Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Morrow Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 10th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of Amendment 177A, so ably proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin.

Protecting children from pornographic websites is no less important now than it was in 2015, when the seminal Conservative manifesto commitment was made to

“stop children’s exposure to harmful sexualised content online, by requiring age verification for access to all sites containing pornographic material”.

Similarly, protecting children from pornographic websites is no less important now than when the Digital Economy Bill became an Act of Parliament in 2017.

The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and others have eloquently covered many points I wished to make, and therefore I will not repeat them. However, I would like to make two points.

First, in understanding the full significance of Amendment 177A, it is important to see it as an investment to reduce the incidence of domestic violence in the future. A significant proportion of online pornography depicts sexual violence, and if Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act is not implemented, under-18s will be exposed to this content and will conclude that violence is a normal part of sexual relationships. This will, in turn, inevitably impact behaviour, not only among under-18s now but as they grow into adulthood. Protecting children from access to this pornography is not just about impacting them today; it is about impacting their development because of the consequences that it will reap tomorrow, when they are adults, in levels of domestic violence.

Secondly, I observe that the challenge we face is not unique to the UK. A US survey of 2,227 men and women aged 18 to 60 years old, published in 2020, found that

“the associations between pornography use and sexual behaviors was statistically significant. … Clinicians need to be aware of recent potential shifts in sexual behaviors, particularly those such as choking that may lead to harm.”

The authors also said:

“We were struck that one-fifth of women … reported having been choked as part of sex.”


In this context, it seems the 2015 Conservative manifesto was ahead of its time.

[Lord Morrow (DUP) [V]]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of Amendment 177A. Along with other speakers, I was not at all reassured by the Minister’s letter in which she confirmed the central concern that many noble Lords set out on Second Reading; namely, that unlike Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act, which equally engaged user-generated and non-user-generated content on pornographic websites, the online safety Bill will narrow its concern to user-generated content. I also thought the Government’s response rather missed the point that I and other noble Lords sought to make on Second Reading. What the Minister wrote was couched in the terms of the original Digital Economy Bill debate. Those concerns are of course important, but are not the presiding context of this debate.

The point made at Second Reading and, indeed, today is very much about the fact that much online pornography depicts sexual violence, including the rough sex practice that is the subject of Clause 65. In this context, the key point is that if Part 3 is not implemented, under-18s will be exposed to pornographic material on pornographic websites, including depictions of rough sex, and this will foster the thought that sexual violence is just part of the norm of sexual relationships. Moreover, and crucially, this will not only impact on under-18s as under-18s, but shape their thoughts and attitudes as they move into adulthood, making sexual violence and domestic abuse more likely.

In this context, the key problem with the Government saying that we should abandon Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act in favour of an online safety Bill that will target only user-generated content is the fact that depictions of sexual violence occur in non-user-generated pornography as well as in user-generated pornography. We must target, as Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act does, both user-generated and non-user-generated content on pornographic websites.

In this regard, it is interesting to note that Savanta ComRes polling from last September showed that 81.5% of people in Northern Ireland thought that the Government should implement Part 3 immediately and simply add additional protections in relation to other online harms when the online safety Bill is passed. The UK figure was 74% if the “don’t knows” were removed. It is not hard to imagine what would happen if that polling was repeated today, presenting people with the fact that the Government are seeking not only needlessly to delay the provision of protection for children from pornographic websites, but to narrow that protection down to pornographic websites with user-generated content.

My concern at the Government’s failure to engage with Part 3 from the perspective of the presenting issue in this Bill is greatly compounded by the fact that the letter inexplicably makes no reference to the two reports that the Government published on 15 January that highlight the connection between pornography consumption and behaviour, including male sexual violence. I very much hope that when the Minister responds to this debate she engages with Amendment 177A and Part 3 from the perspective of the domestic violence concern that informs our discussions today.

There are two other things about the Minister’s letter that cause me real concern. First, it contains the statement:

“Under our proposals, we expect companies to use age assurance or age verification technologies to prevent children from accessing services which pose the highest risk of harm to children, such as online pornography.”


This is a very clear shift from the previous language “we will require”, which is the essence of legal compulsion. Why the change?

Secondly, the letter’s final paragraph states that the online harms Bill will be more robust than the DEA because it will cover not only extreme pornography. Part 3 of the DEA was never just about protecting under-18s from extreme pornography or pornographic websites. It was about protecting them from all pornography on pornographic websites, that which is legal as well as that which, like extreme pornography, is illegal. If I have misunderstood what the Minister means by the final paragraph of the letter dealing with pornography, will she please explain when she responds to the debate?

One of the other concerns that I have about the idea that the online safety Bill would be better than Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act at protecting children from material that normalises sexual violence relates to enforcement. When the Digital Economy Bill was introduced, the primary means of enforcement was through fines. However, Parliament pointed out that of the 50 most popular pornographic websites in the UK, none was based in the UK and that enforcing fines in other jurisdictions would be impractical.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Morrow Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 25th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morrow (DUP) [V]]

My Lords, I, too, wish to commend the Minister on bringing this solid piece of legislation before the House and getting it to this stage. However, I rise to speak in support of these two amendments and commend those who tabled them and brought them before the House. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, speaks with personal knowledge on this issue, having listened to her on another occasion and to what she has said today. When someone refers to their personal experience, I think it is always prudent, has a lot of merit and deserves a lot of close attention.

I want to address my comments today to the narrow issue of parental alienation. I am aware that this legislation applies primarily to England and Wales, not Northern Ireland. However, it is important that all parts of the UK are able to move forward with these protections as soon as possible. A gap in legislation was created when the Northern Ireland Assembly was suspended. My DUP colleagues and I will support the amendment in the event of the Committee dividing. It would insert parental alienation into the definition of domestic abuse in Clause 1.

Sadly, we live in a society today where there are thousands of parents who do not have any relationship with their children, and in some of these cases simply because one parent, for no good reason, turned their child against them. This amounts to abuse and is debilitating. Parental alienation is a serious, deliberate manipulation of a child by one parent against the other parent. Of course, it can take many forms, including speaking negatively to the child about the other parent, reducing and controlling the child’s contact with the other parent, cancelling contact at the last minute and forbidding the child to talk about the other parent.

The effects can be life-changing. A child may believe that their parent is bad and dangerous. This can adversely affect a child’s mental health in later years. The child can be left bereft of the love, compassion and guidance of a parent. The alienated parent cannot share key milestones in their child’s life. I do not think it is possible to overstress the importance and influence of parents in their children’s life. Often by the time alienation has been proven through the courts it is much too late to encourage a child to see his or her other parent. Clinical depression, anxiety, fractured attachments, suicide ideation, deliberate self-harm, alcohol abuse, premature sexual activity and academic underachievement may have already occurred.

The sweeping generalisation that parental alienation is a concept being used by fathers as a tool to silence female victims of domestic violence is not accurate. There is a real risk that those advocating that position will neglect the needs of those men and women who do not have convictions for domestic violence or other offences but have been cut off from contact with their children and grievously miss them.

However, I want to make it abundantly clear that I am not in any way seeking to challenge cases where a child has valid reasons for rejecting a parent, such as abuse or neglect, or where they have been unavailable to a child due to a prolonged period of addiction or of working overseas. My understanding of these amendments is that they are focused on situations where children become alienated through no fault of the affected parent, so it is critical that the Committee recognises that the harm caused in these cases is not restricted to abuse of a child. We should not ignore the fact that there is a range of motivating factors and circumstances involved in parental alienation, but I consider it appropriate to place it within the domestic abuse legislation as it victimises both parent and child.

I recognise and welcome that the Minister has already taken steps to classify parental alienation as an example of the psychological abuse in draft statutory guidance accompanying the Bill. On balance, however, I do not believe that this represents a level of protection or impetus that full legislative protection would provide.

My party, the DUP, has some concern around whether parental alienation will receive the attention it deserves in training and guidance on criminal behaviours without it being specifically stipulated as an offence in the Bill. Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly raised similar points during the development of the Domestic Abuse and Family Proceedings Bill. We must ensure that there is knowledge, understanding and application of domestic abuse law as it relates to parental alienation.

We are mindful that these amendments and the Bill in general would address only issues relating to parental alienation at the point at which harm has been caused. While it may dissuade such behaviour in the future, we also recognise that prevention and earlier and better support for parents—and between parents and children—are key to improving long-term outcomes for children and families. There is a need for better collaboration between health and justice departments right across the UK in respect of this and specific policies on alienation.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I support the Bill. The mental and physical damage of domestic abuse goes far beyond the pain and anguish caused at the time it occurs and stays with the victims and their families for many years, if not for the rest of their lives. It is important that we do all we can in this legislation to help victims to get out of abusive relationships and rebuild their lives.

I speak to Amendments 2 and 4, which propose to add parental alienation to the definition of abusive behaviour and therefore to every provision of the Bill. I fear that the proposed amendments may undo much of the work that the Bill seeks to do to protect victims of domestic abuse by swinging the pendulum of control back to the perpetrator of domestic abuse, rather than the victim, in making counterallegations.

Without meaning to sound flippant, at its extreme, any parent going through a break-up or divorce could find themselves of accused of domestic abuse under the Bill, and that is not what the Bill is intended for. I wonder whether the concern of the noble Lords who tabled these amendments is already covered by the combination of Clause 1(3)(e) and Clause 1(5). Alternatively, if the noble Lords behind the amendments have a specific instance in mind, they should look at where that could be catered for in specific clauses, but not as a wholesale change to the entire Bill in this way.

I can see these amendments having massive unintended consequences if they are included. I urge the Committee to accept neither change, to maintain the integrity of the Bill.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Morrow Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 5th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morrow (DUP) [V]]

My Lords, I commend the Government for bringing forward this Bill and for tabling what is now Clause 65 as an amendment in the other place so that the ability of men to claim a defence of consent in situations where women have been killed or injured as a result of sexual violence will end. I am, however, very perplexed at the lack of joined-up policy-making, since the Government have not introduced the age-verification regime to protect children and young people from online pornography. This would include blocking illegal content to prevent children and young people being exposed to material that effectively normalises expectations of rough sex.

Last month, the Government set out new plans for how they will regulate access to online pornography, and I very much agree with the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that these proposals constitute

“a much watered-down proposal”—[Official Report, 16/12/20; col. 1711.]

than the legislation Parliament rightly sanctioned in Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act but which, inexplicably, the Government have not implemented. Unlike the legislation we have already passed, the proposals will cover only user-generated content, not all commercial pornographic websites. I cannot understand the logic of that differentiation. Savanta ComRes polled 2,049 men in Great Britain between 7 and 10 February last year for Radio 5 Live and BBC Radio Scotland. It asked the following question about rough sex:

“Thinking specifically of times you performed slapping, choking, gagging or spitting during consensual sexual activity, to what extent do you think pornography influenced your desire to do so?”


Some 57% of those questioned said it did to some extent, of whom 20% said it influenced their acting in that way “a great deal”.

Last January, the British Board of Film Classification reported its findings on young people’s use of pornography. It said:

“Beyond creating unrealistic expectations of sex, some young people felt pornography had actually affected their expectations of, and behaviour during, sex, particularly in the copying of ‘rough’ or ‘forceful’ sex seen in pornography.”


In the light of this comment, do the Government have evidence that there is no rough sex on commercial pornographic websites? I urge the Government to adopt joined-up thinkng in their approach to domestic violence and the impact of pornography on children, young people and adults. Just as I did on 16 December, I again

“urge the Government to adjust their course and ensure that the protections in their online harms Bill are just as robust as those in Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act, and to implement Part 3 in the interim so that children can be protected while we wait for the online harms Act”—[Official Report, 16/12/20; col. 1718.]

I also find that there is a gap in the Domestic Abuse Bill. A coalition of organisations that provide support for victims has highlighted the lack of provision to support community-based services, where 70% of victims receive their support. I am thinking of SafeLives, Barnardo’s, Action for Children, the NSPCC and others which provide an excellent service in this field. I contend that more independent domestic violence and abuse advisers are urgently required. It is they who “enable people to survive when they are feeling very alone”, to quote one victim.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Morrow Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 6th October 2020 Lords Chamber

As has been said on a number of occasions, and by the noble Lord in introducing his amendment today, debates on this must also be seen in the context of his Private Member’s Bill, which still stands on our Order Paper. I hope that we find time to debate that Bill. Although this amendment is welcome, and I will support it if it is pressed to a Division later, there is a bigger and wider question that has to be addressed, and his Bill is the way to do it.

[Lord Morrow (DUP) [V]]

My Lords, I am pleased to add my support to Amendment 27 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord McColl, Lord Alton and Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. In Committee, when introducing my Amendment 81, I made plain my grave concerns about the possible negative impact that ending free movement will have on victims of modern slavery. I said then, and I reiterate today:

“I am not opposed to the end of free movement.”


However, as I said then,

“it absolutely does not follow that we have to create a situation in which a significant proportion of trafficking victims have uncertain immigration status and will lose recourse to public funds.”—[Official Report, 16/9/20; col. 1343.]

This, however, is precisely what will happen, courtesy of the Bill before us, if the Government do not accept Amendment 27.

With the ending of free movement, victims of modern slavery who are EEA nationals and who arrive in the UK from 1 January onwards will no longer be entitled to stay in the UK or to access benefits, beyond the period of support granted under the national referral mechanism. This means that the effective rights of these confirmed victims of modern slavery will be subject to significant erosion, and there is currently nothing in the Bill to put in their place.

As the noble Lord, Lord McColl, said, from next year EEA victims, who have never enjoyed the option of asylum that many non-EEA victims can access, will lose the immigration status and recourse to public funds that they currently enjoy through treaty rights. The only remaining option for victims from EU countries to gain a credible immigration solution will be through an application for discretionary leave to remain. All victims can seek discretionary leave at present but, as with accessing the option of asylum, EU nationals are again at a disadvantage. Unlike victims of other countries, victims of EEA countries are not, at present, automatically considered for a grant of discretionary leave.

Amendment 27 would remedy this difference and ensure that all EEA nationals who are confirmed by the NRM as victims of trafficking are given a grant of leave if they meet the criteria set out in the amendment, which are similar to criteria by which applications are currently assessed under guidance. I urge the Government to support this amendment to ensure that there is a clear route for EEA nationals to have the option of immigration security and recourse to public funds to enable them to recover.

In reflecting on this, we must not forget that care for confirmed victims of modern slavery is not just about fulfilling our moral obligations to the victims, who, let us not forget, have been exploited in the UK; it is also in our self-interest. There is no point spending taxpayers’ money finding victims, then taking them through the national referral mechanism, only to release them without the requisite immigration security to enable them to access the kind of help they need to recover. Failure to provide them with security and tailored support will leave them vulnerable to being re-trafficked and make it impossible for them to have the space needed to consider giving evidence against their traffickers in court. This is unsustainable. Securing increased testimony from victims in court is crucial if we are to see an increase in the stubbornly low conviction rate of traffickers.

In reflecting on these imperatives, the truth is that, while we badly need Amendment 27 to pass today, we also need a more far-reaching solution that provides immigration certainty and support for all confirmed victims, including UK nationals. This is a position which all 27 organisations that make up the Free For Good campaign agree with. That is why the Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill, introduced to the House by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and sponsored in the other place by Sir Iain Duncan Smith, is so important.

It is odd that if someone is recognised as a refugee they automatically get five years’ leave to remain, but if they are recognised as a confirmed victim of human trafficking they get no statutory leave to remain on that basis. I am not entirely sure why we consider that we have a lesser obligation to people whose lives have been exploited and traumatised in the UK than we have to refugees. I am not saying for a moment that the way we treat refugees should become less generous. I am not saying that at all. My point is simply that we should treat confirmed victims of modern slavery more generously.

The Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill states that, once someone has been through the national referral mechanism and is a confirmed victim of modern slavery, they should be offered specialist tailored support to help them recover and a minimum of 12 months’ leave to remain to access that support. In that context, they will be protected from re-trafficking and be much more likely to have space to consider giving evidence against their traffickers in court.

Moreover, it will benefit not only England and Wales but Scotland and Northern Ireland by providing immigration security to those who are given support after they have been in the NRM. I note that, in the commemoration of UK Anti-Slavery Day later this month, a Motion is to be debated at Stormont on 13 October that calls on the UK Parliament to pass the Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill.

In conclusion, I hope the Minister will agree to act to ensure that there is a clear immigration path for confirmed victims of modern slavery who are EEA nationals, and to accept Amendment 27. To lead the way on modern slavery and to take immigration policy back into the hands of the UK Parliament, I call on the Government to make time for the Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill to become law by the end of the year. In the 2017-19 session, it cleared the House, unamended, in less than four hours. If the Government want it, this very Conservative Bill—sponsored, as it is, by a former leader of the Conservative Party and the noble Lord—could easily become law by Christmas. Rather than inaugurating the Brexit era on 1 January by eroding the effective rights of some confirmed victims of modern slavery, we could strengthen the rights of all victims, on a basis that, as the University of Nottingham’s Rights Lab has demonstrated, will save the Government money.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Randall, has withdrawn and I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is no longer with us. The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, has also withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Morrow Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 16th September 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Morrow]

81: After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
“Requirements before making and amending immigration rules
Prior to making any regulations under subsection 4(1) to amend or create immigration rules the Secretary of State must lay a report before each House of Parliament assessing the impact of the regulations on victims of modern slavery.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Government to publish an assessment of the impact of changes to the Immigration Rules arising from this Bill on victims of modern slavery.

[Lord Morrow (DUP) [V]]

My Lords, I tabled Amendment 81 because I have real concerns about the proposed arrangements with respect to the end of free movement as they relate to victims of modern slavery. As I stated during the first day of this Committee’s proceedings,

“it is politically unthinkable that we should now stand by and allow an erosion in the rights of victims of modern slavery in this country.”

However, I fear that we are in danger of doing precisely that.

By way of introduction, I should perhaps anticipate the Minister. He made this point in relation to Amendment 7 and might make it again; I hope that my presumption is wrong. He stated that

“the system of identification and support for victims of modern slavery and the legal framework around it go far beyond the scope of the Bill we are debating. Indeed, the most commonly represented nationality among those referred to the national referral mechanism in 2019 was British. It is important to see this as distinct from an immigration issue alone.”—[Official Report, 7/9/20; cols. 618-21.]

It is certainly important for us to recognise the reality of internal trafficking. However, this must not be allowed to obscure the fact that by far the largest number of trafficked persons in the UK are foreign nationals, for whom immigration status is of huge importance. It can be a source of vulnerability that leads them to be exploited; it can affect their rights to services and support; and it can affect the way in which they are dealt with by professionals and the general public. Immigration policy will therefore be of central importance to addressing human trafficking successfully. In this context, I make no apology for my amendment.

Amendment 81 would require that, before making and amending the Immigration Rules to establish the system that will take the place of free movement,

“under subsection 4(1) … the Secretary of State must lay a report before each House of Parliament assessing the impact of the regulations on victims of modern slavery.”

In considering the importance of this provision, we should recall that when the Government announced in February their intention to replace the rights associated with free movement for EEA nationals—including EEA nationals who are victims of modern slavery—with a points-based system, the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, Dame Sara Thornton, responded with a warning:

“traffickers will seek every opportunity to abuse new immigration policies and so the protection of vulnerable people needs to be front and centre of the debate.”

The purpose of Amendment 81, which mandates that there should be an assessment of the impact of the new Immigration Rules specifically on victims of modern slavery, is to give effect to the anti-slavery commissioner’s important recommendation that the protection of vulnerable people needs to be at the front and centre of the debate.

One area of concern is what will happen under the new Immigration Rules to a victim of modern slavery who is not British once they have been confirmed as a victim by the national referral mechanism. Under Section 18 of Northern Ireland’s human trafficking and exploitation Act, victims are guaranteed “assistance and support” and, under subsection (9), the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland is able to continue providing support after a positive conclusive grounds decision where it deems it necessary. However, the Northern Ireland Executive have no power to grant immigration leave to victims to enable them to remain in the UK even if they deem that support necessary.

At the moment, many victims who are EEA nationals, including confirmed victims of modern slavery, are able to stay in Northern Ireland and the wider UK under free movement rights, thus enabling them to access regular benefits and statutory services, to work and to study, and potentially to receive additional trafficking support from our Department of Justice on a discretionary basis as they continue their recovery. However, once free movement comes to an end, EEA nationals newly arriving in the UK will no longer have the right to live and work in any part of the UK, including Northern Ireland, unless they have relevant skills and are sponsored by an employer to get a highly skilled worker visa, which is unlikely to be the case for victims of slavery. Nor will they have recourse to public funds to access benefits and services that will help them in their recovery beyond the immediate crisis period of the NRM.

At Second Reading, I mentioned the Centre for Social Justice’s timely report, It Still Happens Here: Fighting UK Slavery in the 2020s, which was published in July. It states:

“For many, having no recourse to public funds poses further barriers to moving people on safely, putting victims at risk of homelessness and destitution, and making it more likely that they will fall back into exploitation and trafficking.”


Rather than responding to this key finding by extending access to recourse to public funds, it seems that we are about to remove the key provision from some victims of human trafficking that is central to victim recovery. Providing victims with secure immigration status and recourse to public funds is not simply a means to support their recovery; rather, it is also a vital measure to prevent them being retrafficked in the future.

The only option for a victim who arrives in the UK after 1 January to secure the right to remain in the UK and to access publicly funded benefits and services will be to apply for discretionary leave to remain, known as DLR, since EEA nationals are unlikely to be granted asylum. But, unlike victims from other countries, EEA nationals are not currently automatically considered for DLR. They have to make their own applications.

There are two significant additional problems with DLR. First, applying takes time, during which confirmed victims are vulnerable to destitution and re-trafficking. Secondly, to date only a very small proportion of confirmed victims of modern slavery have been granted DLR, with the attached access to public funds and support needed for their recovery, because it is available only in limited and defined circumstances. Deciding to depend on DLR in this knowledge, therefore, would be tantamount to voting to erode support for confirmed victims of modern slavery.

I am not opposed to the end of free movement. We have to give effect to that in order to honour the outcome of the referendum. However, it absolutely does not follow that we have to create a situation in which a significant proportion of trafficking victims have uncertain immigration status and will lose recourse to public funds. I can only assume that the failure to put in place clear and accessible alternative routes for EEA nationals to remain in the UK with public funds for a period of recovery beyond the NRM results from the absence of any formal requirement to assess the impact of the wide-reaching changes to free movement on this specific and particularly vulnerable group.

We must ensure that any future changes to the DLR system serve to make it more accessible for EEA nationals, and that the full impact on victims of modern slavery is assessed, which is why I introduced Amendment 81. As well as seeking to assess the impact of immigration rules on victims after they have escaped their exploitation, it seeks to provide an opportunity for scrutiny of how immigration rules may protect people, or inadvertently put them at risk of trafficking.

In this context, I raise the issue of temporary migration routes such as the seasonal workers pilot scheme, which has been running since last year. A report published last year by the International Organization for Migration, Migrants and their Vulnerability to Human Trafficking, Modern Slavery and Forced Labour, found:

“Restrictive immigration policies (such as restrictions applied to certain visas or arbitrary changes to asylum procedures for nationals from certain countries) and weak migration governance structures are frequently noted as major causes of vulnerability to modern slavery, especially when combined with low-wage migration.”


Elsewhere, the report says that

“migrants whose visas are tied to a specific employer are also at higher risk of exploitation.”

Experts in labour exploitation, such as Focus on Labour Exploitation, have cautioned that temporary migration schemes are

“well-recognised to increase the risks of abuse and exploitation of workers”.

In July the Government published a document called UK Points-Based Immigration System: Further Details Statement, which includes the following text:

“As we replace freedom of movement with the Points-Based System, we remain committed to protecting individuals from modern slavery and exploitation by criminal traffickers and unscrupulous employers.”


I welcome the Government’s statement, but sadly it reads as pure assertion. It does not demonstrate any kind of means to secure this end. I very much hope that the Minister will appreciate how, in the context of the proposed removal of a route to protection from re-trafficking offered by remaining in the UK and having recourse to public funds, and without a guarantee of a safe route for migration for EEA nationals who do not qualify for the skilled worker scheme, this assertion, divorced from any delivery mechanism, is vulnerable to seeming profoundly disingenuous.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

My Lords, I have no requests to speak after the Minister, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Morrow.

[Lord Morrow (DUP) [V]]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who have taken part in this debate. I am also grateful to the Minister. I have listened very carefully to all that she has said but I am afraid that I remain very concerned on two fronts: first, the absence of a discipline to ensure that, going forward, the Immigration Rules will be forged out of regard for the need both to minimise opportunities for people trafficking and to help those who have been trafficked to enjoy a full recovery; and, secondly, that at the moment there is a real risk that victims of modern slavery will experience an erosion of their effective rights from 1 January. I do not believe that this is a satisfactory state of affairs.

However, as I said, I listened carefully to what the Minister said but will go away and study her comments more carefully before deciding how best to proceed on this issue. For the moment, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 81 withdrawn.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Morrow Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 7th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure and an honour to follow my noble friend Lord McColl, who has been such a doughty campaigner on this issue. I would like to say at the outset that I would be a strong supporter of his Private Member’s Bill. I should start by declaring that I am a vice-chairman of trustees of the Human Trafficking Foundation, a position I share with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who with her legal background is more able to discuss these matters.

I share the concerns of my noble friend Lord McColl that the anti-trafficking directive from the EU will not necessarily be implemented into domestic law; he has explained clearly the exact position. I would like to say this. There has always been a conflict between the victims of modern slavery and the people who find them, who are often the same officers who check on illegal immigration. Many of the victims, certainly those not from the EU, could well be illegal immigrants. When they were EU citizens who had free movement, even if they were brought here under duress or false pretences they would not have been illegal immigrants. What will happen is that there will probably be more of an impetus to remove people, even though they are victims. That is not what the Government intend, and I am sure that the Minister will say so, but it might well be the result. In theory, the fact that we are supposed to be taking control of our borders might well mean that we should be in a position to stop more people coming in who are actually victims, and particularly to try to stop the evil purveyors—the traffickers themselves.

I am proud that when the Modern Slavery Act was brought in, I was still in the other place and able to be part of that. However, it is light on victim support. While it is acknowledged that it is world-beating in many respects, its provisions on victim support are not sufficient. There is therefore, as my noble friend Lord McColl has said, a real opportunity for this country to prove once again that we take the terrible crime of modern slavery extremely seriously and to be the world leader in how we deal with its victims.

I want also to commend to my noble friend on the Front Bench the review recently instigated by the Government. I am not sure, but I think that we are still waiting for a response to some of the points raised in the review by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the soon to be ennobled Frank Field —I do not know whether technically he is yet a Member of the House—and Maria Miller, an esteemed Member of the other place. While this is a probing amendment, we want assurances. This is a fantastic opportunity to do the right thing and to do it very well.

[Lord Morrow (DUP) [V]]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I was one of those who raised concerns about paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 at Second Reading. As I stated then, an important body of EU-derived rights stems from the anti-trafficking directive—in particular, victims’ rights to support, assistance and protection. I have a particular interest in this subject because I took Northern Ireland’s equivalent legislation to the Modern Slavery Act—the human trafficking and exploitation Act—through the Northern Ireland Assembly. Although one of the central purposes of the directive is that the assistance and support should

“enable the victim to recover”,

there is no statutory requirement for support and assistance for victims in the Modern Slavery Act.

Section 50 of the Act, which deals with the statutory requirement to provide victim support, has never been used and remains optional, depending on the views of the current Minister. In this respect, the Modern Slavery Act is quite unlike the human trafficking and exploitation Act in Northern Ireland or, indeed, the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act, in both of which the obligation to enable the victim to recover is transposed from the trafficking directive and on to the face of law in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

I note that, when previously challenged on this point, the Government said there would be no erosion of the rights of victims of human trafficking in England and Wales following the demise of the directive at the end of this year because legal obligations to victims under the Council of Europe human trafficking convention and under Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights remain unchanged. However, this assertion is deeply problematic and, to remind noble Lords why, I ask your Lordships to recall the period of May 2010 to March 2011. In May 2010, Britain was subject to both the Council of Europe trafficking directive and Article 4 of the ECHR, and the Government decided that they would opt out of the EU anti-trafficking directive because they claimed we did not need it. There was then a public outcry and a campaign by NGOs and Members of this House which resulted in the Government U-turning and opting into the directive in March 2011.

The convention covers much of the same ground as the directive, including victim support. The reason why those who work with victims of trafficking were not prepared to say, “Don’t worry about the EU anti-trafficking directive, because we are already signed up to the convention,” is very simple. The sanctions that exist in international law are much weaker than those in domestic or EU law. The passion that drove those who care for victims of human trafficking to campaign for Britain to opt into the EU anti-trafficking directive between May 2010 and March 2011, when we were already signed up to the human trafficking convention and Article 4 of the ECHR, means that the ongoing presence of the human trafficking convention and Article 4 of the ECHR are never going to result in those of us who speak for victims of human trafficking meekly trading the directive for the Modern Slavery Act, as currently defined, when that Act provides no statutory right to victim support.

Some might say, “But isn’t the statutory obligation to provide victim support part of retained EU law?” If we could be clear today that victim support is part of retained EU law, then the Government could respond to this debate by promising not to use the powers in paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to remove these rights. That would at least provide an assurance as far as the current Administration are concerned.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Morrow Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 22nd July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morrow (DUP) [V]]

My Lords, paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 allows for any EU-derived rights to cease to be recognised in domestic law if they are either inconsistent with immigration legislation or

“capable of affecting the exercise of functions in connection with immigration”.

An important body of EU-derived rights has been the human trafficking directive, one of the aims of which is

“to enable the victim to recover”.

Article 11 requires assistance and support for victims. While the Modern Slavery Act 2015 made many positive changes, it did not, regrettably, include a statutory right to assistance and support, as in the parallel Northern Ireland and Scottish legislation. When the directive ceases to have effect, the EU rights for victims in England and Wales will disappear. It would seem, therefore, that the legal rights of these victims will be negatively affected by the power in Schedule 1.

Last week, the Centre for Social Justice published a report on modern slavery. It said that the Government must enshrine survivor rights in law to guarantee and protect access to support. It, like me, urges the Government to give all trafficking victims certainty over support and immigration status by adopting the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and Sir Iain Duncan-Smith’s Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill, which would give confirmed victims of trafficking immigration leave for a minimum of 12 months to receive assistance and support to recover from their abuse.

In the context of the imminent termination of the immigration rights implicit in the right to free movement and the protections in the directive, which have not been translated into UK law, the need for the McColl/Duncan-Smith Bill is now greatly strengthened. I hope the Government will now prioritise giving this Private Member’s Bill time to become law, led as it is in part by two eminent Conservative parliamentarians, one a former leader of the Conservative Party.

I very much welcome the Minister’s opening remarks. She said that all parts of the United Kingdom will be treated as equals. That is very important, and I could not support it more.

Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse

Lord Morrow Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend is absolutely right that the Westminster strand did not find evidence of a paedophile ring, but it did find deference by the police, prosecutors and political parties towards public figures. It found differences in treatment accorded to well-connected people, as opposed to those without networks and influence, and a failure by almost every institution to put the needs of children first. They are shocking findings; they should give us all pause for thought.

[Lord Morrow (DUP) [V]]

Can the Minister confirm that the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse will include children who have been trafficked? Will the findings extrapolate these figures where possible?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord mentioned something that is very much a concern at this point in time and has been in recent years as well. It is not for me, or indeed the Government, to tell IICSA what it must look into. In the main, it has been looking into institutional failures and problems in institutional settings. But I am sure that it will look into the appropriate issues at the right time.

Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill [HL]

Lord Morrow Excerpts

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

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, I find the last speaker a very difficult one to follow, with the experience that she has related to the House. I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McColl, on bringing forward his Private Member’s Bill on human trafficking and modern slavery. I note that many of his previous proposals were adopted by the Government in the Modern Slavery Act, which is testimony to his success. I fully support his new Bill. My own experience of navigating a Private Member’s Bill—now the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland)—through the Northern Ireland Assembly is that listening to the experiences of victims of trafficking is vital in developing appropriate legislation.

I said on Report on the then Modern Slavery Bill that the objective of the victim support section in my Bill was,

“to ensure that victims of human trafficking who have entered into the NRM process have a statutory right to access support”.—[Official Report, 25/2/15; col. 1677.]

I am still of the same opinion that it is vital for the provision of assistance to be set out in statute. It makes it crystal clear what victims are legally entitled to. It gives victims and support agencies the ability to challenge the actions of the state if it has failed to provide effective support. It also ensures that the support provided to victims cannot be withdrawn or restricted by government if, for example, it faces budgetary challenges or if international legal obligations change, which they no doubt will after Brexit.

The call for assistance and support to be mandated by the Modern Slavery Act has been comprehensively set out by the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I am left asking myself: why have the Government failed to address these deficiencies to date, and sought to justify the much weaker legislative position on victim care in England and Wales? I am grateful for the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner’s support for the legislation in Northern Ireland. He said, earlier in the year, that Scotland and Northern Ireland have legal frameworks that,

“provide much more flexibility to the organisations managing the NRM support provision … This allows them to provide a holistic approach offering individually tailored support to victims of human trafficking. As the UK’s Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, I believe it is essential to ensure consistency across the whole of the UK, following the good practice of Northern Ireland and Scotland in supporting victims”.

The anti-slavery commissioner used the word essential. I hope the Minister will be able to agree that it is indeed essential.

There is a further convincing argument for why the Government should support the noble Lord’s Bill—in a word, Brexit. I am an advocate of Brexit. However, I also was a strong advocate of ensuring that the EU human trafficking directive was fully incorporated into UK law. Indeed, it was a prime objective of my Bill to do so. So, while I stand for Brexit, I also stand for victims of modern slavery and am committed to ensuring that victims receive the best support and assistance that the UK can give them.

Until the EU directive came into force, victims had no legal rights to seek redress if the necessary support was not provided. In its recent briefing on Brexit and trafficking, the Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group said:

“As a Directive, its provisions can have direct effect in national law when they are unconditional and are sufficiently clear and precise. States must incorporate EU Directive provisions into national law which can then be relied upon by individuals in the national courts”.

An example can be given from the significant 2015 case of AK v Bristol City Council, which raised questions regarding the UK’s obligations under the directive. The claimant was a Lithuanian national and a confirmed victim of trafficking. As an EEA national, she had not applied for leave to remain, but was deemed ineligible for benefits and became destitute. On going to court, Bristol City Council, initially unwilling to provide support, agreed to provide short-term accommodation.

This court case raises two important points about the status of victims after Brexit. The first is that the clarity that has been provided by the directive about what support and assistance should be provided to victims before and after an NRM decision will be lost without anything to replace it: at the moment, there are no government regulations or guidance to give any certainty for victims in England and Wales. Secondly, the ability of victims to seek redress through the courts will be lost. No one, least of all victims themselves, wants to see victims having to go to court to secure access to support, but we must acknowledge that the lack of consistency and transparency about what support should be available to victims in England and Wales, especially in the period following the NRM, has made it necessary to rely on such rights in court.

We have a situation where the services offered beyond the NRM vary from case to case and where local authorities are unclear about their responsibilities—something picked up by the 2016 Haughey review into the Modern Slavery Act. It is time for the Government to act to give long-term certainty to victims in England and Wales, to fill the gap that exists in the Modern Slavery Act.

Let me say, for the information of the House, that the section of my Bill on victim support was supported unanimously by the Northern Ireland Assembly. I hope that it will be able to be said of this House too that it supports the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, unanimously. It may be proper, in advance, for me to offer an apology to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and your Lordships’ House, because when I look at my boarding pass and my times, I think I may be away before the Minister speaks. I trust that she will understand and I look forward to reading what she has said.

Online Safety Bill [HL]

Lord Morrow Excerpts

Friday 11th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to speak in support of the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, which makes explicit the fact that decisions about filtering are not just made at the set-up stage. I recall that during Second Reading the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, sought to highlight the fact that, in the context of the current voluntary filtering agreement between the big four ISPs, there is nothing to stop a child lifting adult content filters after they have been put in place. This seems to be a serious design flaw with the voluntary agreement, and one that I am glad this Bill seeks to rectify.

I note that when the Minister was pressed on this point during Second Reading she said that,

“three-quarters of parents in the UK are confident that children are unable to bypass these tools. But to mitigate any further risk, as has been said today, ISPs email the main account holder when filter settings are set or changed”.—[Official Report, 17/7/2015; col. 860.]

I think that possibly the Minister misread the point. The lack of age verification in the event that after parents select filters at the set-up, their children subsequently—and unknown to them—turn the filters off, is not about bypassing filters.

The point is not that some very technologically able young people who can work out how to bypass filters should be subject to age verification. I am not sure how one would apply age verification to such clandestine activity. The concern relates instead to a larger group of children, with no great technological expertise, being able to switch off the filters in the same way as an adult who has no special technical expertise can do so, because the ISP has provided the user with the facility to maintain or lift filters. This is the process that should be age-verified. The idea that this concern has been sufficiently addressed by the provision of an email sent to the account holder after the filter settings have been changed, informing them of that fact, is deeply concerning.

Age verification should happen before an age-restricted activity is permitted. The idea that it is acceptable to do this after the fact, and by the most flimsy of arrangements, is quite extraordinary, to say the least. As the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, has said, even if you live in your inbox and open all your emails as they come in, it will still take you some time to address the problem if you are at work, which leaves the children exposed to harmful content, possibly for some hours. Most of us, however, take a while to get round to opening our emails—half a day, three days or a week. As the ComRes polling eloquently testifies, some people may never open it, leaving children exposed to adult content, unknown to their parents, who will assume the filters are still on indefinitely. I very much hope that when the Minister responds to this amendment, she will at least commit to review the provisions in place to help prevent children lifting adult content filters, after they have been introduced at the set-up, without prior age verification.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Morrow]

3A: Clause 2, page 3, line 3, after “Assent” insert “, including assessment of—
“(i) filtering of adult content under Part 1 of this Act by providers and operators;(ii) age verification policies used under Parts 1, 2 and 3 of this Act”

[Lord Morrow]

My Lords, this is a probing amendment which makes explicit two of the matters that the Ofcom report required by Clause 2(6) should cover: an assessment of the filtering of adult content required by Part 1 and the age verification policies referred to throughout the Bill.

One of the great strengths of Clause 1 is that it covers filtering of adult content by all internet service providers and mobile phone operators. Ofcom’s reporting duty should therefore relate to the conduct of all providers. It was very noticeable that in its recent review of filtering by ISPs, Ofcom considered only the big four ISPs that are subject to the voluntary filtering agreement negotiated with the Government. I do not believe that this filtering arrangement is sustainable in the long term unless we are prepared to countenance affording better rights to children fortunate enough to live in households provided for by the big four ISPs than to those living in households serviced by other providers. According to Ofcom’s published facts and figures, the market share of the big four ISPs in 2015 was 88%. That is the same percentage as in 2014 with a slightly different distribution between the ISPs: BT had 32%, Virgin Media had 20%, TalkTalk had 14% and Sky had 22%. That leaves 12% of the market, and therein hundreds of thousands of children, beyond the reach of the agreement.

I am of course aware that, although not party to the agreement between the big four providers, a number of the smaller operators provide good filtering options. A survey late last year discovered that of the 14 smaller ISPs that service homes, four were found to be offering something nearly comparable to the big four but 10 were not. Of those 10, two made it clear that they did provide filtering but it had to be applied by the customer separately; it was not an unavoidable choice during the set-up stage. Seven ISPs could not provide any information about filtering. One expressly said that it did not provide filtering. While the conduct of the four smaller ISPs is encouraging, the provision of filtering options by the smaller providers as a whole is concerning, and serves to underline the need for a common statutory approach.

I note that during the Second Reading debate on the Bill, the Minister, when challenged on this matter, responded in the following terms:

“It is important to note that these providers state at installation and on their marketing materials that they do not have child safety credentials”.—[Official Report, 17/7/15; col. 860.]

The implication of this approach would seem to be that so long as the company makes these statements, it will be okay. This seems rather extraordinary, raising the question: if this approach is sufficient, why can the other providers not do the same? It also jars with the survey that I mentioned earlier where only one of the 10 smaller ISPs clearly stated that it did not provide filtering. I am struggling to believe that this really represents the Minister’s position.

So long as some ISPs offer less protection than that provided through the agreement between the big four providers, and so long as we agree that all children are of equal value regardless of which provider services the homes in which they live, the only solution certainly seems the even-handed one proposed by the Bill, which requires the same minimum filtering from all providers, the conduct of which, subject to my amendment, should be reflected in the Ofcom report.

The case for making the changes proposed in Part 1 of the Bill and my amendment has of course been greatly strengthened since Second Reading as a result of the Prime Minister’s decision to introduce filtering legislation, which he announced in another place on 28 October. In responding to a question about whether the EU net neutrality vote would jeopardise our approach to filtering, the Prime Minister said:

“Like my hon. Friend, I think that it is vital that we enable parents to have that protection for their children from this material on the internet. Probably like her, I spluttered over my cornflakes when I read the Daily Mail this morning, because we have worked so hard to put in place those filters. I can reassure her on this matter, because we secured an opt-out yesterday so that we can keep our family-friendly filters to protect children. I can tell the House that we will legislate to put our agreement with internet companies on this issue into the law of the land so that our children will be protected”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/10/15; col. 344.]

The words that struck me particularly in that passage were,

“I can tell the House that we will legislate”.

While I do not agree with the EU vote, the fact that it means that Britain will now legislate in this area is very welcome, both because it endorses the statutory approach advanced by this Bill and because it provides an opportunity for addressing the failure of the current approach to cover 12% of the market.

I understand that the Government must have legislation on the statute book by the time the new European provisions come into effect—on, I think, 30 April 2016—so they are very fortunate to have this excellent Private Member’s Bill already in Committee. I hope that the Minister can assure me that the Government will give serious consideration to adopting this Bill to protect ISPs from litigation. If the Government insist on bringing forward their own Bill, I impress upon them the need to require filtering, on the basis mandated by the Bill, for all ISPs that service households with children, not just some. This should also be reflected in Ofcom’s reporting obligation.

I should say in passing that if the Government are going to bring forward their own legislation that will have to be implemented by April next year, they should do so very quickly. There can be no excuse for rushing this through at the last minute when we have known this since the end of June this year. I beg to move.

[Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill]

My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Morrow. Ofcom should have to report on the compliance of all ISPs, not just the big four, and all ISPs should be subject to the same filtering obligations where they service households with children, as the noble Lord has said. The Government need to ensure that all providers that service households with children have adequate filters. If the Government now need to make legal provision for filtering, in order to protect the big four from litigation on the basis of EU net neutrality legislation, surely the best way forward is to use this excellent Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Shields]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. The commitment to this is voluntary and clear. Of course it will take time, but it is evolving. The action of the industry is voluntary and the process has to be consultative. The UK Council for Child Internet Safety meets and provides an evidence base to the ISPs and the industry about what we know and how they should act—it is doing that. We are just talking about the vehicle to get us there, and we think we have a better approach. We will consult on age verification and bring something forward, enshrined in law or in whatever way we think is best, to ensure that the filters regime stays in place.

We have re-opened the conversation about many issues today. This particular amendment was on whether we should specify that Ofcom’s reports on filtering content and age-verification policies are set out as a duty. We are way beyond that at this stage. Ofcom is about to produce a report later this month that does just that. Therefore, the Government’s perspective is that this is already being done by Ofcom and there is no need to enshrine it in law.

[Lord Morrow]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who have spoken in this debate today. I have listened intently to what has been said by all noble Lords and, in particular, by the Minister. I detect real concern around the Committee on this very important matter. It has been very useful to reflect on the need to engage with all ISPs, both on the filtering regime to help keep children safe online and on Ofcom’s reporting role. The Minister has seen that there is a real concern about the issue, and I wonder whether she might be willing to meet concerned Peers to discuss the way forward on this important matter.

[Baroness Shields]

I would be absolutely delighted to meet noble Lords on this matter. In fact, maybe some noble Lords might want to join us at the UK Council for Child Internet Safety, where many of these issues are raised and discussed, and where evidence-based teams go off and research then report back with excellent suggestions that are taken on board by industry. That is a collaborative approach and ensures that, as issues arise, we can react—as an industry, as government and as NGOs, working in partnership.

[Lord Morrow]

I thank the Minister for her very positive response and look forward to that meeting in the not too distant future. At the outset, I made it clear that this was a probing amendment. Therefore, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 3A withdrawn.