Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill [HL]

Baroness Howe of Idlicote Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 8th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)]

My Lords, I was very pleased to speak in support of the noble Lord’s important victim support amendments to the then Modern Slavery Bill: Amendment 78 on Report on 25 February 2015 and Amendment 2 at Third Reading on 4 March 2015. On both occasions I raised concerns about consistency in standards of care. On 4 March, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bates, said:

“The quality of identification and support for victims is a critical issue”.


Unfortunately, the Government did not support the proposal by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, to put the provision of support in primary legislation but, instead, promised us regulations which could be brought into effect through Section 50 of the Modern Slavery Act, and mandatory guidance through Section 49.

On 4 March, the Minister also said:

“The regulations will include the international obligations we have discussed, including the type of victim support set out in the Council of Europe conventions. To distil this down to a fine point ... when the guidance comes forward in statutory form, will it spell out what is going to be provided? I can say unequivocally that the answer to that is yes”.—[Official Report, 4/3/15; col. 228-29.]


However, over two years later there is no published guidance on identification or support, nor have any regulations come to this House yet. I am not saying that the Government have done nothing about victims’ care: they have run a pilot to assess new methods of operating the NRM which was completed in March. However, it is not clear to me that there is transparency on whether the minimum international standards set by the anti-trafficking convention are being met, nor whether there is any audit of those standards around the country. As far as I am aware, there have been no inspections by the Care Quality Commission of providers who support modern slavery victims. If the Minister is aware of any inspections, I shall look forward to hearing about the outcome.

In his speeches in 2015, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, made a very compelling argument about why support for victims should be assured in primary legislation, as it is in Northern Ireland and Scotland. Now that the legislation has been passed in both Northern Ireland and Scotland, the imperative for similar rights in England and Wales is even greater than in 2015. Putting the details of support in legislation provides a platform for guaranteeing consistent standards of care for all victims. In this context, I very much hope that the Government will support the new Section 48A that the noble Lord proposes for the reflection and recovery period, and new Section 48C on the details of the support that should be provided, including the requirement for regulations setting out minimum standards.

I am conscious that the Prime Minister wrote in her introduction to the background notes on the gracious Speech in June:

“The UK is taking an ambitious approach to tackling modern slavery. We are advocating for better international coordination to deliver commitments made and ensure governments and international agencies prioritise interventions and resources to tackle modern slavery, bring perpetrators to justice and support victims”.


In this context, and mindful that in April next year the Heads of Government of the 52 member states of the Commonwealth, and indeed other Commonwealth Ministers, will come to London, I am concerned that we might face some international embarrassment if the rights of victims of trafficking to support in England and Wales are not comparable to those in the rest of the UK.

The noble Lord, Lord McColl, has always been on the pioneering front of modern slavery policy, and his proposal in new Section 48B that there should be guaranteed support beyond the 45-day reflection and recovery period has significant support beyond this House. The conclusions of the Work and Pensions Committee in the other place have already been referred to. Its view that there is a need for action to secure a pathway for victims’ recovery is one with which I completely agree.

I sincerely hope that the Government will embrace this vital Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, as the next step in providing a world-class support service for the victims of modern slavery.

Social Media: Online Abuse

Baroness Howe of Idlicote Excerpts

Wednesday 15th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Shields]

I take note of the noble Baroness’s account for the House of the issues raised in the BBC case last week. It is of course right that we should continue to keep our position under review, but a complete response to this problem requires more than just legislation; it needs the support of internet service providers and their communities along with the application of advanced technologies. For instance, in our work in countering violent extremism, counter-narrative initiatives are required, along with disruption mechanisms and robust complaints and take-down procedures. All of this serves to challenge the hatred that people are facing online.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that it is far too easy to access abusive and explicit content on social media services, including Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram, Yik Yak, Vine, Kik and doubtless many others, and that such companies need to do more to help parents in their parenting so that children can take advantage of technology in a safe and responsible way.

[Baroness Shields]

The noble Baroness is absolutely correct. It is indeed important that companies should take responsibility for their actions. The majority of internet platforms are based overseas and provide global services, and as the House is fully aware, there is significant complexity around introducing any regime that governs online activity, including keeping any such obligation current given the speed of the evolution of technology, the global nature of the internet and the extraterritorial nature of the jurisdiction that applies.

Policing and Crime Bill

Baroness Howe of Idlicote Excerpts

Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 12th December 2016 Lords Chamber

The amendment ensures that the victims’ rights are upheld and that, in these limited circumstances, they are kept safe from further harm. I beg to move.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 185 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for all the reasons he has explained so eloquently, even though pushed to deliver them very quickly. I shall be much briefer.

If someone has been sexually assaulted by a complete stranger and has then reported the details to the police, it is clearly important that when the police then interview potential suspects they do not under any circumstances, whether the potential offender has been charged or not, disclose the identity of the victim to such suspects. In the past, perhaps, this would not have been so vital, but today if the attack has been carried out by a sexual predator, the availability of the internet, Facebook and all the other many ways of identifying where a victim lives will inevitably mean that the attacker can continue to harass their victim via all or any of these means. Indeed, I am sure noble Lords will have read many harrowing stories of just such instances—we have heard one or two of them already—where the named victim has ultimately been forced to leave the area and resettle in a completely different, new part of the country, changing their names too.

The noble Lord’s amendment is vital. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to accept it in its entirety.

[Viscount Hailsham]

My Lords, I am conscious that your Lordships want to vote on Amendment 187, so I shall be brief, but I have to say that this proposal is, to my way of thinking, one of the most unjust that I have heard in your Lordships’ House for some time. It is worth identifying what it says. I shall come to the proviso in a moment, but what it says that somebody who is accused of rape is not to know the name of the accuser—the complainant. For that matter, somebody who is accused of actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm is not to know the name of the accuser or of the witnesses. I ask rhetorically: how on earth can a defendant or his representatives prepare his case for trial without knowing the name of the accuser or the witnesses? After all, they may not have been there. They may be notorious liars. There may be lots of other reasons to distrust their integrity.

The substantive clause here precludes the police from giving the name of the victim or the witnesses to the accused person. That is curiously reminiscent of the procedure underlying lettres de cachet in pre-revolutionary France, as described in A Tale of Two Cities. Let us look at the proviso, because it needs a bit of probing. The proviso in subsection 1(b) of the proposed new clause is so far as,

“non-disclosure would not impact on … a new trial”.

Who is to judge whether it impacts on a fair trial? I can tell noble Lords from the language of the proposed new clause that it is to be the police or the Crown Prosecution Service. So the police or the Crown Prosecution Service, who are party to the procedure, who are making the allegations, will judge whether it is fair to disclose the identity of the victim or the witness. How can that possibly be fair? What procedure is there in the proposed new clause for the accused person to challenge that determination? There is none at all.

We are told, “Ah, the judge will let it in”, but the judge cannot when there is an absolute prohibition. There is no procedure here whereby the decision of the police officer or the Crown Prosecution Service can be challenged. Probing a little further, what about police statements? I am sure my noble friend knows full well that police statements have to be served on the defendant prior to trial so that they can prepare and understand their case. If the identity of the witness or the victim has to be redacted out of the statements, what possible purpose is there in serving the statements at all? One merely has to identify these things to see that this would be struck down, certainly by the courts. It is a clear contravention of the provisions in the convention now in domestic law in favour of a fair trial.

Incidentally, on proposed new subsection 1(c), regarding the protection of people, bail conditions can do that. There may be a case for strengthening bail conditions but there is absolutely no case for introducing a measure that will do a profound injustice in our courts. I hope my noble friend the Minister will give a robust response to this.

Online Safety

Baroness Howe of Idlicote Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2016 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking in order to achieve compliance with the new European Union net-neutrality Connected Continent requirements in such a way that United Kingdom adult content filtering regimes can be maintained in order to help keep children safe online.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have stayed to this pretty late hour and will be speaking after me. I shall start my comments with some background. The Government held a consultation on parental internet controls between 28 June and 6 September 2012. In December, writing in the Daily Mail, the then Prime Minister announced a policy he described as “default-on” adult content filters. Essentially, customers would be faced with a series of choices about filtering, and any attempt to bypass them would result in the filters being turned on by default.

On 22 July the next year, in his seminal NSPCC speech, the Prime Minister announced:

“By the end of this year, when someone sets up a new broadband account, the settings to install family friendly filters will be automatically selected; if you just click next or enter, then the filters are automatically on”.

That was achieved by January 2014 by three of the four ISPs and by Virgin in February. The basis for this arrangement was, crucially, a voluntary agreement. Provision of default-on and—less effective—unavoidable -choice adult content filters was very welcome, not because filtering is a magic bullet that will help make the internet safe but because it will help make the internet safer. In my book, that is a very important objective.

Of course filters are not the only tool. There are others, such as age-verification checks, and I strongly support the Government’s excellent proposals in this regard in the Digital Economy Bill which this House will debate on 13 December, but there can be no question of saying, “Well, now that we have age-verification checks, we can forget about filters”. One of the most important reasons for this is that, unlike the age-verification proposals which pertain only to pornography, adult content filters catch adult content in the round, including violence, gambling and drug use. The ISPs also offer customised filtering.

Mindful of these considerations, I was very concerned by the response that the then Prime Minister gave in another place to a question on adult content filters during Prime Minister’s Question Time on 28 October 2015. The Member for Derby North, Amanda Solloway, asked about a suggestion made by the Daily Mail that the adult content filtering agreement that the Prime Minister had negotiated with the big four ISPs was in jeopardy as a result of the European Union net neutrality regulations. The Prime Minister’s response confirmed that the Daily Mail was indeed correct that the net neutrality regulations interfered with the agreement, but he made it clear that he had secured an opt-out that was based upon the voluntary agreement being placed on a statutory foundation. He stated:

“we secured an opt-out yesterday so that we can keep our family-friendly filters to protect children. I can tell the House that we will legislate to put our agreement with internet companies on this issue into the law of the land so that our children will be protected”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/10/15; col. 344.]

On 11 December last year, in Committee on my Online Safety Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Shields—the Minister—reiterated what the Prime Minister had said, and went further in setting out the deadline. Many of us thought that the deadline was April 2016, but the Minister made it clear that it was actually December 2016. Specifically, she said that,

“we must legislate to make our filters regime legal according to the new net neutrality regulations. The date for that is by December 2016. To be clear: we need to do something to keep our existing regime viable and functional under the law”.—[Official Report, 11/12/15; col. 1803.]

In her answer, the Minister did not set out exactly when in December 2016 the deadline was, but clearly, it must be at some point between 1 December and 31 December. Today is 1 December 2016, so if we have not reached the deadline, it is clearly almost upon us.

Many expected that the promised legislation would be in the Digital Economy Bill, but it is not. This issue was raised in another place by Mrs Caroline Ansell, the Member for Eastbourne, during the Commons Second Reading debate on the Digital Economy Bill. It was then brought up again in Committee through a specific amendment tabled by Mrs Claire Perry, the Member for Devizes. In his response, the Minister did not seem aware of the previous government statements on the need for legislation. Over the course of last weekend, however, I was informed that the Minister would be announcing in another place that the legislation would be coming in the form of an amendment to the Digital Economy Bill in your Lordships’ House. This announcement was indeed made on Monday this week.

Having tabled this Question for Short Debate on 19 May, I am delighted that we at last have some clarity on this issue, but questions remain. First, the Government said on Monday that,

“our interpretation of the EU regulations is that filters are allowed”.

That constitutes a dramatic reversal of the assessments made by the then Prime Minister on 28 October 2015 and by the Minister in your Lordships’ House on 11 December 2015—the last public statements on the matter recorded in Hansard—and yet no explanation for the change has been provided. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out in some detail the reasons why the interpretation of the impact of net neutrality has been reversed so significantly from the statements made just a year ago.

Secondly, given that today is 1 December 2016 and the Digital Economy Bill has not even had its Second Reading in this place, it seems unlikely that it will become law before March 2017, and yet the clear deadline set out by the Minister a year ago was December 2016. Is the point that the date no longer matters, given the Government’s new view that EU regulations allow the filters to continue?

Finally, in the statement on Monday, the Minister in the other place also said:

“I know that there is still uncertainty about this matter, as well as concerns that filters could be challenged … to put this issue beyond doubt, we will table an amendment … to the effect that providers may offer such filters”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/11/16; col. 1278.]

Could the Minister set out her assessment of a challenge to our current arrangements with the delay in implementing the statutory framework to March 2017? I very much look forward to the contribution of noble Lords to this debate and, of course, especially to the Minister’s response.

Policing and Crime Bill

Baroness Howe of Idlicote Excerpts

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 30th November 2016 Lords Chamber

Does the Minister think it is beyond the capability of various government departments to put them right by April 2019? Surely if it is possible in Merseyside and Hertfordshire, it is possible anywhere. I beg to move.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to support Amendment 117, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which would eradicate the practice of police cells being used as a place for safety for people in crisis. It is an important amendment, both because people who are experiencing a mental health crisis and being detained under the Mental Health Act have committed no crime and because, for those in such a distressed state, being linked into health support is critical.

People who are picked up by the police under the Mental Health Act are detained because of a real risk of harm to themselves or others. Regardless of their age, no one should be made to feel like a criminal simply for being unwell; these people are in need of help and support. They are detained in order that a mental health assessment can be made and for any further treatment and care to be put in place. When you are in a mental health crisis, you are likely to feel overwhelmed and extremely distressed. Your behaviour may seem aggressive and threatening to others, but nevertheless you still need support and compassion. In fact, the people who display the most challenging behaviour are often the most vulnerable—those most in need of health support.

Health-based places of safety need to be equipped to manage someone’s challenging behaviour, and areas such as Merseyside and Hertfordshire are able to do this, where police cells have not been used at all for the past year. This amendment acknowledges that achieving a total ban on the use of police cells in some areas is not yet possible, so it gives the Secretary of State the power to determine a date for implementation. This is important because it sends the message loud and clear that all parties agree that people who are extremely unwell should never be taken to a cell. The amendment will be a lever to ensure that health-based places of safety are invested in and that staff are trained to manage challenging behaviour.

Police cells are clearly never appropriate for people in crisis, and we need to challenge the assumption that sometimes they are. We have already come some way in improving the lives of those with mental health problems, so ending the outdated practice of taking someone in crisis to a police cell is an obvious, achievable and important next step. I hope that the Minister can accept the excellent amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, first I must apologise that I was not involved in the earlier stages of this Bill due to a family health problem. However, I want to speak briefly but very strongly in support of Amendment 117, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.

This House was responsible for ensuring that parity of esteem between mental and physical illness is enshrined in law—a point already referred to by the noble Baroness. This was rightly heralded as an important advance which, over time, should transform attitudes to mental illness and change the treatment of those suffering from mental health problems. Is it conceivable that we would send a patient with a severe physical illness, perhaps cancer or a heart problem, to a police cell because no suitable bed was available locally? Of course not. We would all regard that as utterly inhuman.

But to send a patient in a mental health crisis to a police cell is even more inhuman than doing that to someone who is capable of understanding what is going on. The patient will probably be frightened enough by their own thoughts and the voices going on in their head. They may not understand what is happening to them. Handcuffs and strange people in uniform will be even more terrifying to such patients than they would be to a physically ill person. I do not know the figures, but I do know about the extreme distress that these situations generate and I have no doubt that a good proportion of those who survive—not everyone does—will end up with post-traumatic stress disorder.

I draw on my experience of mental health services over many years and my supervision of investigations into deaths in custody during my years with the Police Complaints Authority. I want to refer to a couple of cases from that time that come to mind in the context of this amendment. A young man of about 20 years old was detained under Section 136 with no mental health professional available to him. The plan was to take him to a police cell. The police had been warned that the young man could be violent, so a firearms officer was made available, which is perfectly reasonable. The patient had delusions that the people around him were all dead and that he was the only one who was alive. He said to the police officers, “You are dead”, who took this comment to be a threat to life. The firearms officer took out his pistol and shot the young man, who died.

The other case I want to refer to involved a very unwell man taken, again I am pretty sure under Section 136, to a police station, where he was restrained on the floor. We do not know what terrible thoughts the patient had in his mind, but the more he was restrained the more he struggled to get free, and understandably the more force was used by the officers to control him. The patient died on that floor. These patients would probably have recovered reasonably well over a period of a few weeks and might have lived full lives for many decades. We can imagine the feelings of their relatives.

The police officers suffered terribly during the lengthy investigations. I have to confess that those investigations were always lengthy and I am sure that they still are. They did not know whether they would be found guilty of murder or manslaughter. That is an appalling thing to happen to a young man who had gone to work that day assuming that he would do his duty as always, but without the mental health skills he needed to deal with the challenges confronting him. This situation is not fair either to patients or to police officers.

Along with other Peers, I very much welcome the ban in this Bill on the use of police cells for those aged under 18 and the plan to reduce their use for adults. Without Amendment 117, my fear is that it could be many years before the aspiration to end the use of police cells as so-called places of safety is actually achieved. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has been sensitive to the resource pressures, which I certainly understand, in proposing that April 2019 should be the date by which this aspiration must be achieved. This is a modest amendment that simply reinforces the direction of travel of the Government, which I applaud. I hope that the Minister will give it the serious consideration it deserves and bring forward an amendment at Third Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Hailsham]

That is not what it says in the amendment. Had it been so, I would not object, but we are talking about a piece of legislation, and it is coercive. If the police officer has to do it, presumably the child has to co-operate. You are not dealing just with young children, either. You are dealing with people up to the age of 18 and I would have thought that there were a substantial number of cases where the child would not want to be assessed and would find it pretty traumatic if he or she was. While there may be a strong case for putting in place a voluntary system for doing it, there is absolutely no case for making it coercive. I really hope that the House will not think of pursuing such a policy.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I think I will leave aside the contribution of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. I do not really agree with what he said. My name is on this amendment and I support it because it would create a clear and explicit referral pathway for child victims of a sexual offence or other forms of child abuse for an assessment of their mental health needs.

As we have heard, the amendment would deliver on the Government’s own commitment in Future in Mind and work to put in place policies that go a step towards creating parity between physical and mental health. The Government say that they want to develop:

“A better offer for the most vulnerable children and young people”,

including by ensuring 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”.

The amendment would deliver on that ambition.

It is important to recognise that the Government have made welcome steps in this area, in particular through their investment of £1.4 billion over the course of this Parliament in children’s and young people’s mental health services. However, there is evidence to show that this is not yet reaching the most vulnerable. According to research from the Education Policy Institute, in the first year of funding, of the expected £250 million only £143 million was released—and of that, only £75 million was distributed to clinical commissioning groups. For 2016-17, £119 million has been allocated to clinical commissioning groups—but this has not been ring-fenced, risking that it will be spent on other priorities.

It is clear from the evidence available and what we have heard today that these young people are at extremely high risk of developing a mental health condition. Lifelong difficulties can result in drug and alcohol abuse, mental ill-health, homelessness, gang affiliation and/or disability if the underlying trauma of their experiences is not met with swift and appropriate intervention. Research has found that up to 90% of children who have experienced abuse will develop a mental illness by the time they are 18. In the spirit of parity between physical and mental health to which we all aspire, in a comparable physical situation people would be screened and have regular check-ups, yet we do not offer the most vulnerable children the same opportunity to receive the help they so vitally need.

National policy is increasingly focused on the social determinants of long-term health. Evidence has shown that adverse childhood experiences are a key risk factor for poor outcomes such as worse health, coming into contact with the criminal justice system and worse employment and educational outcomes over the life course. Children who are victims of a sexual offence are often left without support for their mental health difficulties, which are likely to develop into more entrenched mental health conditions later in life, because they do not meet the thresholds for clinical interventions or because a suitably trained professional does not properly assess their mental health needs.

This amendment would provide national consistency, as we know that the situation across the country is inconsistent and young people are not always getting the holistic assessment they need to meet their needs. Thresholds for mental health clinical interventions are inconsistent across the country and referral routes into CAMHS are varied, with some areas not allowing the local voluntary sector to refer directly. Some sexual assault referral centres refer children for mental health support, but others do not.

In her response in Committee, the Minister mentioned the commissioning framework for adult and paediatric sexual assault referral centre—SARC—services, published in August 2015. However, case-tracking evidence from the Havens in London found that, of the 24 children under 13 who were reviewed, only three were referred to CAMHS and that, of the 56 young people aged 13 to 17 who had their cases reviewed as part of the study, only five were referred. It was acknowledged in the same report:

“Few children are referred to CAMHS from the Havens, most likely as interventions are generally at the forensic examination stage and it is difficult to determine longer term emotional support needs at this … stage”.

It is therefore necessary to ensure that other agencies have a duty to refer for a mental health assessment, in order to guarantee that a young person’s holistic mental health needs are assessed after their traumatic experience.

Alongside providing national consistency, this amendment would introduce a referral for an assessment and enable better understanding of the level of support that needs to be provided both by CAMHS and outside CAMHS. This will lead not only to better responses and referral routes for young people but a greater understanding to inform commissioning at local level, so I hope that the Minister will be able to accept this amendment.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I accept the principle in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, in cases of persistent abuse but I am afraid that I am with my noble friend Lord Hogg. There is—

Policing and Crime Bill

Baroness Howe of Idlicote Excerpts

Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 16th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I was sent the same briefing as him, so he has largely said the same as I was going to say. I just remind the Committee that I sit as a magistrate in central London and I deal, not with issues of this seriousness, but certainly with issues of harassment and others of that nature. There is one other factor that I want to add, on what I understand the legal position to be, which I took from the CPS website. If the police want to apply for anonymity for a victim and believe that they have proper grounds to do that, they can apply to a magistrates’ court but, indeed, I believe police officers can give that anonymity if they believe that there is a proper case for it. They have to reapply for anonymity when a trial happens, either at the magistrates’ court or at the Crown Court.

As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said so clearly, many of the police who were contacted about this issue simply did not know what the law was and they gave wrong advice to the young woman who was asking for advice. This is very worrying and is very likely to discourage other young women from coming forward. That is really the importance of this amendment.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)]

My Lords, it certainly seems extraordinary that there is no policy for legislation determining whether to disclose the identity of a victim of serious sexual crime to the alleged stranger perpetrator. It seems to me that, while nothing is gained by disclosure in the police station, it could be very damaging to the victim. It is relatively easy, in today’s society, for anybody with access to the internet to trace and find the whereabouts of any person, just by having their name.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, Amendment 228D stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. This amendment increases the range of offences for which the Attorney-General has the power to refer a relevant lenient sentence to the Court of Appeal for review. The offences covered by the amendment are stalking, which my colleagues in the other place have been involved in seeking legislation on over the past two or three years—I am glad to see positive movement on this—multiple breaches of restraining orders, coercive control, incitement to support a terrorist organisation and the possession of indecent images of children. Those are the categories we refer to in the amendment.

The Criminal Justice Act 1988 gave the Attorney-General the power to refer unduly lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal. The power was rightly restricted to certain serious offences, but since that time new legislation has been enacted for other grave matters. The time is right to reflect those changes and to address the concerns about individual cases of leniency by adding these new offences to the relevant schedule to the 1988 Act. The changes are not retrospective but would give the Attorney-General the power to refer such lenient cases in the future.

There have been a number of sentences in individual cases in the recent past involving the offences I have listed in the amendment which have been widely reported and have indeed caused public concern. Subsection (a) of the proposed new clause refers to stalking, which is dealt with in Section 4A of the Act,

“involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress”,

and would have been relevant, had it been enacted, to the sentence of only three years for the stalker of Emily Maitlis. This seemed to be very lenient given that the behaviour had gone on for more than 20 years and despite many previous convictions. The stalker of Claire Waxman, again with numerous convictions, got three years and was back in the community after 18 months. Longer sentences would not only be just, they would also allow for longer perpetrator treatment while in custody.

Stalking victims constantly complain that restraining orders do not work because they are not enforced. The perpetrator in the Claire Waxman case breached them many times and other women currently working with Voice 4 Victims say the same. Sometimes, for whatever reason, it appears that the police do not investigate, while in other cases the courts hand out fines or warnings, yet the maximum sentence for a breach is five years. The ability to refer multiple breaches for re-examination by the Court of Appeal would facilitate the raising of the threshold.

Coercive control in a domestic situation became law in 2015. The behaviour causes massive damage to predominantly female victims and can last for years. Women may be controlled financially or in terms of their movements by being confined to their homes, and harassed and bullied. Too few prosecutions have been brought to court so far. The ability of the Attorney-General to refer individual cases will help to highlight the serious nature of such unacceptable behaviour.

Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 involves inciting support for a proscribed organisation. Earlier this year, the hate preacher Anjem Choudary was given three and a half years despite the fact that the court heard that he had encouraged at least 100 young people to turn to ISIS. He could be out in 20 months or less.

The inclusion of the possession of indecent images of children follows an extraordinary case this summer where a male offender was given a suspended sentence in spite of having thousands of images on his devices, including 400 category A images, which are the most vile. His defence argued for a non-custodial sentence on the grounds that he wanted to start a family.

This amendment, which has been drafted by Voice 4 Victims, would update the Attorney-General’s powers and increase public confidence in the sentencing process. I beg to move.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I want to add a few words of support for this amendment. Four years ago I was fully in support of the creation of the offence of stalking, which involves putting a person in fear of violence, serious alarm or distress. Although the maximum sentence is five years, there have been a number of disturbing and unduly lenient court sentences for perpetrators who had been stalking their victims for a decade or more.

I recently met Claire Waxman who has been referred to and who had been hounded by a relentless stalker for 13 years. Her case highlighted the struggle that stalking victims face in the criminal justice system. It was one of the key cases given as evidence in the stalking law reform and it took over a decade for her perpetrator to receive a substantial custodial sentence. In those years, Claire said, “I felt completely failed by the justice system for allowing my long-term stalker to receive suspended sentences or very short jail sentences. These sentences served little purpose as he continued his criminal behaviour each time. I strongly believe had we been able to refer this case to the Attorney-General for the Court of Appeal, he may have received the right sentence earlier on, saving me from years of unnecessary harm and distress”. I very much hope that the Government will see a way to support this amendment fully.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

My Lords, I also support this amendment, to which I have put my name.

As I mentioned in an earlier debate, I sit as a magistrate in central London for crime, youth and family matters. I have been a magistrate for just over 10 years and have seen a big change in the nature of crime which we deal with in London. While there is a decreasing overall amount of crime brought to courts in London, there is a rising proportion of crime related to domestic abuse. We all receive specialist training on that matter—we have specialist courts and are very careful about the way we deal with those matters in court. It is an ever increasing proportion of our workload, so I have given out many restraining orders and have also dealt with many breaches of restraining orders. When one gives a warning to somebody who has been given a restraining order, one can never really be too stark in explaining to the offender just how serious it is. Many times you get the impression that they do not appreciate the seriousness of their activities.

Even when a defendant has been acquitted and found not guilty, you can still put in place a restraining order if you believe it is suitable, and you still have to give a suitable warning for that restraining order being put in place. The amendment deals only with people who have been convicted, but restraining orders can be put in place when people are acquitted as well.

The purpose of this amendment is as a backstop to provide the ability to have higher sentences where the courts have put in place unduly lenient sentences. The maximum is five years, but very often there needs to be a facility and an ability to increase sentences if they are felt to be unduly lenient.

Policing and Crime Bill

Baroness Howe of Idlicote Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard - part one): House of Lords
Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Lords Chamber

The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who has unavoidably been called away so is not in her place, asked me to say that she is also very supportive of this group of amendments. I beg to move.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to amendments in this group. I will speak specifically to Amendment 190, which we have already heard a fair amount about. It seeks to prohibit anyone detained under Sections 135 and 136 of the Mental Health Act being taken to a police cell. Regardless of their age, no one should be made to feel like a criminal simply for being unwell.

I will focus on the emotional impact that being detained in a cell has on people in crisis and question some of the assumptions about the need for the use of police cells for mental health provision. Those who are picked up by the police under the Mental Health Act are detained because there is a real risk of harm to themselves or others. However, they have committed no crime. These are people in need of health support and are detained so that a mental health assessment can take place.

When in a mental health crisis, one is likely to feel frightened, overwhelmed and extremely distressed. One’s behaviour may seem aggressive and threatening to others. That is part of mental illness. Nevertheless, such people still need support and compassion. Health-based places of safety need to be equipped to manage someone’s challenging behaviour, and some areas are able to do this already. We heard about Merseyside from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley,

The experience of being held in police cells is distressing, and often it is the most vulnerable who end up in a cell; yet being held in a prison cell and treated like a criminal can only make matters worse. The Government’s impact assessment on the Bill details the experiences of some of those who have been detained in police cells. Many speak of feeling cold and hungry, being left alone, strip-searched and having their personal possessions removed. Indeed, in one case the light fittings were removed from the cell to prevent self-harming, leaving the person, who was experiencing a mental health crisis, completely in the dark.

Clearly the use of police cells is never appropriate for people with mental health crises and we need to challenge the assumption that sometimes they are. I hope these amendments, so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will persuade the Minister that the use of police cells when dealing with people with a mental health crisis is no longer acceptable and that she will therefore accept the amendments.

Policing and Crime Bill

Baroness Howe of Idlicote Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)]

My Lords, like other noble Lords, the very size of the Bill and its accompanying documents made me realise the huge range of issues that it covers, many of which we have heard mentioned today. At least by the autumn, when we reach Committee stage, there will have been a little more time to think through a wider range of the issues that may need further probing. For today’s Second Reading debate, I shall concentrate on those areas of the Bill dealing with mental health issues. I shall, however, end on a different aspect.

The Bill makes important changes to the Mental Health Act 1983. This is one of the few pieces of legislation that allows people to be deprived of their liberty when they have not committed or are not suspected of having committed a crime. The Bill makes much reference to the relationship between the police and mental health crisis care. While this is a policing Bill and makes many changes to policing practices and conduct, I will focus on the mental health elements, as supporting people with mental health problems is part of a police officer’s role. In a mental health crisis, as the charity Mind tells us, one’s mind is at melting point. One may experience extreme anxiety, have suicidal thoughts or even a psychotic episode. In a crisis we need compassion, understanding and health-based support.

The Mental Health Act provides a legal framework for the detention of individuals with mental health problems. It is important to remember that being detained under the Mental Health Act, which is used to assess and treat a person’s mental health problems without their consent if it is deemed to be in the interests of their health and safety or for the protection of others, is often traumatic for the person concerned. We must do all that we can to improve the support we provide to people at this critical time. I am sure other noble Lords will welcome the Bill’s measures to reduce the maximum length of time for which the person may be detained to 24 hours, down from as many as 72, and certainly the banning of police cells for children. I would like to see us further improve the mental health support that we provide and the Bill gives us the opportunity to raise some important points.

I will focus my speech on the places of safety to which people are taken to wait for a mental health assessment and the support they receive at that critical time. People experiencing a mental health crisis who are detained under the Mental Health Act need to be taken to a supportive and holistic health-based place of safety. However, we know that, all too often, police cells continue to be used. A health-based place of safety has clear and specific qualities that make it safe for people experiencing a mental health crisis, such as being staffed by health professionals and being physically more appropriate. The mental health charity Mind has said that there is no scenario where a health-based place of safety would ever not be the best place to take someone who has been detained under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act. To ensure that we are able to do this, health-based places of safety need to be available and able to manage a person’s health and behaviour. I do not believe that a police cell or even a person’s home is ever appropriate for someone experiencing a mental health crisis. It sounds almost ridiculous that we are still discussing the use of police cells when using one would be absolutely unthinkable for someone experiencing a physical health crisis. We need to question some of the assumptions and truly think about what is best for people with mental health problems.

I would like to raise two further points which are essential if we are to change the way we support people in mental health crisis. The first is to provide independent advice when a person is detained under an emergency section. This is vital because people are often very confused. They might think that they are being arrested for committing a crime and are often in a state of considerable distress. It is astonishing that people detained under Sections 135 and 136 of the Mental Health Act do not receive independent advice about what is happening to them at a time of real need. Along with other noble Lords, I will be calling for better support in the form of an appropriate adult scheme for people during those 24 hours when they are detained.

My final point concerns making sure that people are detained only for up to 24 hours, which the Government have certainly shown their commitment to achieving through the Bill. However, we know that people are often kept waiting for what can be hours to travel to a place of safety, or are held outside until a place becomes available. That time does not count towards the maximum length of time. To make sure that people do not have their liberty taken away for longer than the maximum time, it is crucial that the clock should start when the decision is made to detain someone, not at the point when someone arrives at the place of safety.

Many of the changes I have spoken about will require the health service to step up and provide appropriate support for those experiencing a mental health crisis. However, these are crucial changes to improve how we treat people with mental health problems and bring us closer to achieving parity of esteem.

I turn now to my second issue. Given my work on online safety, it would be remiss of me not to warmly welcome Clause 144, which amends Section 51 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to make it clear that the definition of sexual exploitation includes situations where indecent images of children are streamed via the internet or transmitted by other technological means. It is only right that this House should make it plain that there is no place in our society for any form of child sexual exploitation. To that end, I will be looking to the Government to provide reassurance that this law can be applied to all situations where an offender views streamed images and video of child abuse, including where the abuse is streamed in real time.

Staying with broader issues of child protection but in the offline world, I was concerned to see that child abduction warning notices—CAWNs—are currently defined in such a way that they can be applied to only around 5% of 16 and 17 year-olds. An amendment was moved in the other place to apply CAWNs to all 16 and 17 year-olds. The Minister there opposed the amendment but said that she would look at the issue. I hope the Government have now looked closely at the scope for the application of CAWNs. I would be interested to know whether they are now ready to extend the scope of CAWNs, and if not, why not? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on this matter.

Foreign Workers: Engineers

Baroness Howe of Idlicote Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

My noble friend is absolutely right. We need to do more. We talk a lot about raising productivity. We talk about raising skills. We aspire to be a high-skills, high-wage economy. Engineering and manufacturing in the modern world will be a critical part of that. That is why we need to raise their standing. That means raising the quality of apprenticeships. We set this out in English Apprenticeships: Our 2020 Vision, which talked about introducing degree-level apprenticeships in these areas. However, there is much more to be done to ensure that science and technology engineers have the status in our society that they deserve.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)]

My Lords, given the wish to have a much higher level of aspiring engineers from our own country, can the Minister tell us how successful we are as far as women engineers are concerned? Are their training and skills at the levels they should be in our own profession?

[Lord Bates]

I would never say that they are at the right level; we need to do more. However, I think there are many role models and examples of women who have succeeded in the worlds of science and engineering and we need to point to them. We should also encourage more science students to take up the degree-level qualifications required by our growing employment sector.

Online Safety Bill [HL]

Baroness Howe of Idlicote Excerpts

Friday 11th December 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

1: Clause 1, page 2, line 17, after “operator” insert “or provider or operator designated by the Secretary of State under subsection (1)(d)”

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to have my fifth online safety Bill in Committee, and I thank all noble Lords who have supported me along the considerably long way. Most of the amendments I have tabled to be debated today are in response to the very helpful comments made on the Bill by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its fifth report of the Session, published on 20 July.

Your Lordships will know that the purpose of Clause 1 is to provide protection for children and young people from adult content and to provide parents with the tools to do that. I included Clause 1(1)(d) in the Bill to future-proof it for the inevitable growth in the services and devices that will come on to the market and which we do not yet have any concept of. Just to illustrate my point, in November, Ofcom published its annual report on children’s media use, which stated that over half of three to four year-olds and three-quarters of 12 to 15 year-olds use a tablet in 2015 and that tablets are now the device most often used for going online among all age groups except 12 to 15. In its equivalent report from 2010, there was no mention at all of the word tablet. Ofcom also highlighted the challenge facing parents in its latest report, saying:

“The move towards smaller screens makes supervision more difficult for parents, and the proliferation of devices increases the need for parents to keep up to date with technology”.

The world of online access and devices is moving rapidly, and legislation needs to be able to accommodate those changes.

The Delegated Powers Committee raised two concerns about the way in which the future-proofing provisions were framed. The first was that the defence open to internet service providers and mobile phone operators in Clause 1(5) would not be open to any future, additional category of provider. My Amendment 1 ensures that the defence would be made available. Secondly, the committee was concerned about who would be considered a “provider” or “operator” in the context of the Bill’s future-proofing provision. Amendment 2 defines a provider or operator for the purpose of Clause 1(1)(d) of the Bill as a provider of adult content through a medium other than an ISP or MPO.

As with future provision, it is possible in principle that no new technology will develop for relaying adult content beyond ISPs and MPOs, in which case this part of the Bill will remain latent. But in truth, this would seem unlikely, judging by what has happened so far. I should explain that although the Delegated Powers Committee provides a critique of all Bills with delegated powers, I was informed by the chair that it does not provide advice about how to respond. In developing all my amendments in response to the committee, therefore, I have sought the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, who sadly cannot be here today. His advice was, first, to keep the future-proofing provision and, secondly, that both these amendments address the concerns of the committee as set out in its report. I beg to move.

[Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be brief. I speak in support of Amendments 1 and 2, to which I have put my name. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, on getting to Committee with her important and timely Bill. She was very wise to include a future-proofing provision in the Bill, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, has been very wise to advise her to keep it in.

These two amendments address the two points raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report with great clarity. Amendment 1 extends to future forms of providers the same defence currently afforded to internet service providers and mobile phone operators, thereby upholding even-handedness. Amendment 2 tightens the definition of provider to make it absolutely clear that in this context, we are talking about the provision of adult content in an online context by some actor other than an internet service provider or mobile phone operator.

In acknowledging the rapidly moving world of technology, the noble Baroness should be applauded for her farsightedness, as the amendments further strengthen the Bill, and I very much hope that the Committee will support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Shields) (Con)]

My Lords, I recognise the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for her unwavering commitment to this agenda, and all those who have spoken and contributed to the Bill thus far. As you know, the Government are absolutely committed to the protection of children online, and we must acknowledge the significant and hugely encouraging progress that has been made in the UK on a self-regulatory and voluntary basis. Without legislation, the UK Council for Child Internet Safety has played a vital role in this process. This multi-stakeholder approach to internet safety draws together government, charities, and the internet and mobile industries, and provides a highly effective approach to internet safety that is the envy of our international equivalents.

This, in and of itself, is a future-proofing strategy. The Family Online Safety Institute, an international organisation based in Washington DC that works globally to drive up internet safety, says that the UK is,

“at the forefront of online safety and best practice”,

and that UKCIS is at the core of that.

The first part of this Bill, to which it is proposed to add Amendments 1 and 2, would set out additional duties on internet service providers, mobile phone operators, Ofcom and Ministers in respect of providing a safe internet service for children and information about online safety. This is beyond the self-regulatory regime of family-friendly filters already voluntarily applied by all major ISPs and mobile phone operators in the UK. However well intentioned the drafting of such future-proofing clauses may be, this is, as has been said, a constantly moving target. We have no reason to believe that the successful, voluntary approach led by industry will change in future. Nor do we expect that such an approach would be incapable of addressing these issues as they come up or the arrival of new operators, services and platforms.

Ofcom regularly publishes reports on internet safety measures and a forthcoming report will address the noble Baroness’s concerns. We feel that there is no need to set out arrangements in statute to require this at further intervals because they already do it voluntarily. Furthermore, all mobile phone operators provide filters as default-on, with age-verification controls in place before any changes can be made or filters removed. These filters are underpinned by an independent framework provided by the BBFC to define unsuitable content for under-18s, based on its classification guidelines.

However, as my noble friends and colleagues have mentioned, there is always more that can be done, and no filters or technological tools will be 100% successful all the time. It is crucial that parents continue to engage with their children’s internet experiences and ensure that they build awareness of and resilience to things they see on the internet which may upset them or cause them harm. It is also vital that we, as the Government, continue our effective and productive relationships with industry and Ofcom to consider how our world-class internet safety protections can be made even better. Great progress has been achieved in the UK through voluntary activity, with industry working together with Government and the charity sector in an effective and collaborative way. We have no reason to expect this effective partnership to change.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I am very grateful to everyone who spoke in support of the amendment. I am somewhat disappointed by the reply of the Minister, though clearly she approves of the effect of some of what we have achieved along the way. As we tried to make clear, we think the time has come for rather more fat to be added to make rather less of this material available. As has been mentioned, more children could be damaged by it in the run-up to the next meeting, when we have yet another Bill to look at. However, this is Committee and we will no doubt look at coming back to all this on Report. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord James of Blackheath (Con)]

As a non-lawyer, may I intervene with a query? The phrase “adult” services is a colloquial euphemism. In my understanding, or non-understanding of the law, it is interpreted as to the literal use of the language. Would not it be unambiguous and better if it was just to say “pornographic”?

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, on her amendment, which put the whole theme very effectively. We can all only do our best to re-emphasise all these points, because they are so vital.

We have heard a good deal about age verification in relation to pornographic websites since the publication of the Conservative manifesto, and rightly so. The commitment is of seminal importance, and I very much welcome it. However, we should not lose sight of an entirely different application of age verification in the online world, which the noble Baroness has raised in this debate. Filtering as a child protection mechanism is only really credible if filters are lifted in response to requests from adults. To avoid confusion, let me be clear about what I mean when I talk in terms of lifting filters, and what I do not mean. Having a robust filtering system does not mean guaranteeing that no one with special expertise will be able to bypass the filters. That is beginning to be made clear—I hope so—because many people have mentioned it to the Minister.

I fully recognise, as do most of us, that quite a number of young people will work out how to do bypass filters. My point has never been that a robust filtering system makes the internet safe—only that it makes the internet safer. What I am talking about here is the facility that an adult, regardless of whether or not they are a computer expert, should be able to access to lift adult content filters if they decide they do not want them anymore. While a robust filtering system cannot be expected to guard against those young people with real computer expertise who can work out how to bypass filters, it must ensure that the mechanism that ISPs make available to their customers to switch off the filters is subject to age verification.

To have filters in place that anyone can lift without age verification is a bit like saying that we are doing our best to promote security by providing doors, even though all the doors are unlocked. In this context, a so-called closed loop system whereby an ISP will send an email to an account holder informing him that the filter settings have been changed is completely unacceptable. As other noble Lords have pointed out, age verification takes place before an age-restricted activity occurs, not after it. As the polling demonstrates, a significant number of people would never open an email from their ISP. The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, made that point, and I could not agree with him more. I very much hope that the Government will start taking note of this aspect of the age verification challenge as well as in relation to web crime.

The Bill, which requires users to decide whether they want to access adult content, subject to age verification checks, would help them rise to this challenge. Clause 1(4)(b) requires that a provider of a service has to have age verification that meets the standards set out in Clause 2. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for moving her amendment, which makes explicit this very sensible requirement. I hope that on this occasion the Minister will have taken in what has been said and will do something about it.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, I think this is a logical amendment which follows the way in which the promoters of this Bill are taking it forward. It fits well into the logic of what we have heard so far, and it should be supported. As many noble Lords have said, age verification lies at the heart of this issue. It is not just in relation to adult content—however it is to be described—but also in relation to things such as gambling access and more generally. As we move into the digital age and as consumers increasingly exercise online purchasing power, there will be other issues where it is important to make sure that age is verifiable. I am not sure that we have got to that point. That makes the Government’s response so far rather confusing, and I will be interested to hear what the Minister says on this amendment. They seem quite happy to go with the crowd on populist measures, talking up what should happen here, but they seem reluctant to take the necessary steps to enforce them in a way that will give confidence to those who have to use these systems that they will work. Like the noble Baroness, I am looking forward to what the Minister will say.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Erroll]

I totally accept that. I was just using it as an example of where legislation has gone through in haste with very good intentions but it has not worked because it has not been thought through technically. Checking age is quite complex—for various reasons I prefer the word “checking” to “verification”. There are lots of ways of doing it but it is difficult to produce something that is workable in the real world. Credit cards are not the answer, and the net neutrality principle coming out of Europe will also cause problems. All sorts of things like that have to be taken into account. Getting it right in the long term for children’s safety is much more important than trying to rush through something that looks good. We should remember the saying “Legislate in haste and repent at leisure”.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, on his amendment, which he moved so ably, not least because it highlights one of the key points that has been made repeatedly in debates not only on this Bill but on the many previous online safety Bills.

I have never been persuaded that the voluntary filtering agreement between the big four ISPs is anything other than a very temporary measure. In the first instance, I believe that filtering is sufficiently important to warrant a statutory foundation. In the second instance, I believe it is important for the Prime Minister to press the big four ISPs to introduce a robust filtering regime for the sake of the children in the house that they serve. If it is important for him to agree to do that then, as others have mentioned, it is equally important that he does the same for the children in houses served by other ISPs. Unless we believe that some children are more important than others, surely we must operate on the basis that all children are worth fighting for just as much as those serviced by the big four. If it falls to all of us in this current attempt to bring in an online safety Act to support and speak up for the children in this group, of course we will continue to do so.

In my view, the only sensible way forward here is an even-handed statutory approach, as set out in Clause 1. It should relate, as the noble Lord’s amendment proposes, to Ofcom’s reporting of filtering as well as to the filtering itself. If the Government now have to make statutory provision for filtering because of new EU legislation, it certainly would be indefensible not to apply the new provision to all providers. With this in mind, and as I and others have said, we would be more than happy for the Government to take aboard and use this part of the Online Safety Bill.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I opened my comments this morning by referring to the film “Groundhog Day”. I did so in jest and it was not taken seriously but, as we go through the Bill, I am beginning to think that it has more to say to us than I had thought.

Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, I am quite confused about the Government’s position on this. I am sorry to keep going on to the Minister, who I know is in a good place on many of these issues, but what is happening? She said, in a very strong statement, that there was no reluctance to act; on the other hand, she was quite careful to cover herself and said that that did not mean legislation. Yet, as we have heard, the Prime Minister himself—her boss—has jumped in and has said that legislation will be in place by 31 December, even though we think the date will be 30 April next year. I am not an expert on these matters and I certainly do not want to cause the Committee more confusion, because we want to get through this business today and make sure that the Bill goes on its way. However, it would be helpful if, either now or before the end of this Committee, we had a very clear statement.

Like others, I think this whole area needs people who are keen to see movement on it to get round a table and work out what can be done. If the Government are to go ahead with their own agenda, I am sure the promoters of the Bill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, in particular, will want to get behind that and support it. However, as we know, legislation and legislative time is very difficult to arrange, so, if the Government decided that they had to legislate, it would be completely ridiculous to lose the opportunity available to us here today. We on this side of the House are very willing to support what is necessary to do this—we are not oppositional on this matter—but we are confused.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

4: Clause 8, page 5, line 5, after “be” insert “—
(a) ”

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to speak in support of Amendments 4 to 7 from the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, to which my name is attached. No one can read the very important 2014 ATVOD report and not be convinced about the child safety imperative to provide some kind of regulatory framework for dealing with online pornography, which is projected into this country mainly from websites located abroad.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, will tell us, that report demonstrated that 23 out of the 25 pornographic websites most frequently visited by people in this country are located outside of the UK. To this end, I am of course pleased that this year’s Conservative manifesto committed to introducing age-verification checks on all pornographic sites, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister when further details about this proposal will be published. We had been promised a consultation before the end of the year.

The Government are exceptionally well placed to rise to this challenge, having recently introduced the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014 to regulate online gambling websites based beyond the United Kingdom. In the context of gambling, if someone does not have a licence and they seek to conduct transactions with people in the UK, they operate illegally, so financial transaction providers are happy to refuse to facilitate transactions.

ATVOD, however, reports that the same is not true of pornographic websites that service UK customers from other countries. At the moment, such sites break no law. Indeed, the financial transaction providers have pointed out that, if they refuse to conduct illegal transactions between such sites and people in the UK, they would be the ones likely to be taken to court. This difficulty, however, would not obtain if we introduced a licensing system similar to that pertaining to online gambling and the provider in question did not have a licence. The simple proposal in this Bill is that the providers of online pornography from outside the UK must get a licence, a condition of which would be the provision of robust age verification. I hope that the Government will adopt this Bill as it presents a timely means of fulfilling their manifesto pledge.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report took the view that it would be better if the body that heard appeals against decisions not to grant a licence or to revoke an existing licence, were not the same body that awarded the licences. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, through these amendments, has made provision for the designation of a separate body to hear appeals. The amendments, which the noble Baroness wisely asked the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, to assess, clearly have that effect. I hope the Committee will support them.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I apologise for the delay in finding my papers, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, who very kindly stepped in.

Amendments 4 to 7 form the second group of amendments that I tabled in response to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report published on 20 July. They relate to my proposal under Clause 8 to introduce a licensing scheme for foreign pornographic websites in the absence of any robust regulation of these websites.

The Committee may remember that ATVOD, the Authority for Television on Demand, which I am sad to say will cease to exist at the end of the month, published a report in 2014 that found that 23 of the top 25 adult websites visited by UK internet users provide instant, free and unrestricted access to hardcore pornographic videos, some of which would not be available on a British high street.

ATVOD’s report explains that it has encouraged the UK payments industry—credit card companies, Paypal and so forth—not to process transactions involving websites showing hardcore pornography that is presented without robust age verification safety checks. However, it also explains that the transaction providers are unwilling to do so because,

“the absence of clear case law on the issue precludes such an initiative”.

In short, unless the provider of the material is breaking a law, a financial transaction provider could be taken to court for failing to process the transaction. Setting up a licensing scheme, however, as proposed by Clause 8, would set up clear case law. An organisation would have a licence, or it would not. If the organisation did not have a licence, there would be no legal obstacles if a financial transaction provider was minded not to process the transaction—something that Clause 10 crucially mandates.

Clause 8 would provide a regulatory framework to ensure that these websites are not available to children. Clause 9 makes it an offence not to have a licence and Clause 10 provides a means of ensuring that payments to unlicensed websites would cease—a matter I shall come back to when I speak on Amendments 8 to 13.

The committee was concerned that appeals against decisions on not granting a licence or having a licence revoked would be heard by the licensing body. That is a genuine concern, so I tabled Amendments 4 to 7 to ensure that an independent body be able to review any appeals.

Amendments 4 and 5 ensure that the powers under Clause 8(1) allow the Secretary of State to designate both a licensing body and a separate independent appeals body. Amendments 6 and 7 ensure that the Secretary of State is not able to designate a licensing body without knowing that the independent body has adequate arrangements for appeals. As I have already said, I sought the counsel of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, about whether these amendments deal with the problems highlighted by the committee and he assured me that they do. I beg to move.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, it seems to me that the Government, after so much time has elapsed and so many of our young people have been able to access hardcore pornography, need to take action. I congratulate the noble Baroness for yet again trying to persuade the Government to do that. A voluntary approach has not worked. It is time that the Government offered the same protection to children and young people as they do on gambling—that is, robust age verification. In addition, the Government need to have a licensing system. I cannot think why there is none, particularly given that the Prime Minister has said how much he wants to protect our children from accessing hardcore pornography, and recognises the damage it is doing. Will the Minister accept these amendments and give the Government’s support to this Bill? It is time to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

8: Clause 10, page 6, line 22, leave out “designated person” and insert “person or persons associated with the foreign pornographic service”

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, Amendments 8 to 13 constitute the third group of amendments that I have tabled in response to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report published on 20 July. This set of amendments, like Amendments 4 to 7, relates to my proposal to introduce a licensing scheme for foreign pornographic websites. Clause 10 allows instructions to be given to the financial industry to block payments to any foreign pornographic website that does not have a licence for content accessed in the UK.

In the ATVOD report which I referred to, ATVOD set out that it has been trying to cut all funds from foreign pornographic websites, but the UK payment industry—credit card companies, PayPal et cetera—has reported that,

“the absence of clear case law on the issue precludes such an initiative”.

As I noted during the previous debate, setting up a licensing scheme under Clause 8 would give rise to clear case law: an organisation would have a licence or it would not.

Clause 10 provides another tool to target foreign pornographic websites without a licence. I hope that, under my proposal, this clause would be used rarely because payments would be blocked routinely by financial transaction providers, but it is useful to have another tool to ensure that these websites can be targeted. I based this provision on the precedent of the Treasury’s power to instruct that financial payment should not be made to terrorist groups, as set out in Schedule 7 to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. I am sure that noble Lords would not read into that comment that I am suggesting terrorism and provision of hardcore pornography are the same, though both are very damaging; rather, this precedent in law provides a reasonable model for my Bill to follow.

Once again, the committee has given helpful suggestions on improving the drafting and operation of the clause. It rightly pointed out that the definition of “designated person” in Clause 10(3) and 10(5) was problematic and left uncertainty about who the clause is really aimed at. My intention was that the blocking should be of payments to an unlicensed foreign pornographic website. I am again very grateful for the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who suggested that I replace the use of “designated person” completely with a reference to the foreign pornographic website, which I have done through Amendments 8 to 10 to Clause 10(3). Amendment 12, which removes the definition in Clause 10(5), is consequential on Amendments 8 to 10.

The committee was also concerned that there is no sanction on a “relevant person” who does not comply with a direction under this clause. I have tabled Amendment 13 to make it clear that a relevant person is one of the group of persons or people listed under Clause 10(2) so that there is no lack of clarity about who should be carrying out the direction. I have also tabled Amendment 11 to set out that anyone who does not comply with a required direction would be liable to pay a fine. This is based on paragraph 20 of Schedule 7 to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. Once again, I sought the counsel of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, on these arrangements to ensure that they properly meet the committee’s concerns relating to these three points, as set out in its report. He assures me that they do.

I should also mention that the committee expressed concerns about the idea that a licensing authority should be able to instruct the financial industry. There is, however, legal precedence in Schedule 7 to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 and I hope that, given the clarifications of purpose resulting from these amendments, its concerns will be allayed. I will, however, consult the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, further—I have not done that so far—and may well return to this question with a further amendment on Report if necessary. I am grateful for the comments of the committee to ensure that this clause is as robust as possible, and to the noble and learned Lord for his expert advice. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Shields]

I confirm that we have to react to what has happened in Europe. The European net neutrality directive has set us back, so we are getting ourselves back on a stable footing and enshrining in law the fact that we can protect our filters regime. That is not an intentionally minimalist approach; we have to react to the legal situation that the directive has created.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

14: In the Title, line 3, leave out from “require” to the first “to” in line 4 and insert “information to be provided about online safety by internet service providers and mobile phone operators;”

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I think by now your Lordships will be aware that this is the fifth Online Safety Bill that I have brought to your Lordships’ House. When it was originally submitted to the Public Bill Office, it had the correct Long Title, but, sadly, in the course of preparing the Bill, somehow that new Long Title was exchanged for the previous Long Title—this was lovely back-to-front stuff. The Public Bill Office staff spotted their mistake. They were very apologetic but explained that by that stage it was too late and the only way to correct it was through amendment. Put simply, the Bill currently has the wrong Long Title and Amendments 14 to 16 change it, so that it accurately defines the Bill as it stands.

Amendment 14 would remove the obligation on electronic device manufacturers in the previous version of the Bill, which is not in the current Bill. It puts in its place a description of the obligation placed on internet service providers and mobile phone operators in the Bill to provide information about online safety, as set out in Clause 3. Amendment 16, meanwhile, describes the new proposal to license foreign pornographic websites, as set out in Part 3. I suppose it is fairly amazing that mix-ups like this do not happen more often. I am most grateful to the Public Bill Office for pointing out its error and helping me to correct it.

Given that rather than changing the Bill, these amendments simply restore the correct Long Title to what it should have been all along, I very much hope that these amendments need not detain us. I beg to move.

[Baroness Shields]

My Lords, the Government have noted the noble Baroness’s proposed changes to the Long Title of this Bill, which serve to clarify its content. As I said, there can be no higher priority than keeping children safe online, and to the extent that this measure clarifies the Bill’s intentions, we support it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

15: In the Title, line 5, leave out “and” and insert “;”