Mr.
Hanson: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth,
Devonport for raising the matter in relation to the clause. I know that
she has a very large military contingent in the great city of Plymouth.
[Interruption.]
The
Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent,
Central (Mark Fisher) is not a member of the
Committee. Mark
Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent, Central) (Lab): I apologise, Sir
Nicholas. I am in the wrong
room.
Mr.
Hanson: I am sure many others wish they could leave the
Committee just as quickly as my hon. Friend the Member for
Stoke-on-Trent, Central. Some of us are here for a lot
longer. My
hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport has a very strong
military contingent in her constituency. My first job was in Plymouth,
and I remember vividly looking out of my bedroom window and watching
ships return from the Falklands war. I spent a pleasant 12
months there and know how much the military is
embedded.
Mr.
Hanson: Working for the Co-op, a wonderful
organisation. The
key thing is that the presence of such a large military contingent
means that there are pressures, particularly when men and women return
from active service. There can be tensions that lead to incidents of
domestic violence. It is important—and clause 29 does
this—that the Ministry of Defence police have a power similar to
that of the civil police to issue domestic violence protection notices.
The scope of clause 21 to allow DVPNs to be issued is exactly the same
as that of clause 29. If a perpetrator was a member of the armed forces
living in accommodation provided by the armed forces, a DVPN would be
issued. That would allow the eviction of the perpetrator from the
premises, not the victim. That is particularly important in a military
context, because the tenancy of military properties will undoubtedly be
with those serving in the military and not their families. That is an
important defence mechanism.
Alison
Seabeck: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that it is
important that support networks should be in place for families living
in confined service accommodation? If so, the victim could be offered
really good support. Otherwise, he or she could feel isolated because
of the
comrades and friends of the perpetrator. Some special and quite
different circumstances surround victims in MOD
accommodation.
Mr.
Hanson: That is so, and the pastoral role of the military
is extremely important. There will still be relationships with normal
local services in places such as Plymouth, but clause 29 gives the
Ministry of Defence the power to act on MOD property.
If a member of
the MOD police issues a DVPN, the application for a DVPO will made to a
magistrates court and will proceed as normal. To a certain extent, that
answers the question of the hon. Member for Winchester. The military
has the power to exclude someone from the premises, but normal
procedures will appertain in relation thereafter, as outlined in the
Bill. They include the powers of arrest in accordance with clause 22,
and in accordance with the provisions of clause 23 on breach in
custody.
In answer to
the first point made by the hon. Member for Winchester, I wrote
“yes” in my notes, but I have forgotten the question. If
he looks at the record in Hansard, he will see what it was. I
hope that I have clarified the second point, which was about dealings
with the magistrates court. If an individual has left the military, we
are talking about a 48-hour initial notice and a 28-day maximum
secondary DVPN. I imagine that those leaving the military within 48
hours or 28 days will be few and far between, but they will
be subject to military jurisdiction for the first part of the order and
to the magistrates court once the breach order has been
completed.
I have been
reminded of the question to which I wrote the answer
“yes”. It was about whether the military police would
hand over to the regular police. The answer is yes, it would be as
normal. I hope that that helps. I am grateful to hon. Members for
raising those issues.
Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
30Pilot
schemes Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
James
Brokenshire: We have reached the last clause in the part
of the Bill dealing with domestic violence. The final piece of the
jigsaw is the pilot schemes. As the Minister said, they are important;
should the Bill be enacted, the intention is to pilot the provisions in
two areas. I understand that under the current timetable they have been
pencilled in for October 2010—but subject, of course, to
parliamentary procedures, including Royal
Assent.
4.45
pm I
have a few questions for the Minister on the nature of the pilot. I
heard what he said about the intended time scale and the fact that they
are supposed to last six months. The regulatory impact assessment talks
about six to 12 months. Will the Minister confirm whether the time
period may be limited by the use of the funding? The regulatory impact
assessment states that £700,000 has been allocated to the
pilots, of which £250,000 would be set-up costs and
£400,000 running costs. The
assessment makes it clear that the Home Office will provide that
funding, but if it appears that the cost of the DVPOs will exceed the
budget, the provision in the legislation to stop the pilots will be
enacted. In essence, the time period could therefore be shorter than
six months, if the funding were used more rapidly than forecast, but
the forecast is slightly uncertain, because we do not know how many
notices might be issued, how many orders would be granted and what the
costs of policing and legal aid might be. Is the Minister confident
that the allocated sum would at the very least provide a reasonable
period of time in which to assess the
pilots? The
Minister will obviously have undertaken some analysis to come up with
the £400,000 running costs, and to have some confidence that
there will be a meaningful period of time for the pilots, and a
meaningful number of orders to be assessed as a consequence. That is
important, because the Minister’s approach puts great emphasis
on the pilots being able to test how effective the proposals would be,
and whether they should be rolled out to a wider arena. It would be
helpful to know that analysis, so that we can be comforted that the
Minister is confident that we will get a reasonable period of
time. One
of the risk factors is the availability of caseworker support locally.
The success of the DVPO in its pilot form will depend on the existence
of caseworkers who, as we have heard, will work with victims to explore
their options. However, the Home Office’s regulatory impact
assessment makes it clear that many specialist support services are
already stretched locally. To ensure that we have meaningful pilots
that operate effectively, that sort of issue needs to be properly
addressed in the recruitment and set-up
process. On
the funding, will the Minister confirm that the £700,000 will
come from a separate pot and not from money that has already been
identified, for example, the pot going to regional government offices
for IDVAs and MARACs for 2009-10 and 2010-11? That funding pot is
intended to provide IDVAs and MARACs across the country, and it would
be interesting if the funding for the pilots was intended to come out
of
that. There
is also the issue of when the decisions will be made about where the
pilots would operate. I hear clearly what the Minister has said about
probably having a small force and a large force, to test the
effectiveness of two areas and look at the use of the DVPNs and DVPOs.
Would he also consider whether an urban force and a rural force should
be reflected in the pilots? The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport has
highlighted her area, and has made a bid for it to be chosen as one of
the pilot schemes. More seriously, a force such as that in Devon and
Cornwall is rural, and in Cornwall it may be more difficult to obtain
services and support than in a more urban area. If the pilot is be
instructive and provide lessons about how it could be applied across
the country, consideration should be given to that
matter.
Alison
Seabeck: The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that
Plymouth falls within the area covered by Devon and Cornwall
police.
James
Brokenshire: That is right. Devon and Cornwall police
cover a wide area, hence my point about dealing with a rural force as
well. I appreciate that there will be
an assessment, and it is intended that the pilot will stop at the end of
the funding or at the end of the six-month period. The regulatory
impact assessment says that the pilot scheme will run for a period of
time and stop while an evaluation is carried out.
If the pilot
is successful and funding, whether locally or through other means,
could be identified, and if it is felt that the domestic violence
protection arrangement is working effectively, does the Home Office
intend to end it, as the regulatory impact assessment states? I
appreciate that lessons need to be learned for a wider roll-out, and
that the more general costs, sustainability and all sorts of factors
need to be considered in the assessment. However, if
£250,000-worth of investment is sunk into the project at the
outset, would it simply stop? Support networks may have been
established and some useful work will have been done on the ground in
the two areas. So is there any flexibility, notwithstanding what might
be stated in the
RIA? Finally,
how does the Minister expect any subsequent roll-out to operate? He may
say that it is too early and that we need to have the pilot first. So
there is going to be just a six-month project, which then stops for
12 months or however long an assessment might take. Is that
how he intends roll-out to operate or would he hope that an assessment
might be undertaken more quickly? If the use of these notices and
orders is shown to be positive in practice, and the funding is within
the anticipated ambit, how might the national roll-out follow
on?
Mr.
Oaten: I have three points. The first relates to the
Minister’s assessment of the cost of setting up the pilots.
Would it not have made more sense to have identified which authorities
will be part of the pilot and to ask them to be involved in the
assessment of the costs? Can he give an assurance that once those areas
have been identified they will not lose out financially from being part
of the pilot
scheme? Secondly,
what happens if an individual in the pilot area has an order made
against them but then moves to an area that is not part of the pilot
and is under another force that has no experience or understanding of
what happens in those
circumstances? My
third question is a slightly different point from that made by the hon.
Member for Hornchurch and is about what happens when the pilot stops. I
am concerned about what happens to the individuals who may be
benefiting from the pilot—who may be getting the follow-up
visits and who may be dependent on the process—when all of a
sudden the support stops. What systems are in place to ensure that
their safety continues when the pilot
ends?
Mr.
Hanson: I shall try to answer the questions that have been
put. I have been very clear throughout the consideration of these
provisions that there will be a pilot. It will comprise two areas. It
will, to help the hon. Member for Hornchurch, probably have one rural
and one more urban area. I have already pointed out that the chief
constable of Wiltshire, Brian Moore, has expressed an interest in his
force being involved. I note the bid from my hon. Friend the Member for
Plymouth, Devonport for her force to be involved. We will make
an evaluation and post Royal Assent, we will agree a two-area pilot to
reflect training and experimental needs. We will run the pilot for a
minimum of six months up to a maximum of 12 months to look at the areas
of work that are
required. The
set-up cost that we have agreed, as the memorandum states, is
£700,000, which is generous in relation to our assessment. Home
Office officials and our colleagues in the Ministry of Justice worked
out the cost between them. It comes from a separate funding
pot.
James
Brokenshire: I hear what the Minister says about the six
to 12-month period. Is the regulatory impact assessment incorrect when
it states that the legislation will stop the pilot if the funding costs
are likely to be exceeded? That is what the assessment says, although I
appreciate that the Minister is now saying that there will be a minimum
period.
Mr.
Hanson: The costings we have established through the
Ministry of Justice and the Home Office are in the region of
£700,000. That will fund, at a minimum, a six-month pilot up to
a potential maximum 12-month pilot. Other partners may join us to share
the cost, because third-party agencies want to look at the support
mechanisms. If I may be so bold as to tell the Committee a secret, we
hope to share some further costs with third-party agencies to ensure
that we undertake savings to the Home Office in due course. The key
element is that there is adequate provision; we have costed it fairly
and we will make sure that it comes from a separate pot to ensure the
roll-out. I
would not have spent three hours of the Committee’s time, as
well as many hours of official preparation time and ministerial time
engaged in the policy, if we did not wish to see the scheme rolled out.
I do not want a postcode lottery based on two pilot areas where it is
not available. There is a proposal so that we can learn lessons from
the practical implications and look at the longer-term funding
requirements, given the comprehensive spending review that will be in
place after the general election, to roll out the scheme. My colleagues
and I will have to make a decision about that downstream. We have to
face the will of the electorate before that, but we will certainly look
at the lessons and the scheme’s potential
roll-out. The
hon. Member for Winchester raised some interesting points. On the
question of what happens if an individual moves away once the clauses
we have considered are put into practice, let me say two things. The
first element is the DVPN, which stops someone entering their property
for 48 hours. Where they go when they are not in the property for the
first 48 hours is a matter for them. The clauses set out that if they
return and breach, there will be a severe penalty. If a magistrates
court imposes a DVPO, it will again be a matter for the individual
where they go. However, if they return to the property, the magistrates
court would be responsible for enforcing the
penalties.
Mr.
Oaten: What I had in mind was this: if the victim moves to
a different area, who will have responsibility for managing what
happens if the perpetrator tries to go to the victim’s new home
and that house falls outside a pilot area?
Mr.
Hanson: The whole purpose and thrust of the clauses is not
that we move the victim around the country, but that we ensure that
they stay in the family home and that it is the perpetrator who goes
walkabout, not the victim, although I accept that there may be
occasions when that happens. If the perpetrator comes back to the home,
they face severe penalties. I do not expect that to be the normal
situation, but I will reflect on it and if there are issues, I will
take them from there. I think I have answered all the
points. 5
pm
| 
