Criminal Finances Bill

Lord James of Blackheath Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 9th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord James of Blackheath (Con)]

My Lords, I am deeply grateful to be allowed four minutes in the gap to comment on this very important Bill. The Minister is already aware, from our correspondence, of the thrust of my main concern, which is that the Bill does not do anything adequately at this stage to encompass and force the disclosure of the vast amount of information that, for reasons of either negligence or complicity, becomes available to executive structures within companies that have discovered things that ought not to have been done and which they ought to own up to and show.

I will give two examples of how and where this has occurred. In 1986, I went with a certain Dr David Kelly to the head office of Lloyds Bank in the Midlands district in order to inspect the paperwork it had for the payment arrangements for the Iraqi supergun. The papers had been set out by the local director. After about 10 minutes, he turned to Dr Kelly and said, “While you’re here, would you like to see the payment arrangements we’ve got for the manufacture of capacitors for the Iranian nuclear bomb development?”. Yes, he would. So the papers were produced and the whole of this was put into the hands of our senior military intelligence operation at that time. How on earth can that occur in a reputable bank, with an FT top 500 company manufacturing these extremely sensitive components for a very large sum of money? Whatever happened to end-user certificates? That ought to be somewhere in this Bill.

The other example is much more of commercial negligence and complicity. I was put into a company, again by the Bank of England, to try to sort out its horrendous problems. It was a specialist in manufacturing turnkey operations for industrial units to be built in foreign countries, and its main client was Libya. It was building a cola bottling operation at Aziziya, and the total cost at the end, when we sent the final invoice, was set at £126 million. There was no problem getting paid because the next day we got £128 million back. I said, “Send back the £2 million surplus immediately. We don’t want it”. My new colleagues—I had only just joined—said, “No, no, we have to keep it”. I said, “Why?”. They said, “If we don’t, we’ll never get another deal in Libya”. I said, “What’s it all about?”. What it is all about is that they want that £2 million to be used to open bank accounts in Naples and Rome, and they are providing all the details of how this is to be done. When I go back into the records, I find that they have already opened five bank accounts along the Mediterranean coastline for similar sums in the past. It is only on that condition that they get the business. In those circumstances, they claimed that they had done it for commercial reasons and would not have got the business otherwise. They were probably right, but somebody else would have done. That money is just being used for the availability of a turnkey operation for anybody to walk into Rome, and £200,000 buys you an RPG—a rocket-propelled grenade—that gets rid of a Popemobile at 180 yards very securely.

We need to stamp out this sort of thing and we need a wholly new set of standards for the disclosure of information that may be thought innocent or accidental but is not. There is so much of it. I have given noble Lords two examples but I could give a great many more. It is an outrage with a Bill as important as this if we do not crunch this once and for all. I thank noble Lords for my four minutes.

Online Safety Bill [HL]

Lord James of Blackheath Excerpts

Friday 11th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

This amendment is quite logical, if the provisions are going to work. It is obvious that, if people can switch off filters, the whole thing is bypassed. I want to speak on the next amendment, about age checking, but this is a logical amendment to have if you want to get this Bill to work. As I said at Second Reading, filters are not quite good enough, because you can block only at the point when you access the page. Filters are quite crude—that is the problem; they tend to block entire websites, or they overblock and then people lift them. So there are a lot of problems around the amendment but it is hugely well intentioned, and I do not have a problem with people using filters. It is a good starter lock and will block a lot of simple things, but we need to go slightly further to block those who are technically savvy from getting round them—or those who persuade their parents that, because they could not get to a particular page on a website, they should override the filter for that website and unblock the whole thing. The convenience of the parent will probably win. How you get this to work is always the problem but that is not to say that we should not try.

[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.

Modern Slavery Bill

Lord James of Blackheath Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

I thank the noble and learned Baroness very much. We are talking about semantics and about circumstances, confusion and all the other words in the English dictionary. I would in fact be cheerful if there were some confusion, if it saved one child from being exploited. At the moment, I can see that there may be some modest confusion but I do not see that that weighs in any way with having specific legislation to protect the child. Are we saying that for fear of being confused, or of clashing or being repetitive, we desire to be in the middle, which I call sitting on the fence with the nails sticking in you where they should not? That is not enough; what we want is the best protection for the child.

I have not heard any Member of your Lordships’ House, on any side on this debate, say that they are not against the exploitation of children. I think we are all of a mind on that but what is not in agreement is whether this amendment is needed. I am not a lawyer and I shall not nitpick about confusion or circumstance, or any other such word in the dictionary. But having listened to the debate, to my mind we need a strengthening of Clause 4. I believe that this amendment would do that and that it is worth any confusion—any sitting on the fence, any clash or repetition—if it saves the exploitation of even one child.

[Lord James of Blackheath (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 6 is in the same group. I suspect that the followers of Amendment 5 are now well past number 11 and following on in the second innings, so I wonder if I could be forgiven for taking over to speak to my Amendment 6. It is the consequence of a long-running dialogue between the Minister and I, where we have failed to agree having had a long time together on the subject, so I have brought this amendment back from its first appearance in the early stages.

Your Lordships will recall that I first raised this subject when I was reminded of my experience in working for the Australian Civil Service in London. I recounted in Committee that I was deeply suspicious of the circumstances in which I was being required to herd small children on to boats at Tilbury for transportation to Australia. They did not have names; they did not know who their parents were, or where they came from, and they were completely terrified. I was suspicious that these children were improper migrants—that they did not have the proper authority to go—and it was a very strange position. Since then, I have done a lot more research and a lot of very interesting things have come to me in the post, including a little hate mail, which was actually very useful. Because of the fact that I had admitted overseeing the transportation of some 2,500 children, I was accused of being worse than Jimmy Savile. I think that Jimmy Savile might have been quite offended at that because he is being accused in relation to 300 children, whereas I have about 2,500 on my slate.

However, in the circumstances that was interesting because it raises two questions. First, was it illegal at the time that these children were being transported and, secondly, is it something which could occur again? My own belief is now, emphatically, that it was illegal and that there was no proper authority for the transportation of those children. It involved many tens of thousands of children over 15 years; we should be deeply ashamed of it, and make sure that the Bill cannot talk about controlling slavery without making it absolutely certain that we can never again repeat this dirty little secret of our history.

I need to give a bit more detail. I am going to quote the reference for a committee report that was brought to my attention by the Child Migrants Trust, and which I was initially told by the Library no longer existed. However, I am happy to say that our wonderful Library found the only copy that it thinks officially exists today. I will read its number into the record for the House: HC 755 I and II in volume XCVI, 1997-98. That report has now been found and is on the shelf behind the inquiry desk in the Library for any noble Lords who want to verify it. I have mentioned this at the start of what I am going to say because everything I will say is verifiable somewhere in that huge book. The committee in question was a Department of Health committee from 1997 to 1998. It was a rare committee because it was funded to travel to Australia to carry out its investigations on the ground for nine days. I am afraid we do not have committees like that any longer.

The story starts at Christmas 1944, when the Prime Minister of Australia contacted the coalition Government in England and said, “You’re getting towards the end of a war and you’re going to be overrun with orphans. We want to help you. We’d like to take 17,500 orphans from you every year for the next 15 years. We want at least 150,000”. The British Government thought about this for a while and said, “We’ll talk about it”. Then they brought in the orphanages and social services. Of course these were coalition times, so Herbert Morrison was in charge. By a quaint quirk of fate, I knew Herbert Morrison very well later on because he was president of a cricket club where I was the secretary, and I could not have asked for a man of greater integrity, personal charm or dedication. He was a very human being indeed, and I cannot believe that he would ever have done anything disreputable whatever. However, what happened under his hands was appalling.

They set about getting together a policy to find 17,500 children a year who could be given to the Australians. They brought in the heads of the orphanages and got Dr Barnardo’s to head the exercise. They got the local councils to get their heads of their child agencies, which I suspect was then an industry somewhat in its infancy compared with what it is now, and started to put the process together. Then came an election. The Labour Party won it with the very high promise of Beveridge’s social reforms, including the National Health Service. I do not remember anyone telling the electorate at that time that if they wanted a health service they would have to accept that we were going to dispose of 195,000 of our children to a foreign country without trace or record being kept, but that is in fact what happened. As the head of Barnardo’s says in a clear and precise statement at the opening of the committee, “It was an economic necessity. We couldn’t afford to look after the children we had. There were too many of them. We hadn’t got enough beds and couldn’t feed them. We had to do it. It was a Government-led initiative which we had to do”. That is an interesting comment and someone might want to look it up on the record one day.

So they did it. On the face of it, things were going to be fine because the Australian Government were falling over backwards to be helpful. They said, “You send the children to us. We will have prearranged adoption homes and domestic places for each of the children and we will ship them off directly as soon as they land, after giving them a medical check, and we will then give a maintenance cash allowance to every home that takes one to look after these children. Then we’ll get the adoption process carried through the courts”. So the British Government said, “Sounds fine to us”. However, Morrison said, “We will insist upon the British Home Office maintaining an oversight responsibility for their welfare afterwards”. We need to remember that because there is no evidence that it was ever done, and we need to see what happened to that.

A change of Government having taken place, Morrison steps aside and Chuter Ede becomes Home Secretary. There was nothing wrong with Chuter Ede but there might have been something wrong with a few of his servants. The process goes like this: the Labour Government take office on 26 July 1945, and on 16 September that year the first ship sails full of children, 2,000 of them. The 2,000 children set off into the blue and are the first of 155,000 who are sent between that date and the end of 1960. After 1960, another 120,000 are sent, bringing about a total in aggregate of 295,000 children, all from orphanages and local council overspills, which could not cope with them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

My Lords, there is guidance as to the length of time noble Lords should address the House on Report. The noble Lord has very graphically illustrated the point he is trying to make, but I ask him to wind up this contribution on Report in the interests of the other Members present who want to hear the following business.

[Lord James of Blackheath]

I can very easily move to the end. I quoted that last example because it indicates how, in the words of that fellow of 50, all migrant children are now regarded as the untouchables of Australian society. They have no place, no identity—nothing. When the Minister says that he does not think that we need to ban this once and for ever, I say that we do, because the reasons he gives for it being safe are the very reasons it happened at all. He says that it requires a court order, but it got a court order when it was done 50 years ago, relying on the fact that the order was endorsed or signed over by the orphanage or whatever local council had the authority. Therefore we cannot do that, as it is only the same situation. We have to stop the possibility of anybody doing this again in any circumstance. I want to see that point completely written into the Bill so that we ban this dreadful thing once and for all from ever happening in our society. We got it badly wrong last time; let us not even think of doing it again.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, it might be helpful at this point if I first speak briefly to my noble friend’s Amendment 6 to put some remarks on the record, and then return to Amendment 5, on which a number of other Members of the House will probably wish to comment further or to listen to particular points I will make.

When this case was raised by my noble friend Lord James at Second Reading and in Committee, it was a new chapter of this country’s history that I had not been particularly aware of, and a very regrettable one too. We went into some detail of this in correspondence and at a number of meetings with my noble friend, as well as with my noble friend Lord Freeman. It was quite a harrowing experience, and I know that for my noble friend the recollection is personally very harrowing. At the conclusion of those meetings, I said that I would put some words on the record regarding the Government’s response and previous Governments’ responses to what had happened as an acknowledgement of our apology, which I will come to. I hope that that reassures him that we believe we now have in place the safeguard, chiefly through the courts, of a court order being required for any child being moved outside this country. That is a significant enhancement.

On 24 February 2010, the then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, made a formal apology in Parliament on behalf of the nation, expressing the nation’s regret for the misguided child migrant scheme. The Prime Minister spoke for all of us when he expressed his deep regret for those flawed policies and expressed sorrow that child migrants were allowed to be sent away when they were at their most vulnerable. Almost five years to the day since that apology was made, I am sure that noble Lords will join me and my noble friend Lord James in echoing that regret and that apology.

I want to take a little time to reassure your Lordships that the Government have taken action to support child migrants in regaining their true identities and reuniting them with their families and loved ones. We cannot undo the past but such action can go some way to repair the damage inflicted. I know that that is what my noble friend Lord James wants.

Alongside the formal national apology in 2010, the Government announced a £6 million child migrants’ family restoration fund to support travel and other costs for former child migrants who wish to be reunited with their families. Since its launch in 2010, the fund has provided more than 700 former child migrants and their families with support in travelling to be reunited. In September 2014, the Government announced that the fund will continue until March 2017. By then, the Government estimate that the fund will have helped around 1,000 former child migrants and many thousands of family members.

I also pay tribute at this point to the work of the Child Migrants Trust, which administers the fund. It is the key charity that focuses on family tracing, social work and counselling services for former child migrants and their families. I specifically pay tribute to the work of the trust’s director, Margaret Humphreys, who, like my noble friend Lord James, has done so much to raise awareness about this issue.

I reiterate that it is our belief that the legal guarantees are now in place to prevent any such activity ever happening again. Moreover, I believe that, together with the courageous apology made five years ago, the reparations and the work of the Child Migrants Trust, the guarantees go some way towards redressing the wicked wrong of the past. On behalf of this Government, I reiterate our apology for previous Governments’ involvement in that terrible episode.

It is right that chapters such as the one in 1944 but also those that went on until the late 1950s and even the early 1960s remind us to have an element of humility when we talk about child protection issues in this country. Therefore, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising the issue. I very much hope that the remarks that I have again put on the record and the guarantees that I have underscored will allow him to draw not only a legislative line but a personal line under this very sad chapter.

I turn to the child exploitation offence, which has been the substantial part of a very interesting debate, as it was in the previous stages of this Bill considered in your Lordships' House. The catalyst for that has been my noble friend Lady Doocey, whose description as tenacious I can say, as the Minister involved in this matter, is probably a bit of an understatement. She has taken on, engaged in and championed this issue in the best traditions of parliamentary work. I pay tribute to her and to the work that she has done.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Lord James of Blackheath]

6: After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
“Forced child migration
(1) A person commits an offence if the person arranges or facilitates the travel of a child (“C”) with a view to transferring C’s permanent residence unless the person reasonably believes that—
(a) C’s parent or guardian consents,(b) it is necessary for securing compliance with an order under section 8 of the Children Act 1989, or(c) it is necessary for securing compliance with an order of a court in a foreign jurisdiction.(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) “permanent residence” shall not include any detention under a sentence that is imposed by a court after a conviction for a criminal offence.
(3) A person may in particular arrange or facilitate C’s travel by transporting or transferring C, harbouring or receiving C, or transferring or exchanging control over C.
(4) A person arranges or facilitates C’s travel with a view to transferring C’s permanent residence only if the person knows or ought to know that C is travelling in order to live for a substantial or indeterminate period of time in a different location to the one in which C lived before the travel.
(5) “Travel” has the same meaning as in section 2.
(6) A person who is a UK national commits an offence under this section regardless of—
(a) where the arranging or facilitating takes place, or(b) where the travel takes place.(7) A person who is not a UK national commits an offence under this section if—
(a) any part of the arranging or facilitating takes place in the United Kingdom, or(b) the travel consists of arrival in or entry into, departure from, or travel within, the United Kingdom.(8) For the purposes of this section, a “person” shall include a public body.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord James of Blackheath]

I thank the Minister for his response to my points, but may I just put two questions to him? I will wholly understand if he chooses to answer in writing afterwards. First, will he give consideration to a comment that appears in the great book in the Library, attributed to Herbert Morrison from early 1945, to the effect that in any case where an orphanage or local council alone authorised a migration, it should require the countersignature of the Secretary of State?

[Lord Bates]

Has the question been put?

[Lord James of Blackheath]

I am sorry, that was my first of two questions to the Minister. He stood up, so I thought he was going to answer me. The second question—

[Lord Bates]

Let me just say to my noble friend that we will continue this dialogue. That is absolutely certain. In this context, a far stronger guarantee for children in future is the existing body of law that now comes into place and into effect through the Children Act and other pieces of legislation since the 1950s. Crucially, any person seeking to take a child out of the United Kingdom requires a court order to do so. That is a much stronger guarantee than anything that can be given by the Home Secretary or anyone else.

[Lord James of Blackheath]

I thank the noble Lord for that, but I must point out that they all had court orders last time. My second question is this—

[Lord Williams of Elvel (Lab)]

My Lords, one does have some respect for the Companion. Is there a question before the House? Has an amendment been moved? If not, why not? May we please have some order in the House?

[Lord James of Blackheath]

I apologise to the noble Lord if I caused offence, but I thought the situation was that you could reply to the answer you had had from a noble Lord.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

The Minister has already replied and the question has now been put to my noble friend. We are requesting him, please, to withdraw his amendment.

Modern Slavery Bill

Lord James of Blackheath Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Derby]

My Lords, I will contribute briefly to the debate. I hope the Government will take the time to take seriously the NRM review. Jeremy Oppenheim has made some crucial insights, particularly about the 45 days being used as a period for deciding about judicial processes, not a period for nourishment and proper support. Therefore, we need to think very carefully about how we pitch the 45 days or whatever period it is, alongside a commitment to support victims on a longer timescale. He also made an important point about the concept of safeguarding, just referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Warner. I have spoken about this before in the House. It would be very helpful for everybody if we could connect what we are doing about slavery with the culture of safeguarding awareness. I very much support the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Warner, about what we call this mechanism.

Finally, from my experience as someone who works with the agencies and victims themselves, the value of a statutory approach is that it would provide consistency for all victims in the way that they are treated, and a proper, firm framework, which is what we need. Currently, some victims struggle because they are dealt with on the edges. If we are serious about the Bill, we need to have a firm and clear set of expectations and processes.

[Lord James of Blackheath (Con)]

The Minister is aware that I have some continuing concerns since I withdrew my Amendment 29. Having listened to the debate on this amendment today, there is a word in the amendment that causes me great concern in the context of the story I recounted to the House. The word is “referral”. In the case of my story, referral would have come far too late: the children were in the middle of the Atlantic before anybody could have referred them. Those children could not have referred themselves. They were deposited at the quayside. We did not know who they were or where they came from. They were put on to a boat and they sailed away within three hours. As they could not have referred themselves, they were therefore wholly dependent on the authenticity and legality of some certificate to the effect that they were properly selected and briefed to become migrants. They are lost people, as far as I am concerned—a lost generation. There were 1,760 of them; I have been able to check up since.

Where this clause is wrong goes back to the point that I have been asking the Minister about since I withdrew my amendment. How have we got in here an absolutely legal authority for every child who is put into a migration situation? We have done this regularly about every 20 years for the last 250 years and we need to stop it. We need to outlaw ourselves from doing it any more. That was my concern when I recounted my story and I am not satisfied that the Bill in its present form locks that door once and for all so that we cannot prise it open again and do it.

In the circumstances I described, the travel arrangements could be made under the entire authority of the Australian Government and the Australian civil service in London. The children were coming from local councils that wanted to get rid of them and from orphanages that could not cope with the numbers they had. They put them in a truck and dumped them on the quayside at Tilbury. We put them on a boat and they sailed. Where is a referral going to come in to save those children from that fate? We have not made illegal the act of forced transportation. We have been doing it for 250 years and I am not satisfied yet that this Bill blocks it.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, we have had a very good debate on this important area and I will respond to each of the amendments in turn. Effectively, they seem to be almost in grades. It was rather helpful to the House that we almost had revision-max from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in his amendment and it progressively got a little bit lighter to the mere enabling which was put forward by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. The points were extremely well made and I will try to respond to them as best as I can.

The first point to make is that it is not quite the no-brainer that people have suggested. The national referral mechanism was set up in 2009 under the previous Government. It was not set up on a statutory footing. Therefore, it clearly was not an obvious omission at that point. We took the view that Clause 48 is adequate. I accept the comments that have been made about whether Clause 48, which refers to the issuing of guidance—by which is meant the national referral mechanism—is adequate. None the less, it is a point of discussion as to whether the flexibility of something not being on a statutory footing is balanced by the other side of having something in the Bill. We will come to that.

The second point to make is that much is rightly made of the good work of the Joint Committee which looked at this, took evidence and made recommendations. The very fact that the Home Secretary committed to a review and asked Jeremy Oppenheim to undertake it clearly reflects the fact that we were not satisfied with the way in which the national referral mechanism was working. That is why Jeremy Oppenheim was asked to undertake the review. A wide range of organisations and individuals were consulted. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, were engaged in that process. Some 129 organisations were engaged in the review and their views were fed into the process.

My final point, before turning to the amendments, is that we have a substantial number of recommendations across the six categories as to where the system needs to be significantly improved. The review identifies the weaknesses and deficiencies that many noble Lords have referred to, particularly my noble friend Lady Hamwee.

I am grateful to noble Lords for tabling Amendments 86P, 93 and 96 and for allowing us to follow on from our excellent debate on Monday on the crucial issues of identification and support of victims. I reiterate that the Government share the desire of noble Lords to ensure that as many victims as possible are identified and properly supported. We are already taking decisive action to ensure that that is the case. Amendments 93, 96, and 86P each propose placing a referral mechanism for identifying and supporting victims on a statutory footing, but with slightly different approaches, as I have mentioned. For Amendment 93, this would be a replacement mechanism for the national referral mechanism currently administered by the UK Human Trafficking Centre. Amendment 96 seeks to place an enabling power in the Bill for the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish a statutory referral mechanism. Amendment 86P seeks to place the national referral mechanism on a statutory footing, including providing for all confirmed victims of trafficking, enslavement or exploitation to be entitled to a one-year residence permit.

I believe that the most important thing is that these victims are spotted and rescued in the first place. The best referral and support systems in the world will work effectively only if we find victims, who are so often hidden in plain sight up and down this country. That is why the Home Secretary commissioned a review of the national referral mechanism to ensure that victims can be identified quickly and effectively and be given the right support and assistance. As noble Lords will be aware, the review was published on 11 November and made a number of important recommendations. I know that, in taking the review forward, Jeremy Oppenheim consulted more than 100 organisations and the recommendations from the review take into account their views.

The recommendations in particular concluded that putting the NRM onto a statutory footing,

“will not change the UK’s commitment and obligations to abide by the trafficking convention or methodology with which it is implemented. Any process put on a statutory footing can become inflexible and unresponsive to changing demands and indeed improvements, due to the requirement to further legislate before making changes”.

Furthermore, the review noted:

“Pinning the National Referral Mechanism down now would not be an effective methodology particularly when the National Referral Mechanism is going through a period of significant change”.

It is absolutely right that we should fully consider the vital mechanism used to refer and support these vulnerable victims. But I am not convinced that putting it on a statutory footing will achieve our aim of improving the service we offer to victims. We consider the recommendations made by the review to be transformational and believe that they will overhaul the way in which victims are identified and supported and how those organisations responsible for identifying and protecting victims prioritise and co-ordinate their activities.

The noble Lord, Lord Warner, talked about the difference between the UK trafficking centre giving 80% of cases a positive conclusive grounds decision while UKVI gives only 20% positive decisions. Those figures are not quite right, but it is true that a lower proportion of total referrals have received positive conclusive grounds decisions from the UKVI than from the UKHTC in the past. There is a good reason for the difference. In positive decision rates, UKVI deals with very different cases where corroborative evidence may be harder to obtain. Quality reviews to date indicate that UKVI has been making the right decisions in these difficult circumstances.

The NRM review recommendations include the recommendation to move to multidisciplinary panels to undertake decisions on all cases. This is one of the recommendations that will be widely welcomed. Fundamentally changing the way in which potential victims are referred for support and the way in which decisions are made will ensure that good-quality, timely decisions are at the heart of what we do. That is because the process will have a high level of independent scrutiny and will involve multidisciplinary panels, as suggested.

Our initial response to the review is set out in the modern slavery strategy, which was published on 29 November. Given the fundamental change in approach that is being recommended, we want to make sure that our approach is sound and enhances the experiences of potential victims who are referred for help and support. We will therefore establish two pilots as quickly as possible to test the core recommendations relating to the identification of victims and to the referral and decision-making processes. We want to make sure that we get these pilots right. Officials are meeting a number of NGO representatives later this week to discuss early proposals.

Modern Slavery Bill

Lord James of Blackheath Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, I would like to inject a cautionary note to this debate. Like everyone else in this House, I clearly support the concept that children should not be held in slavery, forced into labour or any other of the ways in which they may be either trafficked, using the English definition of trafficking and not, as has just been said, the European definition of trafficking, which does not require movement.

However, I am not satisfied that any of these amendments is necessary. The two illustrations given by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, were, of course, under the old law. In my view, government Amendments 4 and 7, already approved by this Committee, and government Amendment 13, which I would be astonished if the Committee did not approve, already carry Clauses 1 and 2 along the road to including children with adults—none of whom require consent. The idea that the standard for children should be different from that for adults is, if I may respectfully say so, wrong. Neither children nor adults who are enslaved or held in compulsory labour or servitude are required to consent. The government amendment to that effect has already been passed. Children and adults are in the same position.

We should also bear in mind the fact that the sentence for traffickers and those who enslave is already up to life, so there will not necessarily be a longer sentence because children are involved. The judge will have the opportunity to say, “This is a sentence for life”. He or she can say, because an adult is involved and the circumstances are not so serious, “I will give 14 years”, or, because a child is involved, “I will give life”. So there is no need for a different provision for children.

There are dangers with the word “exploitation”, which—despite the admirable subsection (4) of the proposed new clause—is capable of being taken too broadly. What the cases we have heard about, both at Second Reading and today, show is an appalling lack of good practice—and what we need to do is improve the practice of dealing with children. That requires training but it does not require extra legislation. To add that to what is already in Clauses 1 and 2 would be repetitive. I believe that the Government have gone far enough, with the amendments that they have tabled, to cover all sorts of slavery and exploitation that happens to children as well as adults.

[Lord James of Blackheath (Con)]

I shall speak to Amendment 29. First, I should declare my interests. I am the son of a couple who met as children in an orphanage, and my father was put to work as an unpaid kitchen boy for 11 years at Quaglino’s nightclub in London, in return for the orphanage being paid £1 a month for his services. That seems to me to fulfil a pretty good definition of slavery. But if he was standing here instead of me, he would say, “No, it was the best thing that ever happened to me—because I got fed better there, in the restaurant, than I did in the orphanage”. But it was slavery, and that sort of thing does not get a reference anywhere, because we are talking so much about sexual and perversion issues, not about that simple level of labour. But it was so, and it was wrong. I am assuming that we are safe in thinking nothing like that could happen today, so we do not need to cover it—but I do not think that it should pass without at least a thought and recognition, in memory of my father.

Secondly, I want to explain why Amendment 29 is here at all. It is outrageous that any Government should introduce a Bill that criminalises a whole sector of wrongdoers, while not accepting that the same strictures should apply to themselves and their own performance and behaviour. People would respond to that idea by saying, “But the Government don’t traffick children”. In fact, we have been serial offenders for the past 233 years. The first instance occurred in 1678 when, at the request of the Quaker colony in Maryland, we sent 82 children taken directly off the streets of Shoreditch as a gift to the colony, which had lost all its children in a raid by the Native American Indians. This consignment was put together by the mayor and aldermen of London, and shipped out from Rotherhithe. The instructions to the captain of the boat were that he had to bring back a cargo of tobacco to pay for the whole expedition; they were not doing it for free.

In the late 1780s, with the threat of Napoleon coming up, we moved to a position of systematic, government-sponsored trafficking of children to America on the grounds that, “If we are to be overrun by Napoleon, let’s send our children abroad”; and we did, in their thousands. Later, in the 19th century, we have the extraordinary episode of no less a person than Dr Thomas Barnardo, who enjoys near saintly status in this country, taking steps to ascertain how many children each of the Australian states would like if he could provide them. And provide them he did, in their thousands. It is hard to see where he got them from, but I suspect they were the overspill from his own institutional orphanages—in which case that was slavery to make space for more orphans, I suppose. But it was wrong and it was done without any authorisation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

It is an argument not so much for the amendment as for the Bill. The argument for the Bill bringing together in one place all the offences relating to modern slavery, trafficking and exploitation is something with which we all agree. We are discussing whether there should be a specific child exploitation offence, which, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, highlighted, raises particular issues in relation to the Bill, but the whole purpose of the Bill is very much what my noble friend seeks, which is to bring the offences into one place, to provide one strategy and then to make sure that those who are responsible get out there and go after the people who commit these appalling crimes.

[Lord James of Blackheath]

I am prepared not to press my amendment provided that the Minister can confirm to me that he is satisfied—he may do it outside this meeting if he will—that the moral hazard of allowing any form of institution to sweep away the flotsam and jetsam by sending them abroad is outlawed by this Bill.

[Lord Bates]

Yes, I would be happy to do that. Perhaps the best way of doing so would be in writing to my noble friend. My noble friend has done a service to the Committee by reminding us of this country’s dark history regarding certain aspects of child exploitation, and it behoves us to have an element of humility when we look at other countries in that regard. I am happy to undertake to write to my noble friend.

[Lord James of Blackheath]

In view of that, I shall not press my amendment.

[Baroness Doocey]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. It is an emotive topic, which absolutely everyone around the Committee wants to get right. We are all on the same side; this is not a question of one person versus another.

I feel strongly that we need a child exploitation clause. I have no doubt about that but will deal with a couple of points. The Minister gave an example of where the CPS had prosecuted somebody who was begging. I can give the Minister a number of examples where the CPS has not prosecuted in the case of begging, because it was advised that it was not possible to do so. The Minister also said that bringing babies into this country from baby farms with a view to illegal adoption would, under our laws, be illegal. I do not think that anyone would disagree with that, but you would have to find the people who had adopted those children illegally, and unless you did, how on earth could you prosecute them? We need to stop it happening. The Minister also said that it would be necessary to encourage the police to prosecute, but I worked with the Metropolitan Police for eight years and do not believe that they need any encouragement to prosecute. What they need are the tools of their trade in order to do so.

I certainly would not consider trying to argue points of law with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and other noble and learned legal eagles, because I do not know the law. However, what I do know is that every single NGO that works on the ground with children says that what we have at the moment is not working. In this Bill, we have a cut-and-paste from lots of other Bills, putting it all in one place. But there is a major gap in the lack of a child exploitation clause, because it is not possible to prosecute somebody for exploiting a child under the Bill unless you can also prove that they were trafficked with a view to exploitation.

Queen’s Speech

Lord James of Blackheath Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord James of Blackheath (Con)]

My Lords, I have indicated previously the impact that forced migration has had upon my family. We had in the Queen’s Speech a Bill for dealing with the abuse of children and the intention to bring forward better controls over trafficking. Those are closely connected. This country has a terrible record in its handling of the migration of its own subjects. It has combined the most appalling suffering of children with the most appalling lack of management of the migration process to get the worst of every world. There should be no smugness around these two initiatives going forward. It is a very small penance to pay for a very big crime.

It started in 1682. The first migration in this country happened when one of the early colonies in North America was raided by the Indians, who took all 84 of its children and would not give them back. No one knows what happened to them. The colony sent a communication back to England by the first available boat saying, “Look, we have no children and therefore no future. Send us some children”. The Mayor of London was asked to deal with it and he did. He sent his beadles out on to the streets of London and took the first 84 vagrant kids he could find. He sent them down to a boat at Rotherhithe and sent them to America. He told the captain that he could pay for the trip by taking the kids out and bringing it back with a load of tobacco on board and that would pay for it, and it did. Unfortunately, it created the precedent of making it seem that trafficking these children was profitable, which it was.

We have a terrible record of having introduced waves of migration in the same way in latter years. The great shock is when you get to 1880 and find that Dr Thomas Barnardo himself—a man of irreproachable reputation, one would think—formed a council for the identification of the migration needs of the whole British Empire and took from each country an indication of how many children it would like. He then went out to find the children to fill the quotas that were requested. This was effectively a disaster because a lot of these children were taken without any recognition or contact with the homes from which they came—they might have had some small misdemeanours in their community—and were swept up. They were the poor of the churches of the country. This was very heavily supported by the Protestant Church of the day, right the way through, and it was not until 21 years later in 1901 that this House debated the subject for the first time and said that it was a probably not a very good thing. But by that time tens of thousands had been sent to Africa because of concerns about the encroachment of the German population in Africa, and many had gone out to Australia.

It is appalling that in the old government building in Sydney today there is an index where you can access the details of every criminal who was ever sent to Australia and what happened to him, but there is no such index for the children who were sent because nobody knows who they were. They are lost without trace. Eventually around 1938 the Catholics decided that this was something they wanted to get in with as well so they started sending migrant children from their own communities to Australia. Then the war came and it was too unsafe to send ships to sea with children on and nothing happened again until 1947, when the Australians set a target: they urgently wanted 4,000 children and 30,000 adults. They did so by first buying two Italian aircraft carriers and converting them into liners, the “Fairsky” and the “Fairsea”, and sending out 2,000 migrants on each of those ships every month. It took six weeks to get there and six weeks to get back.

I regret to say that I was recruited to that exercise as the religious liaison officer for the Australian civil service. My task was to find clergymen who would go with these people. I had to have one clergyman for every 30 kids on board. It was the most appalling thing ever. These children were bussed in—God knows where they had got them from; I was never given any details on where they came from—and they were terrified. They were screaming. They had lost control of every bodily function and they were just a screaming mess. The clergymen and I had to rip the fingers of these kids off the gangplank to get them up on to the ship. It was a very gruesome task indeed. The clergy got paid a good fee for going out there and doing it and they got a free sail trip back again afterwards.

It was an official policy. This is why I am saying that we have a big penance to pay and we need to recognise that in putting it right now we are not doing something that we should be proud of. We should be seriously ashamed of what went on before and I hope that in what we do in this Bill we will reflect a great many of the concerns that we did not honour at the time.

I have explained previously how my uncle and aunt were sent out to Canada by the Church of England. As a small peace offering to the Church of England, I should say what happened to those two. The girl married the grandson of the lady she had been bought for $50 to look after, who had had a stroke. Today her grandchildren operate and run the biggest and most profitable logging operation in the whole of Canada. The boy ended up owning a 35,000-acre farm in British Columbia. When he died 12 years ago, he had double-digit millions in the bank. He left it all to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, with the stipulation that they could only have it $1 million at a time for every Protestant priest that they could kill and lynch for him. That order was overturned in court and the Jehovahs were allowed to keep the $12 million and the priests all survived.

There is a lot to be concerned about in this. We have a lot to put right and I hope that your Lordships will have some very far-reaching thoughts about what we can do about somewhere along the line trying to restore the record of where all these people were, who they were and where they went. It would be a small penance to pay.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord James of Blackheath Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Lords Chamber

If these criminals faced the serious prospect of losing their vehicle for committing this offence, it is my contention that we could drastically reduce the prevalence of this extraordinarily common crime. The Government have done a lot of good work in this area, and there has been a welcome reduction in some areas of the commission of this offence. Local authorities tend to react very quickly to clear away the waste, provided that it is not on private land, in which case it is not their responsibility. The police and other bodies, in particular the Environment Agency, are very supportive. The National Fly-tipping Prevention Group has played an important role in the co-ordination of responses. But now we need a more vigorous response, and we look forward to the Government taking the lead on this issue.

[Lord James of Blackheath (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Marlesford on his amendment, but I wish also to make a small criticism of it—that it is lacking in focus. While it deals with the issues of litter very effectively, it does not go far enough in addressing the issues of offensive behaviour in cars and other moving vehicles, which is increasingly prevalent among young people.

I cite the example of recent Saturdays, when we have had the rugby at Twickenham. I have made endless attempts to convince my wife that rugby is a respectable pastime and not the equivalent of being found in bed with a supermodel on a Saturday afternoon, as she has often thought—although, given the way in which England have played recently, it is a good alternative. However, I persuaded my wife to come to Twickenham with me on each of the last three Saturdays and she was totally horrified at the sight of the school buses coming down the road full of children indulging in a pastime which is, I believe, called mooning. I am not going to explain it to your Lordships because we are in mixed company, but the sight of some 40 children mooning simultaneously is not a pretty one. My wife is a youth justice officer and as she watched the police motorbikes zooming past these kids, giving them a friendly wave, she said: “We have a law against this sort of thing. Why are they not being brought into court? I would put them away for a year if I got them.”

There is an omission in the amendment tabled by my noble friend in that it does not deal adequately with the bad behaviour that can come out of vehicles and interfere with others. That was one example, but there was another this week of which your Lordships should be aware. In its wisdom, the Times—I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, is not here to take down this message—is pursuing, to a ludicrous degree, the cause of cyclists to the point where they are creating a new and separate society in London, in which cyclists think they have a superior law and control over everybody in a motor car. This is going to lead to some catastrophic accidents very soon. On three mornings, driving up the A3 in the Balham and Clapham area, I have seen cyclists put their cycles up against the central reservation—not the line where the bus lane is—stand in the middle of the road with a camera and defy you to run them down while they photograph you doing it. That is what they are longing for. We need to have that sort of behaviour excluded because it is going to lead to their demise and our prosecution: it is ridiculous. I support the amendment, but it needs to go a little further.

[Lord Crickhowell (Con)]

My Lords, one step at a time. I am going to let my noble friend’s suggested change to the amendment pass by for the time being. However, I have a great deal of sympathy for both these amendments. I will concentrate on my noble friend Lord Marlesford’s amendment. I have now moved from my home in a national park, but I have always been horrified by the casual way that, in one of the most beautiful valleys in the countryside, people throw drink containers out of the windows of their cars as if that was a normal and natural thing to do. I am almost equally horrified—frustrated, indeed—by the attitude described by my noble friend as coming from Defra. I am not entirely surprised that it comes from officials: I am horrified that it has come in the form of letters from my noble friends who I have always regarded as thoroughly practical, sensible and wise people. I hope that my noble friend Lord Taylor will show that I am right in that respect when he responds to this debate.

The condition of our roadsides is really appalling. It is a very long time since I served in Lady Thatcher’s Government, but I well remember her returning from an overseas trip and expressing horror and consternation at the state of the road from Heathrow to London given the litter that was there, compared to the roadsides she had observed in the places she had been visiting. This was, I am afraid, one of the occasions when she did not do anything and here we are, 30 or more years later, and nothing effective has been done.

My noble friend described the comments from a Minister about the strength of the legal system and how, if you have a tough law and all the awful penalties he described, people were likely to take notice of it. I have to tell him that it is not only the hooligans and the ignorant who ignore the law. I well remember, when I was still a Member of Parliament for Pembroke, the president of my association—who had himself fought three parliamentary elections and was a distinguished local magistrate—telling me of driving back over the Preseli Hills from a magistrates’ meeting in Haverfordwest. He was horrified because someone in the car in front of him was throwing papers out of the window every few hundred yards. After he had driven for 10 or 20 miles and the confetti had been scattered along the roadside for a considerable distance, he decided to stop to see what the litter consisted of. He stopped, picked up the litter and discovered that it was the minutes of the magistrates’ meeting that he had just left. There you had a magistrate leaving a magistrates’ meeting who was so terrified of the law which my noble friend has described that he was taking no notice of it at all.

We have a very practical suggestion from my noble friend and it does not deserve the casual and rather absurd way that it has been treated so far by Defra. I hope that the Minister, if he cannot accept the amendment in exactly its present form, will tell the House that he will be prepared to discuss this whole matter in much more detail with his department in the hope that we can make some belated progress on this urgent problem.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Lord James of Blackheath Excerpts

Wednesday 5th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord James of Blackheath]

My Lords, I start with the proposition that anybody who gets away with improper or criminal action in a matter such as terrorism has effectively created a precedent which is bound in time to be repeated. I am concerned that there are three instances that have occurred in the past which the Bill at present does nothing to address and which we should perhaps be aware of.

The first occurs in the systematic exploitation of quoted companies on the British Stock Exchange. As I recounted to your Lordships’ House on 1 November last year, the IRA once took effective control of five quoted companies and manipulated them entirely to its own interests until, in every case, their eventual destruction, to the great dismay of the British investing public who lost a total of some £3 billion of market value as a result. In these cases, what the IRA did was simple and very clever. It was at that time beginning to recognise that there would be an end to hostilities and that it needed to do something to look after its own separate and personal interests. It was by that time intensely a criminal organisation, resulting in exploitation and bank robbery, and it had a lot of cash coming in, so it put its money into small parcels of shares, buying into British companies quoted on the London Stock Exchange. This went completely unmonitored and unseen by the authorities at the London Stock Exchange, who must truly have been asleep on the job at the time. The result was that the IRA ended up having majority or controlling shareholdings in five quoted companies. Then it took its own money from other things and invited the companies concerned to invoice it for work that had never been performed. The result was that the profits of those companies shot up, as did the shareholdings, making an immense amount of money for the IRA on the increments of the investments it had made.

That obviously required somebody in each company prepared to work with the IRA. I do not know whether those people were rewarded financially for that. Eventually, the Bank of England became aware of this and started to introduce a number of people to take control of the companies to try to manage them out. I was one of those people. You eventually got a call from somebody with a strong Irish accent telling you that he had a need that day for a certain amount of money to be sent to pay for something for them. I got a call one morning starting, “Good morning, Chairman Boyo”, which was always the cue. You knew you were in trouble. I asked what was the problem. I was told, “We know that you have just raised an extra £20 million in borrowing from Lloyds Bank, and we need £7 million of it immediately to pay for a little matter which is being delivered to one of our ports today. Send me the £7 million immediately”.

By this time, I had already recognised that trouble was coming. Eddie George had put me in as chairman of that company, and I had a well established routine to perform. I immediately made the call I had to make, told them that the £7 million was required and that there was going to be a delivery at a certain port. When the ship eventually got there, the SAS had kindly decided to help download the cargo. Three hours later, there were two tightly sealed containers on the dockside. One contained 12 extremely angry Irishmen, and the other contained the entire collection of Semtex and other material which had been sent from a country that I will not identify. Meanwhile, the angriest person was the captain of the ship, who had to get a signature on the slip to release the payment of £7 million. The Irishmen were now so upset that they were not prepared to incriminate themselves by signing it. I had a very good day, and my £7 million was back in my company’s bank account by the end of it. That was one of the best day’s work we ever did.

The IRA ruined some companies completely. It took one company that had £5 million a year profit and in the course of two years cranked that up to £127 million a year by paying for work that was never performed. They all went bankrupt in the end, but the point is that it was a major failure by the London Stock Exchange in monitoring this, and it could easily be done again. The Mafia had an attempt at doing it on the London Stock Exchange, which was blocked in the light of the experience with the Irish. We ought to have some statutory obligation on the investing community and the Stock Exchange, in particular, to be alert to and watch for careful mismanagement of the market in order to launder terrorist money in this way. It will be tried again because it was so successful. It is a very important point.

In another respect, I would like to emphasise the importance that the banks have, which they do not fulfil fully for us because they are too frightened of data protection rules. I have a vivid memory of a day in 1989 when, in the company of a certain Dr David Kelly, we were unfolding the story of the Iraqi supergun, and we needed to know whether any other such devices were being made. We knew that the National Westminster Bank was the paymaster for the gun, so we went together to see the National Westminster Bank and asked it to make available all the details of all the people that it was paying for armament developments with Iraq. The bank refused, saying, “We absolutely cannot touch it because it would be a breach of our obligations to our customers”. Later the same day, we went to see Lloyds Bank and asked people there the same question, and Lloyds Bank immediately unfolded the whole lot to us. Remarkably, at the end, they turned to Dr Kelly and said, “While you’re here, Dr Kelly, would you like to see the details of the capacitors for the Iranian nuclear bomb as well?”. Which of those two banks behaved correctly that day? Lloyds did, but we need to clean up data protection rules to give an obligation to the banks and other financial organisations to tell what they know when they are frightened of doing so, as they are at the moment.

The last area of concern that I have is a slightly unusual one. If you have large contracts with overseas countries where there is potential for state terrorism being practised, as we did in the case of Libya, where one of my companies had very big contracts worth £600 million or £700 million each, they would always write a clause in requiring us to make a deduction from the invoices of anywhere between 1 per cent and 3 per cent for what we supposed would be a slush fund. We used to call it the WWWP fund, which stood for “whisky, women and white powder”. The fund would be about 1 per cent to 3 per cent of a total billing of about £600 million, which was quite a lot of money. We put this into a little fund, which would be kept somewhere up in the Leeds area, and everything would be fine as long as they just wanted to use the fund for fun and games when they sent across their executives or Ministers to come and have a look at what we were doing. The trouble would come when, after about a year of this, they would suddenly instruct you that you had to send the money to a bank account in Rome, and you would have to fund that bank account for about €200,000 to €250,000. In this way, these potentially terrorist-sponsoring countries would get the money under the radar of normal bank account creation. It would have been done legitimately by a British company sending its money.

I would like to think that I am wrong, but I suspect that at this present moment there are probably some four or five such accounts in the outlying districts of Rome funded to about €200,000 to €300,000, waiting for any ambitious jihadist to go and buy himself a rocket-propelled grenade launcher and a few shells to take a pot-shot at a Popemobile and its occupant at some point in time. I am sure that those funds have been set up and survive to this day. We need to have an absolute obligation on any company that is asked to set up a slush fund for a potential terrorist-sponsoring state to declare it at the outset. There needs to be a go-to number established at the Bank of England or somewhere whereby that sort of malpractice can be monitored as it unfolds.

So I have three areas of concern. We need better control of the regulatory processes of inward investment via the Stock Exchange; we need much better opening out of the dialogues with the banks, which know before anybody else much more than we do; and we need, essentially, to stop the under-the-radar slush accounting being set up for access for terrorists abroad.

Shootings: Cumbria

Lord James of Blackheath Excerpts

Thursday 3rd June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I take the point made by the noble Lord. It is not only the general proposition that we have to consider but also the local circumstances. Clearly, we need to know a great deal more about the background to this before it is sensible to draw conclusions for the whole country.

[Lord James of Blackheath]

My Lords, I wonder whether we should ask official sources and the press to consider a possible amendment to a word that appears in statements on our screens at the moment. After two former tragic events, an aircraft crash and a railway crash, I have found that the use of the word “incident” is hugely offensive to local communities. For others, it talks down the significance of what has befallen them. It would be far better if the screens said “Cumbrian shooting tragedy” or just “Cumbrian shootings”. That would be less offensive, and I think that we should send a message to the outside world.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I am sure that the House will take note of what the noble Lord has said.