Mr David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

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

If we are going to vote on the previous new clauses, I had better be brief in introducing this one, which returns us rather neatly at the end of our proceedings

to clause 1 and our discussions about the breach of non-molestation orders. If the procedure is to be effective, the police must have a mechanism by which they can know what orders are in place and therefore when an offence is committed. Otherwise, they could not possibly effect an arrest or thereby set in motion criminal proceedings. From my interpretation of what was said in another place, the Government have already conceded that point, but I hope that the Minister will tell us exactly what is proposed.

My noble Friend Lord Thomas of Gresford tabled a similar amendment in another place requiring that a register be drawn up for each police force. Baroness Scotland of Asthal rightly replied that that would not necessarily be the most helpful process. Anyone who has examined the Bichard inquiry would conclude that national rather than local databases are more likely to be effective. If people move between police authority areas, their previous history will be completely unknown in the area to which they have moved. I have tried to table a new clause that requires the creation and maintenance of a national register of orders, to which each court would be required to send a certified copy when an order is made so that it can be complete and readily accessible to police constables.

During the previous debate, in which I did not participate, one of the arguments advanced by the Under-Secretary was that it would take an inordinate amount of time to discover whether there were circumstances that would inhibit the making of a contact order. The register would help in that regard. If we had the register, there would be no reason for an inordinate delay; it would be extremely helpful for everybody concerned. He has therefore provided me with an additional argument in favour of my proposal.

I am sure that the Minister will not accept my new clause—that is the way of the world—but I hope that he will say that it is the Government's intention to create a national register. Indeed, that was the implication when Baroness Scotland suggested in another place that the Government intended to create a single database of orders. She also suggested that the creation of a register does not need to be a matter for primary legislation and therefore need not be included in the Bill. I accept that, but I argue that it would be better done through primary legislation. The Government have taken that view on other occasions. Indeed, I recall that section 98 of the Courts Act 2003 requires a

''Register of judgments and orders etc.''

to be created and maintained.

If it is right to have a national register of judgments and orders to try to ensure that fines or administration orders are maintained, it is more important to have the register that I propose, which is for the protection of vulnerable people. I hope that the Government will, first, confirm that they will produce such a database; secondly, tell us who will do it and how it will be arranged; thirdly, indicate the time scale in which it will be provided; and, fourthly, tell me why it is not helpful for the Bill to refer to it, as it seems entirely pertinent to its intentions and would make it work that much better.

Mr Robert Walter (North Dorset, Conservative)

I support the new clause because I, too, think that it should be included in the Bill. The indications from the Government are that they are minded to create a register of the sort that is proposed, but that they do not see the necessity of putting it in the Bill. The register should feature in the Bill, because that will send a message to those who will administer it that Parliament thinks that it is important.

The mechanisms for setting up a register are probably not too difficult to come by. There are registers of county court judgments, which are easily available to those who want to provide credit. The proposed register could be easily brought into play, and I support what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said: it is important that the proposal is included in the Bill, even if the Government believe that they will introduce it anyway. Accepting the new clause would send an important message.

Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe & Sale East, Labour)

I hope that my brief remarks will reassure the hon. Members for North Dorset and for Somerton and Frome and persuade them that the new clause is not needed.

When the Bill was in the other place, my noble Friend Baroness Scotland explained that the Government are already working to create a register of orders. The register's purpose is to ensure the proper enforcement of orders, and it does not require primary legislation. The register will deal with a problem that was raised in response to the ''Safety and Justice'' consultation paper on domestic violence—if someone protected by an order travels to a different area and the respondent pursues them and breaches the order, the police in that area will not be aware of the existence of the order or its terms. A central register would give all police forces access to information about orders and the ability to enforce them wherever a breach occurs.

Our current plan is to create a database that is linked to the police national computer, which would fulfil the new clause's objective of ensuring that information on the register is readily available to all police officers. We have had discussions with the Police Information Technology Organisation, which we expect to submit an outline business case and specifications, I hope by the end of August or at the latest early September.

In respect of subsection (2) of the new clause, rules of court already provide for courts to send copies of non-molestation and occupation orders to the police, and we intend to consider revising the rules to clarify those obligations. Using primary legislation to place the courts under a statutory obligation to provide such documents is therefore unnecessary. The question should not be whether the proposal is included in the Bill; what really matters is that it is put into practice—something that the Government firmly intend to do as a matter of priority. I hope that the Committee is reassured by what I have said.

Mr David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

On the latter point, I entirely agree with the Minister. The most important thing is that we have the proposal, not whether it is in the Bill. I am

encouraged by what he said about the work that is already going on. We shall see whether PITO delivers, but we must hope that it will do so.

I would not underestimate the difficulties of establishing the initial database. It is no good if it starts from its day of creation and is not retrospective in terms of extant orders. I wonder how much thought has been given to the difficulties of ensuring that we have a comprehensive database of current orders from day one. However, if the register is a good idea and the Government are going to introduce it, I do not understand why there is reticence about including that intention in a part of the Bill where it makes so much sense for it to be clearly stated. Plenty of other registers are referred to in Acts of Parliament, without any need for such reference other than because the Minister at the time, on advice received, thought that it was a good idea to make it clear that they would be created and maintained. This register is apparently in a secondary tier of importance, which does not require it to be stated in a statute. I do not accept that, and I do not think that the Minister accepts it. However, I am happy to take his assurances at face value.

Like me, the Minister knows that this part of the Bill will work only if the register is operational. The police know that, too. The Police Federation supports the position that he and I are adopting. It is regrettable that the register is not made explicit, but I am more concerned that it is established in due course. I would be grateful if he kept me advised of progress during the coming months, because it is important that we watch to ensure that what is promised is delivered. As he knows, it has not always been the case in police IT that what is promised has been delivered.

We are entitled to be cautious, which is why I should have liked something written into the Bill. However, in light of what the Minister said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.