be exercised. We were told in the course of argument that the Secretary of State does in fact adopt this practice and that the period between such reviews was around twelve months. We have seen no documentary evidence of such reviews in this case, but it is certainly a practice that the Secretary of State should continue to adopt. It serves to underline our view that such practice is a proper reflection of the Secretary of State’s statutory duty.”

If the Minister does not agree with me that the Home Secretary’s duty requires annual reviews, I should be really grateful if he explained in his summing-up how else he intends to meet this duty.

I have met representatives of the UK Sikh Federation and they have told me about the real difficulties that have affected former members of the ISYF, such as difficulties around naturalisation and international travel. Now that the ISYF has finally been de-proscribed I hope that the Sikhs in our communities can look forward to a new relationship with Government. Sikhs celebrated new year yesterday. It is certainly time for a new beginning. I wish them all a happy new year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

There was certainly further consideration, as I have made very clear, and a further up-to-date review of the organisation’s activities. Such matters are highly dynamic, as the hon. Gentleman will understand. As he says, I cannot go into the fine detail of the strategy. It is not our habit to give a running commentary on such matters, and I know he will respect that, as he said he would. It is certainly true that there was sufficient further consideration for us to conclude that we could not maintain the proscription. The Home Secretary has to consider various things—bits of information, pieces of intelligence and open source material—when determining whether a group is engaged in terrorism, as the hon. Gentleman will know. It would not be appropriate to discuss the specific material, but when I describe that variety of information, he will understand what happens when consideration is given to such matters.

The third part of our debate concerns the points made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). He spoke more widely about the way in which terrorist organisations, including proscribed ones, continue to proselytise using social media. He drew attention to the information that was made available to the House. Rather than delay the House tonight, I will go the extra mile and set out, in a further note for the House, exactly what we are doing about what he described. Again, this matter is highly dynamic—it changes almost daily—and the House is warranted in asking for up-to-date information on precisely what steps we are taking to counter the activities that the hon. Gentleman set out. They are damaging and worrying, and they are very plainly part of what those who seek to do us harm are about these days: they are using every kind of method and means to proselytise their message and to radicalise people, and to do damage accordingly. I will set that out in a further note, which I will make available to the House.

[Lyn Brown]

May I quickly ask whether the funds for the International Sikh Youth Federation will be released, and whether the EU and the UN will be told that it has been taken off the list?

[Mr Hayes]

By way of variety and excitement I will deal with those points in reverse order. Those organisations will be notified, and we have obviously consulted member states that have a direct interest in this group. We will inform them of the de-proscription if parliamentary agreement is secured in this House and the other place, and we will formally notify the European Council if a decision to de-proscribe the ISYF is agreed by Parliament. I will look again at the asset freeze—the hon. Lady did not use that term, but that is what it is—and return to her with a specific answer. It is a complex matter, as she implied, so I will come back to her, rather than delay the House tonight.

Combating Terrorism

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2016 General Committees

[James Brokenshire]

There is always an issue with the scheduling of such debates. As the hon. Gentleman highlighted in his opening comments, the Government recognise the need for these issues to be debated in a timely fashion before the opt-in decision is taken. I hope this debate provides an opportunity for Members to question me and debate this important issue and the EU’s relationship with the UK with respect to counter-terrorism matters.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

It is weird to come to a debate and not know what the Government are going to say before I sit down. Normally, it is very different. May I press the Minister further? Why has it taken the Government so long to make a decision? Despite being involved in the negotiations that led to this directive and despite supporting its aims, they seem to have prevaricated endlessly. We are days away from the deadline on the decision, so I do not agree that this is a timely debate. Given the Government’s stance, which we have just discovered, we should have had proper notification and a proper debate.

Were the delay and the opposition, which the Minister just outlined, caused by the Minister for Security—I see that he is not in his place—who is opposed to the Home Secretary’s and the Government’s position on EU co-operation on security policy? What further evidence can the Government provide on the security implications of not opting in? Specifically, have the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism or the Joint Intelligence Committee been asked to consider this directive? Have they provided any advice? Will the Government publish a summary of the security implications of not opting in? Given that the Government have decided not to opt in, will the Minister agree to refer that decision to the Intelligence and Security Committee? Unlike Select Committees, referrals to that Committee must be made by the Government, not other parliamentary Committees.

The Minister for Security’s letter of 4 February outlined two changes to domestic legislation that would be required if we were to comply with the directive. First, we would need to amend section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2006 to extend the provision in section 2 to enable the offence of the dissemination of terrorist publications to be prosecuted in the UK, even if the offence is committed outside the UK. Secondly, legal aid would need to be provided to victims of terrorism who make civil claims. What practical issues did the Minister encounter on those fairly simple changes, and is that why the Government are opposed in principle to making the changes? Surely the Government are not opposed to the legislation because we would need to extend legal aid to victims of terrorism. It would be dreadful if that were the case.

[James Brokenshire]

There are a few questions to respond to. On the hon. Lady’s general point about the nature of this debate, I refer her to the explanatory memorandum, which sets out the various factors for consideration, and to the letter that we sent the European Scrutiny Committee in response to its report, for which we are very grateful. It sets out our logic and thinking on the points that the report made about, for example, extraterritorial jurisdiction and legal aid.

The fundamental point, which I alluded to in my opening speech, is that this is a minimum standards-type directive. We decided that it is not appropriate to stay within the 2002 framework decision, which this directive replaces, because we already comply with it. We felt that we did not need to adopt it because, again, it was a minimum standards-type requirement. We are fully compliant with the 2002 framework decision. Therefore, in our judgment, this measure does not impact on matters of operational requirement. This is something that we have considered very carefully. On the hon. Lady’s point about referral to other Committees, this matter has been considered carefully by the European Scrutiny Committee, which published a report to which the Government replied in the form of the Security Minister’s letter.

On the timing, the Government are often criticised for setting out up front our view about whether to opt in or out of particular measures. It is argued that that limits scrutiny because we have already set our minds in a particular direction. Therefore, there is normally a period of several weeks to allow the European Scrutiny Committee to assess the evidence and produce a report, which it has done, before the Government make a publicly stated commitment about whether to opt in or out. We are often told that stating our position too far in advance undermines scrutiny, but the hon. Lady said that not doing so causes confusion. It does not; it is about respecting scrutiny and the appropriate process, which the European Scrutiny Committee has gone through.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

I am a bit flabbergasted about this. Can the Minister please explain how what he has set out does not impede EU co-operation? I do not believe that in all the words he has said thus far he has told me whether the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism or the Joint Intelligence Committee were asked to consider the directive, and, if they were, whether they provided advice. Will the Government publish a summary of the security implications of not opting in? I am increasingly getting the feeling that we are not opting into the directives because of the legal aid issue.

[The Chair]

Order. Could the hon. Lady confine her remarks to questions at this point?

[Lyn Brown]

I will. Thank you, Mr Bailey. I am sorry.

[James Brokenshire]

Our consideration of the matter is on the basis of not being subject to a minimum standards directive. The hon. Lady could make the same arguments on the 2002 framework directive, which we decided not to opt into because of the comprehensive range of counter-terrorism powers that we have in place. I reject her characterisation.

The Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism is part of the Home Office. We at the Home Office have reflected on the measure as part of the cross-governmental consideration of whether to opt into the matter. We have determined across the Government that opting in is not appropriate because of the counter-terrorism legislation that I have already outlined to the hon. Lady, the potential jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the implications of that, and the member state competency over national security, which is a fundamental issue on which the Government will not give way. We have underpinned and underlined that in the renegotiation. That is the consideration we have given. We set out the various issues clearly in the explanatory memorandum and in the response given by the Security Minister to the Committee’s report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey, and to be here for the debate this afternoon. I thank the European Scrutiny Committee for raising the profile of the issue and for ensuring that we have this debate. I agree that the issue is worthy of consideration on the Floor of the House. I hope that the Government, even at this late stage, and after being pressed in this Committee, will reconsider and it will be possible to have that debate there.

From the outset, I think it is important that we are clear about what we are debating. We are debating whether the UK should opt into an EU directive on combating terrorism that has been proposed by the European Commission. The decision will be taken, as we have heard, by the British Government. Thanks to the European Scrutiny Committee, that decision will be scrutinised, informed and debated by Parliament.

The question that the British Government have to answer is whether it is in the UK’s best interests to opt into the collective set of measures to combat terrorism. They will be accountable to Parliament for their decision. What this is not is the European Union foisting regulations on the UK or this Parliament, and those who argue that every EU directive we opt into is an erosion of our sovereignty should remember the process.

Labour supports the directive and believes that the UK should opt in, as that will better ensure that there are no gaps in UK and EU security against terrorism and set a clear benchmark for all members. We recognise the point made in the European Scrutiny Committee’s report that there could be a

“risk that differences in the legal framework established at EU level and the UK’s domestic law could impede practical cooperation and make it more difficult to prosecute terrorist offences which have a cross-border dimension.”

Given the uncertainty of the Government’s case and the lack of an impact assessment, we believe that there is a clear national security case for opting in.

I want to comment on several of the specific issues raised by the proposed directive and highlighted by two excellent European Scrutiny Committee reports. Before that, however, I emphasise that the decision needs to be considered in the context of an increasingly international terror threat that requires an international response. We are having a specific debate about whether to opt into the directive in the context of the much wider conversation about whether we are fundamentally safer in the EU or outside it. No one can be in any doubt that the terror threat we face is severe and evolving. The Commission outlined that in its justification for the directive and that is acknowledged in the European Scrutiny Committee’s report. Terror groups such as Daesh are present in multiple states in Europe and the middle east and use their international networks to prepare terror attacks. That can be combated only through collective and consistent action across member states.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) would have been here today but he is speaking for the Opposition in a Westminster Hall debate. Before entering the House, he was the Director of Public Prosecutions, acting to ensure convictions against terrorists, and he has explained in detail how the apprehension and prosecution of terror suspects are aided by EU measures: not just the principle of co-operation but specific tools that are used 24/7 by our law enforcement agencies. His intervention followed similar ones from senior police and intelligence figures, including Sir Hugh Orde, the former chair of the Association of Chief Police Officers and former Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. That view is also held by the Government’s national security advisers and the Home Secretary.

I am at a loss. British citizens will be safer if we ensure that all EU countries have tough and comprehensive anti-terror measures. Regardless of whether we are in the EU or not, we will remain vulnerable to attacks planned and partly orchestrated from abroad. We are safer if all EU countries have effective anti-terror provisions.

Another benefit of the directive is the protections afforded when British citizens are victims of terrorism in the EU. As we saw last year with the terrible attacks in Tunisia and Paris, British citizens are increasingly likely to be victims of terrorist attacks abroad. If an attack takes place in an EU country, articles 22 and 23 offer a basic framework of rights and protections to the victims of terrorism. Surely we should welcome that.

The Opposition believe that the enormous benefits of co-operation on terrorism and security measures mean we should opt into the directive today. I fully accept the argument that UK legislation is already compliant with all of the directive’s substantive requirements, but I do not see that as a reason not to put our name to the directive. Instead, we should be pleased that our legislation is being used as a benchmark for other states and aid the process.

The Government’s explanatory memorandum makes that argument well. In paragraph 35, it acknowledges that

“The UK actively participated in the negotiation of the final text of the Additional Protocol”,

which the directive builds on, and shares

“a keen interest in engaging positively and the importance of sharing best practice”.

Engaging and sharing best practice are best served by opting into the directive.

That does not mean that I do not agree with the Government and the European Scrutiny Committee that we should generally avoid the introduction of minimum standards in criminal law. Most crimes committed in the UK are the business of the UK Government, so it is for Parliament to decide what conduct should be considered criminal. However, it has long been realised that offences such as drug trafficking, terrorism and human trafficking have an international dimension and therefore they are covered by international law. The directive contains obligations already established by UN Security Council resolution 2178.

This is not the first time that an EU directive has demanded minimum standards on internationally acknowledged criminal action—the EU human trafficking directive makes similar demands because human trafficking is internationally recognised as a crime and it is best tackled through EU co-operation—so I genuinely struggle to understand the Government’s position on the directive, given its advantages to the EU’s and the UK’s security. The Opposition will push the motion to a vote and support a move to opt into the directive. The Government need to rethink their decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

One thing I did not bring out in my speech earlier was that, regardless of whether or not we opt into the directive, it will bring significant benefits to British citizens. I do not understand why we think that it is reasonable to receive and not reciprocate. Does the Minister seem like the kind of bloke who does not stand his round at the bar?

[Wes Streeting]

I am surprised at the Government’s response, given the role that they have played in shaping the directive. Indeed, the Security Minister acknowledges in his memorandum that a case can be made for action at EU level to ensure a consistent approach to combating terrorism. The Government have exercised their influence and expertise to ensure that that approach has been adopted by our European partners. As is becoming familiar on a range of issues, but particularly, and alarmingly, national security, I suspect that the politics within the Conservative party and its divisions over Europe are having a far too great a bearing on deliberations right across the House.

That brings me to the substance of my concern. People complain about a lack of influence, or Parliament’s lack of involvement in the making of laws and directives that affect our people, our courts and how we go about our business in this country, but every Member of Parliament could have had the opportunity to debate these important measures had the Government accepted the European Scrutiny Committee’s recommendation and held a debate on the Floor of the House. I cannot be convinced that we do not have time to discuss something as important as draft measures to combat terrorism. Members of the public would be surprised that we cannot find the time to debate such matters. We find the time to debate all sorts of issues in Parliament, including on the Floor of the House. I have sometimes felt, particularly in recent weeks, that the Chamber has not been as busy or as focused on the big issues as it should be.

It is not because I have anything against the Minister, or just because I love listening to the Security Minister, but I am disappointed and surprised that the latter is not present, because there are several questions that he needs to answer. In his explanatory memorandum, on the one hand he says that opting into the proposed directive might require “significant changes” to UK domestic law, notably in relation to provisions on the liability of legal persons and extraterritorial jurisdiction, but on the other hand he indicates that only “limited changes” to UK primary legislation would be needed. Which is it? Would opting into the directive require substantial changes to legislation? In which case, what are they and what would we be debating? If not, why the contradiction?

I have already asked the Minister to share the outcome of his analysis of the operational need for the elements of the directive that go beyond the requirements of international and UK law. I hope that he will go away and consider publishing that analysis, so that all Members can scrutinise it. He should also comment on the risk that differences between the legal framework established at EU level and the UK’s domestic law could impede practical co-operation, as we have set out. It would be deeply unfortunate if a party political headache turns into an obstruction to the UK opting into a directive that could bring practical benefits in tackling international terrorism and the specific threat to the United Kingdom.

The difference of opinion among Committee members underlines the importance of holding such debates on the Floor of the House. Plenty of Members, particularly Government Members, would like us withdraw from the EU altogether. I do not agree with that position, but I respect it. Whatever difficulties the Conservative party leadership is currently dealing with, they do not warrant us having such an important debate in Committee, rather than on the Floor of the House, where it should take place.

Policing and Crime Bill

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Milling]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Co-responding would bring better responses to certain incidents, particularly emergencies.

The efficiency and effectiveness of the services will be improved by cutting out the duplication in back-office functions, procurement, management and offices. Significant savings could be made from integration. Our PCC estimates that in Staffordshire alone, about £4 million of savings could be made by integrating management and back-office functions.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady not recognise that many of those savings have already been made through collaboration inside councils or with the NHS? Where does she think the extra money will come from? It will have to come from the local council.

[Amanda Milling]

Although I recognise that there is some collaboration within services, I believe we could go an awful lot further.

This is not just about saving money. Effective integration will create better outcomes for the public as resources are focused on the frontline, creating more viable and visible services. It will be possible to take a more holistic view of the way in which incidents are responded to by both services. Again, that will create better outcomes for the public and lead to a more efficient use of resources.

Under the Bill, a PCC will take on the new responsibilities only where the case is made locally. Although I have raised concerns about the changes being voluntary rather than mandatory, I understand why this is the case in an era of devolution and localism. I am reassured to some extent by the statutory duty for fire and rescue authorities to co-operate with PCCs as they develop a business case and by the ability to escalate the decision to the Secretary of State if there is disagreement, with an independent review panel assessing the business case. When the Minister winds up, I would be interested to hear in more detail how those two processes will work in practice. Although I accept that there is a need to co-operate, the processes need to be genuinely robust to address the underlying resistance to change. I would also be interested to know how frequently the reviews could be undertaken, should there be a need to revisit a business case.

I have talked about public accountability. If we are genuinely to ensure that PCCs are clearly and directly accountable to the public for both police and fire services, I feel that their title needs to change. What plans does the Minister have to change the title of PCCs to reflect their new responsibilities? The suggestions have included public safety commissioners and community safety commissioners. A title with a broader scope could open up the opportunity for the role to be expanded further to include other blue light services over time, such as the ambulance service. After all, there are many incidents in which all three services are involved and to which they all respond.

As I see it, the Bill is the beginning, rather than the end, of the blue light services’ collaboration journey. I urge the Government to create a strategic road map towards further integration to create consistent, connected and co-ordinated front-line services that are more resilient and more responsive to the changing needs of the public and our communities.

Gangs and Serious Youth Violence

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I am very grateful for the opportunity to participate in this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) on holding it. I know that, behind the scenes, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) has been quietly campaigning in the Tea Room for such a debate because of the concerns in her constituency. It is fantastic to be joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), who has huge experience of these issues and has continually brought them, certainly during my years in Parliament, to the House’s attention.

This is where I start: the issue is not new. In a sense, it is very important not to have this debate as though this is a year zero moment. We have had this problem for several years. Problems with young people getting caught up in crime, particularly in urban and deprived areas, are absolutely not new. Those at home over Christmas who landed on the show “Dickensian”, an adaptation of many of Dickens’s books, and those very familiar with both “Great Expectations” and “Oliver Twist” will know that we had gangs in London. We had groups of young people getting up to criminality in London, and above such gang activity was usually the adult activity running the gangs, so these issues are not new. I was born in the period just after the huge public concern about mods and rockers congregating in different parts—

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Yes.

[Mr Lammy]

I notice that the Front-Bench Opposition spokesman is absolutely aware of that. She is ever so slightly older than me. At that time, there was real concern about gang activity in seaside areas or in urban areas of the country. The debate in this House about young people and crime and about gang activity is not new, so what is new? I think that the level of violence is new, the age profile is worrying and the geographic spread feels out of control.

On the age profile, the Met police says that its matrix—its central way of recording who is caught up in what it describes as gang activity—had a total of 3,459 individuals at the last time of publication in May 2014. There were 500 individuals under the age of 18: two 13-year-olds, 21 14-year-olds, 71 15-year-olds, 138 16-year-olds and 268 17-year-olds. There were also 356 18-year-olds, while 55% of the total were aged 18 to 22. Something is going on, and it is something we should be very worried about.

Any Members with significant housing estates in their constituency will talk about the arrival in this country of a phenomenon, which we often associate with America, of young people—teenagers—running drug activity on behalf of older individuals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Let me make it clear that I was not around for the mods and rockers, but heard about them from my mum and dad!

A couple of years ago, I was driving home when, around the corner from my home, I saw to my horror the body of a young man curled up on the pavement. Several police officers were with him, and I could hear the sirens of ambulances on their way. That young man was the victim of a stabbing and was clutching a stomach wound that thankfully proved not to be fatal. That incident shook me to the very core; it was so close to my house and it was not even late on a Friday night.

Some in my community live every day with the pain and worry that results from knife crime and gang violence. They worry about their children’s safety and they have been robbed of a basic sense of security. They want—they need—weapons off our streets and they want their children to be safe.

I am therefore disturbed by the recent rise in recorded knife crime—up 9% in England and Wales last year after a long downwards trend. If we look at the numbers in more detail, we find that rapes involving a knife are up by 26%; threats to kill by 20%; and attempted murder by 24%. Gun crime is up by 4%. Those numbers are absolutely chilling.

I know that we need to treat recorded crime numbers with caution. The police should not be discouraged from improving the reporting or the recording of crime, which can explain such fluctuations, but sadly there is evidence that the increase in recorded knife crime simply reflects an increase in criminal activity using knives. For example, data from the London Ambulance Service shows a 9% rise in incidents resulting from assaults involving a knife.

There is some evidence to show that the rise in knife crime is related to an increase in the number of gangs. Recent Home Office research suggests a sharp rise in the number of gangs in the capital, and the number of offences that the Metropolitan police associates with gang activity has increased by 25% in the last three years. There are 225 recognised gangs in London, with around 3,600 gang members. In a large city, that is a relatively small number people, but they still account for 17% of serious violence in the capital.

Given those numbers, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) is quite right to draw this issue to our attention and to call for a debate this afternoon. There have been some stonkingly good speeches, and I want to pay tribute to all colleagues who have contributed to such a good debate.

I am aware that a number of police services have chosen to focus significant resources and activity on dealing with the scourge of knife crime. Last week, I visited Bedfordshire police to discover how they had managed to cut knife crime by 21%. Officers from Bedfordshire’s Operation Boson told me that they had adopted best practice from across the country, and tried to attack knife crime relentlessly from every angle. They believe that they have reduced the number of knives on their streets through “secret shopper” inspections and by carefully deployed “surrender bins”, unannounced “knife arches” and the judicious use of stop and search powers. They have also supported diversion schemes in partnership with the likes of Luton Town football club, which are aimed at offering alternative ways in which young people can deploy their abundance of skills and energy.

Bedfordshire’s magnificent performance has been done on a shoestring. The excellent police and crime commissioner Olly Martins told me that balancing all the demands of the service with ever-decreasing funding and resources was like trying to balance spinning plates, always worried that something would come unstuck. It is clearly a testament to his skill and determination and to the commitment and professionalism of serving police officers in Bedfordshire, particularly those in Operation Boson, that Bedfordshire police have been so successful in their assault on knife crime.

However, in the case of much crime, prevention is always better than cure, and I know that some first-class work is already being done throughout the country to try to prevent crimes of this nature from happening. If the House will forgive me, I shall give a parochial plug to the “Carry A Basketball Not A Blade” initiative, which is run by Newham All Star Sports Academy. That charity was started in tragic circumstances by Anthony Okereafor after two of his friends were lost through knife crime. Anthony helps young people by harnessing the power of sport to provide a counter-narrative to the poisonous idea that gang life is in some way glamorous. It is the sort of “peer-to-peer prevention service” that I think works incredibly well, and the Home Affairs Committee thinks that it should be “expanded” and “commissioned more consistently” across the country.

[Dawn Butler]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. In the context of prevention, may I thank the Reverend Rose Hudson-Wilkin, who is in the Chamber today, for all the work she has done in Hackney, where she has comforted so many families who have experienced violent crime?

[Lyn Brown]

Absolutely. People of that kind, with commitment of that kind and programmes of that kind, require our support. They require staff who have expertise and the trust of their communities, but they are also seriously in need of investment. Last month, however, we discovered that the Home Office was pulling the plug on funding for the ending gang and youth violence peer review network, a practical programme that brings together academics, local government officials and the police to develop and share knowledge and best practice with the aim of reducing gang violence. The Government’s last annual report on the network described it as “successful” and

“low cost and high impact”,

so why is its funding being cut?

Two weeks after news of the cut was leaked to The Guardian, we were told by the Minister that the network would be replaced by a new “forum”. The network had the resources that were necessary to establish and share best practice; will the new “forum” be equally well resourced, or will its funding be reduced?

I should be very grateful if the Minister answered some of those questions. I can tell her that Deborah and George Kinsella, the parents of the murdered teenager Ben Kinsella, said:

“We are extremely disappointed to hear that the government is making further cuts to funding to tackle serious youth violence when there are so many of us trying to make things better for others after losing our own children.”

June Addai, the grandmother of 17-year-old Marcel, who was murdered by a gang on a Hoxton housing estate, said:

“The government seem to be cutting everything. Children have nowhere to go, they need clubs to go to rather than hanging out on the streets where they can get into trouble. They get left behind.”

Knife crime is beginning to creep up, and it is an undeniable truth that that is happening after five years of deep cuts in spending on youth clubs and crime prevention. There will be naysayers who will claim that the increase in knife crime has nothing to do with the cuts, and that is why I fully support my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham’s call for an all-party commission. We need to get to the bottom of why youth violence is on the increase, so that we can begin to turn the tide. I ask the Minister, who is not a bad woman, “Can we have an all-party commission—please?

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Bradley]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I know that he wanted to take part in this debate, but he has been involved in an important Bill Committee. I thank him for being here now and for the work that he does in Chelmsford. He is right to suggest that the work of Essex police, supported by the Home Office, has played an important part in tackling the issue of “county lines”, which my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) also raised. [Interruption.] I see the shadow Minister bobbing.

[Lyn Brown]

Seeing as I have been so nice to the Minister today, I would be very grateful if she would extend that courtesy and invite me to the meetings that she is going to have on these issues.

[Karen Bradley]

I would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady and—I am probably going to regret this; my officials will certainly regret it—I extend that offer to any Member who wants to come and talk about what is happening in their local area. I am more than happy to spend time with Members to help them build local resilience. As the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) said, this is about local solutions. This is not top-down; it is not about the Government imposing anything.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lyn Brown Excerpts

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.

Riot Compensation Bill

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Friday 5th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

If it is okay with you, Mr Speaker, I would like to associate myself with your kind and apposite remarks about Harry. My sympathies go to his wife Gill and all those who mourn him. My friends on these Benches are in real shock and great sadness at his passing.

I rise to speak to amendments 1, 2 and 3, which have been tabled by the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood). I shall also speak to amendment 8, which has been tabled by my excellent right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy).

Amendment 1 would ensure that victims of rioting had at least 42 days in which to make a claim for compensation and then a further 90 days in which to submit the necessary evidence. We support that amendment. The Bill is about supporting riot victims, and in order to do that we need to give them adequate time to complete claims for compensation. Can any of us imagine trying to rapidly process a legal claim when our papers have been destroyed, we have no access to our home or business, and our life has been completely and utterly turned upside down? That is exactly the situation in which many riot victims found themselves in 2011. That situation was made all the more difficult by the fact that so many of the victims were unaware that they were entitled to compensation. They needed the time to get their affairs in order.

In 2011, the Home Office appeared to recognise that a short time limit on claims was unfair, and extended the time limit from 14 to 42 days. Amendment 1 gives us certainty that any future victims will be guaranteed at least 42 days in future. That has to be right. The amendment also provides an additional 90 days for victims to gather the necessary evidence to complete their application for compensation. Three months’ breathing room seems entirely appropriate, given the total upheaval that can be wrought to businesses and individuals by the kind of rioting we saw.

My right hon. Friend—the magnificent Member for Tottenham—spoke movingly in Committee about some of the challenges faced by his constituents in 2011. Many had English as a second language, some had their health devastated by the riots, and all had their daily routines completely shattered. They desperately needed more time to put their lives back together before they could deal with compensation claims. I congratulate him on raising the issue of time limits in Committee. If the House accepts amendment 1 today, he will have played a vital role in ensuring that any future victims of rioting are not left in the lurch, as his constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) were.

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend will know, perhaps more than anybody else in this House, the juxtaposition between shopping centres such as Westfield, where there is big business, and small businesses, which in a constituency such as hers are often run by people newly arrived in this country, making the very best of their lives. Her experience in this matter needs to be recorded.

[Lyn Brown]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right—the businesses that were affected in my constituency were small businesses along the Barking Road in Canning Town and, indeed, some in Green Street. As he rightly says, they are not like the businesses in Westfield that have massive resources behind them to enable them to make the claims, clean up quickly and get on with their economic lives.

Amendments 2 and 3 would ensure that victims were entitled to compensation for costs incurred as a result of having to seek alternative accommodation. We support those amendments too. Families should not be pushed into severe financial difficulty because their homes have been rendered uninhabitable by circumstances way beyond their control. Some families affected by the 2011 riots were not able to live in their homes for months, and some for years afterwards, putting them in severe financial difficulty. That was particularly the case in the private rented sector, but it also applied to some homeowners. We all know how expensive short-term rented accommodation can be, particularly here in London. It is only right, therefore, that that should be accounted for in the compensation awarded. I therefore urge the House to accept amendments 2 and 3.

Finally, let me turn to amendment 8, which would ensure that any money claimed in compensation for emergency relief in the immediate aftermath of a riot did not lead to a reduction in the amount of compensation a claimant might receive. It is shameful that this sort of deduction was made in 2011. We support the amendment, because people putting money into charity buckets to help their neighbours through the turmoil of rioting do not expect the compensation due to those victims to be reduced as a result of their kindness. I am not surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North reports that his constituents were aghast that their donations led to a reduction in the compensation doled out.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham also argued in Committee, I thought convincingly, that we do not want to discourage big businesses from helping out small businesses with which they share a high street. Deducting payments as a result of charitable giving would have precisely that unwelcome and rather unpleasant effect. I urge the House to accept amendment 8 so that, in the unwelcome event of future riots, the police and charities can work together to help communities, rather than treating support as a zero-sum game.

I heard what the hon. Member for Dudley South had to say on that matter, but I now look forward to hearing from the Minister on these issues, because I am sure he is going to make us very happy today.

[The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

I, too, want to associate myself with your comments, Mr Speaker, following the sad loss of Harry Harpham. Members throughout the House can all say that Harry was a dedicated public servant. Although we had the privilege of having him in the House only for a short time, he clearly served with distinction in his community, having sat on Sheffield City Council, and he was dedicated to public service. The fact that as recently as 20 January, Harry was here at Prime Minister’s questions standing up for constituents on an issue he believed in, Sheffield Forgemasters, underlines the sort of person he was, the dedication he showed and the fact that he always wanted to stand up for his constituents. The whole House will wish to pass its condolences, thoughts and prayers to his wife, Gill, his children and his whole family, his friends, colleagues and everyone who knew him and who mourns his loss.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) on the manner in which he has sought to advance the Bill. He has clearly reflected on the helpful debates in Committee, to which the Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice responded. The Committee worked on themes that were started on Second Reading. I believe that my hon. Friend’s amendments are helpful additions and clarifications to the Bill.

Amendment 1 deals with the time limits, which are set at not less than 42 days and 90 days respectively for lodging claims and producing detailed evidence. That is the right approach to the lodging of an initial claim, and then it is right to allow more time for detailed information to be provided. We support placing those minimum requirements in the Bill.

For clarification and for the further assurance of right hon. and hon. Members, I underline that there might be some exceptional circumstances in which more time is required, perhaps when a claimant falls ill and cannot meet the deadlines, when evidence has been destroyed or cannot be accessed owing to riot damage, or when final cost estimates are contingent on other processes such as planning permission or some other regulatory requirements. We expect the regulations sitting alongside the Bill to provide some flexibility in extenuating circumstances and to allow extensions of time, while recognising the framework and the statutory minimums set out in the Bill.

Amendments 2 and 3 deal with payments for alternative accommodation. They will allow compensation to be paid to uninsured individuals whose home has become uninhabitable as a result of a riot, to cover the cost of alternative accommodation. Amendment 3 makes it clear that regulations may provide for further details of considerations to be taken into account when such claims are made, as well as the length of time for which such costs may be covered.

During the passage of the Bill, Members have highlighted a number of cases in which their constituents had suffered significant hardship following the 2011 riots. We have certainly heard that from the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed).

--- Later in debate ---

The Bill strikes a sensible balance between ensuring that the vast majority of individuals and businesses are fully compensated and that the public purse does not have to pay out on high-value claims exceeding £1 million.

[Lyn Brown]

Amendments 4, 5 and 7, and their consequential amendments, have been tabled by my magnificent and right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). All the amendments pertain to the compensation cap. As has been said, the Bill caps the total amount that can be paid out in a single compensation claim to £1 million. Amendment 4 would remove the compensation cap, amendment 5 would increase it and amendment 7 would ensure that it is assessed every three years by Parliament.

The Opposition Front-Bench team have a number of concerns about amendments 4 and 5. We therefore suggested in Committee that, if the cap is raised, the Home Office should be liable for costs greater than £1 million. That would spread risk and ensure that police forces are not made financially vulnerable by circumstances that, by definition, are beyond their immediate control. If the House accepts amendments 4, 5 and 7, the Government might wish seriously to consider that proposal.

Amendment 7 would require Parliament to set the compensation cap, and to assess the level of the cap, every three years. We support the amendment because too low a cap—especially in London—may lead to increased insurance premiums in areas afflicted by rioting. We would not want communities and high streets to be damaged by this legislation, and a regular review would allow us to act on the basis of evidence.

It is important to continue to assess the compensation cap. The Bill needs to balance the interests of the community, the police, the insurance industry and the taxpayer. We must ensure that communities are protected and victims are compensated, while not asking the police to write a blank cheque. The compensation cap goes right to the heart of that task. It is right that the cap is continually assessed and that the House plays a central part in that.

I therefore urge the Minister, who has already done remarkably well this morning, to give us some assurances and some comfort, particularly on amendment 7. You know, Mr Deputy Speaker, he is fast becoming a favourite.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood]

The right hon. Gentleman makes the point that I was about to move on to. Although the initial three to five-year period provides an important chance to reflect on the early years and to consider whether all the commas are in the right place and all the details are right, it is important that regular reviews take place after that period. I hope the regulations will allow for such reviews. If there is a repeat of anything like what happened in August 2011, it is inconceivable that there would not be a review. That should be a given. Outside of the times of serious riots—which, of course, we hope will last many years or even decades—it is important to have some sort of periodic review, but I do not believe that there is a particular case for this Bill to carry a specific provision for post-legislative scrutiny. As I have said, such a provision could be triggered by a fairly small and limited disturbance, but we must make sure that it does not take another 130 years before we next review whether the legislation is working.

[Lyn Brown]

I completely get where the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) is coming from—frankly, if I were the Minister in charge of his Bill, I would encourage him to say exactly what he has just said—but I am worried about where we are going with this. It has taken us 150 years to revisit the issue and there have been a number of disturbances—nay, riots—in this country during that time, and even when there have been really big riots, the system of dealing with victims has been wholly inadequate. I am concerned that we will find ourselves in 150 years’ time—well, we won’t, because we’ll be dead by then—saying, “Oh, yeah, we didn’t have very effective legislation. We had things for those old-fashioned things called cars, but the hover vehicles we’re driving around in now aren’t covered by this Riot Act.”

I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that even minor disturbances can wreck lives. We must make sure that any future Government have not only warm words to say to victims of riots, but effective legislation on the books so that they can help those victims effectively. I gently say to the Minister, who I have got a lot of time for—he has done an excellent job so far this morning—that we need to be more warm in our consideration of this Bill, so that we can ensure that the people who come after us in 150 years do not say the same kinds of things that we have been saying, with a little frustration, over the past few weeks.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Minister, follow that!

[James Brokenshire]

We are verging the language used on Second Reading when we discussed how the terms of the existing Riots (Damages) Act 1886 are not fit for the purpose of providing compensation in the event of a riot. The Bill provides good flexibility. It is important to recognise that it enables matters to be dealt with by way of secondary regulation. If certain changes are required, we would not necessarily have to address them through primary legislation, with all that that entails. Indeed, as has been discussed, the Bill enables us to increase the overall cap by negative procedure.

In essence, our debate on amendment 10 is about whether primary legislation should include a mandatory requirement to review. In our judgment, that is not necessary, because of the flexibility given by the Bill, which has been well debated. The scrutiny the House has given it means that it is now fit for purpose for the years ahead, because of the latitude it contains. It enables changes to be made in a relatively straightforward way through the processes and procedures of this House and the other place.

The amendment addresses the question of the regularity of scrutiny and whether a review should be undertaken every time some form of riot takes place. In our judgment, that is bureaucratic and we question whether it would achieve the desired result. It is always open to Government to review legislation, and it is absolutely right and proper that they keep it under close review. That may not necessarily happen on a timed basis, but an event may occur to which the Government will respond—indeed, the House may prevail on the Minister in question to do this—by conducting a review of the legislation, to judge whether it is still appropriate. The Bill does not prevent that flexibility—far from it. It can still happen.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) has spoken of the general approach to reviewing all legislation within three to five years of the date of Royal Assent. Therefore, in any event, come what may, there will be an assessment of the Bill. Rather than having fixed points, the Bill provides flexibility to make changes. The regulatory framework enables the issue to be contemplated in that way—it provides latitude—and that is the appropriate way to deal with it. Indeed, it is right and proper that, if such events were to happen, the House could say to the Government, “Look at the Bill now. This is the right time to do it,” without that being reflected formally in the Bill. For those reasons, we judge that the amendment is not needed.

[Lyn Brown]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

I will, in due deference, give way to the shadow Minister.

[Lyn Brown]

Very brave. I say gently to the Minister that I was a bit flabbergasted by the length of time that passed before the introduction of such a Bill. There was a period of unrest in the 1980s, during my early childhood, and I can recall being in a restaurant in Leicester Square on my way to a concert during the poll tax riots. I am surprised, therefore, to be debating a Bill on a matter that has not been revisited during that time. Given that these things happen, given that there can be long periods of time between such occurrences and given that our predecessors did not see fit to revisit the legislation despite some fairly appalling riots in our capital city and elsewhere, why does the Minister genuinely believe and take comfort from the fact that the Bill is somehow different, and that 150 years will not pass before it is revisited?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Lady makes a fair point. I am sure that anyone who has been caught up in a riot, and who has suffered loss or damage as a consequence, feels that hugely keenly. We are talking not just about the immediacy of the situation and the fear that it creates, but about what that means in restoring a life, putting property back into place and dealing with adverse effects on a business. That has been at the heart of our debates on the Bill, and that is why I welcome and strongly endorse the approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South in bringing forward the Bill and seeking to address the problem.

There are a couple of points that I would make. First, the Bill has been drafted in a manner that allows greater latitude than the Victorian legislation. I return to the point about not requiring primary legislation. Dealing with things in secondary legislation gives greater latitude and flexibility to make changes to the regulatory framework more swiftly. That reflects the fact that other items may need to be covered, or the cap may no longer be appropriate. The Bill provides a real benefit in offering that level of flexibility.

Secondly, the hon. Lady made a point about individual occurrences and events, and she pointed to some serious incidents that might have made a review appropriate. The latitude provided by the Bill lends itself well to that, because it will not be necessary completely to recast primary legislation. Some riotous disturbances may not lead to a significant number of claims, so it might not be appropriate to trigger a formal procedure such as that proposed in the amendment. The student riots in 2010, for example, involved significant policing challenges but attracted fewer than five compensation claims. We have the ability to carry out such a review, but we do not need anything with quite such a rigid structure. I suggest to the House that the Bill gives the Government the flexibility and the latitude that they need. In that context, I hope that the right hon. Member for Tottenham will be minded to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

The Opposition will support the Bill this morning, as we have throughout the legislative process.

The 2011 riots were a traumatic event for London and for other cities and towns up and down the country. More than 5,000 crimes were committed in a few short days, five people lost their lives, and it is estimated that the material cost of the London riots alone was over half a billion pounds. They were truly devastating. The unfortunate truth is that when those wounded communities needed help to get back on their feet, the help that was available proved utterly inadequate.

My magnificent right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) has demonstrated to the House yet again this morning his true understanding of and commitment to his constituents. His passionate and well-spoken words showed that he understands the devastating impact the riots have had on the wider community. Frankly, it was not possible for the Government to respond as quickly as was needed to that impact.

I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) for his work on this issue. His constituency was hit hard by the 2011 riots and he has worked tirelessly to highlight the difficulty that his constituents have had in receiving the compensation to which they should have been entitled. He used the Freedom of Information Act to show that three years after the riots, 133 victims in London were yet to receive a penny in compensation. Just 16% of the requested compensation had been paid out at that point.

Those victims of rioting must have felt really let down, especially considering the Prime Minister’s promise that they would not be left out of pocket by those unprecedented actions. Without the tireless work of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North and others, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), I doubt that the Bill would be before the House today, but it is and that is to be celebrated.

To be fair to the Government, they recognised the problems that people had had in receiving compensation and commissioned an independent review. The Kinghan review was published in 2013 and, as we have heard, the Bill before us has the support of the Government and takes up many of the review’s recommendations.

I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) on making such an important contribution so early in his parliamentary career. I hope his father forgives him for the horse story, which I remember well. How amazing it is that an Act will be published in his name. I hope that he celebrates this momentous event suitably over the weekend. I know that he has had a lot of support from the Government, which makes these things a lot easier and gives a Bill a fair passage. None the less, it takes a lot of work and commitment to get a Bill through, and I congratulate him on being equal to that task—congratulations!

I have to thank the Minister for being so accommodating, unlike some other Ministers. I look forward to seeing him opposite me when we consider further Bills, because he has been really quite good.

I thank my Labour colleagues who have worked on the Bill—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who led scrutiny of the Bill in Committee, and my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing Central and Acton, for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) and for Croydon North, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham, who also sat on the Committee. They have all helped to improve the Bill.

The amendment that the House accepted today to give riot victims a guaranteed time in which to claim compensation was the result of probing by the Opposition in Committee, so we are grateful to the hon. Member for Dudley South and the Government for accepting it. The Bill is better for it.

We are happy to support this legislation. Like the hon. Member for Dudley South, I hope and pray that it is rarely, if ever, used because even the most effective legislation for riot compensation can but lessen the terrible pain that is inflicted on communities by looting, violence and wanton damage.