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.

Advertising of Prostitution (Prohibition) Bill [HL]

Lord Morrow Excerpts

Friday 23rd October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, I support the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I believe that addressing the demand for paid sex is one of the key challenges of our society today. It is a great disappointment to me that one of the longest-standing forms of exploitation has yet to receive the same attention and focus as modern-day slavery. I speak, of course, about prostitution.

As noble Lords will be aware, I recently helped to take a Bill to address human trafficking and exploitation through the Northern Ireland Assembly. In the course of that process I engaged in extensive consultation, read a large amount of evidence and spoke to a great number of experts in this area. I spent hours talking with groups such as Women’s Aid in Belfast, which supports victims of trafficking and sexual exploitation, and Ruhama, a charity from the Republic of Ireland that supports women exiting prostitution. I visited Sweden and met police officers and anti-trafficking experts, who explained to me the principle and the practical impact of their laws banning the purchase of sex. Most importantly, I met survivors of prostitution.

If I am honest, when the idea to criminalise paying for sex was first suggested I was far from sure. However, after meeting survivors and then carefully studying the evidence, I was more than convinced. The scale of the evidence demonstrating the vulnerable position and terrible experiences of the vast majority of people involved in prostitution requires us to take action. I recognise that that is not the case for every person, but from all the evidence that I read and all the people I spoke to, the voice of the most vulnerable was the most compelling. At the end of the day, we as legislators have to make a choice when considering prostitution. Do we act out of primary regard for the vulnerable majority or the privileged minority? I am very clear that it should be the former. That is why I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that we must seek to reduce demand for prostitution.

While the noble Lord, Lord McColl, has done exactly the right thing in identifying the need to engage with demand for paid sex, the Bill does not go far enough. Rather than just focusing on advertising, a more effective way of tackling demand and attendant exploitation would be to make it an offence to purchase someone for sex. That legislative solution goes right to the root of the problem, and I am delighted to say that more and more countries are now turning to it.

Most recently, Lithuania has just changed its law, and the Republic of Ireland is currently in the process of changing its law. In Northern Ireland the decision to address the demand for paid sex through criminalising the buyer was not a decision taken lightly. The issue was debated at length, and ultimately was supported by 81 out of the 108 Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly and, significantly, by Members across the political divide, both nationalists and unionists. We must make it illegal to buy sex, because that will be the most effective way to reduce demand—which is in turn the most effective way to reduce the harm of exploitation.

Evidence from interviews with those who buy sex indicates that criminal sanction would be the most effective deterrent. Moreover, independent analysis of the long-standing employment of this approach in Sweden and Norway demonstrates that banning the purchase of sex can reduce levels of prostitution and curb trafficking. The independent evaluation of the Swedish law found that street prostitution had been cut in half as a,

“direct result of the criminalisation of sex purchases”,

and there was no evidence that the decrease in on-street prostitution had led to an increase in off-street prostitution.

We must reject the tacit acceptance of prostitution in our society. That acceptance may not take the form of openly promoting commercial sex—it might even acknowledge that prostitution is a harmful practice—but if we continue to say that it “has always been with us and will never be eliminated” or seek only to make the practice of it a little less dangerous, in effect we support its continuation. The only way to reduce the harm of this ancient form of exploitation is to reduce the demand that perpetuates it.

Having explained why the noble Lord, Lord McColl, is absolutely right to propose that we address demand for the overwhelmingly exploitative practice of buying people for sex, and while suggesting that I think criminalising demand is the most effective way of doing so, I want to be very clear that I regard the proposal in the Bill to constitute a very important step in the right direction. Making it illegal to publish adverts will mean that the law no longer permits the promotion of prostitution. It will send the message that promoting exploitation is not acceptable and will reduce access to prostitution—both of which can play a role in reducing the demand that fuels the trade. I was very interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord McColl, say that the anti-slavery commissioner says that the current anomaly in the law needs addressing. That is important, and we would do well to pay attention to his concerns.

I heartily congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McColl, on tackling an issue which is too often pushed to the margins because it is too difficult, and I give the Bill my fullest support. I very much hope that the Government will take the overwhelmingly exploitative nature of prostitution much more seriously and recognise that this Bill provides them with an effective and timely means of doing so.

Modern Slavery Bill

Lord Morrow Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Lords Chamber

Victims of human trafficking, wherever they are in the UK, need to have the same confidence and the same assurance of support. We owe it to them to ensure that we demonstrate our commitment to their well-being in the centre of our foundational legislation on modern slavery. I beg to move.

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, I will speak in favour of Amendment 78 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, to Clause 49, to which amendment I have also added my name. I commend the noble Lord, Lord McColl, for putting forward this important amendment today.

Some noble Lords may be aware that I brought forward legislation in the Northern Ireland Assembly on human trafficking. It took over three years to get from the genesis of the legislation to the granting of Royal Assent last month, but to my mind it was worth every minute. Noble Lords will undoubtedly agree with me that victims of human trafficking are some of the most vulnerable people within the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland most certainly is not exempt from the impact of human trafficking, and I brought forward the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Bill to improve the response to the crime of human trafficking in Northern Ireland, crucially with regard to this amendment, to ensure that victims of trafficking are effectively supported.

The statutory requirement to assist and support victims of trafficking is a crucial part of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act. The relevant section was the product of a collaborative effort between the Minister of Justice, David Ford, and me, alongside our respective support teams. We were determined to ensure that victims of human trafficking who have entered into the NRM process have a statutory right to access support including: appropriate and safe accommodation; material assistance; assistance in obtaining health care services, counselling, translation and interpretation services; assistance in obtaining legal advice or representation; and assistance with repatriation.

That section was supported unanimously by the Northern Ireland Assembly. Northern Irish society may be divided on many issues, but the need to effectively support victims of human trafficking is not one of them. The NGO community in Northern Ireland also overwhelmingly supported the introduction of this section. In my opinion it is vital that the requirement to provide assistance and support is in statute. It makes it crystal clear to victims of trafficking, the NGOs supporting them and state agencies what victims are legally entitled to. It gives victims and those seeking to support them the ability to challenge the actions of the state if it has failed to provide effective support. It also ensures that the support and assistance provided to victims cannot be withdrawn or restricted by government if, for example, it faces challenges, particularly a challenging budgetary situation.

I have added my name to Amendment 78 because I believe it fills an important gap in what is otherwise an excellent Bill. First, it will help to ensure that victims of human trafficking are effectively supported in England and Wales. I appreciate that the Bill requires the Government to issue guidance to public authorities setting out,

“arrangements for providing assistance and support to persons who there is reason to believe may be victims of slavery or human trafficking”.

This requirement is better than nothing but in my opinion does not go far enough. There are no directions or guarantees about the content of the guidance, which can be varied at the will of the Secretary of State. Guidance also does not have the same status as legislation and cannot be relied on in the same way. It would be far better for victims if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, were adopted. It would ensure that there is a legal guarantee of support for victims.

Secondly, it seems clear to me that if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, or something like it is not accepted, victims of trafficking in Northern Ireland—and in Scotland once the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Bill has passed—will have more legal rights than victims of trafficking in England and Wales. This would be a rather unfortunate situation. Surely, most of us here and most of the public would think that victims of trafficking, regardless of where in the United Kingdom they have been identified, should have the same or similar legal rights. Of course, it is Parliament’s prerogative to decide whether this will be the case.

I urge noble Lords to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McColl. It rectifies a significant omission in the Bill and will help to ensure that victims of trafficking in England and Wales are effectively supported.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I wish to speak in support of Amendment 78, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, to which I have added my name.

I have been watching the passage of the Bill with great interest. I recognise that many noble Lords who have spoken on Report have much greater knowledge and a longer history of raising these issues than I have. In particular, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, for his tireless efforts in bringing the needs of vulnerable people to the attention of your Lordships. It is listening to his contribution that has encouraged me to step forward.

I do not doubt that the Government take victim protection very seriously, but I have concerns that the Bill itself does not yet provide the necessary framework for victims to receive the support that they most desperately need at the time when they are at their most vulnerable—when they are first rescued or identified. Nor does it give a clear enough signal to victims and those who first encounter them that access to immediate assistance is a matter of utmost priority.

Modern Slavery Bill

Lord Morrow Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 34, 35 and 37.

It has been said by many during debates on this Bill—but it is worth repeating—that victims must be at the heart of all our actions to address modern slavery, whether in this Bill, in other policies and strategies or in the everyday front-line work of police officers, prosecutors, support workers, local authorities and so on. When a victim escapes from a situation of modern slavery they are likely to be interviewed by the police, they may enter the national referral mechanism process, or they may be placed in a specialist shelter through a victim care programme or be cared for by other charities. They might apply for asylum and have to deal with immigration officers and the whole asylum process. As they move between all these scenarios, victims do not change: they remain the same person. Their experience cannot be compartmentalised. For them it is a seamless whole.

The commissioner-designate has stated the importance of taking a victim-focused approach to this crime. Indeed, he told Peers during our informative meeting that he has made improving victim care one of his five priority areas of work. If the commissioner, a man of great experience in the front line of addressing modern slavery, believes that engagement and oversight of victim care and support is a vital function for his role, I am sure noble Lords will agree that we should be listening. I am pleased, therefore, that the Minister has introduced Amendment 37, which clarifies that the commissioner should have regard to the provision of assistance and support to victims in carrying out his functions.

I confess that I had some concerns following a meeting with the commissioner- designate that, without this amendment, bringing victim care into the concerns of the commissioner involves a creative interpretation of the current functions set out in Clause 41(1) which might not be endorsed by future Home Secretaries. During our debate in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Deben, highlighted the importance of getting the commissioner’s statutory mandate right. He said:

“Unless the commissioner can point to the Act and say, ‘I do this because …’, there will be those who will use every possible opportunity to try to trip him up and make the kind of legal arguments that hide the fact that what they are really about is stopping him being effective. That is why it is so important that we should be absolutely sure that we get it right”.—[Official Report, 8/12/14; col. 1629.]

I agree entirely. Amendment 37 will ensure that the text of the statute matches our intentions so that in a number of years, when the memories of our debates on the Bill have faded, the commissioner will still be able to look at all aspects of a victim’s experience and make recommendations to see victim care and support improve and develop, based on the letter of the law. I therefore firmly endorse Amendment 37 and commend it to your Lordships.

However, I have some questions of clarification that I would like to raise with the Minister about Amendments 34 and 35, which specifically suggest that the commissioner may consult, co-operate and work jointly with the noble Baroness the Victims’ Commissioner. I support the noble Lord’s proposal for co-operation and consultation between the anti-slavery commissioner and the Victims’ Commissioner. I believe this will ensure good oversight and joined-up thinking on all issues in a far more effective way than trying to separate into silos matters which are, on the ground, interlocked and interdependent.

My concerns stem from the fact that specific reference is made to the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales only, and I am not sure whether the Minister dealt with this. I would have thought that similar co-operation and consultation would be needed with other commissioners such as the children’s commissioners—and those of all the four nations now that the role extends across the whole of the UK. I imagine that co-operation will also be required with other commissioners or inspectors such as the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration. I recognise that the amendment allows for a wider class of other persons, but I would be grateful if the Minister could indicate the reasoning for specifically mentioning the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales and how we can ensure consultation with bodies in Scotland and Northern Ireland which have responsibilities regarding victims. I would also be grateful if the Minister could explain what consideration had been given to including a reference in the clause to other commissioners or bodies.

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, I support government Amendments 34, 35 and 37 spoken to by the noble Baroness the Minister. I first make my apologies to your Lordships for not having been present during the earlier debates on this Bill. My absence on those occasions was however directly connected to the matters before us today, as I was engaged in debates on my human trafficking and exploitation Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly on those days—a Bill which, I am pleased to say, received Royal Assent in January.

I have a particular perspective on the role of the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner since the role has now been extended to cover Northern Ireland. This means that the commissioner will need to work to promote good practice in the prosecution and investigation of offences and the identification of victims, all with regard to the legislation we have enacted in Northern Ireland, as well as to the Modern Slavery Bill.

I had the opportunity to meet the commissioner-designate during a visit he made to Northern Ireland and I was most impressed by his plans and his passion to tackle this terrible crime head on. I was encouraged by his commitment to visit Northern Ireland regularly and his awareness of the particular challenges and opportunities that arise from our land border with the Irish Republic. It seems likely that he will do an excellent job. I was also particularly impressed with his clear understanding that victims’ needs must be central to any strategy to deal with modern-day slavery and, moreover, with his determination to make sure that all our systems and agencies across the UK recognise this and reflect it in how they work.

I had some reservations that the ambitious victim-centred plans set out by the commissioner are not clearly reflected in the mandate provided by the Bill. It concerned me that if a new Home Secretary came into office, he or she may not approve a future strategic plan that extends as widely as that proposed by the present commissioner. Indeed, it is possible that an organisation receiving unwanted recommendations from the commissioner could argue that victim support is outside the commissioner’s remit and reject his recommendations on that basis. I therefore welcome government Amendment 37, which expressly gives the commissioner the mandate to look into matters of victim support.

Modern slavery is the exploitation of individual human beings. Any effective anti-slavery commissioner will need to look at how we improve our systems to better protect and support those individuals, whether in investigations or other environments. The Bill must support and empower him to do that. I urge your Lordships to support Amendment 37 in the name of the Minister.

I referred earlier to my particular perspective in relation to the commissioner’s work in Northern Ireland. I have one area of concern about government Amendments 34 and 35 that stems from this perspective. I have no doubt that it will be important for the anti-slavery commissioner to consult and work together with a wide variety of groups and organisations, and I welcome the fact that these amendments specifically highlight the importance of the voluntary sector. The advice, constructive criticism and on-the-ground evidence from NGOs was of vital assistance to me as I prepared and refined my human trafficking Bill through its passage in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I dare say that the Minister would say the same about the contributions made in the development of this Bill from its draft form right up to the amendments proposed this evening.

I also echo what has been said in respect of the need for the anti-slavery commissioner to co-ordinate with the Victims’ Commissioner, as a way to maximise benefit and avoid duplication of work. I have some concerns, however, that victims in Northern Ireland, and indeed Scotland, will not benefit from this co-operation. I suggest to the Minister that we need to ensure that the commissioner is careful to take account of efforts to improve victim care and to work with bodies involved in supporting victims in other parts of the UK as well. I hope very much that she can assure me that reference to consultation with the Victims’ Commissioner will not create a hierarchy of victims, with victims in England and Wales receiving greater attention from the commissioner than victims in the rest of the UK.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their comments and their broad support for the amendments which we have brought forward here: the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and my noble friend Lady Hodgson, who were very enthusiastic, and the other two noble Lords who spoke. My noble friend Lord McColl expressed his concerns about co-operation with the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses, but I stress that it is,

“public authorities (including the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses)”.

He is not precluded from co-operating with other people as well. The Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses is one of the examples given, because the commissioner is one of the key players in the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, raised the point about Northern Ireland. The commissioner will work very closely with Northern Ireland and the Scottish Government. These government amendments were developed with the co-operation of the Northern Ireland Executive and the Scottish Government, to ensure that the United Kingdom-wide remit which the commissioner has will apply as much to people in those parts of the United Kingdom as in England and Wales. With those reassurances, I hope that noble Lords will support these amendments, which will benefit those in all parts of the United Kingdom.