Modern Slavery Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

1A: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Victims of modern slavery: general duty
(1) In interpreting the provisions of this Act, courts must have regard to the best interests of a victim of slavery, trafficking and exploitation.
(2) In exercising their powers and duties under the provisions of this Act, public authorities and the Secretary of State must have regard to the best interests of a victim of slavery, trafficking, or exploitation.
(3) In performing the duties under subsections (1) and (2), courts, public authorities and the Secretary of State must have particular regard to the personal circumstances of the victim including but not limited to—
(a) the victim’s age,(b) the victim’s gender,(c) the victim’s ethnicity and background,(d) whether the victim has a physical or mental disability; and(e) other relevant characteristics relating to the victim’s vulnerability.”

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment that I am moving proposes a new clause, right at the beginning of the Bill, which would place a duty on the courts in interpreting the provisions of the Bill to,

“have regard to the best interests of a victim of slavery, trafficking and exploitation”.

The new clause also requires public authorities and the Secretary of State, in exercising their powers and duties under the Bill, to have regard to the best interests, likewise, of a victim of slavery, trafficking and exploitation. The amendment then goes on to state:

“In performing the duties under subsections (1) and (2), courts, public authorities and the Secretary of State must have particular regard to the personal circumstances of the victim including but not limited to … the victim’s age … the victim’s gender … the victim’s ethnicity and background … whether the victim has a physical or mental disability … and other relevant characteristics relating to the victim’s vulnerability”.

Some references to examples of a victim’s personal circumstances and relevant characteristics are already found in Clauses 1 and 45.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the Bill, whatever the intentions, does not appear primarily geared to increasing prosecutions, important though that is, but that it also places the victim and the best interests of the victim at the heart of the Bill. At Second Reading, the Minister described the Bill’s purpose as being to consign the crime of modern slavery to history. He said:

“It will ensure that we can effectively prosecute perpetrators, properly punish offenders and help prevent more crimes from taking place. It will enhance protection and support for the victims of these dreadful crimes”.—[Official Report, 17/11/14; col. 238.]

However, this aspect of support and protection for victims is not addressed in the Bill, which instead contains a clause—but not until Clause 48—requiring the Government, through the Secretary of State, to,

“issue guidance to such public authorities and other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”

about the support that should be available to victims of slavery or human trafficking. Guidance is not the same as a commitment in the Bill to provide a laid-down, minimum level of support, for which some have called, and neither is it the same as placing a statutory duty on the courts, public authorities and the Secretary of State to have regard to the best interests and personal circumstances of a victim of slavery, trafficking or exploitation in interpreting and exercising their powers and duties under the Bill, as provided for in the new clause set out in this amendment.

The new clause, coming at the beginning of the Bill, makes it clear that it is the victims of these awful crimes, and their best interests and personal circumstances, which are at the heart of the Bill, and not just the process, important though it is, of pursuing cases to greater effect and with greater success through the criminal justice system. The impact of these crimes on the victims can extend way beyond the conclusion of any criminal prosecution. Unless we ensure that victims are at the heart of the Bill and that having regard to their best interests and personal circumstances will be a key issue for as long as necessary, with the impacts of these crimes, both physically and emotionally, being addressed, we will not get victims to come forward and provide the evidence to pursue successfully the prosecutions that will be necessary and needed if we are to make a significant and lasting impact on the incidence of modern slavery crimes.

As my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws reminded us at Second Reading, prosecutions are difficult to bring because,

“victims are in abject terror … Their fear is not just for their own lives but those of their children … of their parents, and of other people they love”.

My noble friend went on to say of victims:

“They know the consequences of involving the authorities. They are often also fearful of authority”.—[Official Report, 17/11/14; col. 291.]

Before a case comes to trial, many witnesses are found by their traffickers or family members are prevailed on to induce them to retract their evidence. There is a need to place victims and their best interests and personal circumstances at the heart of the Bill if we are to get successful prosecutions and get at the traffickers rather more successfully than we do now. Having regard to the best interests of victims and their personal circumstances is not simply something that we ought to do, powerful though that reason is, it is crucial to the delivery of the objective of the Bill, which, in his speech at Second Reading, the Minister said was to eliminate the crimes that constitute modern slavery.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for proposing the amendment and to all other noble Lords who have contributed to an interesting opening debate in this first day in Committee. I guess that we will return to many of these themes as we move through this, but this is also an opportunity to put our views on record. Those views are set out in the Modern Slavery Strategy that was published by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on Saturday, in which she made it clear, in her opening remarks on page 5, that victims would be at the heart of all we do.

In many ways the debate highlights two different views. One says that we help the victims directly by looking after their welfare. We agree with that. The other view was set out eloquently by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay when he said that you also aid the welfare of the victims by ensuring that there are fewer perpetrators. That point was also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence. We accept that, and all the way through this we will return, probably amendment by amendment, to this careful balance that exists between these two approaches.

Before turning to the specifics, I would make one point to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who probably did not mean it that firmly when he said that we were making up policy on the hoof. Sometimes when the Government listen and respond they are accused of making up legislation on the hoof, but when they do not listen they are accused of being intransigent and not responding. I am proud to be associated with this legislation because not only is it ground-breaking and leading the world in this type of legislation but it is being put through in an appropriate way after consultation with Members. It went through pre-legislative scrutiny, and I pay tribute to the work of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and my noble friend Lord McColl in making refinements. It is worth putting on the record what has actually changed for victims as a result of that process.

The Bill itself changed quite dramatically before it was published. When it went through the House of Commons, we added specific changes on children and an enabling power for the Secretary of State to set up child trafficking advocates. There is a change in the slavery offence so that the court may have regard to the alleged victim’s personal circumstances, including age. A number of provisions in this amendment relate to Clause 1(4), which says that,

“regard may be had to any of the person’s personal circumstances”.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, who has immense experience and awareness in this area, talked about personal circumstances. Clause 1(4) mentions,

“age, family relationships, and any mental or physical illness”.

However, it is not limited to those, as it also refers to those,

“which may make the person more vulnerable than other persons”.

In other words, there is a catch-all element to Clause 1(4), in that regard may be had to a much wider group of circumstances. That is one change that was brought forward.

This has all been as a result of the parliamentary process. We have also introduced a statutory defence for victims who have been forced into criminality. Reparation orders have been introduced, to ensure that victims are properly compensated, and the Secretary of State is required to issue guidance to front-line professionals on identifying and supporting victims. Changes have been made to broaden the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner’s remit specifically to include the identification of victims. Changes have been made all the way through, and there will be more changes. I shall not anticipate the details before your Lordships’ House reaches that point, but we have tabled government amendments, which will be debated in the next group, that seek to strengthen that element further.

In addition the strategy, as part of our response for victims, focuses on four elements: pursue, prevent, protect and prepare. The protect element is very important and has victims very much at its heart. We are also currently considering the review of the national referral mechanism for victims of human trafficking, which was published a few weeks ago. We are working our way through it, but one of the things that the review is considering is where victims’ interests lie and how we can strengthen their position.

I am struck by a few statistics that lie at the heart of this matter. The Modern Slavery Strategy sets out that in 2013 there were 226 convictions. However, the scale of the problem is much greater than that. Professor Bernard Silverman, the chief scientific adviser at the Home Office, estimates that the number of victims is more like 10,000 to 13,000. The scale is very wide, yet the number of prosecutions is very low in comparison. Through the anti-slavery commissioner, and all that we do, we are focusing on the victims, including by ensuring that the evil perpetrators of this crime are brought to justice and that the sentences available to the courts are increased from 14 years to life imprisonment. That is all directed towards that end.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will respond to the precise technical questions about his amendment that have been so ably asked by my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, and others. Although we remain open, as we always have been, to ways in which we can strengthen protection for victims, I would not want to let this moment pass without pointing out that it would be wrong to think that without this amendment there would not be, running right through the core of the legislation, a belief that victims deserve the absolute protection of the Government.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for his response. Having heard what he said, I am not quite sure what the difference between us is. The thrust of his answer appeared to be that the Government believe that giving support and protection to victims, and taking account of their best interests and their personal circumstances, are already covered in the Bill, in different clauses. Clearly, that view was not shared in the debate at Second Reading, because a number of noble Lords expressed their concern that the Bill appears to be geared too much towards the important issue, which no one denies, of trying to bring more of the perpetrators to justice and does not reflect the issue of providing support and protection for victims.

I repeat the point I made in moving the amendment: if we do not take steps to provide some support and protection for victims and recognise that we have to take account of their best interests and personal circumstances, we will find that they will not come forward to give the evidence that is needed in order to secure successful prosecutions. Once again, a number of noble Lords made that point at Second Reading. I do not see these as two separate issues: one of prosecuting the perpetrators and the other of giving support to victims to make sure that they feel able, willing and encouraged to give the evidence necessary to bring the perpetrators to justice. We have all spoken about the lack of prosecutions and some of the reasons why that has happened.

The purpose of the amendment is an attempt to address some of the concerns that were expressed at Second Reading, and I take very much on board what the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, said about it setting the tone. I think that this amendment does seek to set the tone that if we are to have a successful Modern Slavery Bill which delivers on the objective of bringing perpetrators to justice, to which the Minister referred, we need to take a long, hard look at what we are doing for victims to encourage them to come forward and give evidence.

A number of comments have been made about the wording of the amendment. I do not wish to maintain that it is perfect; I am not a lawyer, and I am sure that it could be improved. But what I am not clear about is whether, from the Government’s point of view, the issue is that they do not like the wording of the amendment or that they do not like its basic objective, which is to raise the profile in the Bill of the importance of the approach to the victim. Once again, that is a point which was made by a number of speakers at Second Reading.

Frankly, in that sense I am disappointed with the Minister’s reply. If we could reach agreement that a clause along the lines set out in the amendment is needed and desirable, I for one would certainly not argue that it should be worded exactly as I have it here. I recognise from the comments which have been made that the proposed new clause could be improved or changed. If there was some general accord that we want an amendment along the lines of the objective of raising the profile of the victim for the reasons I have mentioned, then for me the wording is certainly not an important issue.

I accept, for example, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk. It is a valid one, not least because I cannot explain why the word “and” is used in one case and “or” in another. As I say, I am not concerned about defending to the death the actual wording of the proposed new clause. What I would like to see is some understanding that, with the assistance of the Government and of many noble Lords who have spoken, a clause could be produced that would receive wide support for both its wording and its objectives.

I am going to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, but perhaps I may say in conclusion that I think the Minister rather misunderstood what I was saying when I referred to things being made up on the hoof. I was referring to the comments made by the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales during the course of her contribution. She said that it was almost as though the physical, emotional and practical impact on those affected by the terrible crime of modern slavery has been forgotten in the drive to bring the perpetrators to justice.

The Minister’s response was quite rightly to compliment the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, on the work she does as Victims’ Commissioner, but he then said that the newly appointed commissioner should address it and make recommendations. I may be wrong, but I did not get the impression that the Victims’ Commissioner was aware that she was going to be involved in addressing that and making recommendations. She made no reference to it in her contribution.

It was the part about the Victims’ Commissioner making recommendations which I felt was being made up on the hoof. It was not an adverse comment about the content of the Bill; I know that it certainly was not made up on the hoof. An awful lot of thought and care has been given to it, but there are areas—and I do not think I am the only one of this view—where it could be improved, one of which is the subject of this amendment. I am disappointed that the Minister has not felt able to make any move, not even to hold further discussions to see if a wording could be found that the Government would feel able to accept—but I note his reply and can only beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

Following on from what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, said, might it be sensible to look at a further amendment on Report that does not involve the various issues pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and the noble Lord, Lord Quirk? Could there be a short general clause about the purpose of the Bill being to look after the best interests of victims? The Minister has said that the best interests of the victims come into each of the clauses, but a very short clause of two sentences might perhaps set out the primary purpose of the Bill. Indeed, the Home Secretary has mentioned the victim focus in her introduction. I wonder whether that might be a way out of all the points we have been making.

[Lord Rosser]

I am more than happy to consider that. I think I have made clear that I am not going to any barricades over the wording of the amendment. It is more about trying to achieve an objective that, in my view and that of many others, improves the Bill for victims. I take on board the point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. Would the Minister be prepared to have discussions which include all those who have spoken in this debate—if they wish to take part—on getting some wording into the Bill that might satisfy the Government as well as the other parties? I realise that the Government have their interests and reasons for taking the stance that they have, but the objective of us all is to improve a Bill which we all support and which we are not voting against.

[Lord Bates]

All the way through this, we have tried to listen very carefully to suggestions as to how the Bill can be refined in the way that we all want to go. Our starting point was very much one that we all recognised—that implicit in every strand, clause and subsection of the Bill is the victim’s interest—and that is repeated in the strategy. Whether there is a form of words that could be inserted which would answer the questions that are being asked here—simply to have a very clear statement—is something that we could look at. I am very happy to have a meeting between now and Report with the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and other interested Peers to examine that.

[Lord Rosser]

I am very grateful to the Minister for what he said, which is most helpful. I really appreciate that and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, the amendment introduces a new, separate child exploitation clause aimed at filling the gaps which, despite the Government’s amendments, still exist in the Bill. Clause 1 requires evidence of slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour. However, force or compulsion should not be required in the case of children because a child can be controlled far more easily than an adult, and in many cases without direct force or compulsion. That is one of the reasons why we need a separate child exploitation clause. Clause 2 does not require just evidence of trafficking; it also requires proof that the trafficking took place with a view to exploitation. Proving that somebody was trafficked is difficult enough, but proving that they were trafficked with a view to exploitation is almost impossible, and proving both in the case of children, who are moved at the behest of adults, sets the bar far too high for the CPS to be able to prosecute.

There are a number of circumstances in which children are being exploited that would not be deemed offences under the Bill: children who had not been trafficked but had been sent out to the streets by family members to beg or to steal; children used to make multiple claims for benefit; children brought in from baby farms overseas to be illegally adopted. I shall give two examples of what is actually happening. When I was serving on the Metropolitan Police Authority, the police went into a house and found a young girl of about 12 years of age who was looking after three children under six. She was working from dawn to dusk: cleaning, cooking, washing, ironing, looking after the children. The bed was a mat by the fire. She had never been to school. The police removed her from the house and took her to social services. However, social services brought her back to the same house the next day, saying that compared to some of the children that they had pulled out of crack joints, she was living in the lap of luxury. The only thing the police could prosecute for was the fact that she had not been to school and they could not home-school her. Once the aunt and uncle—so-called—had promised to send her to school, they basically got off scot free, because there was no way the police could prove that she had been trafficked with a view to being exploited.

In another case, a girl of 12 was sold by her mother in west Africa to a woman who brought her to London to exploit her in domestic servitude. After about a year the woman’s next door neighbour started to ask questions about the girl: where she had come from, what she was doing. The woman immediately sold her on to another man, who also exploited her in domestic servitude. When the police were finally contacted, they said that they could not prosecute this man because he had not trafficked the girl into the country.

If either of these cases of exploitation happens after the Bill becomes law the authorities would still be unable to prosecute, because they would be unable to prove the trafficking element required under Clause 2. I am not alone in believing that a separate child exploitation clause is essential. The Joint Committee on which I sat, which scrutinised the Bill, recommended such a clause. The 41 NGOs which form the Refugee Council’s consortium, including ECPAT, the NSPCC, UNICEF and the Children’s Society, believe that such a clause is necessary. Leading barristers whose daily work is to prosecute these cases, several of whom gave evidence to the Joint Committee, also believe that the clause is necessary. The amendment that I propose makes it an offence to exploit a child, but it also defines that exploitation using the exact words of article 2 of the EU directive on human trafficking, by which our courts are already bound.

This amendment makes explicit the fact that a child cannot consent to their own exploitation and it removes the need to prove any threat, coercion or deception. The Government have tabled an amendment that says that consent is irrelevant for the offences in Clause 1. That is very welcome because it brings Clause 1 into line with the trafficking offence in Clause 2. However, it does not change the fact that we still need a separate exploitation clause, because in many cases exploiting a child will simply not meet the threshold required for slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour.

I cannot say with any certainty how many children are being trafficked and/or exploited in the United Kingdom today—no one can, because our system of justice has failed properly to recognise that such offences exist, let alone to investigate how often they occur. That is a sadly familiar tale, as we have seen recently in the evidence from the Jay report into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham. We must take the opportunity afforded by this Bill to provide a legal framework which offers the very highest standards of protection to children, recognising, as we do in so much other legislation, that children need a higher standard of protection than adults and, sadly, sometimes a higher standard of protection from adults. We need a specific offence of child exploitation to tackle the deficiencies in the Bill. If we do not get it, we will fail the many hundreds, if not thousands, of children who are exploited in our country every day. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, we have Amendments 24 and 26 in this group, which have a very similar theme to that of the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey.

The recent report on child sexual exploitation in Rotherham shocked a great many people, not least due to the extent of the abuse that had taken place. Approximately 1,400 children were sexually exploited over the full inquiry period from 1997 through to 2013. Victims were raped by multiple perpetrators, trafficked to other towns and cities in the north of England, abducted, beaten and intimidated. This was against a background in May this year of the case load of the specialist child sexual exploitation team being 51.

Many victims were unable to recognise that they had been groomed and exploited, and some blamed themselves for not just their own abuse but for what happened to other victims. Although there have been a small number of prosecutions for offences against individual children, many children refused to give evidence or withdrew statements as a direct result of threats, intimidation and assaults against them or their families. We have had similar cases in Oxford and Rochdale that the authorities concerned did not appear to pick up, perhaps because of a lack of awareness of the offence of child exploitation. That is a reason for wanting to see the specific offence of child exploitation as well as the offence of child trafficking included in the Bill.

Around a third of all known victims of modern slavery in the United Kingdom are children and the number is growing, not least because they are being specifically targeted due to their age and vulnerability. Yet according to Crown Prosecution Service data, there have been no cases where the victim was a child at the time of the prosecution since the introduction of Section 71 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 on slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour. The significance of this point is that the Section 71 offence appears to have been transposed into Clause 1 of the Modern Slavery Bill.

The Joint Committee on the Modern Slavery Bill recommended that an offence of child exploitation should be included in the Bill to make clear that child exploitation is even more serious than that of an adult and that consent elements can never be an issue for children. The Sexual Offences Act, for example, already accepts the principle of separate and more serious offences against those under 18. This Bill as it stands does not contain any explicit criminal offence of child exploitation. Our amendments make clear that children do not have the legal capacity to consent to any form of exploitation as recognised in international law and would increase the likelihood that many more of those who traffic, exploit and abuse children would be brought before the courts.

As has been said, children are also at a disadvantage when it comes to providing evidence since they do not usually understand that they have been trafficked or even understand what it means, let alone be aware of what kind of evidence is needed to pursue a prosecution in relation to being trafficked to a location or situation of exploitation. That will be particularly likely if parents or others close to the children concerned have been involved in the trafficking, with the result that while a child may be able to say what happened when they were exploited—through, for example, domestic servitude or prostitution—they are much less likely to be able to help in terms of the perpetrators of a trafficking offence.

It has already been said that since movement or travel is a key component of exploitation, the reality that children are often unable to explain who brought them to a particular house or location where they have been exploited—our amendments include examples of the many different forms of child exploitation—means that no prosecution happens.

Creating separate offences of child exploitation and child trafficking will help to overcome the significant and crucial problem in respect of children and help to achieve the objectives of the Bill, which are to reduce the incidence of modern slavery in its different forms and bring more perpetrators to justice. The separate offence of child trafficking will ensure that those involved in this equally awful activity can be brought to justice for this offence as well as for exploitation.

Modern Slavery Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has undoubtedly drawn attention, as he did at Second Reading, to the abuse of people who are under tied visa arrangements. We await with interest the Government’s response to the points that he has made. We are associated with Amendment 94, which will be debated much later, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has added his name, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, as well as my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon. The amendment seeks to insert a new clause entitled “Protection from slavery for overseas domestic workers”, which would enable such workers to change their employment and not remain under the tied visa arrangements. That is the goal that we, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and others, seek to achieve. Amendment 94 will be debated later. For the moment, we await the Government’s response to the two amendments to which the noble Lord has spoken.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I would very much like to support my noble friend Lord Hylton, and I follow the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in his support for Amendments 28 and 95. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has rightly reminded us that when we get to Amendment 94 there will be a chance to have a wider debate about the whole question of the overseas domestic worker visa.

Many of us would say that the subject of denying someone the right to go to an employment tribunal—that is what my noble friend’s Amendment 28 specifically deals with—is a sort of curtain-raiser to the debate that will come later. Enabling migrant domestic workers to change employer, to apply to renew their visa annually if in full-time employment, and to have the right to go to an employment tribunal, would be a significant step towards preventing abuses against migrant domestic workers, including forced labour for their employers, and would enable them to seek redress without fearing deportation from the United Kingdom.

My noble friend Lord Hylton has a long and honourable record of raising this question for all the years that I have been in your Lordships’ House, so it comes as no surprise to me that he has tabled these amendments. He is not, of course, alone in raising this question. Amnesty International UK, the Anti Trafficking and Labour Exploitation Unit, the Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group, Human Rights Watch, the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, Kalayaan and Liberty are among those who support moves in this direction.

Evidence since the introduction of the tied ODW visa in 2012 demonstrates how the current tied visa system facilitates the abuse of migrant domestic workers in the UK and therefore undermines the objectives of this timely and very welcome Bill and the Government’s efforts to fight modern slavery. Because of its deleterious effects, the 2012 decision, whether it was made wittingly or otherwise, is something we need to return to in the course of our deliberations, to see what we can do about it.

The Joint Committee on the draft Modern Slavery Bill identified the 2012 policy as having,

“unintentionally strengthened the hand of the slave master against the victim of slavery”,

and said:

“Tying migrant domestic workers to their employer institutionalises their abuse”.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights reported that it,

“regards the removal of the right of an Overseas Domestic Worker to change employer as a backward step in the protection of migrant domestic workers, particularly as the pre-2012 regime had been cited internationally as good practice, and recommends that the Bill be amended to reverse the relevant changes to the Immigration Rules and to reinstate the pre-2012 protections in the Bill”.

We have heard a great deal already today about the importance of having what my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss described earlier as flagship legislation. I know that it is the Government’s wish that this should be seen as an international gold standard piece of legislation that others will be able to imitate, and that they hope it would be capable of implementation worldwide. But that is in doubt unless we put right this defect that was incorporated into our legislation. I recognise that it may not be possible to do that today, but I hope that when the noble Baroness replies to the debate she will indicate to my noble friend that we will continue to discuss this issue to see what we can do to remedy something that was done in 2012 and has, wittingly or unwittingly, brought about these consequences. One of those consequences is, as is highlighted in Amendment 28, that people are prevented from having access to employment tribunals.

Modern Slavery Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, our amendment is not as precise in the changes it proposes as the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich. Our amendment provides for the Secretary of State to,

“undertake a review of the links between prostitution and human trafficking and sexual exploitation in England and Wales”,

and sets out the issues that must be considered in that review; namely,

“the extent to which the current legislation governing prostitution in England and Wales acts as an effective deterrent to demand for sexual services from exploited persons … the extent to which the current legislation governing prostitution in England and Wales enables effective enforcement action against those trafficking people for sexual exploitation; and … the extent to which alternative legal frameworks for governing prostitution adopted by other countries within the European Union, including Northern Ireland, have been effective at reducing sexual exploitation and the number of people trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation”.

Delving into the world of buying and selling sex reveals a complex web of abuse, control, money and power. Last year the Home Office estimated that the trade in the human trafficking of women to be sexually exploited in the United Kingdom was worth at least £130 million. One example was of a woman who came to our country from Uganda to get away from her abusive husband. She was told by a friend that he could find her a job in a catering company. When she arrived, however, she was driven to a house in Manchester, locked in a room, raped, beaten and forced into prostitution. After a few months, she managed to escape.

It has been estimated by the Home Office that 80,000 people in the UK, mainly women and girls, are involved in prostitution. The reality is that there are thousands of women in our country who are living in sexual slavery. They get there by different routes—pimped by people they know or trafficked by organised gangs—and many are extremely vulnerable, having been abused in the past. As the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, said, a report published last summer by the Serious Organised Crime Agency showed that sexual exploitation was the most likely type of exploitation for people trafficked into England and Wales. There is growing evidence that many of those in prostitution began to be involved in this work before they were 18 and Home Office research has revealed that approximately 50% of women in prostitution became involved before reaching that age.

The physical and psychological consequences for those exploited through prostitution can be severe. The Journal of Trauma Practice found that once they have become embroiled in the trade, nine out of 10 women report wanting to exit but feel unable to so do. They do not know where to get support or do not believe that other work is available to them. The Home Office’s own figures suggest that more than half of the women involved in prostitution have been victims of rape or sexual assault.

We need to look at how countries elsewhere may have reformed their laws to protect women, developed effective exit strategies, reduced the number of people trafficked for sexual exploitation, reduced violence and reduced the market for buying sex, which traffickers and pimps exploit and from which they profit, as we know. That is why we have put forward this amendment to require the Government to carry out a detailed review, with the ultimate objective of seeking measures to keep more women safe.

Of course, we should not make changes without fully understanding the impact they might have. There are differing views on possible courses of action, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, would accept. We need to be sure that any changes will not push women into even more vulnerable and dangerous situations, and we need to consult and seek a wide range of views. However, we surely cannot continue as we are. This amendment, with the provision for a review of the links between prostitution, human trafficking and sexual exploitation, seeks to provide a considered and appropriate way forward. I hope it will find favour with the Government.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I waited until I had heard the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, before expressing any views on these amendments. I entirely understand the admirable motivation behind the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, but one has to bear in mind that prostitution is one of the oldest trades over hundreds of years, if not thousands.

Something somewhat similar was proposed in the other place by Fiona Mactaggart MP. I certainly received a large number of e-mails about it from the various associations of women prostitutes. They were very much opposed to the sort of legislation which has now come before this House, although I understand that it is not exactly the same as that which was proposed by Fiona Mactaggart. Having said that, there is undoubtedly a real problem, because some of those who are prostitutes are certainly trafficked.

I recall going to a small town in Holland where, as noble Lords will know, prostitution is legal. I saw women sitting in the windows in what was quite a small town. The curtains were open if they were not working, and they were all on their mobiles talking to the pimps. There is no doubt at all, from what the local mayor told me when he took me round, that he knew that a large proportion of these women were actually trafficked, although they could not tell him that and they were all registered for business purposes, if you can believe that. He arranged for his staff to ask them whether they had come as victims of trafficking, but none of them would say so because they could not afford to do so.

There is a very major problem in this country, as well as in Holland and in other countries. I strongly support the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. The time has come to look at prostitution right across the board, but particularly at its impact on women who come into this country—or are already in this country—who are in fact the victims of slavery, and who are not doing this work voluntarily.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hylton]

My Lords, I foresee that the Government may say that my noble friend’s Amendment 32 is too prescriptive, and that Amendment 33, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, is only consultative. I hope that they will not dismiss both of them on those kinds of grounds. It would be very helpful if they said to what extent they accept the principle behind them. While doing so, perhaps they could also say how the present law on criminal compensation could interact with these ideas.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I will be brief in view of the time. It is vital that those who profit from modern slavery crime should know that their ill gotten gains can and will be confiscated, by extending Schedule 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to these serious offences. However, my noble friend Lord Warner has made the case for his amendment, with which I am associated, and for the consultation on a number of questions for which it provides, in the light of the weaknesses in the present arrangements. I will not go into those weaknesses; they were highlighted by my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon during the debates on the Serious Crime Bill.

Victims of modern slavery should be compensated, but, as my noble friend Lord Warner said, money cannot go to victims if we are not recovering it from the perpetrators of the crimes. We need to strengthen and improve the present legal framework on the recovery of assets and the use of property derived from the proceeds of these crimes. This amendment, with which I am associated, provides for a consultation by the Secretary of State to do just this. I hope that the Government will feel able to give a favourable response.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I am grateful for the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and grouped with the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Warner. In many ways it might be easier if I sum up by taking the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, first, because it feeds into the principle of—if you like—the hopper, which then comes down to the general fund, which is the subject of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton.

I shall touch on a few things on the way through. The scale of the proceeds gained through this is widely acknowledged: the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, mentioned a figure she found on page 38 of the strategy document that we put out. We used a figure from the ILO, which estimates the global proceeds from this activity at about $150 billion. That equates to something like $34,800 per victim. So the amounts concerned—as we have heard all the way through—are very sizeable, and that is the underlying reason why organised criminals are moving increasingly towards the trafficking of human beings, rather than the drugs, guns and other weapons that we have seen in the past. It is because it is lucrative.

That is why we are absolutely determined that their financial resources—there is a financial motivation—ought to be the target of our activities. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee mentioned, this debate reflects a significant debate that we had on the Serious Crime Bill, where we talked about the process for doing this and inserted a legal test for obtaining such an order to be reasonable cause to believe that the alleged offender has benefited from his criminal conduct. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, was good enough to recognise that that was a step forward. There was a general feeling that if one applied for the restraint order or the freeze early in the proceedings, that could in some cases alert the perpetrators to the fact that there was an imminent investigation, and perhaps arrests, and that some of the jointly held assets might cause that to happen. That is not to say that this is our final position but it is something that we looked at very carefully before coming up with the current proposal.

The recovery regime, which has been strengthened in the Serious Crime Bill—your Lordships’ amendments to which are currently under consideration in another place—is aimed very much at increasing the resources recovered from organised crime. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked about the amount of funds that had been recovered. I think that in the order of £746 million worth of criminal assets have been seized across all four means of recovery, which is a record amount. We expect that to increase.

Noble Lords may also be interested to note that paragraph 4.32 of the strategy document states:

“Over £2 million has been recovered from slave drivers and traffickers in the past four years”.

Compared with the amount which has been earned, that is a pitiful and woefully low sum, and is why this legislation is before us to strengthen the law and to ensure that more assets are recovered. How is that to be done? I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Warner, was at the Home Office when the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 was going through.

Modern Slavery Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I extend my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Cashman and the noble Baronesses, Lady Chisholm of Owlpen and Lady Mobarik, on their very different but equally powerful and thoughtful maiden speeches. I, too, hope they will continue to give us the benefit of their knowledge and expertise in other debates in the future. I will not be able to match the expertise and power of so many of the contributions we have been privileged to hear today but I hope that that will not be taken as indicating a lack of understanding or appreciation on my part of either the importance or the awfulness of the issue we have been considering for the past few hours.

I know that the Government are endeavouring to raise awareness of modern slavery in the United Kingdom and to promote a new modern slavery helpline and website, and have allocated a budget of £2.3 million. What has surprised me, though, is that according to a recent Parliamentary Written Answer, the Government have paid £154,000 for sponsored online and print articles in the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday and have placed sponsored articles in the Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph at a cost of £125,000. This raises a number of questions but it would be inappropriate to pursue them today.

We have had a constructive, informed and, at times, passionate debate on a Bill that has support from all sides of the House. The concerns and differences of view that have been expressed relate not to the principles or objectives of the Bill but to whether it will achieve what it sets out to do and whether it should and could go further than it does in a number of areas, in addressing and combating the increasing scourge that is modern slavery, whether by human trafficking, slavery, forced labour or domestic servitude, and the horrors involved for its vulnerable victims.

Freedom from slavery is a fundamental human right; yet contrary to the popular view that we abolished slavery some two centuries ago, and contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, it continues to exist as a global issue, not just in other parts of the world—which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, reminded us, is bad enough—but also here on our very own doorstep. We have had spelt out to us during this debate specific and detailed examples of abuse, exploitation and denial of fundamental human rights. It is difficult to comprehend that these can occur to a sustained and far-from-isolated extent in a highly developed and democratic society such as ours that values individual freedoms and rights and the rule of law.

It is not so much the fact that abhorrent episodes of this kind can occur at all that is difficult to comprehend, since there have always been individuals for whom the prospect of abusing, exploiting and exercising unchecked power over others—particularly when allied to the ability to make considerable sums of money in the process—means that every concept of humanity and decency can be ignored and thrown out of the window. Rather, the aspect that shakes one to the core is the fact that the episodes we have heard about today, which are but examples, have gone on for so long, and involved so many victims, without either being known about or detected; or, if there were warning signs or claims that something was seriously amiss, these were not taken seriously or properly investigated by those in a position—or, indeed, whose job it was—to do just that. It has been a case too often of closing eyes or crossing over and walking by on the other side of the road.

The Bill is not the first legislation on this issue, as my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe reminded us. Criminalising trafficking was included in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the Asylum and Immigration Act 2004. The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 then saw the introduction of offences of forced labour, slavery and servitude, recognising that slavery is not just about international forced travel. That same year also saw the introduction of the national referral mechanism as the means to identify victims of human trafficking in the United Kingdom, act as a gateway to victim support services and be a source of data on the extent of trafficking.

The intention of the Bill, among other things, is to make it easier to prosecute those involved in the crime that is modern-day slavery through consolidating and strengthening the law. Let us hope that when the Bill finally leaves this House and becomes law, its terms will enable that objective to be achieved, because the number of prosecutions to date for trafficking offences has not exactly been overwhelming, running now at way below 50 each year, with the number of successful prosecutions each year being even lower and not always even into double figures. In 2012, however, the UK Human Trafficking Centre—part of the National Crime Agency—identified 2,255 human trafficking victims, many of them children. Even the Home Office internal process, which is the national referral system—about which there is little transparency and from which there is no appeal against decisions taken by competent authorities on whether a person is a victim—identified more than 1,000 victims. The contrast between even the national referral system figure for human trafficking victims, and the number of prosecutions—let alone successful prosecutions—should be a cause for concern before we even start to consider the very large discrepancy between the UK Human Trafficking Centre figure and that from the national referral mechanism.

We need to look at what we do to support victims, and make sure that an actual or perceived lack of support, and an actual or perceived inability by the authorities and organisations concerned to work together to understand and identify abuse and exploitation do not lead victims to feel that they have little alternative but to keep quiet and accept their lot. That is an issue about the people involved and the training they receive, and also about the way the different authorities and organisations involved with victims do or do not operate and work together to focus on them as victims. I appreciate that there is a review, but we need to look at the status, standing and role of the national referral mechanism, particularly in relation to victims, and the case for putting it on a statutory footing to enhance its authority.

A number of references have been made during this debate to the proposed Anti-slavery Commissioner and the role and powers of the position. The role of the commissioner under the Bill is to encourage good practice in the identification of victims and enforcement, which is fine, but not to also have an emphasis on providing support for victims either directly or indirectly, which is not so fine. There is also the question of the independence, or lack of it, of the commissioner.

Some 25% of the victims of human trafficking identified in 2012 were children. Too often, as with adults, they seem to be regarded as immigration cases rather than trafficking victims. Of those who are rescued by the authorities and put into care, two- thirds go missing again from a system that was intended to protect them; no doubt they end up back with the only people they probably know, namely those involved in trafficking and exploiting them in the first place. We welcome the first moves towards the introduction of a system of child advocates, but will want to ensure that such an arrangement will be as strong as it needs to be. Trafficked children are not just abused; they can be led to believe that the trafficker, who may be the only adult with whom they are acquainted and who speaks their language, is their friend or relation, and end up saying and doing what the trafficker wants. We need to ensure that child advocates have the necessary authority and can act independently of local authorities in addition to acting in the best interests of the child. We also need separate offences of child exploitation and child trafficking.

Some of the worst cases of slavery that have occurred during the past two or three decades have had as their victims people who have come to the United Kingdom as a domestic employee of an international employer. We introduced the domestic workers visa, which gave an opportunity to people to get out of slavery and go to work for another employer. The Government effectively abolished those visas. Research undertaken by a charity closely involved in this area indicates that, since those visas were significantly changed, 60% of those on the new domestic workers visa, which does not allow such domestic workers to escape to another employer, were paid no salary compared with 14% on the original visa. The same research also showed that 92% of those on the Government’s new visa were unable to leave the house unaccompanied, which sounds suspiciously like slavery. Those who escape under the new visa system, which ties them to their employer, have the choice of either going back to their employer or being deported. Under the previous visa arrangements, they could have been helped to find other work.

This is not the only area that needs to be addressed in the world of work. The Gangmasters Licensing Authority has made a significant difference in preventing the exploitation of workers but only in the limited areas in which it could exert its influence and use its powers. We should look at building on the work of Gangmasters Licensing Authority by considering how that work might be extended to cover exploitation in hospitality, care and construction, as well as looking at how the law on exploitation in the workplace can be strengthened.

We recently had a short debate in this House on the importance of tackling modern slavery and the supply chains of the goods we buy that are imported from other countries from around the world. It was a debate initiated by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley. There was no reference to this issue in the Bill when it was first published, and the debate that we had in this House drew attention to that unfortunate fact. The Government subsequently put down an amendment in the last stages of the Bill’s progression through the other place. We will want to discuss that amendment during its passage through this House, since there appear to be doubts—doubts that have been expressed today—as to whether the amendment will necessarily deliver what it says on the tin.

My noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe set out the issues that we will wish to pursue and consider in more detail in Committee, and I have referred to many of them again. The Government produced a draft Bill and we have also had the benefit of pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill by a Joint Committee which included Members of your Lordships’ House. I add my thanks to those already expressed to the members of that committee.

The Government accepted some of the changes proposed in the light of the pre-legislative scrutiny but not as many as one might have hoped. It is now a case not of opposing a Bill whose aims and objectives have been widely welcomed but, rather, trying to improve it further. It is right that our legislation should be strengthened to recognise the different forms of human trafficking and slavery and make it possible to prosecute those who enslave, abuse and exploit. It is right that penalties should be increased with the Bill, enabling trafficking offences to be given the maximum of a life sentence as well as making provisions in relation to asset seizures and reparation orders. It is right also to establish an Anti-slavery Commissioner to provide a statutory defence for victims, to lay down a duty to notify the National Crime Agency and to have undertaken work on prevention and risk orders.

However, the Bill needs to be carefully considered and improved to ensure that its terms and provisions deliver its stated objective. We need to be clear about the specific factors and considerations that allow modern slavery in its various forms to exist and expand in our country, and about whether the specific provisions in the Bill will effectively confront and eliminate or minimise those factors and considerations, as well as the difficulties over securing successful prosecutions for trafficking. It is clear from the concerns that have been expressed today, not least over support and assistance for victims, that there are real doubts that the Bill, despite its admirable intentions, will actually deliver those important objectives. This, rather than ministerial assertions about world-class legislation, will surely be the test by which the effectiveness or otherwise of the Bill will be judged, including by the victims of modern slavery themselves.

I hope that the Government will accept during further consideration of the Bill, that we should all strive to ensure that the obscenity of slavery—which in its most open and obvious forms was addressed some 200 years ago—is now decisively addressed in the Bill in the more hidden and less obvious but equally obscene forms in which it still exists in our country and in our supply chains today.

Slavery

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I join the procession and extend my congratulations to my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley on securing this debate on an issue of real concern affecting the lives of many millions of vulnerable people and involving the approach to corporate responsibility and corporate accountability, both nationally and internationally.

As has been said, the Government announced earlier this month that a measure to address modern slavery in the supply chain would be included in the Modern Slavery Bill. Surprisingly, it had been omitted when the Bill was first published, even though the legislation cannot be complete or fully effective without addressing the supply chain question. The Bill is due to receive its Second Reading in this House on 17 November. According to the Government, the new measure will require big businesses to state publicly each year what action they have taken to ensure that their supply chains are slavery-free, and will apply regardless of the nature of the company or what it supplies, whether goods or services. Perhaps the Minister could say in what form and where this disclosure will be required to be given each year, and confirm who in a company would be deemed to be responsible and accountable for its content—that point has been raised already.

The Government have also said that a consultation will be held to set the exact threshold for the size of the business to be covered, and that statutory guidance will be produced setting out the kind of information that might be disclosed to help companies comply. Perhaps the Minister could say whether the Government will be making available a list of companies that would be required to report each year under the terms of the new measure they have announced, and how easy or otherwise the Government intend to make it for interested parties and individuals to obtain details of the information disclosed, in the light of their commitment to deliver greater transparency to enable customers, campaigners and shareholders to hold all big business to account.

A recent report that has clearly had an impact with its findings is one from the Salvation Army containing data gathered during the third year of its contract with the Government for managing the delivery of specialist support services to adult victims of human trafficking identified in England and Wales. The report indicates that more than 1,800 people were supported by the Salvation Army and its partners between July 2011 and June 2014. In the third year, there was a 62% increase on the number of people supported in the second year of the contract, and a 135% increase on the number of those supported in the first year. Most people referred to the Salvation Army had been subjected to labour exploitation; the number of people recovering from labour exploitation has overtaken those being supported after sexual exploitation, with the growth being at a faster rate for the first time.

Forced labour and slavery are big business. As my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley said—and others have also mentioned it—the International Labour Organization estimates the illicit profit at $150 billion a year. Perhaps not surprisingly, where big money and big profits can be made, voluntary measures have proved inadequate for tackling the scale of modern slavery in our supply chains, and avoiding a race to the bottom in labour standards and respect for human rights.

More specifically, we have heard about cheap clothing being produced in Bangladesh through forced labour or servitude, and read the reports in the Guardian newspaper recently about the issue of the prawn fishermen. We have also been reminded in our debate today by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby and by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that exploitation of vulnerable people occurs in our own country as well.

The NHS spends in excess of £40 billion a year on the procurement of goods and services, with the supply chains providing these commodities being global and employing hundreds of thousands of people worldwide. The British Medical Association has drawn attention to a growing body of evidence that, in some areas, the basic employment rights of people in these supply chains are being disregarded through low pay, long and illegal working hours, little job security, risk of serious injury from machinery, and the use of child labour. The BMA has commented that there was an uncomfortable paradox in providing healthcare in the NHS at the expense of workers’ health in its supply chains.

Responsible large companies have called for legislation to address the issue of modern slavery in the supply chains in order to eliminate unfair competition and create a level playing field. The British Retail Consortium and the Ethical Trading Initiative—which I think has some 80 corporate members—have expressed their support alongside the Trades Union Congress. Clearly, the effectiveness of what the Government are now proposing will be influenced by where the threshold for the size of businesses to be covered is set. One proposition put forward by a conglomerate of organisations that has been campaigning on this issue, is that the provisions should cover all companies operating in the UK with worldwide gross receipts of more than £60 million. My noble friend Lord Young of Norwood Green queried whether this was in fact the appropriate level.

The effectiveness of the Government’s proposals will also depend on what the statutory guidelines say about the information that should be disclosed. The Government have said that their proposals will have similarities to the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act, but we do not yet know how specific the Government will be in respect of the disclosure requirements.

It has been suggested by organisations campaigning on this issue that company disclosure should include at a minimum how risks have been identified through the supply chain; who has been involved in the identification of such risks; what action has been taken once risks have been identified, and the steps taken to address modern slavery if it is identified. Perhaps the Minister could say in his response whether that sort of proposition would be in line with government thinking.

While it is certainly true that legislation and disclosure alone will not eliminate modern slavery in supply chains, and that there is a need to persuade, encourage and help businesses take action in this area, there is also the issue—not least in the interests of those companies which deliver on their responsibilities—of what happens if a company does not provide appropriate information within a laid down timescale, or does so in a form that is vague and largely meaningless or provides information which is subsequently shown to be incorrect or misleading. However, as well as requiring companies to act there is also an issue over how easy or straightforward it is for UK companies to inspect their suppliers. Help and active encouragement may be needed in this direction. Some companies have said that it is sometimes cheaper to have Fairtrade-certified products, because that reduces their costs and the level of resources needed, than try to investigate suppliers miles away in other parts of the world.

Any proposals must cover both public and private companies, which I understand the Government’s amendment to the Bill does. Of course, there is still the issue of the size of the companies covered. Secondly, the legislation, in requiring companies to report on their efforts to eradicate slavery, needs to be specific about what information must be provided to ensure that it is possible to compare properly the performance in this area of one company against another and, through that kind of transparency, assist the position of the consumer in knowing to which company to go to purchase a particular product or service. Surely that must be part of the transparency. If this is not the case then it will make pretty meaningless the Government’s statement that,

“greater transparency will give customers, campaigners and shareholders the information they need to hold all big business to account while also supporting companies to do the right thing”.

Finally we will also want to see that there is a clear way of enforcing the regulations that will give effect to the legislation. Non-existent or weak enforcement is an invitation for some companies to get round the requirement that will be laid upon them and will defeat the objective of providing a level playing field and not leaving those companies that either have addressed slavery in their supply chains or are taking steps to do so at a disadvantage. The measure proposed will presumably apply to a significant number of firms. so even establishing that firms produced the required report will be a major exercise, let alone checking the quality of the report, including whether it meets the guidelines and is objective—for example, reporting not only successes but also on the areas where further action was required. Will the Minister at least outline what the Government’s intentions are in this regard?

We welcome the fact that the Government have decided to address the omission in their Modern Slavery Bill in respect of supply chains. We wait to see the detail of the proposals and the extent to which they are likely to make a genuine difference to working conditions in supply chains in the light of the Government’s statement, with which we agree, that modern slavery is a terrible crime.

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

My Lords, I begin on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. We entirely agree that modern slavery is a terrible crime. Indeed, that is underscored in the title of the Minister for Modern Slavery and Organised Crime. We see the connection between the two.

This morning, I began my day at the National Crime Agency, where I was told how organised crime in human trafficking is now in many ways overtaking trafficking in illicit drugs because criminals see that we are getting more effective in tackling drug culture and therefore they are turning to people. It seems incredible in the modern age that that is so, but it underscores the fact that criminals treat these people like commodities or chattels. That is why the term “slavery” is absolutely appropriate.

I join all noble Lords in paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, for securing this debate and also for the way in which she introduced it and covered all the broad range of points. In fact, the contributions have been of an incredibly high standard. There were a lot of questions and I have about 10 minutes in which to do my best to try and address some of them.

I should perhaps start by trying to place this in some sort of context. There is the amendment, and I accept that that is what the legislative process is about. We have pre-legislative scrutiny, which helps to shape the Bill, but we also have engagement with NGOs. We have round-table discussions, in which the Home Secretary is taking part, and we listen to business and to the NGOs, and we feed in various ideas. We then came forward with the proposed amendment on supply chains, which was tabled yesterday. It is to be debated and formally moved on Report on Tuesday in the other place. I know that I was invited to discuss a lot of the detail about what the amendment will do and the effect it will have, and of course your Lordships will have the opportunity to consider this. However, in order to observe correct practices within the department, my colleague Karen Bradley should be allowed to set out these issues in detail in the other place on Tuesday. We can then debate this when the Bill comes here on Second Reading.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, referred to the importance of leadership. That is absolutely vital in this regard. During her speech, I reflected on undertaking my MBA dissertation in China many years ago, looking at supply chains for—I had better be careful—what I will only say was a major international footwear manufacturer, and seeing the conditions that people were put under. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, to whom I pay tribute for his work with the Ethical Trading Initiative, also brought home to me how, because of the increased demands from consumers for more intricate designs in their footwear and a lack of investment in appropriate equipment to do this, these young girls—and it was mostly young girls in those factories—were suffering horrendous injuries in trying to fulfil the demands of western consumers. Consumers therefore need to see themselves as very much in the frame here. This is something which we all need to address, and on which we all need to exercise judgment and leadership.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee referred to the scale of the problem, and her description of profits as being generated on the backs of these people was a very apt depiction of what we are looking at here.

The determination is there to take action. The amendment is of course one part of the Modern Slavery Bill, which is one part of the whole picture. The Minister for Modern Slavery and Organised Crime is another part. The National Crime Agency, which looks at organised crime and gang-related issues, is another part. The Serious Crime Bill, which we are considering and to which the noble Baroness referred, is looking at disrupting this evil trade with gang prevention orders and a range of other sanctions. That is another part, and there will be yet other parts required. There will be a modern slavery strategy, which will be brought before your Lordships during the passage of the Modern Slavery Bill through this House. We expect that to arrive with us before Committee stage, so that noble Lords will have an opportunity to look at it. That is another part of it.

I pay tribute to the previous Government for introducing the Gangmasters Licensing Authority and the work which it has done. We are moving it from Defra into the Home Office as part of this overall initiative, and I think that was touched upon by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby. We want to see that happen. However, I think it was absolutely right for the scale to be focused on.

The noble Baroness, Lady Cox—I want to call her my noble friend—has done so much in this area internationally in speaking up for those people. She summed it up perfectly when she talked about the clothes your wear, the phone in your pocket and the food on your plate. This touches every part of our daily lives. We need to think about the hands that prepare and make these things.

There needs to be activity on this issue not just in the Home Office but across government. Indeed, there are inter-departmental committees. However, we are talking about activity not just within this country—although the noble Baroness was right to point out that it is sometimes our fashion to take a great interest and almost a certain pleasure in telling people in other jurisdictions and other countries how they should behave without recognising that we have a very serious problem right under our noses in this country which we need to address. Figures presented to me this morning show that it is believed that nearly 3,000 people in this country fall into the category of slavery at the present time. We need to work on that.

The noble Baroness may be interested to know that, as part of a joint FCO-Home Office project in December last year, the NSPCC trained—many noble Lords referred to the need for training—UK and Nigerian officials better to identify trafficked children in Abuja, Nigeria, and repeated that training in Hanoi and Beijing. The Department for International Development also works in a number of ways which directly and indirectly help combat modern slavery. More specifically, DfID runs a Work in Freedom programme in partnership with the International Labour Organization to help girls and women in south Asia avoid being trafficked to work in the Middle East in domestic worker and garment manufacturing sectors. More than 100,000 girls will directly benefit from this project over five years. So it is part of a wider initiative.

A number of noble Lords referred to the public sector and were telling the private sector what it should be doing. Under the Companies Act, a requirement was introduced to include a statement on human rights in the annual report, which would of course need to be signed off by the directors, who carry the ultimate responsibility for standing by that report. The accuracy of that statement is every bit as important as the accuracy of the financial data which are in subsequent pages. Under an amendment which has been proposed and which will be debated, we will look at what form that statement should be in to make sure that it is clear that firms have given due cognizance and shown due diligence in sourcing materials as part of their trading.

Other noble Lords said that the Government themselves need to do more. Some specific, quite disturbing issues relating to the Department of Health were mentioned, including by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Young. The Department of Health and the NHS Supply Chain have developed a labour standards assurance system that encompasses issues of forced labour. This is used as a basis for auditing suppliers in categories of supply where the risk of labour standards abuses is assessed as being high. To date, this approach has been successfully applied to supply agreements covering surgical instruments and medical textiles, and it will be extended to cover other categories in the future as agreements are retendered. The Department of Health is working with the Ethical Trading Initiative and the British Medical Association to develop guidance. I understand that there are concerns in that area, but some steps are being taken.

I shall try to deal with one or two other points. On minimum requirements, which were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, the Modern Slavery Bill allows the Secretary of State to publish detailed guidance, on which we will consult widely. Disclosure must be published prominently on an organisation’s website and home page.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked where the California-style disclosure list sat in the Government’s thinking. We will be publishing guidance on the kinds of formation in the disclosure and will consult on these matters. We will consider the Californian requirement very carefully in this exercise, along with any other helpful examples. In conclusion, we will return to this issue many, many times in your Lordships’ House, and rightly so.

[Lord Rosser]

I ask the Minister—and I accept that in the time he has had it was not possible to respond to the numerous questions raised, and he has referred to the amendment coming up in the other place shortly—whether he is prepared to look at Hansard and the various questions that have been raised and, if he feels that he has not responded to some of them, whether he will write to noble Lords who have raised those questions, so that we have those replies ready for Second Reading in November?

[Lord Bates]

That is a very good suggestion. I was certainly intending to do that, and I will make sure we do it. It would also be helpful if noble Lords who take an interest in this area could meet me and the officials who will be working on the Bill to talk through the detail of it, ahead of Second Reading on, I think, 17 November. I would like to do that. We share a lot of common ground in trying to make this work, and once again I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for bringing it before us today.

Serious Crime Bill [HL]

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I gather from what has already been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that an understanding has been reached with the Minister on this amendment, which I hope we will be able to welcome when we hear from the Minister exactly what it is.

We are extremely concerned about the way that children and vulnerable adults have been badly let down, not least in recent high-profile cases. Although we support mandatory reporting in principle, we have concerns about the amendment, and in particular its potential unintended consequences, which may have the opposite effect to that desired.

The amendment states that all providers of regulated activities involving children or vulnerable adults will be required to report any suspicion of abuse to the appropriate local authority. That would potentially cover millions of people being required to report. But the amendment is not specific or clear about exactly who would and would not be covered; nor does it define abuse. The signs of actual or likely abuse can be obvious but potential indicators of abuse, such as becoming more withdrawn, may not be quite so obviously a consequence of abuse; therefore, it would not be obvious that it would be an offence not to report them.

Among regulated activity providers there will be big differences in the level of pastoral support expected. For schools and hospitals, most referrals will be about abuse conducted not at the school or hospital but at home. However, it is not clear that a swimming club, for example, would have the same level of pastoral responsibility in respect of potential abuse. In some cases, conduct should be reported to the police where it is a straightforward criminality issue: for example, if a swimming club or football club suspected one of its coaches of taking inappropriate photographs. In other cases, such as a school, where it is likely to be a safeguarding issue, the reporting would be to the local authority. I do not think that the amendment addresses or reflects those kinds of realities.

There is some evidence from outside the United Kingdom that suggests that a mandatory reporting requirement as broad in scope as that provided for in the amendment can lead to the child protection system being overwhelmed. With social services budgets here facing unprecedented cuts, that must be an issue of real concern. Some evidence from outside the UK indicates that people may play safe over reporting in order to protect themselves from a criminal liability for failing to report, with the consequence that resources are redirected to the investigation and assessment of the increased numbers of reports and away from detection and protection and meeting the needs of children at risk and of vulnerable adults.

That is not to suggest that the current system works as it should: for example, through ensuring that incidents or suspicions of child abuse or abuse of vulnerable adults in institutions such as care homes and boarding schools concerned to protect their reputation are reported and properly addressed. It is also clear that, as in some recent high-profile cases of child abuse, the issue has been one not of failure to report but of failure to act on those reports.

We will await the Government’s response, but while we favour and want to see the introduction of mandatory reporting, we do not believe that the way in which the amendment proposes to do it is the right approach, for the reasons I have mentioned. These include possible unintended consequences that could have an adverse effect on the protection of children at risk and vulnerable adults. I hope that the Government will take on board the principle of mandatory reporting and work with all interested parties to bring forward a detailed proposal that will have the confidence and support of the whole House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the purpose of our amendment, apart from giving an opportunity to debate the law relating to domestic abuse, is to provide for the Secretary of State to consult on ways of strengthening the law in relation to domestic abuse, which is perpetrated overwhelmingly against women, with that consultation taking place within six months of this Act coming into force. Our amendment also sets out some of the issues that the consultation would consider, without it being an exhaustive list.

Those issues are: should a specific offence or offences criminalising coercive and controlling behaviour, or a pattern or acts of behaviour within an intimate relationship, be created? Should the violent and sexual offenders register include serial stalkers and domestic violence perpetrators and be managed through the multiagency public protection arrangements? Should a new civil order be created to place positive obligations on serial stalkers and domestic violence perpetrators? Should the breach of domestic violence protection notices and orders be a criminal offence? Should domestic violence protection notices and orders extend across European boundaries?

One of the problems, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, is that the Government’s definition of domestic abuse, adopted from the general definition of the Association of Chief Police Officers, is not reflected in the law. The Government’s definition is:

“Any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are, or have been, intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality”.

The abuse,

“can encompass, but is not limited to … psychological, physical, sexual, financial … emotional”.

However, the current law does not capture the Government’s non-statutory definition of domestic abuse as there is no statutory framework around it. Currently, offenders can be prosecuted only for acts of physical violence, when such violence is often the culmination of psychological and minor physical abuse which constitutes domestic abuse, which is outside the reach of the existing criminal law and does not get reported until it has actually escalated into physical violence—which, to put it mildly, is a bit late in the day.

The figures have already been quoted, but I shall repeat them. According to the Home Office, last year 7% of all women reported having experienced domestic abuse, which is equivalent to 1.2 million women a year. Two out of three incidents involved repeat offenders. The reality is that on average women do not report abuse until there have been at least 30 incidents. Since the age of 16, according to statistics published by Women’s Aid and the Home Office, almost one-third of women have experienced domestic abuse. Interestingly —although perhaps that is not the appropriate word—one in three women who attend an A&E department does so because she has been domestically abused.

As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, according to Women’s Aid, only 6.5% of domestic violence incidents reported to the police lead to conviction and 25% of domestic violence cases that are passed on to the Crown Prosecution Service result in no action being taken. There is an issue around the successful prosecution of cases. In some cases, of course, the victim withdraws their statement to the police of domestic abuse or violence, does not come to court, or comes to court and gives evidence that is contrary to their original statement. However, bearing in mind that on average women do not report abuse until there have been at least 30 incidents, the strong likelihood is that any reluctance to go through the legal and court process is not because the domestic violence and abuse did not actually occur, but for other reasons.

An important reason for consultation, including on the specific points referred to in our amendment, is that following the introduction of specific domestic abuse laws in the United States, there was apparently a 50% rise in women reporting the behaviour, and with it a large increase in the number of perpetrators being brought to justice, along with a decrease of over one-third in incidents of abuse. One key area is the need to consult, as the Government have done, on criminalising abuse that involves coercive control in a domestic setting as well as making domestic abuse itself a separate criminal offence.

A further issue for consideration is whether the prosecution of domestic abuse and domestic violence cases should be subject to statutory time limits. Domestic abuse and violence has often gone on for some time before an incident is reported by the victim. Under the current arrangements, many earlier incidents that have occurred and which make up the totality of the abusive behaviour, cannot also be the subject of a prosecution along with the incident that finally led the victim to decide to report what had been happening.

Our amendment also calls for consultation to consider a new civil order which would be intended to prevent further contact that amounts to domestic violence, would prohibit the perpetrator from engaging in certain activities, perhaps including contact with the victim and the children of the victim, and would exclude the perpetrator from the victim’s home. Such a consultation could also consider whether a breach of this civil order should be a criminal offence and whether such notices and orders should extend across European boundaries, with offending histories and restrictions being shared.

The issues to which I have referred and those set out in the amendment providing for consultation are ones that outside organisations and experts in this field have advocated. The government consultation on coercive control has recently concluded. It would be helpful to know, first, what steps the Government intend to take following that consultation and, secondly, whether the issues referred to in my Amendment 49C and others to which I and other noble Lords have referred, are also either being considered by the Government or were part of the consultation that has just concluded. I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate in his response what issues or courses of action the Government are now considering following their consultation on strengthening the law on domestic abuse.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I am in no doubt that there needs to be more effort, more prosecutions, more resources, better practice and better training in the area of domestic abuse. I find it difficult to comment on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, because it is essentially a trailer for provisions that we do not have before us, but the first steps must be about implementing the existing legislation in a consistent and robust fashion: prosecuting for physical and non-physical forms of abuse, both of which are possible. However, successful prosecutions are rare. I have mentioned training; there is a need for specialist training throughout the criminal justice system. The issue is hugely important to ensure, among other things, that the basics of violence in a domestic situation are properly understood.

The series of actions that constitute abuse are crimes now. Interestingly, the domestic violence charity with which I have the closest links, Refuge—I do not know whether I need to declare an interest in that I chaired it a while ago—commented in its response to the Government consultation that it is concerned that creating a separate domestic violence offence could in fact lead to it being treated less seriously and being downgraded. We know that the phrase, “It’s just a domestic”, is still hanging around. The charity points out that there is a risk that even physical offences may be downgraded, so I think that there is a debate to be had on that. It does not necessarily follow that badging what is a domestic crime would lead to it being regarded in a different way.

Serious Crime Bill [HL]

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lady Walmsley on Amendment 41. This subject has been brought to my attention for the last 20 years or more and it is getting worse. Just last week there was a report on the number of children who are accused of having been bewitched. We need to make sure that those children feel secure and protected in the society that we live in. This is a form of cruelty, as my noble friend has said, and we must be assured in this House and in wider society that those children are protected, looked after and that they feel secure. The people who actually do these cruel things to children—because that is what it really is: child cruelty—must be aware that they cannot hide behind religious beliefs. That is the case at the moment. We need to make sure that everything is in place to ensure that children feel protected and secure and—as my noble friend said—feel that they have got somebody to whom they can turn if in need.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, we have come back to a clause that was much debated in Committee. While we very much welcomed Clause 65 and the change to make clear that it is a crime to inflict cruelty which is likely to cause psychological suffering or injury to a child, we also supported amendments tabled at the time by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and called for by various children’s organisations, to further update the offence. As I understand it, those organisations, and indeed we ourselves, welcome the amendments that the Government have tabled and the explanations they have provided.

However, I would like assurances on a couple of issues. First, our original amendment further defined the scope of the offence by adding the words “physically or emotionally ill-treats, physically or emotionally neglects”. As the Minister has said, the Government have now tabled an amendment to clarify that the behaviour necessary to establish the ill-treatment limb of the offence can be non-physical, and we welcome this.

Another change relates to Section 1(2)(b) of the 1933 Act which makes specific provision about liability for the child cruelty offence in circumstances where a child under the age of three has suffocated while in bed with a drunken person. Again, the Government have listened to the Committee amendment and extended the provision to cover circumstances where the person is under the influence of illegal drugs, and it applies also where an adult suffocates an infant while lying next to him or her on any kind of furniture or surface. Again, this is welcome.

The Committee amendment would also have removed the reference to unnecessary suffering, which somehow suggests that the suffering of children may otherwise be necessary, and replaced it with a reference to serious harm. We understand the Government’s concerns that the overall impact of the amendment would be to raise the threshold of unnecessary suffering to serious harm, but we would like to hear more of the Government’s thinking after having given further consideration to the Committee amendment. We would like assurances that the difficulties with the term “unnecessary suffering” will be sufficiently addressed while also making sure that the threshold for harm is not raised.

Finally, the Committee stage would have defined the word “wilful”, which many have criticised as too difficult to interpret. Here, the Minister said that the Government felt that the concerns raised would be best dealt with through guidance rather than by amending the legislation. In the light of that, we would like reassurances on the following points: namely, that the police and others within the criminal justice system will be made fully aware of the change in law so that they understand the impact of psychological abuse; that guidance and directions will directly address the case-law definition of “wilful” to secure absolute clarity, including on the inclusion of “reckless state of mind”; and that that will be communicated to all parties. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide the assurances that I seek.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I will seek to answer all the points they have raised as best as I am able. I will be mindful as I do so that I am relatively new to this field, in which many of your Lordships have immense and deep personal knowledge and experience. We therefore want to give that every possible attention and consideration. I will follow no particular order, but will try to follow through some of the points that were raised.

The first point was raised by my noble friend Lady Walmsley, who asked about Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act; in fact the amendment is directed at any person who,

“has responsibility for any child”,

or is otherwise “legally liable to maintain” them. It therefore goes beyond that narrow definition of parental supervision to something much wider: to those who have responsibility for the child.

I turn to the extreme religious practices that were referred to by my noble friends Lady Walmsley and Lady Benjamin, and other noble Lords. As my noble friend Lady Walmsley explained, Amendment 41 seeks to amend Section 1 of the 1933 Act to make it an offence for any person to allege that a child is possessed by evil spirits or has supernatural harmful powers—the unacceptable practice sometimes referred to as “witch branding”. I am aware that my noble friend proposed similar amendments during the passage of last Session’s Children and Families Bill and has been in correspondence with the Department for Education regarding her concerns.

I share my noble friend’s commitment to safeguarding children from this and all other forms of abuse. A belief system can never justify the abuse of a child. We need to ensure that children are not subjected to abuse, or left vulnerable to potential abuse, because someone alleges that they are possessed. However, the Government believe that the current law is sufficient for this purpose. It provides adequate protection for children from the type of abuse that this amendment is trying to prevent. While the existing legislation does not specifically mention communication of a belief that a child is possessed by evil spirits, the current offence of child cruelty already captures ill treatment or other conduct by a parent or carer that is likely to cause a child unnecessary suffering or injury to health.

The Government are amending Section 1 through Clause 65 to make it absolutely clear that physical and psychological suffering or injury is covered by the offence. In addition, we are now making one further clarification in respect of the “ill treatment” limb of the offence to make it explicit that the behaviour amounting to “ill treatment” can be non-physical as well as physical. Those changes will make it even clearer that conduct of the type described by my noble friend’s amendment is capable of being dealt with, as we believe it is, under the Section 1 offence.

Where the conduct in question could not be covered by the offence of child cruelty or is not committed by a parent or carer, it could be caught by other criminal offences depending on the circumstances of the case. I am aware that Department for Education officials had earlier discussed the issues around witch branding with the Crown Prosecution Service, which makes any decision on whether a prosecution should be pursued. I understand that my noble friend has been sent a copy of the CPS guidance for prosecutors; this is an area with which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is also concerned. The guidance illustrates which legislation and which offences could be considered in different circumstances. I believe that it covers all the situations where a child might face potential harm, including those situations where the perpetrators of potential harm are third parties, such as “rogue pastors”.

Our approach should be to ensure that the scope of the current legislation is better understood to ensure that it works as it should. We will certainly engage in conversation with colleagues in the Department for Education and with other officials to do this. We must also raise awareness among the relevant communities and faith groups. That is a very important part of combating this problem: not only catching the offences when they happen but supporting work to raise awareness. I am sure my noble friends are aware that the Department for Education is part of the national working group on the issue, which published an action plan in 2012.

The department is funding two organisations, AFRUCA and the Victoria Climbié Foundation, which work with black and minority ethnic communities on safeguarding issues. In addition, part of the Department for Education grant to Children and Families Across Borders has been used to produce an online application to raise awareness of issues relating to witchcraft and spirit possession, which was launched earlier this year. This issue is an ongoing concern for the Department for Education and the Home Office, and I know that they will value enormously my noble friend’s input into developing an appropriate response.

My eagle-eyed noble friend Lord Swinfen spotted a potential gap in the existing law. The relevant wording is that the person would need to have been in possession of the drug that they had taken and of which they are under the influence. There would need to be evidence that the person was in illegal possession of that drug immediately before taking it. My noble friend highlighted that point and thought that it could be an area that a skilful barrister might be able to argue his way round. That may be the case and we will have to see how it is tested. However, that is the test which is required under existing law.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for his welcome of the amendment. He asked about replacing the reference to “wilfully” with the word “recklessly” or defining it as meaning that a person with responsibility for a child foresaw that an act or omission regarding that child would be likely to result in harm, but nonetheless unreasonably took that risk. There is a well established body of case law that sets out the meaning of the term “wilful” in this context. It clearly provides, among other things, that “wilful” already implies an intentional or reckless state of mind.

We are concerned that inserting a definition of “wilfully” into Section 1 of the 1933 Act would risk creating uncertainty in respect of the significant number of other existing offences subject to the “wilful” mental state; for example, the offence of wilfully neglecting a person lacking mental capacity under Section 44 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 being taken forward in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill. For these reasons, the Government cannot agree to the proposed changes. That said, I reiterate the assurance given by my noble friend Lord Taylor in Committee—namely, that Ministry of Justice officials are liaising with the Department for Education, the Crown Prosecution Service and the police on whether any updates or revisions to the relevant guidance would be necessary to ensure that the effect of Section 1 of the 1933 Act, as amended, including the correct understanding of “wilfully”, is clearly understood and appropriately applied by front-line professionals.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made another point about whether the term “unnecessary” actually needed to be there as some considered it archaic and not relevant to modern times and wished for it to be deleted. Others want to use “serious or significant harm”, with “harm” defined broadly, to include “the impairment of physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development”. It seems to us that the overall impact of such a change would be to raise the threshold of “unnecessary suffering” to “serious harm”.

[Lord Rosser]

I think I had accepted what the Government had said: if you use the words “serious harm”, it would raise the threshold. However, I asked for assurances that the difficulties with the term “unnecessary suffering” will be sufficiently addressed rather than just being left. I had accepted the Government’s point that if you put in “serious harm” you might end up raising the threshold, but that still does not address the issue of the reference to “unnecessary suffering” with the implication, almost, that there can be such a thing as necessary suffering as far as children are concerned.

[Lord Bates]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his clarification of his position, which I certainly accept. In this context, I refer him back to the reassurances given by my noble friend Lord Taylor in Committee, to which I referred previously. That guidance, and the understanding of how the rules should be applied by front-line professionals, will, of course, be taken very seriously indeed. We want to make sure that people understand that thoroughly.

In response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, about the age of 16 or 17, young people aged 16 or over are lawfully able to be married, and are generally deemed capable of living independently of their parents. Those under the age of 16 are generally more vulnerable and dependent on those who care for them. For this reason, we believe it is right that Section 1 of the 1933 Act is focused on protecting persons under the age of 16. I realise that there is a campaign—if I may call it that—or movement that seeks to change that through the UN convention but, at the moment and in this context, we feel that 16 is the right threshold.

I have tried to address most of the points raised by noble Lords in response to my moving the amendment. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Walmsley]

This proposal came out of a parliamentary inquiry co-ordinated by Barnardo’s and chaired by Sarah Champion MP. Two of my noble friends, my noble friend Lady Benjamin and my noble kinsman Lord Thomas of Gresford, and I were both on that inquiry. We heard first-hand what others have been able only to read: the evidence for making this change to the law. It was very interesting and moving to hear the evidence of the victims. It was also moving to hear the evidence of the police who are committed to protecting children but feel that they do not have sufficient tools to do so.

Our focus should be on prevention or at the very least on the earliest possible intervention. The police are asking for this power to be made statutory so that they can enforce it at an earlier stage of the grooming process. It was made very clear that many of these young girls are quite willingly in the company of older people who eventually abuse them. One young person who gave evidence to us said that she genuinely thought that these people were her friends and the only people who cared about her in the world. That indicates that these young people are not there because they have been physically abducted; they are there willingly. Very often, in a prosecution, they are not willing to give evidence that they have been abducted.

Passing this amendment, or something very similar, would strengthen young people’s confidence in the police. Currently, the approach has a further damaging effect because it erodes the confidence of victims and their families in the ability of the police to protect them when they see that an abuser has broken the terms of a child abduction notice but no action is taken. That is why we need to make it statutory.

[Lord Rosser]

I certainly do not intend to repeat the arguments that have already been made in Committee and on Report in favour of this amendment. As the Minister will well know, in his response in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, accepted that proposals to strengthen the impact of child abduction warning notices had the support of the police, legal experts, representatives of local agencies, young people who had been affected by sexual exploitation, children’s charities and others. The then Minister undertook to consider carefully the benefits of putting these notices on a statutory footing and how such a statutory scheme might operate. He indicated that the Government were committed to examining the case for placing child abduction warning notices on a statutory footing but said that, while the Government may not have completed their review by Report stage, he would update the House on progress. I may have missed a letter but I am not aware of the Government having completed their review.

Among the issues that the then Minister felt needed to be considered were whether it was appropriate for the police to impose an order or injunction, breach of which is a criminal offence; the test for the grant of an order; the prohibitions or restrictions that might be attached to an order; the penalty for breach of an order; and the reference in the amendment requiring a child to have been found two or more times in the company of the person to be made the subject of an order. On these issues, which were raised by the then Minister in Committee, as far as I am aware, we await the Government’s conclusions. I am assured that all those groups and bodies interested in this specific issue are happy to work with the Government to resolve these points.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for tabling this amendment and for giving me the opportunity to put on the record some of the developments that have occurred over the summer, since my noble friend Lord Taylor addressed this issue in Committee on 15 July. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Walmsley on the work of the committee that produced the report. I have had an opportunity to see and to review it. It produced some disturbing material and we need to get that material and that evidence into the policy process. I will set out what we are doing in response in my remarks.

We can all agree that child sexual exploitation is a horrendous crime; the Government are determined to stamp it out. We have seen this from the dreadful events in Rotherham, as highlighted by Professor Alexis Jay’s report, where there were appalling failures by the council, the police and other agencies to protect vulnerable children. We were all sickened to read about the victims in Rotherham and the horrific experiences to which they were subjected. Many have also suffered the injustice of seeing their cries for help ignored and the perpetrators not yet brought to justice. Our priority must be the prosecution of the people behind these disgusting crimes. Where there has been a failure to protect children from abuse, we will expose it and learn from it. I am grateful to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for again articulating the case for putting child abduction warning notices on a statutory footing. We note that there is support for this position from the police, legal experts, children’s charities and others.

Police forces are tackling child grooming for sexual exploitation. This is clear from the increasing number of these cases before the courts and the significant sentences being handed down to perpetrators. There will always be more to do. The Home Secretary has written to all chief constables to ask them to take on board the lessons from the Jay report into the failings of Rotherham, and from the rolling Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary inspections into how forces are protecting children.

Amendment 42 is an important contribution to this debate. The existing non-statutory child abduction warning notices are issued by the police. That is entirely appropriate where breach of a notice is not, of itself, a criminal offence. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, reminded us, in Committee, my noble friend Lord Taylor undertook to examine further the case for placing child abduction warning notices on a statutory footing. I am grateful to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for affording me this opportunity to update the House.

Over the summer, Home Office officials have worked with policing colleagues to examine the issues in more detail. Discussions have taken place with colleagues representing the National Policing Lead for Child Protection, the national policing co-ordinator on child sexual exploitation, the CEOP—Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre—command of the NCA and the College of Policing. While, in some cases there may be merit in the statutory offence of breaching child abduction warning notices, it has become clear through these discussions that the effectiveness of the current system is in its simplicity and non-bureaucratic process. Such notices are intended to disrupt predatory behaviour and stop access to a vulnerable child. They are often a useful step along the path towards more formal orders, and it is suggested that the immediacy of these notices could be inhibited by the need to apply for an order from the court.

Existing non-statutory child abduction warning notices are issued by the police. That is entirely appropriate where breach of a notice is not, of itself, a criminal offence. As my noble friend Lord Taylor indicated in Committee, it would be an unusual step to invest directly in the police—rather than in the court—a power to impose what amounts to a restraint order or an injunction, breach of which is a criminal offence. Compare, for example, restraining orders under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which are granted by the courts. Other civil preventive orders such as serious crime prevention orders and gang injunctions, which are dealt with elsewhere in the Bill, are also subject to judicial oversight. We will continue to consider carefully with policing colleagues their views on the potential use of a statutory notice and whether, in their view, further changes are required better to protect children.

It is important to note here the wider work taking place across government to protect children. The Home Secretary is chairing meetings with other Secretaries of State to look at what happened in Rotherham. We will consider the findings of Professor Jay’s report and consider what the state at every level should do to prevent this appalling situation happening again. The meetings will build on the existing work of the Home Office-led national group to tackle sexual violence against children and vulnerable people, which is bringing the full range of agencies working in this area together better to protect those at risk and create a victim-focused culture within the police, health and children’s services. In July, the Home Secretary made a Statement about the sexual abuse of children, announcing the establishment of an independent inquiry panel of experts in the law and child protection to consider further whether public bodies and other non-state institutions have taken seriously their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse. The inquiry panel will be chaired by Fiona Woolf.

Given what I said, there is still more work to be done on this issue to find a position that balances the need of police forces to be able to take appropriate, effective and timely action when required and the need for safeguards, including appropriate judicial oversight. On this point, we still need to be convinced that making the change does not affect the simplicity, speed and unbureaucratic nature of the existing process. I hope and expect that we will have completed our consideration of this proposal before the Bill completes its passage through the House of Commons. I will, of course, notify the noble and learned Baroness and other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate of the outcome of our consideration of this issue. Indeed, I would add that, given the level of expertise in this House, it would be extremely useful if interested noble Lords would join me in a discussion with officials and other representatives so that they can see some of the responses we have already had about data, and the number of notices that have been issued and their effect, soon after the conclusion of our deliberations today, and certainly in the next few weeks. That will ensure that we can draw on the input and expertise of this House.

I know that the noble and learned Baroness would have liked to hear something more definitive in my response today, but I ask her to bear with us and accept that the intentions of Her Majesty’s Government are those of all noble Lords: we are absolutely resolute in respect of this heinous crime. I hope that she will agree to withdraw her amendment at this stage.

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

This Bill was the subject of just nine hours of discussion and debate in the House of Commons yesterday. We will have to wait and see whether the time spent on discussion and debate in this House exceeds or falls short of that over the two days—today and tomorrow—that have been set aside.

Serious concerns have been raised in this debate over the way in which this Bill is being rushed through in the light of the fact that the European Court of Justice judgment, which the Government say has been the driving force behind the need for this Bill, was handed down more than three months ago. The reality is that the date of the Summer Recess was known in April, when the judgment was given. Thus the need for minds to be focused on reaching conclusions without delay was also known. We could have avoided the situation that we now have of rushed legislation, rushed committee reports, committees being sidelined and a general feeling that the Government could have ensured that there was more time to consider the proposals in the Bill before it needs to be passed prior to the Recess.

The rush means that the reports of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee have only today been published. The Constitution Committee has commented on its report that between the date of the ECJ judgment in early April and 10 July the Government did not indicate that fast-track legislation might be necessary to address the court judgment, and that the contrast between the time taken by the Government to consider their response and the time given to Parliament to scrutinise the Bill is a matter of concern. The DPRRC has stated that there is no actual duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations under Clause 1(3), simply a power. The committee also said that since the powers conferred by Clause 1(1) and (2) on retention notices, which allow a significant intrusion into the privacy of members of the public, will come into force on the passing of the Bill, with the regulations under Clause 1(3) subject to the affirmative procedure, it is possible with the Recess imminent that there will be a period of three months without any regulations under Clause 1(3) in place to govern the exercise of powers under Clause 1(1) and (2). The Minister has said that that will not be the case, but like my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon, I would like him to spell out again the timetable that the Government will be following to avoid the potential situation highlighted by the DPRRC from actually arising.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee also pointed out that Clause 1(3) confers a power on the Secretary of State to make further provision by regulations about the retention of relevant communication data, and does not restrict the scope of the powers conferred by Clause 1(3). Perhaps the Minister will also respond to the view of the Constitution Committee in the light of the scope of the powers conferred by Clause 1(3) that, since it is the Government’s intention that the Bill does not enhance data retention powers, perhaps the Bill should expressly so provide.

The delay in bringing forward the Bill and then having to rush it through is all the more surprising since the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union to declare the new EU data retention directive invalid cannot have been entirely unexpected to the Government, since it supported the earlier opinion of the Advocate-General in December 2013. He found the directive incompatible with the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights in respect of the right to respect for private life and the right to the protection of personal data. The case was brought by the High Court in Ireland and the Constitutional Court in Austria. In essence, the Court of Justice of the European Union concluded that the data retention directive adopted by the EU legislature exceeded the limits imposed by compliance with the principle of proportionality as it did not limit the interference in respect of the fundamental rights in question to what is strictly necessary, since the directive covered in a generalised manner all individuals, all means of electronic indication and all traffic data without any differentiation, limitation or exception being made in the light of the objectives of fighting against serious crime.

The effect of the European Court of Justice decision was to strike down regulations to enable internet providers to retain communications data for law enforcement purposes of up to 12 months, thus creating uncertainty among communications service providers about the legal basis for the retention of communications data in the UK. The ECJ ruling did not take account of any controls or safeguards in the domestic laws of member states and in particular our communications data access regime, which is governed largely by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. RIPA seeks to ensure that access to communications data can take place only where it is necessary and proportionate for a specific investigation. Our data protection laws mean that in the absence of a legal duty to retain specific data, companies must delete data that are not required under their strict business uses.

Communications data, as has already been said, have been crucial to every counterterrorism operation by the security services in recent years and are used as evidence in nearly all serious and organised crime cases dealt with by the Crown Prosecution Service. The view of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee yesterday was that the retention of communications data, subject to appropriate safeguards, was an important tool in the fight against terrorism, organised crime and child sexual exploitation, and that the Government were right to bring forward urgent legislation.

Following the ECJ ruling, the concern has been that without new legislation data could be destroyed within a short period by communications service providers fearing legal challenges, with the result that the police and security services would be unable to access them. With the EC directive in question having been transposed into UK law, national legislation needs to be amended only with regard to aspects that become contrary to EU law after a judgment by the European Court of Justice, and a finding of invalidity of the directive does not cancel the ability for member states to oblige retention of data. Indeed, the European Court of Justice accepted that an ability to retain data was necessary and recognised purposes for which data could be retained. Its objection to the directive was to its generalised nature and scope.

The EU data retention directive was implemented through secondary legislation through the Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009, and the Bill that we debate today is intended to remove any doubt there may be about the legal basis of our 2009 regulations and to give effect to the ECJ ruling. Clauses 1 and 2 confer on the Secretary of State the powers currently in the 2009 regulations to require service providers to retain communications data. The Bill of course also addresses the application of our laws on interception to remove any doubt that the requirement that companies co-operate with UK law enforcement and intelligence agencies also extends to companies that are based overseas but provide services to people in the United Kingdom.

The Constitution Committee said in its report published today that it is not clear why this last part of the Bill on interception needs to be fast tracked as there is evidence that the Government have known about the problem for some time, since the Joint Committee on the Draft Communications Data Bill noted in its report published at the end of 2012 that,

“many overseas CSPs refuse to acknowledge the extra-territorial application of RIPA”.

Will the Minister give the Government’s response to that point?

A number of the contributions in this debate have referred to the need to strike a balance in making a judgment on the Bill between the two main concerns of privacy of information and the need for agencies such as the police and security agencies to know about information and have access to it. The need in a democracy is to sustain liberty and security, and privacy and safety. The Government have made it clear that the purpose of the Bill, which we support, is to maintain existing capabilities and indeed to restrict them in line with the ECJ judgment. Clause 3, for example, will change the basis for obtaining a warrant for intercept on grounds of economic well-being. At the moment, under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, economic well-being is the sole criterion without condition. In future it will be subject to the interests of national security.

In the House of Commons, the Government agreed to our amendments designed to ensure that the Bill does not go beyond existing capabilities by requiring six-monthly reports on the operation of the Bill when it becomes an Act, to ensure that its implementation does not go beyond what the Government have stated is its purpose. There is also a sunset clause in the Bill, on which we insisted, which means that the legislation will cease to have effect from the end of 2016. That provides an opportunity for full public consideration and debate about what powers and capabilities will actually be required and how they will be regulated after then in the field of communications data access and interception. It will also provide an opportunity to ensure that whatever is deemed to be required will have rather greater public understanding and acceptance than is the case at present. People want to feel secure, but they also value their privacy and they do not like to find out the sheer extent to which that privacy can be and is being invaded from whistleblowers. They rightly feel that there should be more transparency from government on this issue both on the extent and necessity, and with that greater transparency might well come rather more trust and acceptance of the need for what should be done, provided it is proportionate.

The Government said last week that they would review the interception and communications data powers that we need and how they are regulated in the context of the threats we face. It was helpful that in the Commons the Government accepted the need to go down the road of our amendments and place this work, which will be conducted in the first phase by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson QC, on a proper statutory footing. I hope the Minister, having mentioned Mr Anderson, will respond to the numerous points raised by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, about the future of Mr Anderson’s post, and the role and powers of the proposed new board.

The review which Mr Anderson will be conducting in the first phase will also take account of the impact of changing technology on the work of the different agencies involved. We have been calling for an independent expert review of the legal and operational framework, and in particular of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, because the speed of the communications data revolution since that Act has probably already led to the law and our oversight framework becoming out of date. The police and the security and other relevant agencies need to be able to keep up with new technology, but the safeguards need to keep up too—though, as has already been said in this debate, it is the knowledge that some private companies and organisations have about our daily lives and what we do that is equally breathtaking.

We will play our part in seeing that this Bill is passed, because the existing powers that it seeks to retain are too important for public safety and security to be put at risk of being lost. However, we also need that full debate about achieving the right balance, in a democracy, in an increasingly technological age, between privacy and liberty on the one hand and safety and security on the other, and ensuring that that balance commands public consent and confidence.

Serious Crime Bill [HL]

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall be brief. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has rightly set out in some detail a strong case for Amendment 40BZB, with which we are associated. I will not attempt to repeat the points that have already been so effectively and powerfully made. The need to recognise in the Bill that harm can be caused by emotional ill treatment and emotional neglect as well as physical ill treatment and neglect is important, as is the substitution of “serious harm”, which is consistent with other areas of criminal law, for “unnecessary suffering”, including the inference that there can be necessary suffering.

The amendment also defines “harm” and “wilfully”, with the latter definition stating that the person has to have the capacity to foresee that an act or omission would be likely to result in harm but none the less unnecessarily took that risk.

We also support the amendment moved in the name of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede that it should be specific that the age of children to whom a child cruelty offence applies is “under 18”.

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

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Walmsley for moving her amendment, to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—we are delighted to see her in her place, taking part in our debate—and to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for outlining their respective amendments. They have all brought extensive knowledge to this debate. We have missed my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who cannot be in her place this afternoon. I am sure the whole House wishes her well.

The amendments all relate to the scope of the offence of child cruelty in Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Before I address the amendments, it may assist the Committee if I explain our approach in Clause 62. I am grateful for the general welcome which the clause has received. I am grateful, too, for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. Many of those welcoming the Bill spoke in support of the amendments. That I understand, and I will try to address their concerns.

The offence in Section 1 of the 1933 Act is committed when a person over the age of 16 who has responsibility for a child under that age wilfully assaults, ill treats, neglects, abandons or exposes that child in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health, including any mental derangement. That is the law as it stands. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has been among those who have argued for some time—as she has pointed out, in her discussions with my right honourable friend Damian Green in his ministerial capacity and with me— that the offence of child cruelty in the 1933 Act lacks the necessary clarity when it comes to tackling psychological suffering or injury to children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, the proposal to have mandatory reporting has many attractions. I think, however, that even with the exceptions that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has suggested, it may be too simplistic. There are already many organisations involved with children that have the obligation to report. For instance, the safeguarding of the Church of England requires people to report. The safeguarding of the Roman Catholic Church certainly does. I was vice-chairman of the Cumberlege Commission, in which we advised the then Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster how the clergy and members of the diocese of the Roman Catholic Church of England should be reporting, among other things. Our report was approved by the Vatican.

Obviously, there are the police, social services, the health services and so on. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said—and I endorse her words of wisdom—we need to look at this with a great deal of care because it is the issue of culture as much as the issue of prosecuting for failure to report which lies behind the problems we have. I hope the Minister will go away taking with him not only the understandable suggestions of the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, but also the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, as to what really needs to be looked at. I hope he will take all that away before coming to a decision on whether there should be mandatory reporting. I strongly support the caution that the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, has put forward.

[Lord Rosser]

I will raise one question, to which I hope the Minister will be able to respond. The right reverend Prelate has referred to the indication given in the Commons last week by the Prime Minister that the Government were looking at whether we should change the law so that there will be a requirement to report abuse and it will be a criminal offence not to report it. Can the Minister be more specific than he appeared to be on the last group of amendments about the timescale within which the Government expect these deliberations to be concluded?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, this has been a very high-value debate whose contributions inform the Government. I will try to make sure that all colleagues in government with an interest in this matter are sent a copy of our debate.

I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, any details of the timescale. If, in the course of time, I have more information, I will try to tell him in good time, but at the moment I cannot. In a way, this debate needs to be taken in conjunction with the one we had on my noble friend Lady Brinton’s debate; it covers very similar territory but it goes just that little bit further. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Walmsley for tabling this amendment to enable us to look at this particular aspect.

There is a significant difference between the amendments. Amendment 40BZEA would place a duty on those working in regulated sectors who are in a position of trust in relation to children or vulnerable people to report suspicions of abuse to the appropriate local authority within 10 days. Breach of that duty would be a criminal offence punishable by up to three years in prison. This would mean essentially that anyone who works with children or vulnerable adults would commit a criminal offence if they did not report suspected abuse of any kind.

I hope that I can provide some reassurance to my noble friend Lady Walmsley and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham about the current process of referrals to social services. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, referred to this. It is important to recognise that existing statutory guidance is already crystal clear that professionals should refer immediately to social care when they are concerned about a child or vulnerable adult. Many thousands of referrals are made to children’s social care each year. In the year ending March 2013, there were 593,500 referrals—that is nearly 600,000. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Walmsley for offering to provide me with figures that she has available, but I think that we need to bear that figure in mind and appreciate the scale of the situation that we are seeking to engage in.

The most important thing is that people understand how to spot abuse and neglect and the impact that it has on children and vulnerable adults. While we are continuing to review the evidence for the specific case of reporting in regulated settings, we are also continuing to take action to improve the knowledge and skills of professionals working with children and other vulnerable people.

As I indicated in my response to the previous group of amendments, the Government fully understand the public’s anxiety about the potential underreporting of abuse, particularly sexual abuse. I can wholeheartedly support my noble friend’s objective with this amendment; we all want to see improved safeguarding for all children and vulnerable adults. As I have said, we are actively considering the case for a mandatory reporting duty, but the issues are complex, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, pointed out. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, we need to consider what form such a duty might take, to whom it would apply and in what circumstances, and what the sanction for failure to comply should be. This amendment offers one approach, but we have just debated an alternative, more focused proposal, and the NSPCC has suggested a third model. Other organisations working to safeguard children and vulnerable adults will have ideas of their own as to how a mandatory reporting regime should be structured, as will other noble Lords. I have sought to encourage noble Lords to make sure that those conducting such investigations are aware of their views.

I can only again seek to reassure my noble friend and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham that we are actively examining the options and treating the matter with the urgency that it deserves. While I cannot undertake to bring forward government amendments on this issue on Report, I certainly expect that, by then, I will have more to say on where we have reached in our consideration of this important matter. Having put the issue firmly on the table as my noble friend has done, I hope that she will now be content to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

I briefly add my voice to this. Again, if I had not had quite such a troubled week, I might have added my name to this amendment.

A couple of years ago I went, on behalf of the Lord Speaker, to a conference about this. In my lifetime, I have seen a great deal in terms of abuse, but seeing a film of this actually happening shook me to my core. We did not just hear the screams, but we actually saw the action that was happening to this young woman. When we talk about female genital mutilation, it gets a little sanitised at times. It is utterly appalling pain. Some young women in foreign countries die because of the follow-up, and certainly we know young women in this country are traumatised. I, too, hope that the Government will take this away.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the purpose of our Amendment 40CA in this group is to provide anonymity for victims of female genital mutilation by providing for any offences under Sections 1 to 4 of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 to come within the terms of Section 2 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, which for example provides anonymity for rape victims and victims of various other sexual offences to encourage more to come forward.

We recognise that protecting young girls and women from FGM requires action beyond legislation to tackle the social norms in which it operates, and implement a preventative approach. However, if progress is to be made in addressing and preventing what has already been described in this debate as the abhorrent practice of female genital mutilation, then cases will have to be successfully prosecuted through the courts. That means people who are victims of this practice being willing to come forward and give evidence. As we know, this is not some small, minority offence. It has been estimated that more than 20,000 girls under 15 are at high risk of female genital mutilation in England and Wales each year, with the risk being highest for primary school girls.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, who will surely know better than anyone the difficulties in persuading victims to come forward and give evidence in court, has called for victims to be given the right to anonymity to make it easier to bring charges against alleged perpetrators. She was quoted as saying recently:

“It is a very difficult injury to talk about. It is an abuse of their body and it is not a part of the body that people want to talk about in public”.

The Home Affairs Select Committee has also identified that a key difficulty in securing prosecutions is the ability to gather sufficient evidence and has said that,

“if victims had the protection of press and broadcast anonymity, this might encourage more to come forward. … we recommend the Government bring forward proposals to extend the right to anonymity under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 to include victims of FGM”.

Our view is similar. Anonymity is granted to victims of rape, among other offences, because of the sensitivity and stigma attached to such an offence, and the sensitivity and stigma that surround female genital mutilation must be at least as intense. Victims should be protected in the way called for in our amendment. If anonymity would encourage more victims to come forward, it must surely be overwhelmingly in the public interest to go down this road, particularly taking into account the lack of prosecutions to date. Where cases of female genital mutilation go to court, victims should also be entitled to the same support and special measures to which other vulnerable victims are entitled. I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to give a positive response.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the expert way in which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, introduced his amendment. I have no greater arguments than the ones he adduced. I strongly support him and urge the Minister to consider his suggestion very carefully. I have one final thought: what would the view of noble Lords be if we were talking not about FGM but MGM?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, we are associated with these amendments and support them. I do not intend to go through the points already so eloquently made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, except simply to repeat that the current system of non-statutory notices does not encourage confidence in the system from victims and their families in the ability of the police to protect them when the provisions are breached. The notice leads to no action being taken unless the thresholds of an abduction threat have been met, which is not always the case. As has been said, the threshold means that the adult must have taken or detained the child.

Creating an offence of breach of a proposed child abduction warning order is likely to strengthen victims’ confidence in seeking help and protection, since it will lead to action being taken against the perpetrator if they breach the order. Once again, I hope that the Minister will be able to give a positive response.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Again, this has been an interesting debate, and I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in it. Child exploitation is an abhorrent crime and we are determined to tackle it in whatever form it takes. The findings of a recent parliamentary inquiry, of which noble Lords will be aware, chaired by Sarah Champion MP and supported by Barnardo’s, have been very helpful in contributing to the ongoing work being done by the Government to tackle child sexual exploitation. The recommendations of that inquiry will be crucial in helping to inform our policy and improve our understanding of this form of offending and, indeed, what more we should be doing about it. Specifically, the inquiry received significant evidence relating to child abduction warning notices and, as a result, this issue featured prominently in their report and is now the subject of these two amendments.

It might help if I updated noble Lords on government thinking in this area as at present. This Government have already taken clear action to tackle child sexual exploitation. As the Committee will recall, as part of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, we are introducing a number of new police powers. First, we are providing for more effective civil prevention orders, namely the new sexual harm prevention order and the sexual risk order. Secondly, new powers will allow the police to require hotels and similar establishments to provide information about guests whom they believe may be involved in sexual exploitation. Thirdly, we are bringing in strengthened powers for police to close premises associated with child sexual exploitation, a provision championed by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who cannot be in her place today but for whose support on this matter I am very grateful.

With regard to child abduction warning notices, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for articulating the case for putting these notices on a statutory footing. The Government note that proposals to strengthen the impact of these orders have the support of the police, legal experts, representatives of local agencies, young people who have been affected by sexual exploitation, children’s charities and others. As part of the work of the National Group on Sexual Violence against Children and Vulnerable People, my ministerial colleagues have given assurances that the Home Office would look at the effectiveness of the existing child abduction warning notices and, in liaison with police colleagues, examine how best this tool can be used in future. In doing so, we will consider carefully the operational benefits of putting these notices on a statutory footing and how such a statutory scheme might operate. We are currently consulting carefully with policing colleagues to seek their views on the potential use of a statutory notice and whether, in their view, further changes are required to better protect children.

Amendment 40CC is an important contribution to this debate. The existing non-statutory child abduction warning notices are issued by the police. That is entirely appropriate where breach of a notice is not, of itself, a criminal offence. But it would be an unusual step for the police themselves to impose what amounts to a restraint order or injunction, breach of which is a criminal offence. If we made it statutory, we would have to consider that. Compare, for example, restraint orders under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 which are granted by the courts. Other civil preventive orders, such as serious crime prevention orders and gang injunctions which are dealt with elsewhere in this Bill, are also subject to judicial oversight. We would need to see how that played in with the current arrangements of non-statutory warning notices.

Other issues that we need to consider are the test for the grant of an order, the prohibitions or restrictions that may be attached to an order and the penalty for breach. I note, too, that the amendment requires a child to have been found two or more times in the company of the person to be made the subject of an order. Elsewhere, the inquiry proposed amending the grooming offence in Section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to remove the requirement for a second contact with the child. The Government have now tabled an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill to that end, as my noble friend Lady Walmsley said. We need to consider whether the approach taken in child abduction warning notices should mirror that in the amended grooming offence.

Amendment 40CB seeks to raise the age threshold from 16 to 18 years for the child abduction offence in Section 2 of the Child Abduction Act 1984, bringing it into line with the summary offence in Section 49 of the Children Act 1989 of abducting a child in care. Children in care are particularly vulnerable and that is why the Children Act 1989 makes it an offence to take any child who is in care, including a 16 or 17 year-old, away from the person responsible for them without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. However, while we recognise the arguments made for consistency, there are contrary arguments and difficult issues raised. Young people aged 16 and 17 can live independently of their parents and, in many respects, are able to make their own decisions about how they live their life, including their sexual relationships. It is in recognition of this that the Child Abduction Act 1984 applies only where the child is under 16 and the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction ceases to operate when the child reaches the age of 16 years.

However, we are committed to examining the case for placing child abduction warning notices on a statutory footing. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has made a reasoned case for doing so and it deserves serious consideration. All speakers tended to favour the idea that statutory footing for the child abduction warning notices should be considered. While Report stage is some three months off, I cannot say to noble Lords that we will have completed our review by that point. I can undertake to update the House on progress and, of course, noble Lords are free to bring back the amendment, or a variation of it, at the next stage. I hope that I will be able to update noble Lords on how the Government have progressed arguments. Clearly, the debate we have had today will be helpful.

I cannot say the same in connection with Amendment 40CB. That amendment would have significant wider implications and for the reasons I have given I am not persuaded of the case for that particular change. However, given what I have said, I hope that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in proposing the amendment at the beginning of this debate, will feel free to withdraw the amendments tabled in her name and that I will have the opportunity when we return to this subject of updating noble Lords accordingly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, Section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006 makes it an offence to engage in any conduct in preparation for giving effect to an intention to commit or assist another to commit one or more acts of terrorism. It also makes it an offence under Section 6 to provide or receive training for terrorism. The Act also provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction so that an offence may be tried in this country in respect of acts committed abroad. However, this is limited or non-existent in respect of the Section 5 and Section 6 offences to which I have referred.

Clause 65 would provide for extraterritorial jurisdiction for the Section 5 offence and extend the existing extraterritorial jurisdiction for the Section 6 offence. Such extraterritorial jurisdiction is considered appropriate for Section 5 and Section 6 offences because the places where training or preparation for terrorism are taking place are increasingly likely to be located abroad and will enable prosecutions in this country of people preparing or training more generally for terrorism who have, in the current circumstances, travelled from the UK to fight in Syria, where various groups are involved in the conflict.

We do not oppose this clause being in the Bill but have some points to raise about what the impact of the provision is expected to be—hence this debate on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. I appreciate that the Minister may not be in a position to be too specific in his response, but can he give some examples of the kind of prosecutions which it will be possible to pursue under Clause 65 which it has not been possible until now to pursue under the existing legislation, and which would have been pursued had Clause 65 been effective? If prosecutions have already taken place for the offence of preparing for terrorist activities, what does Clause 65 add in reality to the legislative armoury? Has there been consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions on the need for Clause 65? If a loophole in the current legislation has been identified which constitutes a potential threat to our security, does the Director of Public Prosecutions believe that the provisions of Clause 65 constitute the best way of addressing that loophole?

As I understand it, prosecutions under Clause 65 would need to be in open court and any evidence brought would have to be evidence acceptable in open court and disclosable in open court. If I am right in saying that, presumably intercept evidence and the evidence of informers, for example, will not be usable. In respect of people coming back from Syria, how is it envisaged that it will in practical terms be possible to gather evidence for a prosecution which relates to what the individual has done in Syria that can be pursued in open court? If the evidence to pursue a prosecution under Clause 65 cannot be used in open court, will a terrorism prevention and investigation measures order be sought, which would enable, for example, intercept evidence and the evidence of informers to be used, albeit it would be to obtain the appropriate order rather than to seek a conviction? Or are the Government claiming that Clause 65 will remove the need for TPIMs in a situation where no one on a TPIM has ever been prosecuted and when, in his last report, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation said that TPIMs continued to be needed?

I hope that the Minister will be able to address these points in his reply. Bearing in mind that Clause 65 relates to an extension of extraterritorial jurisdiction to enable offences to be tried in this country in respect of acts committed abroad under Sections 5 and 6 of the Terrorism Act 2006, it is not clear what the actual impact of Clause 65 will be as much of the evidence that becomes available is, if I have understood the situation correctly, unlikely to be able to be presented in open court and could be used only in seeking a TPIM order.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for affording the Committee an opportunity to debate this issue. I am sure that the noble Lord and, for that matter, the Committee as a whole will be in no doubt about the significant threat posed by foreign fighters, particularly in relation to Syria, and the importance the Government place on protecting the public from those who may seek to harm the UK or UK interests.

The nature of the threat from terrorism has evolved since the passing of the Terrorism Act 2006. Many of the threats we face today have significant overseas connections and the places where UK-linked individuals, and those seeking to harm UK interests, may now be training, or otherwise preparing for terrorism, are increasingly likely to be located abroad. Syria, in particular, has become the number one destination for jihadists in the world today, posing a threat to the region and beyond. However, the issue of individuals from the UK seeking to engage in combat and conflicts abroad is not new, nor is it specific to Syria. As my noble friend Lady Warsi, who is sitting next to me preparing to respond to the debate following this Committee stage, will be aware, the recent events in Iraq further demonstrate the fluidity of movement of foreign fighters and we are concerned that groups such as the al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant—or ISIL, as it is known—are now able to operate in the large areas of ungoverned space that have been created by the conflict. ISIL’s advances in Iraq in particular demonstrate the serious threat that that group poses to both countries, so it is right that we respond to this threat.

In support of wider government efforts to ensure that the full range of operational responses under the Contest strategy are being applied to counter this threat, Clause 65 amends Section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2006. This extends fully the jurisdiction of the UK courts over the offence of preparation of terrorist acts under Section 5 and the offence of training for terrorism under Section 6 of that Act so that preparation and training that take place abroad can be prosecuted. This measure will enable prosecution, on their return to the UK, of individuals who have travelled overseas to prepare or train for terrorism as though their actions had taken place in this country. Any prosecution under this measure will require the express consent of the Attorney-General, in addition to satisfying the Crown Prosecution Service that there is sufficient evidence and that prosecution is in the public interest. Our priority is to dissuade people from travelling to participate in conflicts abroad in the first place, but it is vital that our legislation is as robust as it can be against those who may seek to harm the UK in particular, and leaves no doubt in the minds of individuals engaging in preparatory acts of terrorism, or training for terrorism overseas, of the action we are prepared to take to protect the public.

The noble Lord asked whether it would enable us to prosecute cases which were not prosecutable at present. Recent cases show that these offences can be operationally useful. Mashudur Choudhury was recently convicted under Section 5 of preparing for terrorism in the UK. If, for example, he had undertaken these preparations outside the UK, he could not have been prosecuted. This measure seeks to address this anomaly.

How will this measure have an impact on foreign fighters? We assess that by extending UK territorial jurisdiction for this offence and bringing evidence of activities overseas within its scope, we will potentially strengthen the evidential case that can be made and enhance the prospects of a successful prosecution in some cases. In cases where there is only evidence of activity abroad, it will enable a prosecution to be brought where it is not currently possible.

The noble Lord asked whether we had consulted the Director of Public Prosecutions. We have worked closely with law enforcement partners, including the Crown Prosecution Service, in developing this measure. They fully support it and have suggested that this will be operationally useful. As for the question about gathering evidence and how law enforcement agencies will obtain the evidence required for a prosecution, particularly as it involves evidence gathering abroad, law enforcement agencies are accustomed to working with the relevant authorities in other countries for the purpose of gathering evidence for prosecutions. We fully expect that this established arrangement will continue to be employed for future prosecutions.

We recognise that any evidence gathering which involves other countries is inherently more challenging than if it were confined to the UK, but this does not mean that prosecution is impossible. That is the purpose of introducing these measures in Clause 65. These changes will ensure that UK linked individuals and those who seek to harm UK interests and travel overseas to prepare or train for terrorism can be prosecuted as if their actions had taken place in the UK and that they are not beyond the reach of the law. It is essential that our law enforcement partners are equipped with the right powers to counter the threat posed by foreign fighters who travel overseas to undertake terrorist activities and may go on to carry out terrorist attacks.

I hope that with those explanations the noble Lord will be prepared to accept that Clause 65 should form part of the Bill.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice for Examining Officers and Review Officers) Order 2014

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, this is consequential on previous debates. It is amazing how much and how quickly all that agonising goes out of one’s head, and one has to remind oneself of the subject of it. I am glad that we have had the chance to consider the draft code of practice and the covering SI. What concerns me is the delay in the introduction of the review arrangements, which I assume is because it has simply not been possible to get the training in place quickly enough. I am not suggesting that the better provisions of the legislation, as they are after the work done on the then Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, should be delayed. However, could my noble friend confirm that training is on track for the more senior officers, who will be detailed to undertake the reviews, and how supervision will be carried out in the mean time? I notice that the code says that it will be delayed until the relevant provisions come into force. However, in distinction, the paragraphs about audio recording say that there is no requirement to follow the code until next April. That is the time when the review provisions are to come into force, or so we are told. I do not know whether I am seeing a problem where there is none. Perhaps my noble friend has information, although he may not, about the proportion of officers who will be trained to undertake the more senior role.

I shall raise a point again that I raised during the passage of the Bill. Will training cover how officers should deal with the family or other accompanying passengers of the individual who is being held or detained? I think that I mentioned during the Bill’s passage that I had come across an example, which I hope was a rare one, of an individual being told that, if he insisted on waiting for a legal representative, it would be a problem for his elderly mother, with whom he was travelling. In other words, inappropriate pressure was put on him to forgo a right. I am also not clear what happens if, because of detention, passengers miss their flights. I hope that my noble friend can also confirm that the facilities for this work are satisfactory and appropriate. We have talked about short-term holding facilities a good deal, of course.

The code refers to legal privilege, where the restriction seems to be on copying, not on looking at it. You cannot erase something from your head although, obviously, there would be a restriction on using it—but what happens if a privileged document is copied when it should not be?

Paragraph 41 suggests that consultation with a solicitor is invariably not allowed. This is in the examination part of the code, not the detention part. I had thought that it was always allowed, but not necessarily with a solicitor of the individual’s choice. Is that only when the individual is actually detained?

Paragraph 42 states that an examining officer may grant a request that a named person is informed of the examination at his discretion and that:

“Where reasonably practicable, the request should be granted”.

Is it discretion or reasonable practicality?

Paragraph 45, which is where we get on to detention, states that the power may be exercised,

“where the examining officer considers it is appropriate to do so”.

The last bullet point of paragraph 46 states that:

“Detention is an option (during the first hour of examination)”.

Is that bullet point just about the first hour of detention? If I am asking too many questions, I have no doubt that my noble friend will ask to write to me.

However, I will raise a couple of matters which I hope he can confirm now. First, paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum reads:

“Examining people at ports and the border area contributes daily to plan, finance, train for, and commit their attacks”.

I shall not reread that, but when the Minister looks at it, he will realise that some words must be missing. I do not think you detain people in order to help them plan their attacks. I have had a word with the Minister’s officials, and I think they think it is a typo, but quite an important one.

My second question is on similar lines, but I think I am on dodgier ground. It is on annexe A to the code, which explains to the detainee that he is detained to determine essentially either whether he is involved in terrorism or whether he is entering or leaving Northern Ireland. I thought, or perhaps I had assumed without applying much thinking, that it should be “and” rather than “or”. Looking at Schedule 7, Northern Ireland is dealt with in a separate paragraph. Will my noble friend confirm that detention can be solely to establish whether somebody is going into Northern Ireland without any terrorism-related aspect? I am sorry to have slung that at my noble friend. I looked at this rather too close to the time of the debate to give him notice of the rather detailed points which I have just raised.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I will be giving the Minister a somewhat easier time than he has just been given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

I thank the Minister for the explanation of the purpose of this order, which brings into operation a code of practice for examining officers and review officers in respect of the exercise of the powers under Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 and under Schedule 8 to that Act where the powers are exercised in connection with Schedule 7, as amended by Schedule 9 to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. The code of practice revises the preceding code of practice to take account of amendments made to Schedules 7, 8 and 14 to the Terrorism Act 2000 by the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

The Explanatory Memorandum refers to commencing the remaining provisions of Schedule 9 to the 2014 Act this month to coincide with the issue of the code of practice brought into operation by this instrument, with the exception of the provision to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred requiring review of the detention of persons detained under Schedule 7, which are being delayed until next April to allow sufficient time to develop, accredit and train all examining and review officers. I shall pursue some of the points she raised. Will the Minister say how many examining and review officers still require to be trained, how long the training of each officer takes and why the required training has not been completed by this month and has had to be delayed? The need for such training must have been known for some time. Could the Minister also spell out the impact of this delay, in practical terms, including any impact on the provisions of this instrument, which comes into force at the end of this month?

The Explanatory Memorandum also refers in paragraph 4.5 to consultation on this issue having taken place with “National Business Leads”. Perhaps the Minister could remind me who or what this organisation is or these people are.

As the Minister said, the Explanatory Memorandum states in paragraph 7.2 that:

“Schedule 7 is an important part of the UK’s counter-terrorism strategy and key to the UK’s border security”.

The memorandum goes on:

“The changes to Schedule 7 in the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act are intended to reduce the potential scope for Schedule 7 powers to be operated in an unnecessary or disproportionate way, whilst still retaining their operational effectiveness”.

It then lists the changes made under the 2014 Act. They include ensuring access to legal advice for all individuals examined for more than one hour. In that regard, could the Minister clarify what legal entitlements people have when detained under Schedule 7? Will they have access to free legal advice?

The changes also include reducing the maximum period of examination from nine hours to six hours. The Government and others recently expressed concerns about the numbers going from this country to Syria apparently to be trained and engage in violence in the current conflict, and the possible consequences of that. In the light of concerns about what might happen if and when these people return to this country, with or without others, and what their intentions might then be, is it the Government’s view that all the changes made by the 2014 Act, including reducing the maximum period of examination from nine hours to six hours, actually enhance our ability to minimise the risk of those potential threats? Do the Government believe that the new code of practice provided for in this order—reflecting the amendments made to Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act by the 2014 Act—contribute to rather than potentially diminish our security in the present climate?

I simply conclude by commenting that the Explanatory Memorandum states that,

“the majority of consultation respondents agreed that the revised code clearly reflected the changes made to Schedule 7 powers in the”,

2014 Act. What it is not able to say is that the majority of respondents agreed that in today’s climate all those changes are still appropriate. We will not oppose this order, but I hope that the Minister will respond directly to the points and questions I raised, as well as those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I thank both my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for their contributions to our discussions on these issues. It is important that I try as best I can to answer the questions now. If there are things left unsaid at the end, I am obviously very happy to write. It was fortunate that there was a brief adjournment before we started because it gave my noble friend a chance to have a word with officials and give advance notice of the things that she was particularly concerned about. Perhaps I can deal with the details.

On paragraph 7.2, we can give an undertaking that we will correct the wording so that it reads as it should. It is perhaps not capable of being interpreted at the moment. As my noble friend admitted, she was on slightly weaker grounds when it came to annexe A because the wording is designed to ensure that the code of practice works equally well whether the person is stopped at a GB port or the person is stopped at the Irish border. That is why the wording is as it is. Perhaps my noble friend will tell me if she feels that that is not correct.

She asked whether training was on track. It is on track and is a nationwide programme. We are working out a training package and rolling it out nationally because we want to make sure that we operate to consistently higher standards. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked for quite a few details about the training programme, the time taken and what was involved. If he is happy for me to do so, I should be pleased to write to him with further details of what the training involves.

[Lord Rosser]

I am happy to await a letter from the Minister but can he cover in his reply why the training has been delayed? The word “delay” is used in the Explanatory Memorandum. I mentioned that the need for such training must surely have been known for some time. He could address that point in his letter, as well as the impact on the instrument of the delay referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am quite prepared to do so. I know off the top of my head that the problem is that standards are not equal across the country, but we are obviously now trying to make sure that officers’ roles under these powers are considerably enhanced and need to operate properly at every point. We are cutting down the hours, which is fine; there is no security risk by doing that as long as the process is properly managed and dealt with. That is part of the reason for the change.

My noble friend said that she thought there was perhaps already an opportunity for consultations. As I say, the interview depended on whether it involved those detained at a port or those detained in a police station. Those detained within a port were not necessarily supported with the same rigour as those detained within a police station. That will change under this new regime.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked which organisations we consulted. I do not have those names but I would again be happy to write to him. If I may, I will write both to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and to my noble friend Lady Hamwee together, so that they will also have the answers to each other’s questions. I know that they share an interest in those answers.

That more or less concludes my response, although I wish to mention a couple of other things. Review provisions will commence on 1 April 2015. Audio recording is delayed to allow facilities at ports to be provided; noble Lords will understand that facilities at ports are not as good as they may be elsewhere, but it is already a requirement to report interviews at police stations.

I hope that I have been able to deal with at least some of the questions. I remind everyone that only 1% of examinations result in detention, and 96% of those examined under Schedule 7 are held for less than an hour. We are dealing with those in detention, who are a relatively small number of individuals, but we must make sure that they are properly safeguarded and that we have processes in place to ensure that the security of the country is maintained.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord wishes to respond to me now or in a letter, but I referred to the reduction in the period for examination from nine hours to six hours, and to the concerns expressed very recently about what is happening with people going to Syria, then perhaps returning to this country, and what their intentions may be. I asked the Minister whether the Government feel that the provisions covered in the code of practice, and which arise as a result of the 2014 Act, are all still appropriate in the light of the security concerns being expressed by the Government and others in relation to Syria.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I can assure the noble Lord that they are appropriate. Indeed, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation recorded in his report in 2012 that these particular interviews have been instrumental in securing evidence which has assisted in terrorist prosecutions, and that they are very important. The truth of the matter is that the number of people detained for over six hours is very small and usually confined to circumstances where the examination was more protracted than it needed to have been. We are now satisfied that we can do this within six hours, otherwise we would not be bringing this legislation forward.