Modern Slavery Bill

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Baroness Hamwee

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the government amendments and Amendment 60, which stands in my name and that of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. At the outset, I, too, pay tribute to the battles, as the noble and learned Baroness put it, fought by her and the noble Lord, Lord McColl, to bring about child trafficking advocates with the appropriate powers. I have always been pleased to support their powerful advocacy.

As noble Lords have said, we are grateful for the Minister’s efforts in securing these important amendments, which significantly strengthen the role of child advocates in the Bill. In Committee, we pushed for changes to be made to Clause 48, and specifically to give advocates the legal powers that they would require in order to carry out their role effectively. This is the purpose of Amendment 60—but, of course, I am delighted to see that the same powers are outlined in government Amendment 61. Alongside the legal powers, we are pleased that government Amendment 72 gives child trafficking advocates the ability to co-operate and work for public authorities. These are important steps in securing the protection of vulnerable children who have been, and are, the victims of the most heinous crimes.

Guardians will be able to effectively and successfully act in a child’s interests only if they have the appropriate powers to instruct solicitors and have access to the required information from public authorities. Evidence from members of the Refugee Children’s Consortium, the Children’s Society and the Refugee Council demonstrates that local authorities have, unfortunately, failed on many occasions to respond adequately to the needs of the trafficked child.

While I give the Minister the warmest thanks for the amendments that he has brought forward today, I am rather disappointed that between Committee and Report we were not given sufficient information on the interim outcomes of the pilots that are being undertaken. I am grateful for the letter sent out by the Minister on Monday evening, but there is not quite enough detail to tell us clearly what needs to be improved, what is working in the current trials and what is not. The trials started in September 2014 and it would have been helpful if, five months on, we could have had more details and information to inform our debate today. So I have a few questions for the noble Lord.

It would be helpful if he could tell us how many children each advocate represents at a time, what services are available to help with any potential language barriers the children may have, and—as the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said—what the difference is between the role of the advocate and that of the social worker. Do the trials demonstrate that there is a clear enough definition between those two very specific roles? Have any areas been identified thus far where more work needs to be done or where there are potential problems? I wonder, for example, why there has been a slower rate of uptake than may have been expected.

With that, I say again that I am very grateful to the Minister for all that he has done on these issues, and I look forward to his response.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, while welcoming very much the enormous progress that has been made—I have no doubt that a lot of that is due to the Minister’s personal efforts—I have two points that I should like to raise. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, was going to ask about independent reviewing officers, but I suppose that that is subsumed within the question of accountability.

My first point, highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, concerns the use of the term “reasonable grounds to believe” which the government amendments apply in place of “reason to believe”. On Monday when we discussed legal aid, the Minister said that he thought it was important that no one should be deterred from applying to be referred to the national referral mechanism, and therefore that it would be better to have “reasonable grounds to believe” as the catalyst or prompt for various things to follow. It would be ironic if that were to be a reason for the change today in the case of child trafficking advocates.

I wonder whether there is in fact any difference between the terms. Is one more subjective than the other, or is one a harder test than the other? I ask this because if they mean the same, would it not be better to retain a non-technical term in order to anticipate any change there may be in the arrangements for the national referral mechanism? We know that consideration is being given to having a single stage going straight to conclusive grounds. Are we constraining a change which a lot of NGOs are calling for by including a technical term in the legislation? This is a question that goes to quite a number of the amendments that we will be considering today.

My second point is about legal representation. I think that on pretty much every occasion when we have discussed this issue I have argued for its importance. I did wonder whether the instruction should be given by the child or by the advocate. Is it the advocate’s role to assist, which is the Government’s amendment? I think that perhaps it is. The lawyer needs to hear from the child, but I am not even sure whether a child—I hesitate to ask this question in the presence of the noble and learned Baroness—has the capacity to give instructions to a legal representative. Should they instead be given by someone on the child’s behalf? However, that is not the main thrust of my question.

Government Amendment 61 states:

“The advocate may (where appropriate) assist the child to obtain legal or other advice”,

and so on. Can the Minister flesh that out? If a lawyer is approached and asked for advice, but legal advice is not appropriate in the circumstances, the lawyer is going to say so. We do not need legislation to put a block in the way—and, indeed, there should not be a block in the way of that approach.

I would not want to think that the advocate would be in a position to stop the question to a lawyer: “Is this a legal issue that you can help sort out?”. I would not want to think that the term “appropriate” in this context is because it is appropriate to the trafficked position of the child—because a child victim may have much wider needs than those which are directly related to his or her having been trafficked. Again, I think it would be a great pity if those who are involved are made to question whether seeking legal advice is the right thing to do.

If the Minister can flesh out and get rid of my concerns about Amendment 61, it would be very helpful to have that on the record. If he cannot, I will really wish that I had not raised them, because I would not want the negative points to be on the record, either.

Modern Slavery Bill

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Baroness Hamwee

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, this may be the longest grouping of amendments, but it may be one of the shortest debates. I note that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness opposite also have an amendment in the group. Amendment 39 and the other amendments in my name ask what place an immigration officer has, or should have, in instigating an application for a slavery and trafficking prevention order or a risk order. They are also to ask, if an immigration officer has this power, how it will work in practice. Are we talking about a suspicion at the border? If that is so, would it not be appropriate for the immigration officer to bring in the police, rather than for the immigration officer to start on this line of applying for one of these orders, even though, as the noble Baroness has said, it does not criminalise? Would the immigration officer have some power to detain linked with this?

I was prompted to table these amendments because of my concern not to confuse slavery and trafficking with immigration offences, at least to the extent of not letting it be thought that this is a problem that is being imported into this country—because, as in the title of the report from a year or so ago, it happens here. My questions are really about the operation of the provision and the place of immigration officers throughout these clauses, which is why there is such a long list of amendments. I beg to move.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 39A in this group. Part 2 makes arrangements for slavery and trafficking risk orders and prevention orders. At present, Clause 15 makes provision for when a magistrate may make a slavery and trafficking prevention order against a person. A chief officer of police may make an application to the magistrates’ court, alongside an immigration officer or the director-general of the National Crime Agency. However, a chief officer of police may make such an application only in respect of a person who lives in that chief officer’s police area or who the chief officer believes is in that area or is intending to come to it.

We tabled the same amendment in the other place to question whether a chief officer may also be able to make an order with respect to someone who has previously been to their area or has had connections with the area. The current drafting of this clause does not cover that possibility. At present, it would be possible for a chief officer to apply for a trafficking prevention order for someone in their area but not for anyone who had previously been there and who may still have connections with the area through friends, family or business or in other ways.

I will adapt an example given by my right honourable friend David Hanson in the other place. At present, it is possible for the chief constable of Gloucestershire police to apply for a trafficking prevention order for someone who lives in the Forest of Dean, which is my area. She could also do that if she thought that they were in or would come to the area. There might be individuals who were previously involved in trafficking in my area but who are not currently resident in the area or intending to return there, but they might have connections with it through their family or business or in other ways.

I tabled the amendment because paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (4) do not cover every base, but the amendment could mean that the police would have full powers. To use my area of Gloucestershire again, it is quite possible that an individual could conduct activity that should be covered by a slavery and trafficking prevention order but the chief of police is not able to make an application for an order because the individual does not live in the area, is not in the area and does not intend to come to the area, although they have been to it previously or have connections with it.

In her response, the Minister in the other place said that in such a case the chief officer would be able to ask the National Crime Agency or the police force where the individual resides to take the appropriate steps to make an application for an order. In addition, the new Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner would be able to ensure that police officers could work coherently and co-operatively. While of course that is welcome, it is not certain, and the functions of the commissioner as outlined in Clause 41 do not reflect this.

Furthermore, the Minister was hesitant when asked what would happen if an individual left the area. The chief officer would not be able to take any action and would have to rely on other police forces to act. This could be dangerous, weaken the application of slavery and trafficking prevention orders and allow perpetrators to slip through the net. Personally, I do not see the harm in giving an extra power in this subsection to extend it to individuals who may not be covered in paragraphs (a) and (b).

In the Public Bill Committee in the Commons, the Minister, Karen Bradley, indicated that she was willing to reflect on this. It would be good to know whether the Minister was able to provide us with any reassurance on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I meant to mention one more point, which was the one made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, about the experience that he had setting up the Supreme Court. We probably got it wrong in that instance; we should have had more foresight. We put up our hands if we get things wrong. Now that we have that lesson before us, we should learn from the experience of the Supreme Court and not say, “Oh, well, we’ll see how it goes”. That is a great lesson and we should learn from it.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, we will come to the staff’s functions and powers next week, but we should not lose sight of the fact that some of them need to have experience that is far wider than and quite different from that of the Home Office: we are talking about health and the whole of the welfare system, at least. That point has been made in the context of the powers, but let us mark it in the context of staff as well.

Modern Slavery Bill

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Baroness Hamwee

Monday 1st December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

I believe that the noble Lord’s amendment will come before mine in the pecking order. I want to make two points. Of course, I hear what he says about the views of the DPP, but a huge number of lawyers and other people involved in the system are looking at these issues, including charities and various organisations. They are all deeply concerned that notwithstanding the fact that we have this plethora of laws at the moment, as was said at Second Reading, the UK Human Trafficking Centre last year identified 2,744 victims of trafficking, including 600 children. Yet, since the introduction of that offence there have been no prosecutions when the victim was a child, and there have been very few prosecutions at all. I agree with the noble Lord that awareness training is terribly important but there must be something wrong with the current offences if they cannot be used to prosecute people who are perpetrating the most evil of crimes. Therefore, I ask him to look at this again.

In relation to the definition of trafficking, I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said, but it would be very good if he could respond on Report to the points made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I still think that there is something missing, and it is not in the Bill that we are absolutely in tune with our European partners. That needs to be on the face of the Bill. I would be content with that in terms of human trafficking but I certainly want to come back to the issue of an offence. We have to do something about getting more prosecutions for these heinous crimes.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I remain concerned about the definition of trafficking, and I am sure that we will come back to that. I want to ask the noble Lord on the narrow point of whether I am right in understanding that he is saying that incitement falls within arranging. He referred to Clause 2(1), which states,

“if the person arranges or facilitates the travel”.

He may not want to answer that now but I ask the question now whether incitement is within that term. The answer may come later.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Baroness Hamwee

Monday 12th May 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

I wish to speak on this amendment—forgive me for being so tardy—as I just wish to place certain things on record.

I support the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and am deeply disappointed and irritated by the amendment tabled by the Minister. While the noble Lord has just set out his reasons for not accepting the original amendment tabled by the noble and learned Baroness, the only reason given by the House of Commons was one of financial privilege. As has been said on other occasions, when the Government use financial privilege as the reason for rejecting amendments in the Lords, it too often looks as though the Government simply do not have sufficiently strong arguments to counter the just and moral reasons given by the Lords. Yes, I well understand that it is the Speaker who decides whether or not financial privilege should be applied, but the Government could have asked the House to waive financial privilege and chose not to do so.

This is frustrating for us but, more importantly, it has real implications for the small number of vulnerable children who are subjected to the evils of trafficking. These children have suffered the worst kind of traumatic experiences and they are desperately in need of a guardian, appointed on a statutory basis, to accompany them,

“throughout the entire process until a durable solution in the best interests of the child has been identified and implemented”.

On the subject of financial privilege, I ask the Minister to provide us with the Government’s computation of the predicted costs of the amendment that was rejected in the Commons.

Again I place on record my thanks for the extraordinary diligence and dogged determination of the noble and learned Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, to get justice for trafficked children. I also say to the Minister that I still do not understand why the Government have been so reluctant to act before now, why they could not have agreed to amendments in earlier Bills and why there was no provision for guardians in the draft modern slavery Bill. I know that pilots have now been announced, but if that has been the Government's intention for some time, why was there not an enabling clause in the draft Bill? I am pleased that the Government clearly now intend to introduce an enabling clause by amendment, but they could have done so much more.

In the absence of the amendment passed by this House, an enabling clause in the modern slavery Bill is welcome, but what would trigger that enabling power? Despite what the noble Lord just said, I am still slightly concerned about the statutory basis for the scheme. I want to be absolutely clear that, when a guardian feels the need to give instructions to a lawyer where a child is incapable of doing so, that lawyer will have the statutory basis to be empowered to represent the views of that child. Can the Minister give that assurance?

I also have a question about the timings. Could the Minister confirm that the trial will start on 1 July? Could he further tell the House when the pilots are due to end? As he would understand, it would be unacceptable if, when it came to the report that is in the amendment of the noble and learned Baroness, the Government were able to say that they had not had time to assess the outcomes of the pilots. I want to ensure that the timescale works.

The Minister in the other place said that the trial would cover 23 local authorities. Will all trafficked children be placed within those authorities, so that all trafficked children are covered by the trial?

I will mention one thing that may seem a bit pernickety. I was slightly concerned by some of the reasons given by the Minister in the other place for rejecting the noble and learned Baroness’s earlier amendment. He said one reason was that it dealt only with children under immigration control and that he wished in the modern slavery Bill to craft provisions covering all trafficked children. Of course, there was nothing to prevent the Government accepting the amendment and then repealing the provision if necessary when replacing it with a clause in the modern slavery Bill.

As I said, I welcome the fact that the Government are now introducing an enabling clause, but I am frustrated that it has taken such a long time. I am also rather frustrated that, in the end, the Government took the advice from the Speaker that financial privilege should be attached to this specific amendment. Sometimes, of course there are questions of money but in this case the money is negligible. Sometimes there are questions of politics but this issue has had cross-party support throughout. I am just frustrated that it has taken so long to get to where we are. Of course, I trust what the Minister said. I just seek clarification on the various questions I asked.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I note that at the last stage the noble Baroness and I both used the term “dogged” to describe the work done by those who advocated—if that is not the wrong term in this context—the guardianship provisions. I sense that the House would like to move on as there is so much agreement, so I will go straight to the one question I have left of those I had on the amendment.

There is a difference, in the normal understanding of the terms, between “advocacy” and “guardianship”. They are not the same thing. Of course, the detail of the role will be described when we come to the legislation so we will then understand just what it will cover. No doubt we will discuss that. The one question I have left for my noble friend that has not already been asked is: how will the Government assess and evaluate the trials or pilots—whatever we call them—including assessing the need for the provisions that are not included in the trial? The noble Baroness mentioned the one about being instructed and being able to carry out instructions, which I was also concerned about that because of my own professional background. If the trials do not cover a part of the role, how are we going to know whether that role was necessary? I hope my noble friend can explain what the approach to the assessment and evaluation will be.

Queen’s Speech

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Baroness Hamwee

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, it is after 10 o’clock; I am speaker number 57; I am on camera, as all of us have been; and the sky has not fallen in—as it has not over the many years of debates being broadcast from this and another Chamber. That may be enough for now on cameras in court save to say, in answer to the concern that counsel will play to the gallery—and this may be a risky observation—don’t they always?

In this House it is not just what you do but how you do it that matters. I am looking forward to seeing how the Government have responded to pre-legislative scrutiny —much mention has been made of the Defamation Bill—and how they have built on that sort of scrutiny. I am also pleased that we are starting on a new way of looking at how legislation that was passed a while ago is working.

The Queen’s Speech does not deal as much with the way Parliament does things as with what the Government plan to do, but I will mention one other aspect of the “how”. In no way is this aimed at our new Chairman of Committees, whom I welcome to his office. Indeed, I think that he may have sympathy with the point that the governance of our House is outdated. I use this opportunity to make the simple point that all our officeholders, not just the Lord Speaker, should be elected by their peers on the basis of a job description and a fixed term of office—instead of just emerging.

From the Government’s programme, on the issue of governance, the oversight of the security and intelligence agencies will present us with a challenge. How do we ensure good governance when access to the subject matter is restricted? It will be difficult to achieve public trust without complete transparency. I do not diminish the importance of the new National Crime Agency, but we will be debating it at Second Reading of the Crime and Courts Bill in less than two weeks.

To readers of Hansard looking for a mention of their own area of interest, I say that time constrains us. To those who say that reform of the House will crowd out everything else, I say that there will be a direct correlation with the number of times that we politicians feel the need to repeat the arguments. I understand, incidentally, that we have one day to cover so many subjects, compared with two days on constitutional issues, because the Opposition requested two days of debate on the constitution.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I have to set this canard straight—or whatever the expression is. Perhaps I have to shoot the canard and set the record straight. The Government came forward not just with a suggestion but saying that there would be two days of constitutional debate and that the other days would be apportioned as they are now. The Opposition said, “No, we do not think it is a good idea to have two days of debate on constitutional reform”. However, the Government chose to do that; it was not at the request of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.

[Baroness Hamwee]

The House heard what the noble Baroness said. I was informed by somebody very close to the decisions. If it is a question of setting the canard straight, do I say “quack”?

The Government have a lot to deal with that will not be solved by legislation. That point was raised by a number of noble Lords; it was never going to be a panacea. Conversely, I congratulate the Government on the steps they have taken in the Ministry of Justice to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences.

One matter that is more often the subject of secondary legislation and rules is that of immigration, and the huge issue of the values and attitudes that underlie it. However, legislation will not address the two issues that I now mention. One is the problem of delays by the UK Border Agency. Here I am talking not about queues but about the issuing of visas—something that businesses find immensely frustrating. Nor am I talking about what many of us regard as the inappropriate inclusion of students in immigration totals. The Government are concerned that to exclude them would be fiddling the figures; our concern is that their inclusion distorts the real picture.

Sometimes legislation is needed, and I am disappointed that there is no Bill on the presumption of death of people who are missing. It was not until I saw the work of the charity Missing People that I came to understand how many practical and financial—leaving aside emotional—problems there are for families. The Justice Committee made recommendations and the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, has brought forward a Private Member’s Bill.

It is right that there is no Bill but that there will be pre-legislative scrutiny of provisions covering access to communications data. Scrutiny means testing the evidence, and parliamentarians need public debate between experts on both technology and security. We cannot turn back the clock. Perhaps I should be talking about technologies in the plural. Certainly we have moved on—not just from when we communicated by letter, but from when the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act was passed. We must not miss this chance to re-examine what is in place now to ensure our freedoms under the rule of law, which includes revisiting RIPA. I might also revisit the issue of legal professional privilege. It does not take a crystal ball to predict that the use of closed proceedings will get a thorough scrutiny too, although I hope that when we see the Bill it will be less—I search for an adjective—extreme than what was, after all, only a Green Paper. I noticed, however, that last week the Home Secretary talked in the Commons about,

“proposals to deal with the limitations of the current court rules which do not allow sensitive intelligence evidence to be heard in civil proceedings, even where it is of central relevance to the case”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/5/12; col. 177.]

That is not so. It is not the rules of court, it is the security services which withhold the information. Parliament is—and should be—in the business of protecting our freedoms in the complicated society which is the 21st century. Society changes, challenges to freedoms may change, but the freedoms themselves are millennia old. At the start of the service on the first night of the Jewish festival of Passover, which is about freedom, the service describes it thus:

“Freedom from bondage and freedom from oppression, freedom from hunger and freedom from want, freedom from hatred and freedom from fear, freedom to think and freedom to speak, freedom to learn and freedom to love, freedom to hope and freedom to rejoice”.

That is still entirely relevant.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Baroness Hamwee

Monday 6th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I, too, was pleased to add my name to this important amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, who has set out his concerns powerfully today and in Committee. I have little to add to what my noble friend has said. I would merely commend the work of the Joint Committee, which did an excellent job, and say that while the Government have rightly recognised the practical impossibility of having to push through emergency legislation in a state of national emergency while Parliament is dissolved, they still have a duty in many ways to take seriously the committee's concerns over the ability of Parliament to legislate in certain emergency situations in order to provide powers necessary to extend the detention period to 28 days.

Perhaps most importantly, I echo the committee's concerns over the serious risk of jeopardising a fair trial if Parliament is to be provided with enough information properly to scrutinise whether the extension was necessary. As my noble friend has said, the scrutiny of legislation within such a short deadline is of course extremely difficult. Indeed, it could be dangerous if Parliament came to the wrong conclusions. The amendment is a measured response to the concerns which were expressed by the Joint Committee and, as has been said, it provides the Secretary of State with an option to bring in emergency legislation by order in certain circumstances where it is deemed truly necessary and expedient.

It is not mandatory but it is enabling. The Government, if they so wish, could still rely on emergency primary legislation. However, if there were concerns about the balance between having sufficient information to inform debate and the risk of jeopardising a fair trial, they could introduce an executive order. As my noble friend has said, this amendment makes entire common sense; as she also said, we must be able to trust in the judgment of the Secretary of State during times of national emergency. I believe that she should, in these rare circumstances, have the power available to her.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, has done a sterling job in this area and I feel a little embarrassed to ask questions, but I will because that is what we are here for. First, I share his and the noble Baroness’s concerns about the danger to a fair trial in the circumstances that the amendment covers. It has always seemed to me that primary legislation in these circumstances is almost likely to be ad hominem. I do not know whether that is the right way to express it, but it could be read as being very personal to an individual.

I should like to ask the noble Lord about two phrases in his amendment. The first is “time constraints”. I am not entirely sure what that means. It could be read as simply meaning management of parliamentary business. I dare say that it is intended to indicate insufficient time for adequate scrutiny, although I am not sure that that is implicit. The second phrase is,

“unacceptable risk to public safety or to security”.

I read that as being objective rather than subjective on the part of the Secretary of State and the Attorney-General. I am not sure whether I am correct in this but neither am I sure how one gauges an unacceptable risk as distinct from an acceptable risk. Those matters have to be subjective. One may often have seen in such a provision “the Secretary of State considers that” rather than the more objective approach in this phrase.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Baroness Hamwee

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, of course I recognise what the European Court of Human Rights said, but my Government, when they came to the view that the period should be six years, believed that it was compliant with the ruling of the ECHR. I was not suggesting that the Minister was going to agree with me; I was asking him to come back with further evidence of the situation in Scotland. There must be some facts and figures. The facts relating to Scotland that I have put before the House have been questioned, and I would like more facts about the situation in Scotland. I would like to know whether it is indeed the case that the police have not asked for an extension from three to five years.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness that asking whether the police have or have not sought extensions is one matter, but asking why not seems to be asking the Minister to prove a negative. I thought, not just now but a few moments ago, she was asking the Minister to explain why not.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, forgive me if I misled the House. I did not mean to ask why not; I wished to know whether or not the police had asked for an extension. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Baroness Hamwee

Thursday 12th January 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I have little or nothing to add to what my noble friend has said. He is right to raise this complex and extensive issue. It is one that has clearly caused many problems for citizens and it would seem that my noble friend’s proposals might be a means of assisting people in their quest for information. This could lead to the roads on which they live being better maintained and safer. It may also assist in resolving difficult and lengthy disputes. I recognise this is an extraordinarily difficult area and I look forward to the Minister’s reply. I wish her well.

[Baroness Hamwee]

The advice “Don’t go to law” might be extended to “Be very careful about buying a house on an unadopted road”. The former private enterprise, which the noble Lord, Lord Soley, described, of clamping one’s neighbours’ vehicles is quite extreme.

Perhaps I may ask a few questions. I do not suggest that the problems the noble Lord has described are not important but, on the amendment, first, is he suggesting that this extends to any public authority beyond the Land Registry? I suppose that local authorities holding a local land charges register might be relevant, but this is all public authorities. Secondly, did the letter from the Land Registry refer to land having gone to the Crown in the situation of intestacy, and thirdly, is there a concern about more than the adoption of roads? The amendment is more extensive than that, as I understand the thrust of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the amendments and for the letter that he wrote to noble Lords earlier this week. We welcome the government amendments as far as they go. Like the Minister, I commend the noble Lord, Lord McColl, for his tireless and extraordinary efforts on this important issue and the fact that he introduced his Private Member’s Bill, which I believe paved the way for the amendments before us today. As the noble Lord said, his Bill goes further than the EU directive and I, too, look forward to seeing it in Committee in the near future.

These amendments represent a clear admission by the Government that they were wrong in their initial decision to opt out of the EU directive on human trafficking. The claims made at the time by the Prime Minister about the EU directive were ill informed at best when he said,

“does not go any further than the law that we have already passed”.—[ Official Report, Commons, 15/9/10; col. 873.]

As the Minister explained, the government amendments serve to implement Article 9 of the directive, which requires member states to establish extraterritorial jurisdiction where the offender is one of their own nationals and grants member states discretion over the establishment of jurisdiction over non-nationals, where any part of the offence was committed in a member state’s territory or the victim is a national. We welcome the Government’s amendments to introduce extraterritorial jurisdiction over UK nationals who traffic or facilitate the trafficking of people. We also welcome the introduction of jurisdiction over non-UK nationals who commit or facilitate trafficking from within the UK. However, I ask the Minister to confirm three things about the jurisdiction extensions. First, will the extension of the UK’s jurisdiction also apply to those cases where the offence is committed for the benefit of a legal person established in the UK even if no trafficking activities took place in the UK? Secondly, will it extend to offences where the victim is a national or resident of the UK? Thirdly, will the amendments also extend the same extraterritorial jurisdictions over legal persons of the UK operating overseas or benefiting from trafficking perpetrated overseas as required by Article 5 of the directive?

The Government’s amendments to extend the UK’s jurisdiction to cases of trafficking connected with but not perpetrated in the UK is a welcome move and brings us closer to compliance with the EU directive. However, we are deeply concerned that the Government have sought to act in a way that presents us with an absolute bare minimum compliance and that without further primary legislation the UK could fall short of compliance. In particular, the government amendments do nothing to address the disappearance from the system of child victims of trafficking in this country. With 32 per cent of identified child victims of trafficking having gone missing from care between 2007 and February 2010, it would seem clear that the present system of care for child victims is not working. Charities such as CARE and Ecpat UK, which campaign to end child prostitution and pornography and trafficking of children for sexual purposes cite lack of continuity in care and children being passed from one professional to the next as a key reason for the disappearance of these children and have called for the introduction of a system of guardians to address the highly specific needs and risks that child victims of trafficking are exposed to. Articles 12 and 13 of the directive make it clear that signatories must provide, “assistance, support and protection” for child victims of trafficking and ensure that the,

“necessary assistance and support measures are provided for child victims of trafficking, taking account of their individual needs and concerns”.

I ask the Minister how the Government consider the UK currently complies with Articles 12 and 13 and, in particular, how present arrangements for the care of child victims of trafficking are uniquely tailored to the particular needs and vulnerabilities of these children, as required by Article 13. I also ask the Minister how many child victims of trafficking are known to have gone missing from care in the last year, and whether he thinks that the present and proposed arrangements go far enough to protect against disappearance.

There are other areas, too, where action is required in order to bring the UK into compliance with the directives that are not touched upon by these amendments. Article 16 of the directive requires that the UK establish a national rapporteur to independently monitor implementation of the directive. The Government have stated that they believe that the current Joint Ministerial Committee should be sufficient for this purpose. However, I would ask the Minister how the committee can operate independently of government and how regularly it publicly reports.

Finally, as the noble Lord, Lord McColl pointed out, the directive requires that adequate provision is made for access to legal counselling and representation for victims of trafficking under Article 10. I am specifically concerned about how cuts to the legal aid budget currently being considered in the LASPO Bill will affect such provision to some of the most vulnerable individuals. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell me what measures the Government are taking to ensure that the UK is compliant with this article.

In a debate in this House the Minister stated his view that:

“The remainder of the directive can be implemented in full through secondary legislation and through various operational measures and operational routes”.—[Official Report, 25/11/11; col. 1281.].

I am somewhat sceptical about whether secondary legislation can deliver many of the changes necessary to bring this country into compliance with the directive and, crucially, whether it can provide better protection for the hundreds of vulnerable trafficked children who have gone missing from the system. I note the request from the noble Lord, Lord McColl, for further information about the secondary legislation envisaged and I look forward to receiving that information from the Minister.

I welcome the amendments brought forward today and I look forward to hearing from the Minister what additional measures the Government will be introducing to fully implement this important directive.

[Baroness Hamwee]

The opt-in to the directive is of far more than technical importance: the message that the opt-in sent was of great significance. I do not want to repeat much of what has already been said but, on the issue of a national rapporteur, I echo the noble Baroness and what the noble Lord, Lord McColl, has said previously about the importance of its independence. The Government have recently published a trafficking strategy and—because it is human nature—to expect them not to defend their own strategy and to see the issues in a more objective way is to demand more than is reasonable.

I also echo the request for an analysis of the matters that can be dealt with by secondary legislation—it is quite clear that the previous speakers have a much better grasp of the detail than I do—so that we can be assured that every point has been picked up, rather than an assumption that secondary legislation will do the job.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Baroness Hamwee

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, my amendment deals with informed consent. It would provide that a person is not considered to have consented to the taking of material without having been fully informed of its potential use and retention. I am hoping that the Minister will tell me that this is not necessary because that happens and will happen. If I am correct in that assumption, I look forward to hearing on what basis the information is given, but if I am not correct, I look forward to assurances regarding how that will be put in place. I beg to move.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I do not wish to return to our earlier discussion about the desirability of a voluntary or mandatory DNA database. However, I seek an assurance from the Minister, pursuant to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that citizens will still be able to give their DNA voluntarily should they so wish. I know that my right honourable friend David Blunkett did so to show that the DNA database was not something to be feared and that there was no stigma related to it. Listening to the debates in the Chamber this afternoon, I feel even more strongly about the retention of DNA now than I did before. I might well go along to a police station and voluntarily give my DNA.