Modern Slavery Bill

Public Bill Committee, 9 September 2014.

Clause 6 - Sentencing

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I hope the Committee will forgive if I start by paying tribute to our former colleague, the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton. I have just been talking to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, who was a close friend of his, and it is appropriate that the Committee should pay tribute to him for his hard work in this place and in his constituency. He will be sadly missed. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

Clause 6 complements and strengthens the penalties set out in clause 5 by ensuring that, where an individual continues to pose a risk of offending or reoffending, that can be reflected in the sentence they receive. The offences of slavery, servitude, forced or compulsory labour and human trafficking are some of the most serious and violent on our statute book, so it is vital that offenders who continue to pose a significant risk to others in relation to these offences are dealt with in the strongest possible manner to protect the public.

The clause amends the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to add modern slavery offences to schedule 15 and part 1 of schedule 15B, relating to violent and sexual offences. The offences listed in those schedules attract a strengthened sentencing regime to reflect their seriousness. The relevant provisions of the 2003 Act ensure that, where a person is convicted of a serious or sexual violent offence, including modern slavery offences, listed in part 1 of schedule 15B, and they have previously been convicted of an offence listed in schedule 15B and received a sentence of life imprisonment or more than 10 years, the court must impose a sentence of imprisonment for life. However, the court is not obliged to impose a life sentence where it believes particular circumstances relating to the offence, the previous offence or the offender would make it unjust to do so.

The clause ensures that an extended sentence can be given to any person convicted of a clause 1 or clause 2 offence where the court considers that certain conditions are met. The court must be satisfied that the offender poses a serious risk of causing serious harm to others through reoffending, and it must consider that the current offence is serious enough to merit a determinate sentence of at least four years or that, at the time the present offence was committed, the offender must previously have been convicted of an offence listed in schedule 15B. Where the conditions are met, the court may impose an extended period for which the offender is to be subject to a licence. In the case of violent offences, that is five years; for sexual offences, it is eight years. In addition, the clause reflects the release arrangements for persons sentenced to an extended sentence under section 226A of the 2003 Act.

Offenders who have committed an offence listed in parts 1 to 3 of schedule 15B, or who have received a custodial term of 10 years or more, will be considered for release on licence by the parole board only once they have served at least two thirds of their sentence, and they will be released automatically at the end of the appropriate custodial term—the term imposed by the court as the custodial element of the extended sentence—if the parole board has not already directed release.

The clause means that those who continue to pose a significant risk to others through slavery and trafficking can be dealt with severely to prevent further offending and reoffending. I therefore hope that, when the Chair puts the Question, Committee members will feel able to support the clause’s inclusion in the Bill.

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

May I start by thanking the Minister for her kind comments on the death of our former hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton? He was a member of the Panel of Chairs for a number of years and an active member of the Council of Europe, and our thoughts are very much with his family and friends at this sad time.

I have a few questions to put to the Minister about the clause. The first is about provisions for children to be tried in the youth court for offences under the Bill. The issue was raised in Lord Judge’s evidence to the Joint Committee. I raise that because, earlier in our sittings, we deliberated on the Rooke case, in which a whole family seemed to be involved in the abuse of Craig Kinsella. What steps should be taken against young people—children, as we define them as anyone under the age of 18—who are in a household where offences under the Bill might be committed and are, in some way, aiding or abetting those offences? Would it be appropriate for those young people to be brought to court and would those matters be heard in the youth court?

I want to ask the Minister about aggravating factors, which we have had quite a debate about in previous sittings. Will she explain whether guidance will be issued to the courts about the aggravating factors that we have looked at—for example, in cases involving children, sexual exploitation, people who are particularly vulnerable because of mental health problems, and cases of kidnapping and false imprisonment? What guidance would be made available to the courts on those factors?

When the Director of Public Prosecutions gave evidence to the Committee, she suggested that it would not always be appropriate to use the Bill to prosecute and that other offences could be used. I think she was saying that it is likely that other Acts of Parliament could be used to prosecute particularly those who force young people—children—to beg on the streets. If so, could the aggravating factors that we want to see used in respect of the Modern Slavery Bill be regarded as such when prosecuting for other offences not covered in the Bill? One example, which I have given, is that of a young person being forced to beg on the streets and the CPS deciding, for whatever reason, that a prosecution can be made not under this Bill but under other legislation. Would it be appropriate to bring in those aggravating factors for lesser or alternative offences? The whole Committee will recognise that we want to ensure that the maximum sentence is given whenever possible and that, when sentencing, a judge can consider and draw upon aggravating factors.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

The shadow Minister asked about aggravating factors, but it should be put on the record that significant guidance will accompany the Bill to ensure that law enforcement and prosecutors understand the intention and recognise what Parliament wishes them to consider when taking cases through. Certainly, there will be guidance on aggravating factors and on all elements of offences and sentencing.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

rose—

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

Does the hon. Lady want to intervene?

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

I do, particularly on that point. In the previous sitting, the Minister clearly said that if children are involved in forced begging or similar, the Bill will catch them although, as we know, the clauses relating to that are unchanged from the present law. Chief Inspector Carswell, whom I referred to in the previous sitting, was shocked and greatly frustrated that in cases involving child criminality—children forced à la Oliver Twist to commit criminal acts in the street by their traffickers—the CPS had refused to prosecute. Will the Minister’s guidance ensure that the CPS prosecutes the traffickers, rather than the trafficking victims, which is what is happening at present?

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I have written in detail on the points about forced begging and pickpocketing that were discussed last week and all members of the Committee should have a copy of that letter. The clause is about catching the traffickers and the slavemasters, not criminalising the victims. There are clauses later in the Bill about victim protection, the statutory defence and other matters that ensure that it is clear to prosecutors and others that innocent victims who are forced into forms of criminality should have the protection they deserve under our criminal justice system. They also ensure that victims are not criminalised and that they can come forward and give the evidence we need to catch the bad guys behind it.

On the point about children criminally involved in slavery and trafficking, their cases will commence in the youth court, but will almost invariably be sent to the Crown court to be tried. Special measures will be available to the Crown court to protect child defendants.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

My hon. Friend has mentioned that the guidance will make it clear that the traffickers of begging children will be prosecutable under the Bill, which I am sure the whole Committee welcomes. Can she clarify whether doing that when the child is not being prosecuted will make the prosecution deliverable, or does it depend on the child also being prosecuted before the aiding and abetting part can come into play?

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

If I may, I will complete my point about the other offences under which the cases may be tried and come back to that question.

Clearly, under criminal justice, the CPS is looking to get a conviction and will use whichever offence they feel is most appropriate in terms of the likelihood of getting the conviction and of the sentence that can be given with that offence. However, the court will consider all relevant circumstances when sentencing, including any of what the shadow Minister and others might refer to as lesser related offences.

To return to the intervention made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove, the answer is yes: the point of the Bill is to target the traffickers, and there is no requirement to prosecute the victim for us to prosecute the trafficker.

Michael Connarty (Labour, Linlithgow and East Falkirk)

May I just say, as invited by the Minister, a few words about Jim Dobbin for the record? Back in the 1980s when I was leader of Stirling council, we heard of a council called Rochdale that was doing wonderful work in devolving power to its local communities so we decided to go and talk to the people there. When I arrived, I discovered that the leader of the council was a Scotsman from Fife called Jim Dobbin. He had settled as a scientist in one of the hospitals there and had become involved in local politics. We were friends ever since. We—my wife, Margaret, and I, and Jim and his wife Patricia—would often take visits together so that we could spend some time outwith the official agenda to spend time together. They were a lovely couple with four lovely children, including Mary who worked for Jim for a time at the hospital and revealed that she, in an earlier life, had been a bass guitarist in a punk band. I saw pictures of her in which that respectable young woman was totally transformed. They are a lovely family, very close, and Jim was dedicated to them and very proud of them. Several of them are musicians and others are scientists.

Jim and Pat had grandchildren with a rare chromosome disorder that only occurs if both parents have the same chromosome alteration. That meant that the two grandchildren had a kind of sleeping sickness whereby their eyes suddenly shut, but in fact their body is shutting down on them. They have been under medication and one has had very serious operations to insert a metal rod into his spine to keep him upright, but they are very bright children and one has just been accepted to university. Jim was very proud of the family through all their troubles.

Jim was very stressed when I spoke to him on Friday because he had had what he said was the worst month of his life. He was going through the reselection process and had discovered some nasty things on the internet, which caused him great concern. He was selected unanimously to return to Parliament, which showed the confidence the people in his community had in him. When we heard the news of his death, we sent messages to Patricia, who will be absolutely devastated—she was in Poland with him when he died.

Jim was a great Member of Parliament and a dedicated Christian; the Pope made him a knight of St Gregory for his work. He sat on the Council of Europe with me and was the UK’s representative on the One in Five campaign against the sexual exploitation of children in Council of Europe countries, a crime that sadly keeps occurring in the UK and is rife throughout not just European but other countries. We have lost a great colleague and a wonderful man, and I am sure members of the Committee will send their condolences and warm best wishes to Patricia and the children.

Fiona Bruce (Conservative, Congleton)

May I join the hon. Gentleman by extending the condolences of the all-party pro-life group to Jim’s family? Jim was a dedicated fighter for the lives of the unborn and the sanctity of all life. When I entered Parliament, he was chairman of the pro-life group, and latterly he and I have been joint co-chairmen. The group has lost a great fighter for life, and I pay tribute to all he did over many years for that cause. Over the weekend, he was described as a principled man, and he certainly exhibited his principles on that issue.

Michael Connarty (Labour, Linlithgow and East Falkirk)

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. Jim was dedicated to that cause and many others. He led the campaign against the massive addiction of many people in the UK to prescription drugs. As a scientist, he had become aware of that problem and was trying to prevent people from being given prescriptions without having to visit a doctor, a practice that was becoming more prevalent, resulting in many people becoming addicted to prescription drugs.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent Central)

I was also extremely fond of Jim, a fellow Catholic. I always found him kind and wise. He was extremely helpful to me when I had a constituent who was addicted to prescription drugs. He supported her attempt to get attention for what had happened to her. He did extremely good work. He is an example of an MP who stuck to a couple of causes and kept going doggedly, which shows how much difference somebody can make if they focus on one thing.

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

Before I call Michael Connarty, I want to say that I am being lenient, first, because Jim Dobbin was a member of the Speaker’s Panel; secondly, because much of his campaigning was about the sexual exploitation of children, which is a key part of the Bill; and, thirdly, because it reminds us that people are remembered not for their titles—whether ministerial, shadow ministerial, non-ministerial or non-shadow ministerial—but for their principles and personal conviction, which Jim Dobbin had.

Michael Connarty (Labour, Linlithgow and East Falkirk)

Thank you, Mr Pritchard. I am grateful to you for saying that. Those sentiments are shared across the House.

Jim Dobbin was also a tolerant individual. Although I am a humanist, an atheist and a lapsed Catholic, he was one of my best friends. He probably offered a prayer or two to his God for my salvation; maybe it will be useful at some time in my life. He was a lovely man, and a greatly happy person—he received tremendous joy from his family and his dedication to the causes that have been referred to.

I turn to the topic before us. The Minister’s assurances do not convince me; the evidence convinces me otherwise. Christine Beddoe, who for 10 years was the director of ECPAT UK, an organisation dedicated to challenging the exploitation, trafficking and enslavement of children, said in written evidence:

“The Home Office is becoming numb to these figures and Ministers must be alive to the practice of ‘normalising’ child abuse statistics when officials are briefing them on modern slavery. A referral to the NRM does not mean the child is safe from the control of their trafficker and even just one child abused is one too many.”

We would all agree with that. She reminds us that in oral evidence the Director of Public Prosecutions told this Committee:

“I do not think that cases are slipping through because the legislation is not there to prosecute; I think cases may not be brought before the courts because we have not got the evidence and we have not got the complaints in the first instance.”––[Official Report, Modern Slavery Public Bill Committee, 21 July 2014; c. 9, Q17.]

Christine Beddoe informed me that Chief Inspector Colin Carswell, whose evidence we referred to earlier, had indicated that two of his more recent cases had been thrown out of court because coercion could not be proved. That is one of the great problems. It would be impossible to sentence people under clause 6 if the charges cannot be brought to court and the conviction cannot be made. Sentencing becomes irrelevant. She also says in her written evidence:

“The so-called CPS lack of evidence is not a lack of evidence of trafficking or exploitation, it is a lack of evidence of threat, beatings and bruises that can be shown to the jury.”

That is exactly why the two most recent cases brought for child exploitation failed. It could not be proved, the evidence wanted by the court could not be shown.

Christine Beddoe reports that at a recent meeting with a senior police officer investigating organised criminal networks that traffic children, he said:

“Even though the law says there doesn't have to be coercion because a child cannot consent to their own exploitation they [CPS] are not willing to prosecute without it. We had evidence of movement and evidence of exploitation. CPS threw the case out and there were no other criminal charges we could use so the criminals went free.”

That is the reality of the collection of crimes that people are prosecuted for at the moment. The present Bill does not add to those crimes. It uses exactly the same laws as before and, therefore, they will fall.

Christine Beddoe refers to how

“This insidious trend of creating an image in the eyes of the law of ‘the perfect victim’ has far-reaching ramifications.”

If we are looking for key elements, which obviously we cannot present at different times, without an offence of child exploitation, that will always be the problem. She adds that the decision not to prosecute and the evidential threshold is the problem. If we do not change the law—the specific crimes—all the assurances given by the Minister are pointless. We will have no more prosecutions.

To give evidence of the numbers, in the five years to the end of March 2014, 1,620 children were referred to the National Referral Mechanism. How many more were not referred? Anthony Steen has often said, through his work with the Human Trafficking Foundation, that this is the tip of an iceberg. This is one fifth or one tenth of the actual numbers of children who are being abused and exploited at the moment.

The evidence from Christine Beddoe and the chief inspector in the Met responsible for pursuing this crime is that they cannot get to court or secure prosecution because of the evidential problem. That is because we do not have a specific crime of exploitation of children.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I feel I should respond to those points. I have also read Christine Beddoe’s evidence and take the point she makes. I want to say on the record that I find the idea that anybody could be numb to the child abuse statistics slightly insulting. I could not possibly be numb. I am a mother; I hear the stories of the victims. It would be impossible to be unmoved by the stories that are heard. The reason I want the Bill to become an Act is so that we can help as many victims as possible. We will come to many of the points Ms Beddoe made, because so much of what she says concerns what we will be discussing later: the need for a commissioner and ensuring that the practice of professionals on the ground lives up to what we in Parliament expect.

I do not want to re-run our discussions about offences from last week, but we need to put this issue in the context of the overall picture. The commissioner is a vital part of the jigsaw that will ensure that all those who come into contact with victims understand what Parliament wants them to deliver: protection for the victims and to gather the information needed to bring a prosecution that a jury will convict on.

Michael Connarty (Labour, Linlithgow and East Falkirk)

The point that has been made is that unless the Government put in the necessary crimes against children to try people under, no matter how much we are moved, we will be no further forward. I have one final quotation from Christine Beddoe:

“It is sobering to note that there have been no cases prosecuted under section 71—Slavery, Servitude and Forced or Compulsory Labour—of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, where the victim was a child.”

There have been no prosecutions, yet that is all we are offering by way of protection for children in the Bill.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

As I said, I do not want to re-run the discussions we had last week about the offences. We spent considerable time on that and I am reflecting carefully on the point about consent made during the debate on clause 1, as well as ensuring that the guidance reflects the comments and intent of the Committee.

On children going through the NRM, we agree that that needs review, which is why such a review has been ongoing since April. It is vital that we ensure that the NRM is fit for purpose, because we owe that to victims. It has many deficiencies, but I am confident that the results of the detailed review will help to ensure that we can assist victims and provide them with the support they need.

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I know that the NRM review is ongoing and I understood that an interim report would be made available to the Committee for its deliberations. Is that correct and, if so, when are we likely to receive it?

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

We will discuss the NRM review later. We are not working to a deadline just to produce something, because we want to get it right, but we intend to publish the document before the Committee reports the Bill. I hope that gives the shadow Minister some reassurance.

Finally, the point Ms Beddoe made about the DPP’s comments about evidence still stands. This package of measures is about ensuring that we have the evidence, because ultimately we are looking for prosecutions to be brought that convince juries of lay people that the person being brought to court is guilty of the most hideous and heinous crimes. We must ensure that evidence and information is gathered appropriately, in a way that protects the victim within court, and we must also look at policy issues in areas such as evidence gathering, so that we get successful prosecutions, because we all agree that, to date, there have not been enough of them.

Clause 7 - Confiscation of assets

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 8 stand part.

Clause 9 stand part.

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I have some questions about this group of clauses, which we all welcome, as they represent a sensible way forward. We want human traffickers to lose all their assets, if at all possible, so we support clause 7. Nevertheless, I want to press the Minister on a number of points.

What assets recovered under clause 7, if any, will be retained by the police to provide further resources to fight human trafficking? We know that the confiscation of major criminals’ assets has so far been far from satisfactory—a lot more can be done. The Labour party has been working with the former Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Keir Starmer, on a review of the current situation with a view to tabling a series of amendments in the other place, where another Bill is currently being examined. Depending on what happens in the other place, we might wish to revisit clause 7 on Report and table some amendments to improve it.

Will the Minister comment on the need to improve the court’s power to get full disclosure of assets, particularly in relation to third-party claims, and on the role of international co-operation? Human trafficking obviously involves many countries—not only in Europe, but around the world—so will she say what more she thinks must be done to allow UK courts to restrict the disposable assets of foreign nationals and demand that liquid assets be returned to the United Kingdom? Will she also comment on the need to improve—if she thinks such improvement is appropriate—the mutual assistance arrangements with other countries, notably EU partners?

Turning to clauses 8 and 9, the Opposition fully support compensation for victims wherever possible, but I want to press the Minister on why clause 8(1) says that the Crown court “may” make

“a slavery and trafficking reparation order against a person”.

Will she explain why it does not say that the Crown court “shall” make such a reparation order?

When we were discussing clause 3, I gave an example of a case in Lincolnshire where 25 victims were rescued from forced labour, of whom 12 gave witness statements. If the CPS could take those 12 individuals’ cases to court and it was found that human trafficking and forced labour had taken place—bearing in mind that there were 25 victims, but only half had their cases taken to court—would it be possible under this Bill for all 25 victims to receive compensation, even though the court had reached findings on only those 12 cases? I want to be clear about whether that would be possible, or whether compensation will only ever be for victims in cases where there is a specific conviction.

Clause 9 is about the court having to consider a defendant’s means to pay a reparation order. Will the Minister tell us how we can be sure that, whatever means the individual has to pay, compensation for the victim is prioritised? The Bill already says that compensation will take precedence over fines, but could she go further and say how she will ensure that the highest priority is given to the victim?

When a court considers fines and confiscation of assets, it normally protects assets that it considers are necessary for the defendant to continue with their livelihood. That presents us with some interesting problems, particularly around the issue of a business using forced labour. I am particularly thinking of a farm, or cases such as the Rooke case, which I referred to earlier, or the cases that were also referred to earlier of gangs of labourers being moved around the country to tarmac people’s front drives. Can the Minister set out her thinking about how assets in such cases—I guess they would include a van, a piece of land or a building—could be dealt with, in terms of protecting the defendant’s livelihood?

With these orders, a defendant will normally produce evidence about their means. Will the CPS challenge what the defendant says? Will it go on some kind of fact-finding mission to establish whether what the defendant says about their assets is correct and that full disclosure has been made? If the CPS is not responsible for doing that work, who is? Will victims be able to make representations and challenge the evidence that a defendant presents about their assets? As we have discussed, many victims of trafficking and forced labour are vulnerable, and a court can be a very intimidating place for them, so will legal aid be available to assist them to pursue or challenge compensation orders?

Earlier, I made the point that there are people who are victims but whose case has not been tried in court. Will they be able to take action to challenge any compensation order made in court? Will they be able to access lawyers or legal aid, or will such access be restricted to victims in cases where there has been a conviction? Is there any opportunity for an order to be made at a later date?

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent Central)

The hon. Lady is asking some interesting questions about legal aid. Has she considered the influence of the residence test and, if so, does that influence underlie part of her concern? Effectively, I am putting that question through her to the Minister.

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

The hon. Lady asks an interesting question and I hope that the Minister can shed some light on the issue. Legal aid has gone through major changes in recent times, but I am not sure that much thought has been given to the effect of those changes on this particular group of victims. I guess that it is quite a small group at the moment, but we hope that more victims will come forward and that there will be more prosecutions. The Minister said that that was one of the aims of the Bill, but would she focus on legal aid? For practitioners in this area, it would be helpful to know what resources are available to assist this particular group of victims.

Finally, is it possible to make a claim for compensation or reparation at a later date? If a trafficker or someone engaged in the use of forced labour has assets that they have managed to hide away but it becomes obvious at a later date that those assets are available, is there a limit on how long people have to make a claim, or is the period indefinite? Those are my questions about the practical application of clauses 7 to 9.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

I want to make a couple of comments about clauses 8 and 9, which I welcome.

The shadow Minister mentioned clause 8(1), which states:

“The Crown Court may make a slavery and trafficking reparation order”.

I welcome the orders, but will the Minister clarify how the reference to “may” rather than “shall” interplays with the court’s statutory duty always to consider compensation, which is provided for under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012? Given the statutory duty always to consider compensation, will the court always be obliged to consider slavery and trafficking reparation orders?

On the impact of the orders, clause 9(3) says:

“The amount of the compensation is to be such amount as the court considers appropriate having regard to any evidence”.

I would be interested to hear what evidence the Minister anticipates. There has been lots of debate about how far a victim impact statement can lead to effective compensation orders. In this instance, work could be done on how such statements can properly express the true impact of modern-day slavery on a victim. Ordinarily, when a matter comes to the court, the court looks at the impact of the immediate crime on the victim. Statements are taken, and compensation claims are made. With a victim of trafficking or modern slavery, however, the concern is that the impact is not just about the immediate time when they come before the court; there are long-term consequences, which can last a lifetime. It is important that those are expressed, particularly when looking at the health consequences for a victim, and that victims receive adequate compensation. It is also important that those responsible for putting people in a state of slavery and for the long-term impacts of that make reparation over what could be a number of years. I therefore ask the Minister for assurance that the slavery and trafficking reparation order will really bite and reflect not just the immediate, short-term impact on victims, but the long-term consequences.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I thank the shadow Minister and my hon. Friend for their contributions.

On clause 7, it is vital that we take seriously the confiscation of criminals’ assets, and the Government do. There are many serious and organised criminals for whom a jail sentence is merely an occupational hazard. Serving time in jail is no disincentive to leading a life of crime if, at the end of that sentence, and often during it, a serious criminal has access to the assets they accrued through their criminal activities and can continue those activities using those assets.

The clause looks specifically at confiscation orders relating to modern slavery offences. It should be looked at in the context of the other work the Government are doing, through the Serious Crime Bill, to strengthen the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in relation to the confiscation of the assets of serious criminals.

The clause acts on recommendations made by a number of parties, including the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, to change the definition of offences in the 2002 Act to include the offences in the Bill and make them lifestyle offences, which means the courts will have access to more of the assets than they otherwise would. That is a sensible suggestion, which the Government were happy to act on.

The Serious Crime Bill, which is going through the other place, amends the 2002 Act to enable law enforcement agencies to seize criminal assets more quickly, close loopholes that criminals use to get around confiscation and crack down on those who try to avoid paying them. There are harsher penalties for those who do not pay the confiscation orders. There are new rules about the disclosure of assets and who has the right to assets before the guilty verdict is given, to ensure that we stop the legal wrangling that has taken place, with many people having claim to assets once a defendant has been found guilty. I hope that the Committee agrees that we are taking significant action against serious and organised criminals to ensure that they are deprived of the assets that enable them to continue their criminal activities.

The shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate, asked a number of questions, which I will do my best to try to get through. I will write to the Committee to clarify any points that I do not answer directly. The shadow Minister asked how much money will be recovered from those responsible for modern slavery. It is difficult to predict, as I am sure she understands. More than £2 million has been recovered from human traffickers in the past four years, but there could and should be more. The inclusion of the “criminal lifestyle” offences under clause 7, for the purposes of the Proceeds of Crime Act, will assist the courts in recovering more assets from the criminals.

The shadow Minister asked about the proportion of assets that would be recovered and how much would be available to the police to enable them to fund further operations. I will deal with clause 8 in a couple of moments, but the first priority in all cases will be to use seized assets to provide reparation to the victims. I understand the point that she raised; victims will be the number one creditor. I am going back to my accounting days and remembering priority creditors; the victims under a reparation order will be the priority creditors and will have first call over any seized assets. Any seized funds that are left over will benefit criminal justice agencies through the asset recovery incentivisation scheme, which returns a proportion of sums recovered to law enforcement, prosecution and enforcement agencies. The amount of assets recovered using confiscation orders continues to increase since ARIS was introduced and over the past three years more than £238 million has been returned to front-line agencies.

Michael Connarty (Labour, Linlithgow and East Falkirk)

There was some discussion in the Joint Committee about when someone’s assets could be frozen. There was some good evidence about freezing assets on suspicion, which happened in Italy when it passed the anti-Mafia Act. As soon as someone was suspected of being involved in a Mafia scheme, all their assets were frozen before they were taken to court or charged; millions of pounds were gathered that would be spirited away if they waited until that person was charged. That was one of the reasons why the Mafia war was successful. Have the Government reached a view on whether they would, in fact, take the same line in freezing assets of suspected traffickers before they are even charged?

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I will come to that in a couple of moments, but first I will finish discussing ARIS. Although the scheme is not on a statutory footing, there is an expectation that the moneys distributed under ARIS will be used to fund improvements in asset recovery or for front-line policing. There is therefore no need to ring-fence a proportion of assets specifically for the police to fund modern slavery operations. It is for the police to determine how they use the funds available to them, but we expect that seized assets will be used for front-line operations.

I have briefly discussed the Serious Crime Bill. Third-party claims are responsible for delays in the confiscation process, which they needlessly complicate and lengthen. The Serious Crime Bill enables the court to determine the extent of the defendant’s interest in a particular property at the confiscation stage to help prevent late applications as a result of third parties delaying proceedings. The defendant will be required to confirm or deny the details of any potential third party interests, including spouses, identified by the prosecution. They will also be required to provide details of any actual or potential third party interest in any of the property that the court will take into account at the confiscation hearing that has not already been identified by the prosecution.

The shadow Minister asked if there was more that could be done by police and prosecutors to restrain or confiscate assets overseas. That is something that is close to my heart because I have been on a number of foreign trips where the topic of asset recovery has been discussed. Making that a priority for overseas Governments as much as for our own is incredibly important to ensure that we can seize those assets and ensure they are taken from the criminals. We are looking through the serious and organised crime strategy at the recovery of hidden assets abroad. The UK is engaging with key countries to encourage and improve international co-operation in asset recovery, which, historically, has been poor. We have already engaged with Spain, China and the United Arab Emirates and will be working with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the CPS to negotiate further agreements and understandings with other key countries, including Romania, South Africa and Ghana. Those agreements relate to asset sharing. There is a long-standing international position that the country that enforces an overseas order in its territory keeps the assets that it confiscated. There is a young but developing international concept of assets being shared between countries, particularly where victims are involved. I emphasise that that is a new concept in international law—the CPS, for example, now has dedicated resources located in the priority countries, and works with prosecutors overseas and with others. We understand the ways in which we can seize assets from UK criminals who are located here, but there are other hurdles that have to be overcome locally in overseas jurisdictions. We need to understand all the nuances of the law and the legal systems to ensure that we are getting hold of those assets in a correct and appropriate way and depriving criminals of those assets.

The shadow Minister asked if there were any additional powers that might be useful in promoting success and recovering overseas assets. The tools for international recovery already provide for successful co-operation between the UK and our overseas counterparts. However, the tools have historically been underused, both here and overseas. The situation has undoubtedly improved, but there is more that can be done to encourage the use of those tools. Bilateral agreements that we have recently concluded and are seeking to negotiate with priority countries should have the effect of improving co-operation overseas. I hope that the new European Parliament and Commission will taking the issue seriously and look at it on a Europe-wide basis, ensuring that we have appropriate agreements to deprive serious criminals of their assets and to act as a much bigger deterrent than any jail sentence ever could.

There was a question about the integrity of the financial information and who carries out the investigations. Disclosure of assets is done as part of the financial investigation process that takes place for the confiscation hearing prior to a confiscation order being made. Financial investigators typically work for the police or the National Crime Agency and ensure that that information is gathered.

Clauses 8 and 9 deal with reparation orders, which are a new measure that the Government felt strongly should be introduced to ensure that victims received reparation for the suffering that they had been put through. Too often, the courts looked at financial loss in compensation orders and a victim of slavery clearly does not experience financial loss. We felt that a new order that recognised the unique circumstances of slavery victims was important. We have talked about success, but I want to put on the record the fact that there have been only three human trafficking cases in the past 11 years where both a compensation order and a confiscation order have been imposed. That is simply not good enough. We owe it to the victims to ensure that they receive the reparation that they properly and rightly deserve. We expect the courts to introduce reparation orders as a priority. I repeat that the victim has top priority over any assets seized. We expect victims to receive their reparation before any other authority or public body does so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate and the shadow Minister asked why the word “may” is used rather than “shall”. We have considered that point long and hard. Should we impose this as a mandatory condition on the courts? On balance, we feel it is better to give the courts discretion not to make orders if, for example, the defendant does not have the assets to make full payment. We would do a disservice to victims if we led them to believe that the reparation order would come to them and then there were no assets and they felt deprived of the reparation they expected.

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I listened with interest to what the Minister just said. If the clause said “must”, which is mandatory, I would understand the argument that the Minister puts forward. However, would not changing the wording from “may” to “shall” indicate the weight of opinion that we should wherever possible apply for one of these orders? “May” is a lesser encouragement to do something; “shall” would be a better way to make clear our intention.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

The shadow Minister drags me back to my previous life as a tax adviser, where I argued at length with an inspector of taxes whether “shall” was mandatory. It was an interesting debate that I will not share with the Committee. There is some debate around “shall” and many in law consider “shall” is mandatory [ Interruption. ] As the Whip says from a sedentary position, in English as well.

The provision makes it clear that the court must give reasons if it makes an order. We encourage courts to make an order wherever possible. That is certainly the message to come out of the Committee: we expect the courts, where possible, to impose a reparation order on someone who is found guilty as part of a confiscation hearing. Assets must be available if that is to be possible.

The shadow Minister asked whether a victim who was not part of the case can be covered by a reparation order. A reparation order follows a conviction. Inevitably, it can be given only where the court has been persuaded that the defendant committed a slavery and trafficking offence against the victim. Therefore, if someone is a victim of a defendant who has been found guilty, and the jury has been convinced of that, a reparation order can be applied. If there is another victim who has not been through the court process and the defendant has not been found guilty of offences against that victim, I do not see how the reparation order could be applied. We will look at that to see if there are possible ways to do so.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I support the provision as drafted, because it will give some encouragement to victims who are considering whether they are able to give statements. They would know that if they did give statements and a conviction was secured, they would be eligible for reparation. That perhaps connects back to the point the Minister made about “shall”, “may”, “if” and “must”—I admit that every time I hear a discussion in this place about the interaction of those words, I leave slightly more confused than I started.

It would be helpful if the Minister indicated how the guidelines would address that and the interaction between that and what the CPS might do. I can see the situation that was suggested of 25 victims but only 12 going to court. It might be the CPS that chose which 12 go to court, not the victims. There might be an element of discrimination as a result of more offences not being brought to the court’s attention for some legal, utility purpose. Will the Minister take that away and give some thought to the idea?

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I thank my right hon. Friend for his contribution. It is useful to see the reparation order as an incentive to give evidence, which will help victims to have the confidence to give the evidence that is needed to get prosecutions. I will cogitate on my right hon. Friend’s point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate asked whether the court could consider the victim impact statement. Clause 9(3) allows the court to consider evidence when setting a level of compensation, which could include victim impact statements or evidence about health problems.

A question was asked about the time limits for reparation orders. There is no time limit on making reparation orders, and confiscation orders can be made or varied after the fact. If more assets are discovered later, the court can increase the value of the reparation order to reflect the new information.

On clause 7, the shadow Minister asked about the test for restraint of assets. In the Serious Crime Bill we intend to reduce the test from a reasonable cause to believe that the defendant has benefitted from criminal conduct to a reasonable suspicion. We believe that will allow restraint orders for freezing assets to be applied for at an earlier stage of an investigation.

I hope I have covered all the points that were made. If I have not, I will write to the Committee to clarify any points I have not covered. Given the welcome that the shadow Minister gave to the clauses, I hope the Committee will accept them.

Clause 10 - Slavery and trafficking reparation orders: supplementary provision

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 10, page 6, line 34, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—

“(d) the reference in section 133(3)(c)(iii) to a slavery and trafficking reparation order under section 8 were to a compensation order under section 130 of that Act;”

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 25 and 26.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

The Bill introduces important provisions in clauses 8, 9 and 10 to ensure that victims can receive reparations directly from their trafficker or enslaver for the abuse and suffering they have endured. Bespoke slavery and trafficking reparation orders send out a clear signal that those who seek to make a profit by using others as a commodity will not only be prosecuted, but will need to compensate their victims from their ill-gotten gains. I am grateful that the Committee has agreed to clauses 8 and 9, and I look forward to debating the related provisions in clause 10.

These consequential amendments relate to the setting up of slavery and trafficking reparation orders. They will ensure that existing legislation that makes provision in relation to compensation orders makes similar provision in relation to slavery and trafficking reparation orders. The legislation being amended includes the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, the Administration of Justice Act 1970, the Criminal Justice Act 1991, the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997, the Courts Act 2003, the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 and the Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act 2013.

Clause 11 - Forfeiture of land vehicle, ship or aircraft

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I beg to move amendment 70, in clause 11, page 8, line 25, leave out “or ought to have known”.

[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] It was worth waiting for. I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Pritchard, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North for taking clauses 1 to 10.

Amendment 70 is one of a series of probing amendments that we have tabled to the next few clauses in order to get some clarity about how the Government are thinking on particular issues. We support clause 11—we do not have a problem with it. It is absolutely right that those found guilty of an offence under clause 2 can potentially forfeit a land vehicle, ship or aircraft. There is no problem with that.

As the Minister will know, clause 11(5) contains a definition of how the clause will apply to individuals found guilty of an offence under clause 2. As drafted, subsection (5) says:

“This subsection applies where a person who, at the time the offence was committed—

(a) owned the ship or aircraft, or

(b) was a director, secretary or manager of a company which owned it,

knew or ought to have known of the intention to use it in the course of the commission of an offence under section 2.”

It is perfectly reasonable to apply the clause to an individual convicted of an offence under clause 2 who owns the ship or aircraft: people who own an asset should have knowledge of what it is being used for. It is perfectly reasonable for an individual who is the director, secretary or manager of a company that owned the ship or aircraft to be held responsible for the ownership and actions involving that asset. It is self-evident that if someone knew that an asset for which they were responsible was being used for the commission of an offence under clause 2, their inclusion under the clause is perfectly reasonable.

I have tabled amendment 70 to test what the Minister means by including in subsection (5) the words “ought to have known”. That is a very wide phrase. I potentially ought to know what is on television tonight, but I do not. I ought to have known about Government amendments 5, 25 and 26 to the previous clause, but I did not, because my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North dealt with them. There are lots of things that I ought to have known but did not. Will the Minister define what she means by “ought to have known”? It is important, not because I want to delete those words from the Bill, but because when the Bill becomes law, at some point in time, somewhere in the United Kingdom, someone will be in the dock in a court because they “ought to have known” what an asset was being used for. I do not want either the defence or the prosecution to make a case that is full of holes because of subsection (5).

I would like some clarity, so I challenge the Minister to use this opportunity to put into Hansard what she means by “ought to have known”. There is clarity in “ownership of an aircraft”, in “director, secretary or manager” of a company, and, subject to prosecution tests, in “knew” what an asset was being used for. “Ought to have known” is slightly more off beam and needs clarity. I have tabled amendment 70 to give the Minister an opportunity to supply that clarity.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. It is nice to hear from him for the first time in this Committee, and I look forward to him challenging me during our consideration of the Bill, which I am sure he will.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am here to help.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I thought nothing less.

The amendment raises important issues about the balance of property rights and property owners’ responsibilities not to allow their assets to be used in human trafficking. It relates to circumstances where the trafficking offender themselves did not own a ship or aircraft or was not the director, secretary or manager of a company that did, but where the actual owner of the ship or aircraft—or the manager, director or company secretary of a company that owned the ship or aircraft—knew or ought to have known of the intention to use the ship or aircraft in the commission of a trafficking offence. The provision is effectively a safeguard for dealing with larger, and so more valuable, ships or aircraft, as smaller ships or aircraft used in trafficking can be forfeited regardless of the knowledge of the owner.

I am grateful for the opportunity to set out why I believe it is right for individuals who ought to have known that their ship or aircraft was being used in human trafficking to be at risk of forfeiting that ship or aircraft. First, the focus of the Bill is to bring modern slavery out into the open and to encourage individuals to act to tackle that horrific abuse. The amendment suggests that, even when faced with evidence that any reasonable person would recognise as signs of human trafficking, an individual remains free from any responsibility to take any action to stop exploitation being carried on through his or her assets. It seems reasonable that an owner of a ship or aircraft who is faced with obvious signs of human trafficking should take steps to stop their own asset being used to carry out such a crime—for example, by reporting their suspicion to the authorities. If the owner opts to turn a blind eye, it seems reasonable that he or she puts himself or herself at risk of seeing that ship or aircraft detained and ultimately forfeited.

Secondly, the test set out in subsection (5)—

“knew or ought to have known”—

is a widely used test in legislation, in particular in the field of criminal law. It appears in the legislation on sexual offences, and the test of “knows or ought to know” also appears in clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill. Without the second arm of the test—“ought to have known”—defendants can argue that they did not know what was taking place even in scenarios where it is unfeasible that they could have been unaware that their property was being used to commit a human trafficking offence. That would make it extremely difficult for the power to be used in practice, and we need to ensure that the Bill delivers meaningful and effective powers for law enforcement to improve its response to modern slavery.

Finally, the forfeiture power is based on an existing power in relation to trafficking for sexual exploitation, in section 60A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. I am not aware of any practical problems with the unjust use of that power. The test is an objective one: if a reasonable person ought to have known, the test is met. The ordinary meaning in English is often used in law as well.

Given that clarification, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The purpose of the amendment was to test and to put on the record the Minister’s understanding. I am grateful for her explanation, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 12 - Detention of land vehicle, ship or aircraft

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I beg to move amendment 66, in clause 12, page 8, line 34, leave out “senior”

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Amendment 67, in clause 12, page 9, line 17, leave out subsection (7).

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

This is another short probing amendment that I hope the Committee can deal with quickly. The detention of a land vehicle, ship or aircraft is a reasonable power, but the clause allows that

“a constable or senior immigration officer may detain a relevant land vehicle, ship or aircraft.”

A constable is defined in law as anything from a chief constable to a constable on the ground—they all hold the warrant of constable—yet subsection (7) defines a “senior immigration officer” as

“an immigration officer not below the rank of chief immigration officer.”

Simply for the record and to test the Government’s intention, I want to the Minister to explain the logic behind why a constable, who could in effect be anyone from a police constable to a chief constable, may detain a vehicle, ship or aircraft under the powers in the clause, while immigration officers may not, unless they are of the rank of chief immigration officer.

I tabled the amendment because, if we look at later clauses—which, given the context of this discussion, I hope you will allow me to do, Mr Pritchard—we see that clause 23, on “Slavery and trafficking risk orders”, defines, for a magistrates court making a risk order, that an application should be made by

“a chief officer of police…an immigration officer, or…the Director General of the National Crime Agency”.

Different types of individuals undertake different things under the Bill. Clause 12 gives powers to a police constable, but the chief officer of police must be involved in slavery and trafficking risk orders. Furthermore, an immigration officer at the lowest level has clause 23 powers, while the chief immigration officer must be involved under clause 12. Therefore, what judgment have the Minister, her officials and the Department made as to why different levels of authority are given in clause 12?

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for tabling and explaining the amendments, which relate to what rank of immigration officer should be able to use the power to detain a land vehicle, ship or aircraft. This gives me a helpful opportunity to set out the Government’s view about how best to ensure the power is used appropriately and proportionately.

The power applies where an individual is arrested for a human trafficking offence. If the constable or senior immigration officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a land vehicle, ship or aircraft has been used, or was intended to be used, in the commission of the human trafficking offence, the officer can detain that vehicle at the point of arrest. Detention is made prior to a court finding an individual guilty of an offence and without prior reference to a court. That reflects the need to disrupt traffickers’ activities.

The individual can apply for the release of their property. Given that detention of a potentially valuable asset will often cause significant disruption and that detention can take place even when the asset’s owner is not the person arrested, we consider it appropriate to have the safeguard of reserving the power for senior immigration officers. That reflects the existing legislation on which the power is based. Immigration enforcement is already using the power with the safeguard, and I am not aware of any difficulties with it.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am not disputing that, and I am quite content with the Minister’s explanation, but I am interested in why the power in the clause can be exercised by a constable or a senior immigration officer. Why not a chief superintendant or senior police officer? That is the point I am interested in.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

As I said, the measure is based on powers used elsewhere.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

That does not mean there is any logic in it.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

The right hon. Gentleman tempts me to say something I will not say on the record.

The powers in the clause are powers of detention, which could involve the long-term detention of property, with a significant impact on an individual—for example, if the vehicle is used as part of their daily activities. In addition, the owner of the vehicle may not be the trafficker.

Clause 13, by contrast, provides for short-term powers for the purpose of preventing, detecting, investigating or prosecuting a slavery or trafficking offence. The potential impact of clause 12 on an individual is considered to be greater than that of clause 13, so the different levels of seniority in the two clauses are appropriate.

Michael Connarty (Labour, Linlithgow and East Falkirk)

I can see the point, having been in the police game, that a constable is not a citizen and has the warrant. An ordinary immigration officer—not a senior immigration officer—might think that detaining a vehicle would allow someone to investigate so that a warrant could be found to keep the vehicle much longer, but if they do not have the power, a trafficker might escape. Are we not, in fact, making an error if we do not make sure that there is at least some power for an immigration officer to hold a vehicle so that a senior officer can decide whether a warrant is required?

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

Constables have relevant training and expertise. Police staff, for example, cannot use the power, but constables would have the appropriate training. Given the differences between the two orders, it is appropriate to have the different levels of experience, and we stand by the clauses.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am grateful to the Minister for attempting to explain that. Whether or not a similar measure is in previous legislation, it seems illogical that a PC on the ground could detain a vehicle, ship or aircraft, but an immigration officer would have to go via a chief immigration officer, because the definition in the clause refers to a “senior immigration officer”.

I am not party to this information, so will the Minister tell me how many chief immigration officers are on duty at any particular time at any particular port? A constable will not necessarily be present at the time of the potential offence. I am simply seeking the logic, and there may be a logic in this for the Minister. If there is a logic in a PC being able to seize a vehicle, why is there no logic in an immigration officer being able to do the same? If it is an issue of training, perhaps that should be examined.

I do not wish to make difficulties. I am genuinely interested in why there are two levels of authority in regard to this valuable power, which should be exercised to help to prevent trafficking. I will give the Minister one more opportunity to explain, and then I will withdraw the amendment.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

The position of chief immigration officer is an operational grade on the front line. We would expect to see chief immigration officers operating where such a power is needed. Of course, a constable is a warranted officer and has the power of arrest, so we consider that to be the appropriate grade for the power.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

We have had an explanation, although there is still an element of illogicality in it. Nevertheless, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 13 - Enforcement powers in relation to ships

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 13, page 9, line 23, after “waters” insert “or in international waters that do not form part of the territorial sea of any State”.

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 28, in clause 13, page 9, line 44, at end add—

‘(6A) The Secretary of State shall set out in a published memorandum how the authority under subsection (3) is to be exercised.”

Amendment 58, in clause 13, page 10, line 4, at end add—

‘(7A) The Secretary of State shall, by way of regulations—

(a) establish means to ensure that trends in maritime trafficking and forced labour in the UK and international waters are identified and tracked;

(b) establish means to ensure that intelligence and information on maritime trafficking and forced labour are communicated to the enforcement officers set out in this provision;

(c) establish means to ensure that co-ordination and intelligence sharing in relation to maritime trafficking and forced labour occurs between the agencies responsible for the enforcement officers as set out in this provision;

(d) establish means to ensure that enforcement officers set out in this provision are aware of their responsibilities to potential and actual victims of trafficking and forced labour;

(e) receive bi-annual reports from the agencies responsible for the enforcement officers in relation to their attempts to identify and disrupt maritime trafficking and forced labour, and to assist the victims.”

Amendment 57, in clause 13, page 10, line 11, at end add “ and all territorial waters of the United Kingdom including its dependencies and territories.”

Amendment 27, in clause 13, page 11, line 3, at end insert—

‘(10) The Secretary of State must submit a report annually to Parliament on the use of sections 11, 12 and 13 of this Act in the previous 12 months.”

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

This grouping takes in a range of amendments to clauses 11 to 13 regarding powers in relation to land vehicles, ships or aircraft. Trafficking involves the movement of people with the intention of exploiting them. Slavery, servitude and forced labour can also take place at sea, for example on fishing vessels, so it is important that law enforcement has appropriate powers to stop those engaged in trafficking and slavery at sea. It is also important that law enforcement can disrupt the activity of traffickers by detaining the ships, vehicles and aircraft being used to bring modern slaves into the UK, and ultimately ask the courts to forfeit the assets used in trafficking. I am grateful to members of the Committee who have agreed with me about the principle that these powers are justified.

I now turn to the detail of the amendments; I will start with Government amendment 6 and then move on to the amendments proposed by honourable Members.

Government amendment 6 is about the enforcement powers in relation to ships without nationality where modern slavery is suspected, as set out in clause 13 and schedule 1 to the Bill. Currently the Bill enables these enforcement powers to be exercised in relation to stateless vessels within domestic waters. The amendment extends the enforcement powers in relation to ships, so that enforcement officers can act on a stateless vessel in international waters that are not part of the territorial sea of another state. Such vessels are not protected by any state, and therefore states are able to exercise enforcement jurisdiction over them, both in their own waters and in international waters. Currently, however, this is not provided for in domestic legislation.

The Committee will want to know how a stateless vessel is defined—

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The provisions of clause 13(5) relate to

“territorial sea adjacent to England and Wales”,

so does the Government amendment gazump that measure?

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

If I may explain the definition of a stateless vessel, perhaps we could then consider the issue of the waters that are covered by the amendment.

A stateless vessel is a “ship without nationality”, to use the term in the Bill for a stateless vessel. The definition in the Bill sets out that a vessel is stateless where it is not registered to a state or otherwise entitled to fly the flag of any state, or where it flies the flag of two or more states, using them according to convenience. The amendment will mean that enforcement officers have appropriate powers to act in relation to stateless vessels, in line with international law, where modern slavery is suspected. Clause 13(5) only relates to “foreign” ships within UK territorial waters, whereas the amendment is about stateless vessels; it enables immigration officers to board those vessels in waters that are not the territorial waters of any one state.

I now turn to amendment 57. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Foyle for tabling this amendment to the enforcement powers in relation to ships. These powers are currently focused on the waters surrounding England and Wales. The amendment aims to extend them to cover territorial waters around the entire UK, and around Crown dependencies and overseas territories.

There are certain technical difficulties with the amendment, but I wish to focus on the important issue that has been raised. The Government are committed to creating an effective new enforcement power in relation to ships. More broadly, I am committed to working with the devolved Administrations to ensure that we have a co-ordinated and effective UK-wide approach to tackling all aspects of modern slavery. So I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for tabling this amendment, and I look forward to hearing his contribution when we discuss the amendment. It is perhaps incumbent on me to allow him to speak to that amendment and then maybe I can respond.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Amendment 27 seeks to have an annual report submitted to Parliament on the uses of what would be sections 11, 12 and 13 of the potential Act in the preceding 12 months. Amendment 28 seeks to set out a memorandum as to,

“how the authorities under subsection (3) is to be exercised.”

I have tabled these amendments as a debating point and to clarify some of the issues relating to clause 13. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle has tabled his amendments; some of the issues that I wish to test are effectively the issues that he has focused on more directly, relating to the use of the powers in England and Wales.

Clause 13 is very welcome and we do not seek to divide the Committee on it. I welcome the clause and the powers in schedule 1. Schedule 1 allows an officer appropriately to,

“stop the ship…board the ship…require the ship to be taken to a port (in England and Wales or elsewhere) and detained there.”

The enforcement officer may search the ship and anyone or anything on it. Those are extremely valuable powers that are needed to enforce the prevention of domestic slavery and other forms of trafficking.

The reason why I have tabled the amendments in the way I have is not necessarily because I want an annual report, nor that I want to have in the clause how the authority is to be exercised, but I want clarity from the Minister as to the purposes of the clause. For example, clause 13(3) says:

“The authority of the Secretary of State is required before an enforcement officer may exercise Schedule 1 powers in relation to a United Kingdom ship in international waters if their exercise would occur at a time when the ship is in the territorial sea of any State.”

I have tabled amendment 28 to request a memorandum to look at how that authority would be exercised, because I am keen to know how the Secretary of State gives that authority prior to an enforcement officer boarding or stopping that ship, or using other mechanisms in schedule 1. If we have officers responsible for that, at what stage, how and in what form is the authority of the Secretary of State given? Does the Secretary of State give a blanket authority to those officers? Does the Secretary of State have to give an individual authority for each potential incidence of enforcement under clause 13? Does the Secretary of State need to be available to give authority for enforcement to happen?

I asked those questions in our pre-Committee scrutiny of the officials and they replied that they would write to us. I do not think I have had much detail on that. If I have and it has escaped my memory, it would be useful for the Minister to re-emphasise it. I am interested in how that authority will be exercised. That was the purpose of the memorandum, because there are a range of potential areas where the authority under clause 13(3) is required.

Secondly—this leads into the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle—I have asked for an annual report on the exercise of clauses 11, 12 and 13 because, again, under clause 13(5):

“The authority of the Secretary of State is required before an enforcement officer may exercise Schedule 1 powers in relation to a foreign ship outside the landward limits of the territorial sea adjacent to England and Wales.”

Does an official of the National Crime Agency, a constable of a particular force or an immigration officer know where Scotland waters stop and England waters commence? Do they know where the waters around Northern Ireland stop and the waters of England or Wales commence? They may have a magnificent map on their desk to show them, but I believe there is a potential gap there in the operation of clause 13. Irrespective of anything else, we already know, through previous legislation—my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle may have different views on this from me—that, for example, the National Crime Agency does not yet operate in Northern Ireland. We have debated that issue elsewhere. The Border Force does operate in Northern Ireland, and yet, under clause 13(5), the powers are only exercised on

“the landward limits of the territorial sea adjacent to England and Wales.”

Again, although there are devolved Administrations in Scotland and in Northern Ireland—we anticipate that Northern Ireland will be part of the United Kingdom for the foreseeable future, but who knows what will happen in Scotland in the next few weeks?—there is a gap, and I would welcome a view on that gap.

I would also welcome a view on clause 13(6), which states:

“Authority for the purposes of subsection (5) may be given only if—

(a) the home state has requested the assistance of the United Kingdom for

the purpose mentioned in subsection (2)(a),

(b) the home state has authorised the United Kingdom to act for that

purpose, or

(c) the Convention otherwise permits the exercise of Schedule 1 powers in

relation to the foreign ship.”

I am asking for an annual report because there may be occasions when the home state does not request assistance or authorise the United Kingdom. It does not mean that the United Kingdom has no concerns about either the potential conduct of a vessel or its potential cargo. It would be helpful for the Minister, at some point—preferably now—to indicate to the Committee what happens when the home state refuses the United Kingdom permission under the clause. I have used the device of an annual report because, in an annual report, that refusal of permission could be notified and made public and be subject to debate. Although that may not happen on occasions, there are many rogue states out there. There are many states that do not have agreements with the United Kingdom. There are many flags of convenience and organisations that would not necessarily wish to give permission to the Secretary of State to exercise his or her powers under the clause.

All of that provides an opportunity for the Minister to explore those issues. I am particularly interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle has to say, because it is vital that we do not have a blip on the radar by not having Scotland and Northern Ireland covered, in terms of territorial waters, by the enforcement powers under the Act.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I am delighted to follow the right hon. Gentleman in addressing this group of amendments. First of all, I note that the amendments in his name are, in many ways, complementary to the amendments that I have tabled. Although they overlap in large part, they diverge in other directions, but they are complementary rather than competitive. I am conscious that what I am proposing in amendment 58 is a field of work to be developed that would very much be the subject of the sort of memorandum that he is proposing in one amendment and the annual reports that he proposes in another. I will get to the details of amendment 58 shortly.

I shall start with amendment 57. It appears second on the amendment paper, but given that the Minister has addressed the issue of territorial jurisdiction in near waters by the UK, and that the right hon. Member for Delyn has discussed it too, I will begin with that amendment. Essentially, it is about the question not only of Northern Ireland and Scotland, but of the dependencies and territories—about which, more soon. At the minute, the wording of clause 13 seems ripe for confusion and uncertainty, so amendment 57 is aimed at clarifying some of that. The number of references in clause 13 to waters both in and outwith England and Wales gives rise to confusion about the applicability of the legislation.

I note fully that the Minister has again said that the Government want to work with the devolved Administrations in ensuring that overall arrangements are as strong and coherent as they can be. As I said about previous amendments, I do not think there would be any untoward anticipation regarding the interests or views of devolved Administrations, as long as they remain devolved. That depends on what happens soon in the case of Scotland. I do not think there is any untoward anticipation in our clarifying the legislation here.

Later in the Bill we will look at issues around the commissioner. Given that the Minister has set such store by the important role of the commissioner in ensuring that more is done to enforce proper pursuit and convictions, we need to be careful that in the criminal law aspects of the Bill we do not leave gaps and loopholes through which people can evade proper capture and enforcement. We could end up creating difficulties for the commissioner with questions, doubts or gaps about their competence and the scope of the geographic competence of the agencies they deal with or look at.

Amendment 57 deals with all territorial waters of the United Kingdom, including its dependencies and territories. It is trying to ensure that we do not end up with questions about which part of the Irish sea a particular boat was in, or a boat’s whereabouts between Northern Ireland and Scotland, and therefore not around England and Wales. Given my background as an Irish nationalist and an MP in a border constituency, I am very conscious of the sensitivity of the definition of territorial waters and the historical claims of the Irish constitution. The aim is to ensure that, as a legacy of those uncertainties, we do not end up with doubts or gaps in this legislation. The aim is to make that good. I am confident that devolved Administrations, certainly the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, would want to be able to develop means and mechanisms under their own capacity that are compatible with the best purposes of the Bill. In relation to some of the enforcement issues of the law at this level, I think they would find it more than acceptable, proper and proportionate for this legislation to scope the issue.

Dependencies and territories are very important in this regard. I do not know whether other hon. Members followed earlier in the summer the Guardian investigation that looked at a number of problems that affected what should be UK territorial waters in the north and south Atlantic. I know that Anti-Slavery International—particularly its staff in the Bangkok office—supplied some of the information and background that assisted the Guardian investigation. In response to that, other concerns have been raised by other people. Anti-Slavery International has received very credible reports from people who have worked in environmental inspections in fisheries, who identified clear signs of forced labour on fishing boats in UK territorial waters in the north and south Atlantic. Their evidence and concerns corroborated recent Guardian reports and, indeed, other evidence gathered by Anti-Slavery International that included fisheries outside of Asia.

One person who brought evidence to Anti-Slavery International noted that fisheries in the waters of the Ascension Island overseas territory seemed to be poorly managed and that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been selling licences to Asian fishing vessels. There does not seem to be much oversight of environmental and safety issues and certainly not of working conditions. Those licences are being sold to vessels from Taiwan, Japan, China, the Philippines and Korea. Evidence has recently come to light of considerable concerns in south-east Asia about trafficking on Taiwanese boats and some cases of trafficking of Cambodian men into Taiwanese boats that went to fish off the coast of Africa. Korean boats have been similarly implicated, using Filipino, Indonesian and other exploited labour in New Zealand and neighbouring waters. If the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is selling licences in that context and there is a lack of oversight, it raises the question of how joined-up the Government’s stated commitment to have world-beating legislation and provisions really is, particularly if we leave gaps in the legislation about what happens at sea—not just in international waters but in seas that the UK has some particular territorial responsibility for. It seems amazing to leave those sorts of gaps.

Amendments 57 and 58 are aimed at addressing that problem. Amendment 58 would ensure that

“trends in maritime trafficking and forced labour in the UK and international waters are identified and tracked”

and establish

“means to ensure that intelligence and information on maritime trafficking and forced labour are communicated to the enforcement officers”.

The other provisions of amendment 58 are also aimed at ensuring that when issues or concerns such as those that I outlined arise, they are properly addressed and tracked. Later in the Bill, some of us have tabled amendments to ensure that the commissioner is able to look at just how robustly those other responsibilities are being observed.

Amendment 57 purely deals with the issue of territorial applicability, to make good the gaps in the legislation and to prevent any misunderstanding. When the right hon. Member for Delyn spoke to his amendments, he made the point about the language that appears around home states. The confusion arises as to whether the Minister is going to tell us that, for these purposes, the devolved Administrations count as home states or whether the reference to “home state” can be interpreted as territory, meaning that the devolved Administrations are to count as territories or whatever. It would be better to make that much more explicit and clear in the form of some of the amendments before us, rather than the unwieldy and confusing wording that is currently in the Bill.

I raised the issues about things happening in the waters around and in overseas territories in the south Atlantic and, to a degree, in the north Atlantic. The question is not only to clarify the geographic scope of the provisions, but to make sure that there are powers to deal with those issues. The way to deal with the sorts of problems that I have raised and of which Anti-Slavery International has evidence is properly to empower enforcement authorities to inspect and to follow up their inspections. It is not enough simply to provide that power; as in other clauses, we must ensure that there is direction behind it. I understand that the United States is starting to consider similar measures.

I do not believe that amendment 58 would go beyond what the Government want to do by over-prescribing powers or procedures. It would, however, frame the necessary responsibility in the legislation and make provision for proper follow-up so that we can deal with the evidence that we are receiving about such problems. If we ignore that evidence, we will be ignoring aspects of trafficking and forced labour in different parts of the world on the seas. Without such provision, the Bill will be less relevant than the Government claim it will be.

Michael Connarty (Labour, Linlithgow and East Falkirk)

I was reminded, in the contribution by my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn, of the capacity of Donald Dewar in a Bill Committee to take a small probing amendment and turn it into a major constitutional crisis. He usually used such devices to reveal that the Government had not thought the thing through, and my right hon. Friend’s questions show that that is true of this Bill. The Minister’s response, in which she referred to the devolved parts of the UK, shows why there is such an upsurge in anger in Scotland, which may split the United Kingdom up.

Leaving out the rest of the UK waters, as the hon. Member for Foyle pointed out well, would leave us with a massive problem, particularly if there is a yes vote on 18 September. We would have a putative independent country to the north, covering a large part of the waters around the UK, with absolutely no fixed memorandum for how the Bill would operate. It may be that the arrogance and complacency of the Government, and perhaps even of everyone down here in the Westminster bubble, have led them to believe that that would never happen and that people would never do it. I hope that they do not, but it still leaves a big question: why is this not a Sewel Bill? Why have the Government not seriously considered introducing a Sewel motion to the effect that we would come up with something that covered all the United Kingdom waters, and particularly all the waters in Scotland? That would normally be done with a matter that affects Scotland. Or are we really saying that we only want to cover to wherever the border is—as we know, that is greatly disputed in the sea—so that ships can sail a few miles up the coast on the east or the west and nobody will pursue them, because they will be in Scottish waters rather than in English or Welsh waters? The Government have not thought that serious question through.

If the Minister—or anyone, in fact—had been listening to the words spoken by the First Minister and his colleagues since the Scottish National party became the majority party in 2007, he would understand their obsession with Margaret Thatcher’s selling off the rights of the Scottish people in the Scottish fishing industry to the EU when she was Prime Minister. Some say that she did so for the rebate. That basically gave the EU sole competence over fisheries around Scotland, and it is a great problem. The First Minister recently said that the first priority of a possible independent Scotland would be to seize back control of the seas around Scotland. That is a serious matter.

That is the ambition of a possible independent Scotland. For me, as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, there has always been a problem when the UK Government inflict on Scotland problems that it was not consulted about and not designed to deal with: although we receive statements from Scottish Ministers about whether the devolved Assembly have been consulted about a proposal, we are never told what the devolved Assembly said; we are just told that they were consulted. We have to assume that such consultations affect the explanatory memorandums produced by British Ministries.

In this case, we are putting together a Bill. Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn, who asked some salient questions earlier, I do not know a great deal about the minutiae of the seas, but I do know quite a lot about the politics of Scotland and the sensitivities of the Scottish Administration of any colour—whether a Lib Dem-Labour alliance or the SNP—to the fact that they were not properly brought on board in the designing of Bills in this place that would affect Scotland. To overcome that problem, we came up with a great idea. Lord Sewel, who was formerly the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities before he was elevated to the House, said he was sensitive to that problem, having tried to hold together all the local authorities. He said we should have what are commonly known as the Sewel processes, by which we indicate by means of a motion that we are going to put together a Bill that will have an effect in Scotland, and after properly designing the Bill and consulting the Scottish Administration, we put into our law the consequences for Scotland. It is clear that we have not done that for the Bill. So massive questions are raised just by the probing amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn.

What is the Government’s response to the possibility that we might have an independent Scotland following 18 September? Are we really so arrogant that we thought if we just ignored them, it would not happen? Did we not think that maybe even if it did not happen, the maritime section would put Scottish waters at risk if they were not covered in the Bill?

It was quite clear from the evidence to the Joint Committee of Jenny Marra, the Member moving an anti-slavery Bill in Scotland—a private Member’s Bill that has been taken on by the Scottish Government—that there is nothing in the Scottish Bill to deal with these issues. That is such a huge omission that, as it clearly is the aspiration of Scotland to have a Bill that is parallel to ours that would make all of the UK secure against human trafficking, and as this measure is so important to our Bill, either the measure should have been discussed and included in the Scottish Bill, or a Sewel motion should have been introduced in this place, stating that what we pass in this place for England and Wales applies to Scotland. Possibly, the hon. Member for Foyle might feel the same way.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

This measure has practical applications for situations such as the recent tragic case in Dover, in which people were found in a container. What would happen if knowledge came to us about a container ship off the coast of Stranraer, which is outside the domain of England and Wales? Would the enforcement authorities be able to do anything about it? If they could not, what would happen to that ship?

Michael Connarty (Labour, Linlithgow and East Falkirk)

That is a very relevant question, because I understand that one of the passageways into the UK for many asylum seekers who end up in Scotland is through Stranraer. They get into the Republic of Ireland, travel on to Belfast and get on a ferry to Stranraer. They then claim asylum, having been trafficked halfway round the world sometimes, into Ireland and then on to UK waters through what is now an open border with the north. So that is a really relevant question. It is not just about an individual, but planned trafficking on a ship that picks people up either outside or inside the Republic or from Northern Ireland to land in Scotland. Going from the south to the north of Ireland is a problem, but a ship can do it. It is something that I had not thought greatly about until I had heard the tenor of this debate, particularly the detail given by the hon. Member for Foyle, whose constituency has a sea border to the north and is very close to the Republic.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I do not assert sea borders in Ireland too often. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the British-Irish Council, which comprises all eight Administrations of these islands, including the Irish Republic, should be a forum in which these questions are discussed, so that everyone, whether at sovereign or devolved level, can come up with enforcement arrangements for the waters surrounding these islands that are as compatible and comparable as possible?

Michael Connarty (Labour, Linlithgow and East Falkirk)

That is an excellent suggestion. I do not know why the British-Irish Council has not been approached. I am a substitute member and our colleague Jim Dobbin, who has sadly just passed away, was a very active member. It is the kind of forum where the politics could be discussed, so that people are sensitive and accommodating, but matters must then be discussed with the officials. The officials of each Administration that is not England or Wales have to think about how they will cope with that. We have a small fisheries protection strategy at the moment with a very small allocation of protective vessels, but do people recall the cod war with Iceland, when ships were firing at and deliberately crashing into each other? I think we lost that war, quite honestly, because Iceland is now one of the sovereign places that can deny us the right to fish cod in their area and it still has a fishing industry, whereas we in the EU have been pillaged by the Spanish and others, who bought up great numbers of quotas.

It is a serious question. If we have independence—this is one of the great debates—what will be the configuration of a Scottish navy and army? They have said that they will have some protection vessels, but we say—

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

Order. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is using other examples to focus on the clause, which is narrow in scope, so may I encourage the hon. Gentleman—

Michael Connarty (Labour, Linlithgow and East Falkirk)

This is very important, because the extent of the clause, and the Bill, without amendment, stops at the border of England and Wales. We do not have adequate protection vessels for what is going on now. Tam Baillie, the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland, said that he could name 150 children who had been trafficked into Scotland in an 18-month period. Where did they come from?

I will give an example. In my constituency, I have an Iraqi family. Two of their children came to Scotland. The case is somewhat contentious. When I asked how they arrived, I was told that they came in a big ship that came up the River Forth. They were taken by boat to land at a small fishing village in Fife and then they made their way to Grangemouth. They were up for deportation, but one of them turned out to be a rather good violinist and I received a letter from the head teacher of Grangemouth high school asking me to support its petition to have that young man allowed to stay. The head teacher was a friend of mine and a Labour party member and I said that I would write a letter in support of that child, even if that child was the most disruptive child in his school and was not a talented violinist, but he had been trafficked into Scotland on a boat up the River Forth.

We do not know much about what is happening now in the many ports and small fishing villages around Scotland, because we do not have adequate means to deal with it. The Bill basically says that the clauses do not cover Scotland, so “tough”; we do not do anything with it. That is an omission that the Government will surely address, which has been exposed by our sensitive probing amendment.

Amendment 58 is full of many things that we should be doing. The points about overseas territories where we are licensing vessels are serious. I want to know whether the Minister will do anything about making sensible amendments to the Bill. Will she say that if ships are sailing out of England or Wales, we will try to do something about it, so if ships are licensed by and sailing out of British territories around the world, which we should be controlling, we will also do something about that?

I want to point out to the Minister something in the clause. We previously debated seniority. Clause 13(8) variously describes an enforcement officer as a constable or an immigration officer; it does not specify a senior immigration officer, as was defended stoutly, if illogically, by the Minister, who was sticking to her brief—

David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: amendment 28, in clause 13, page 9, line 44, at end add—

‘(6A) The Secretary of State shall set out in a published memorandum how the authority under subsection (3) is to be exercised.”

Amendment 58, in clause 13, page 10, line 4, at end add—

‘(7A) The Secretary of State shall, by way of regulations—

(a) establish means to ensure that trends in maritime trafficking and forced labour in the UK and international waters are identified and tracked;

(b) establish means to ensure that intelligence and information on maritime trafficking and forced labour are communicated to the enforcement officers set out in this provision;

(c) establish means to ensure that co-ordination and intelligence sharing in relation to maritime trafficking and forced labour occurs between the agencies responsible for the enforcement officers as set out in this provision;

(d) establish means to ensure that enforcement officers set out in this provision are aware of their responsibilities to potential and actual victims of trafficking and forced labour;

(e) receive bi-annual reports from the agencies responsible for the enforcement officers in relation to their attempts to identify and disrupt maritime trafficking and forced labour, and to assist the victims.”

Amendment 57, in clause 13, page 10, line 11, at end add—

“and all territorial waters of the United Kingdom including its dependencies and territories.”

Amendment 27, in clause 13, page 11, line 3, at end insert—

“(10) The Secretary of State must submit a report annually to Parliament on the use of sections 11, 12 and 13 of this Act in the previous 12 months.”

Michael Connarty (Labour, Linlithgow and East Falkirk)

The Minister has heard much that I hope will give her thought and send her civil servants scurrying to Scotland to talk about the extra-territorial nature of the clause, as it deals only with England and Wales. I will leave it at that for now.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I finally get the chance to say that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby, not yet having made a verbal contribution to the debate while you have been in the Chair.

We are debating numerous amendments, and I will come to each in turn. I will start by commenting on the contribution made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk. I think he suggested that something that I said might encourage a yes vote in next week’s referendum. I sincerely hope not. As a Member representing a landlocked English constituency, I feel I have little expertise to contribute to that debate, but I hope that next week we will see a resounding no vote, because I personally do not want Scotland to leave the Union. I do not think we will be better alone; we are more than the sum of our parts, and I very much hope that the people of Scotland will choose to stay with the people of England and Wales, who really do appreciate their part in the Union. I reiterate that if anything I have said might indicate that that is not the case, I hope that nobody will take it in that way.

Before I go into more detail, I want to say that there have been significant and extensive discussions with all devolved Administrations and other Crown and overseas territories and so on, because we want to ensure that the Bill extends appropriately. However, as I am sure hon. Members understand, these are complex issues. The last thing that I wish to do, sitting here in the Westminster Parliament, is to impose anything on devolved Administrations that is unacceptable to them. I hope we will shortly be in a position to deal with any anomalies or concerns, but I reassure Members that we are talking extensively to Members of the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland in order to ensure that the Bill’s territorial extent is appropriate.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The key point is that under schedule 2 to the Bill, to which we will come shortly, an enforcement officer may board a ship, search it or do various other activities described in the schedule. If that ship is outside the port of Stranraer or the city of Belfast, or in some other Northern Irish or Scottish waters, will those powers exist? That is the key question for the Minister.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

Control over territorial waters of the devolved Administrations lies with those Administrations. We need to ensure that we have the right mechanisms in the Bill that are appropriate and acceptable to the devolved Administrations. I reassure Members again that those discussions are ongoing. I very much hope that any anomalies or concerns will be resolved shortly, but it is a complex issue.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I sat in this very Committee Room 18 months ago, where my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North is sitting now, discussing the National Crime Agency. The Minister then gave the very same assurances with regard to that organisation, but 18 months later, the NCA still does not operate in Northern Ireland. Does the Minister regard Border Force officials as United Kingdom Border Force officials or Border Force officials for England and Wales? That is the key question in the Bill. We are being asked today to support clauses that mean Border Force officials, as the Bill stands, cannot board a ship in the territorial waters of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle or in any of the territorial waters around Scotland.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

As I say, it is an anomaly that we are dealing with. We are making sure that we do it properly and effectively and that we do so in a way that is acceptable to those devolved Administrations. I want to reassure the right hon. Gentleman—I am sure that he saw the press release over the weekend about the National Crime Agency and their role in Northern Ireland from the devolved Administration.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Tell me all about it.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

That is not the topic of the debate, but I am sure that he will be reassured when he sees that press release. I also very much hope that soon, we will be able to come back to Members with a resolution to the problem.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

For the benefit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn, I can confirm that things are moving in a way that seems to indicate that issues relating to the NCA are now more robustly Patten-proofed than had been the case. On the Minister’s point about discussions with the devolved Administrations, is she trying to tell us that they have some sensitivity in relation to the issue of territorial waters, or is she saying that she hopes, as a result of those discussions, that the Bill could be amended in the future along the lines we are discussing today?

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

What I will say now is that this is a very complex area and we need to make sure that we get it right. However, the intention is that the Bill will extend and we will not have any anomalies or complications in the future that mean that those slave masters escape justice. That is what we are all looking to achieve.

On the topic of Border Force, I want to inform the Committee of a visit I paid to Glasgow over the summer, at the time of the Commonwealth games—I did not actually attend any of the Commonwealth games, but I just happened to be in the city at the same time. However, I did get the opportunity to spend time with Border Force at Glasgow airport and saw the extremely good work that Border Force is doing on combating slavery, particularly in the fishing industry and with the container ships coming into Stranraer. I learnt an awful lot about what it does and I was very impressed by the work it is doing in Glasgow. I am confident that slave masters, should they choose to come anywhere into the United Kingdom, will find that there is no welcome for them in Scotland and that the Border Force officials there are doing their utmost to find and catch them, and to make sure that slave masters are unable to carry out the activities that we all wish to stop them doing.

On amendment 57, it is absolutely vital that we create an effective new enforcement power in relation to ships. Again, I am committed to working with the devolved Administrations to ensure that we have a co-ordinated, effective, UK-wide approach to tackling all aspects of modern slavery. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk for setting out why the enforcement powers at sea might be more effective if they were UK-wide and also covered Crown dependencies and British overseas territories. I agree with many of his arguments. We are actively considering what further extensions to the clause might be required to make it effective. As I said, we are in the middle of complex discussions and it is critical that any extensions be taken forward following consultation agreement from the relevant legislatures, respecting their devolution settlements.

Michael Connarty (Labour, Linlithgow and East Falkirk)

I am putting the Minister on the spot. If I write to the Justice Minister in Scotland—as I often do on many things—and ask him what is going on, will I get a description of an ongoing and, as she said, meaningful discussion with officials, with the detail of what is happening, or is this something the Minister is indicating will suddenly commence? Is there a genuine, ongoing discussion about these clauses with the Justice Minister and with the Minister responsible for the seas around Scotland at this moment?

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I can absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that those discussions are ongoing—perhaps not as we speak, but they are ongoing. Being slightly mischievous, I should add that some people might be surprised that I am so fervently in favour of a no vote, as it might mean that the hon. Gentleman is unable to quiz me in quite the same way as he does today. However, I still hope that the Scottish people vote no in their referendum next week. Given those reassurances, I hope he feels able to withdraw his amendment.

Amendments 27 and 58 focus on ensuring the transparent and appropriate use of powers in relation to land vehicles, ships or aircraft, as set out in clauses 11 to 13. I am committed to ensuring that there is proper accountability and scrutiny, so that all law enforcement powers are used effectively in relation to modern slavery. We must also ensure that partners are supported in using the new legislation effectively, and that this activity is reviewed appropriately. That is why the Bill includes provisions for an anti-slavery commissioner, who will have a critical focus on improving law enforcement’s response to modern slavery. I look forward to the Committee’s detailed scrutiny of the provisions relating to the anti-slavery commissioner. However, I reassure Members that the commissioner’s remit includes encouraging “good practice” in

“the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of offences under sections 1, 2 and 4”.

Reporting on the use of the powers set out in clauses 11 to 13 is also part of the commissioner’s remit. I consider that method of review to be more appropriate than legislating for annual reports, as proposed in amendment 27. Similarly, the bi-annual reports suggested in amendment 58 could place a disproportionate burden on law enforcement and Home Office officials to provide and collate that information. Such requirements are not in place for the existing powers in relation to drug trafficking, on which clause 13 is based, or the existing powers of detention and forfeiture in relation to trafficking linked to sexual exploitation, on which clauses 11 and 12 are based. Where law enforcement discovers a potential victim of trafficking through the use of these powers, they will be required to notify the National Crime Agency under the new duty to notify set out in clause 44, which will improve the visibility of this currently hidden crime.

Amendment 28 would require the Secretary of State to publish a memorandum on the system through which authorisation would be sought from the Secretary of State to act in relation to foreign vessels or in foreign waters under the enforcement powers at sea set out in clause 13. The mechanism used to authorise such activity will be the same as that already working effectively in relation to tackling drug offences at sea, through which the Secretary of State devolves authority to a director within Border Force, who is then available to decide whether to grant approval on her behalf. That function is available 24 hours a day through the Border Force national command centre. The process already functions effectively without placing a duty on the Secretary of State to publish a memorandum, and we do not consider that is required to extend the system to cover modern slavery. We want to ensure the new power is used efficiently and will therefore provide guidance to law enforcement officers on the relevant authorisation processes. We have been clear that legislation is just one element of the response required to tackle modern slavery, and I assure those Members who have tabled amendments that the Government are determined to provide front-line agencies with the guidance they need and to improve scrutiny, accountability and results through the new anti-slavery commissioner.

A number of specific points were raised, and I will try to cover them all. The right hon. Member for Delyn asked about a commitment made during the oral evidence session for something in writing. I understand that the request for the memorandum was made to the NCA, which then wrote a letter following the oral evidence session. If he does not have a copy of that, I am sure we can find one for him. He also asked about the territorial extent and the landward limits. In practice, those using these powers should recognise landward limits, which are marked on charts. We are also working with the devolved Administrations to see if those can be extended across the entire United Kingdom. From my experiences at Glasgow airport, I saw that Border Force officials clearly know exactly where territorial waters begin and end, and have due cognisance of what activity goes on within them.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

My point is that people traffickers will know that as well.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I am sure that people traffickers do, but that, of course, is why we are extending the power for stateless vehicles—so that we can go into non-territorial waters. There are clearly issues in dealing with vehicles that are not stateless. At that point, we need to look at negotiating with the overseas power that the ship is registered with and ensuring that we have the appropriate warrants and the ability to board.

Let us be clear: this is provision is intended to stop the traffickers hiding outside ports. It will enable officers to board ships on the open seas rather than having to wait until the traffickers come into port. I know from my conversations with Border Force officials that the risks to the victims of not being able to do that and the risks of what the traffickers and the slave masters may do to those victims to dispose of the evidence need to be tackled. We must have as much power as is reasonable to give our authorities to stop that dreadful situation.

The right hon. Member for Delyn asked about clause 13(6) and about a case where the home state requests assistance but does not authorise the UK to act. Have I got that right?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Clause 13(6) gives the Secretary of State authority in relation to foreign ships. It states:

“Authority for the purposes of subsection (6) may be given only if… the home state has requested assistance”.

There may be occasions when the Secretary of State and enforcement officers wish to exercise the power under subsection (6), but the home state has not requested it. What happens then?

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

That was the point I thought he had made and I was perhaps not explaining it terribly well. Enforcement powers can only be exercised in relation to foreign vessels where to do so would be compatible with the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. This is because we have to respect the constraints of international law. The clause has been carefully drafted in conjunction with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to ensure that this outcome is achieved. Generally, we would anticipate that action could be taken without referral to another state under clause 13(6)(c), but clearly we have to be aware of international law.

The hon. Member for Foyle asked how the powers would operate in relation to Irish vessels and Irish territorial seas. Activity in relation to Irish vessels or in the territorial seas adjacent to Ireland will follow the same process as for other foreign states. Action will never be taken in the territorial waters of another state without its consent. Authority will also need to be gained from the Secretary of State to ensure that activity on Irish vessels in UK territorial waters is consistent with international law, which will include gaining permission from the Irish Government if that is required.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the co-ordination between the Home Office and the FCO in relation to fishing licences. We will publish a modern slavery strategy this autumn working across government. We will ensure that Departments are co-ordinated to stop modern slavery. We will listen to the contributions of this Committee as we develop that strategy to ensure that the points raised are fully covered. Finally, there was a question about a British-Irish strategy. Again, that is the point of overall strategy on modern slavery. The points the hon. Gentleman made will be reflected in the work we do to get that strategy right. Given those assurances and the fact that the Government intend to address hon. Members’ concerns, I hope they will not press their amendments.

Michael Connarty (Labour, Linlithgow and East Falkirk)

I made a point about how this measure would operate and I was genuinely seeking guidance about the methodology. I said that I understood that no equivalent legislation would be brought forward; certainly, that is the case with the Jenny Marra Bill before the Scottish Parliament at the moment. So there is a requirement for this type of legislation on these issues to be carried somewhere. Why is it not a Sewel motion going forward? How will this be implemented? We are making law for England and Wales. We have the problem of Northern Ireland. We have a substantial problem, whether it is a no vote or not, if there is to be a similar anti-slavery Bill in Scotland but without these clauses. I do not know how we are going to have an agreement over jurisdiction unless Scotland is just going to hand us jurisdiction. The normal way is to have a Sewel motion that says Scotland accepts these measures as necessary to make anti-slavery effective in its waters. I do not know what methodology the Minister is thinking of.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

The point that the hon. Gentleman makes highlights how complex the issue is. There is no simple answer and that is why the discussions have been, and continue to be, ongoing. I hope we will shortly resolve those issues in a way that is satisfactory to the Committee and to the devolved Administrations.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I appreciate what the Minister said about the point I made in an intervention about the British-Irish Council being one arena in which these issues should be considered right across the jurisdictions of these islands, whether they are devolved, sovereign or whatever. In the context of the questions about Scotland, the Scottish National party says that it is absolutely committed to maintaining and, indeed, enhancing the British-Irish Council. Regardless of what happens next week, that proposition still arises, and I am glad to hear that the Minister and the Government would look positively at that.

The Minister commented on territories, dependent Crown territories and dependencies in future, and about the work programme that her Department will introduce, which will reflect commitments across Government. However, the issues I have raised about what has been happening in some locations are real questions and the concerns are outstanding. There have not been clear answers or positions from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is the Department issuing the licences in the circumstances with all the questions attendant on that. On that basis, I do not have the confidence not to press amendment 57, because the issue of dependencies and territories is as much a consideration in that amendment as questions of the territorial waters of the devolved areas.

I note the Minister’s commitment to dealing seriously and sensitively with devolved Administrations. I cannot apprehend any concerns on the part of devolved Administrations if we were to legislate in the terms set out in the amendment. It is about fully rounding off the competence of those enforcement officers who would be deemed to be such under the Secretary of State in a sensible and straightforward way to avoid any loopholes. It does not prescribe any issues relating to any of the different authorities or agencies that might be working on the seas for the devolved authorities.

I passionately believe in devolution in our situation, and I know that there are a lot of questions today, not least that raised by the First Minister as to whether the devolved institutions will stay standing in Northern Ireland, which seems amazing to me. However, as a former Deputy First Minister, I cannot see that anybody in the Assembly, of any party, at any level would see anything untoward in the House legislating in the way I suggest in the amendment. On that basis, I shall press amendment 57, as I shall amendment 58.

I have listened carefully to the Minister, who said that amendment 58 would somehow be otiose, because the Bill proposes that the commissioner will provide reports that will look at some of the issues. I am breaching your guidance, Mr Crausby, by anticipating our later discussion in relation to the role of the commissioner. We need to make it clear that the commissioner will report on how their objectives have been met—they will not necessarily report directly on the actions and responsibilities of others—as they are widely described. The amendment states:

“The Secretary of State shall, by way of regulations”

provide for guidance, report and reflection on performance. That is hugely important, because there is no point in creating a power unless there is a real power of direction behind it to show an enforcement standard. It is right to vest that power in the Secretary of State but not to over-prescribe it; amendment 58 is deliberately not over-prescriptive. It allows the Secretary of State to provide for reports to be introduced on a broad basis—a much more reliable report for the House than the sort of report that seems to be envisaged for the commissioner, which will be by way of observation and exhortation and relates to specific periods in their strategy, but allows for them to have reports during the life of the strategy. The amendment is a much more firmly framed way of dealing with those issues and would allow the subsequent and overarching reports by the commissioner to have more meaning. It would allow the commissioner to rely on those reports by way of any subsequent assessment that they make in respect of their own reporting powers. The merits of amendment 58 are not offset in any way by the reporting power that is sketched out for the commissioner in the later clause, so I shall press it and amendment 57.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I have one final clarifying comment, which may assist the hon. Gentleman. We are working towards seeking the agreement of the devolved Administrations to the extension of clause 13 and schedule 1 of the Bill to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Aspects of that may require a legislative consent motion but the details of how that will work are in the process of being agreed. We are consulting with the Crown dependencies and overseas territories, so I reassure him that we are working on that, take it seriously and want to ensure that it happens.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

Clause 13 empowers law enforcement officers to investigate modern slavery offences committed at sea. Previously, a loophole in the law prevented them from acting. The National Crime Agency has identified seven instances in the past two years where law enforcement was unable to act on reports of modern slavery on board vessels. If law enforcement officers have to wait for such vessels to return to UK territorial waters or a UK port before taking action, that can expose victims to extended periods of serious abuse and risk the loss of evidence that could lead to a prosecution. That situation is totally unacceptable, and the Government will put it right.

The clause creates a power to target that loophole. Given the relatively low number of incidents, we anticipate that the power will not have a significant impact on maritime activity, but it will provide a proportionate response to this serious crime. Where a modern slavery offence is suspected, law enforcement will have the power to stop, board, divert and detain a vessel, to search a vessel and obtain information, to make arrests, to seize any relevant evidence and to use reasonable force in performing those functions. Those powers are set out in schedule 1.

The clause mirrors existing powers on drug trafficking in the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990. The serious nature of modern slavery makes it critical that law enforcement has the powers before us so that it can effectively respond to the threat posed by the terrible crimes involved.

The power in the clause can be used by police in England and Wales, the National Crime Agency, and immigration and customs officers. Border Force staff on board Her Majesty’s cutters will be able to act on suspected modern slavery offences. The power will also extend to the Royal Navy, which we anticipate will use it at the request of relevant law enforcement agencies. The provisions will ensure that those agencies with intelligence on modern slavery offences and the operational capacity to respond can use the new power.

The measure will enable action to be taken on any ship in domestic waters, meaning the sea and other waters within the seaward limits of the territorial sea adjacent to England and Wales. In addition, action can be taken against stateless vessels in international waters and against UK flagged vessels in international waters, including the territorial sea of another state.

Where action is taken on a foreign vessel in UK territorial seas adjacent to England and Wales, or on a UK vessel in the territorial waters of another state, authority must be sought from the Secretary of State, with the UK Border Force acting as the delegated competent authority. That is to ensure that activity is in line with international law and that permission has been provided by relevant personnel where appropriate.

The mechanism used to authorise such activity will be the same as that already working effectively in tackling drugs offences at sea, where the Secretary of State devolves authority to a director in the Border Force who is then available to decide on her behalf whether to grant approval. That function is available 24 hours a day through the Border Force national command centre.

The powers can be used only to prevent, detect, investigate or prosecute a modern slavery offence. As set out in schedule 1, they can be exercised only where an officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a modern slavery offence has been, or is being, committed.

The measures respond to a specific scenario in which law enforcement officers have identified that they are unable to act effectively to stop modern slavery. They will ensure that criminals can be brought to justice where modern slavery offences take place at sea. I therefore hope that, when the Chair puts the Question, Committee members will feel able to support the clause’s inclusion in the Bill.

Schedule 1 - Enforcement powers in relation to ships

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I beg to move amendment 69, in schedule 1, page 33, line 18, at end insert—

‘(3A) Any person refusing to disclose such information shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or imprisonment for up to six months.”

Schedule 1 is an important part of the Bill. It gives enforcement officers the power to stop and board a ship, to require a ship to be taken to a port, and to search a ship or anyone or anything on it, including cargo. Paragraph 10(3) currently states:

“A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph”—

which effectively means obstructing an enforcement officer, refusing to comply with instructions or providing false material—

“is liable on summary conviction to a fine.”

Between you and me, Mr Crausby, I confess that the amendment is a bit clunky, is probably in the wrong place and is not elegantly drafted. Nevertheless, its purpose is to tease something out of the Minister. If an individual is found guilty of hindering an enforcement officer by interfering with the stopping of a ship, the boarding of a ship, the requirement for a ship to be elsewhere, or the searching of a ship, anyone on it or its cargo, is it appropriate that they will be liable only to a fine for which the schedule does not even stipulate a minimum amount?

I have tabled amendment 69, which, as I said, is probably in the wrong place, badly drafted and inelegant, in order to ask whether or not we should consider a higher level of penalty than a fine, whether the Minister should consider a minimum fine, and whether the courts should have the option of considering a custodial sentence. We are talking about potential people traffickers being stopped. If a people trafficker perverts an enforcement officer’s role by not helping him to search the ship or not allowing him to search the cargo, that is a serious offence. If a ship is not stopped and further force is required, or people try to repel the enforcement officers who board a ship, what happens? Those are serious crimes that require a serious response, rather than simply making the guilty person “liable…to a fine”.

I have tabled my amendment not in the hope that the Minister will accept it, but to ask her to look at the principle. If she comes back with a further, stiffer penalty for those who wish to pervert the course of justice, she will have our support.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I would never call an amendment tabled by the right hon. Gentleman “inelegant”, “clunky” or “in the wrong place”—that was his description, which I will leave to stand.

Schedule 1 mirrors existing enforcement powers at sea and offences in force in relation to drug trafficking, which are set out in schedule 3 to the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that there should also be the option of a custodial sentence over and above the maximum sentence set out in paragraph 10(3), which is a fine.

As currently drafted, the provision reflects how the same offence is dealt with in cases of drug trafficking. We consider the sanction to be proportionate to the nature of the offending behaviour if all that has happened is a failure to answer a question. However, in practice, the power is aimed at tackling modern slavery. If the individual has been engaged in a slavery or trafficking offence, the Bill ensures that they can be subject to a life sentence. Given that clarification, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be content to withdraw his amendment.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The point I am making is that the offence under schedule 1 could include someone preventing an enforcement officer from boarding, entering, searching or doing things on a ship. That person could subsequently be found not guilty of a human trafficking offence, but they might still have tried to pervert the course of justice. I am not sure that a fine is the appropriate mechanism for dealing with that. We should consider setting out the possibility of further action: either a minimum fine or a minimum custodial sentence. That might be hard-line on this issue, but it is an important signal to send. The measure might reflect other legislation, but sending that signal is important. It does not mean that a court has to exercise the power, but the Minister might want to reflect on that. I do not intend to press the amendment, but she would have our support if she wanted to reflect on the amendment and go further, which would send a strong signal.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s kind offer, but we have based the offence and the sentence on existing powers. It would all depend on the facts of the case. I hope that anyone guilty of the serious crime that we seek to target with the Bill will be prosecuted under the Bill and be subject to life imprisonment, but I appreciate his words.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 14 - Interpretation of Part 1

David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 15 stand part.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

Clause 14 is a technical provision on which I will not detain the Committee, but clause 15 introduces the slavery and trafficking prevention orders, which are a critical part of our strategy for addressing modern slavery. The pre-legislative scrutiny Committee talked a great deal about prevention being as important as pursuit in that context. We agree with that point. Prevention is critical, and the slavery and trafficking prevention orders on sentencing are being introduced to give law enforcement and the courts the power they need to prevent the harm caused by slavery and human trafficking offences. We will address the prevention orders in more detail later, so I will not detain the Committee further.

Clause 16 - Slavery and trafficking prevention orders on application

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I beg to move amendment 76, in clause 16, page 12, line 12, after “satisfied”, insert “beyond reasonable doubt”

David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 77, in clause 20, page 15, line 24, after “satisfied”, insert “beyond reasonable doubt”

Amendment 81, in clause 24, page 18, line 30, after “satisfied”, insert “beyond reasonable doubt”

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

This a device to tease out from the Minister what the level of proof should be on the prevention orders. The amendments would simply add the words “beyond reasonable doubt” to various parts of the Bill. As the Minister will be aware, the report on the draft Bill looked at the prevention orders and other things that fall into part 2 of the Bill. There was concern about the level of the threshold and how the legal threshold would be determined. Concern was expressed that prevention and risk orders, including interim orders, would cause a range of problems because of the level of evidence required to impose them. I want to give the Minister an opportunity to clarify the matter. In their response to the Joint Committee’s report on the draft Bill, the Government essentially said that they were sticking to their original position on the orders. On page 9 of their response, the Government stated that they had

“reviewed the Committee’s arguments about legal certainty and safeguards with care. The Government will be writing to the Joint Committee on Human Rights to set out in detail why we believe our approach is fully compliant with our human rights obligations. We believe we have set substantial and appropriate safeguards to ensure that the Orders will only be used in appropriate circumstances”.

As we consider the orders in Committee, it is appropriate for the Minister to reflect on those concerns. I have used the words “beyond reasonable doubt” to try to get some indication from her of the evidential threshold that she envisages for application of the orders, given that concern has been expressed by the Magistrates Association and the Joint Committee that considered the draft Bill. There is still a debate about the matter, on which we have received representations from Liberty and others. I do not want to prolong my contribution; the purpose of the amendments is simply to encourage the Minister to set out what the evidential test will be.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members for tabling the amendments and providing the opportunity to discuss the standard of proof required to impose a slavery and trafficking prevention or risk order, or an interim order. The purpose of those orders is to ensure that law enforcement bodies and the courts have appropriate powers to restrict the behaviour of persons who are likely to commit a slavery and trafficking offence. Although the protection of potential victims is paramount, we are also conscious of the fact that orders must be necessary and proportionate in their interference with a defendant’s personal life. We believe that we have already built in effective safeguards to ensure that the orders will be used only in appropriate circumstances. When a court considers whether to impose an order, it must be satisfied of the necessity of that order.

The amendments suggest that a court should be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, which is the standard of proof in criminal courts. Although the orders will be obtained through civil proceedings, the Government accept that that threshold will be akin to the criminal standard in line with relevant case law. We can go through that, if Members of the Committee wish to do so. The amendments are not needed, because the clause already meets the evidential threshold that hon. Members seek to include. Given that assurance, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw amendment 76.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

That satisfies the point that I wanted to put on record. Given that we are talking about a magistrates court test, rather than that of a higher court, the Minister’s comments are important. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I beg to move amendment 68, in clause 16, page 12, line 26, at end add

“or

(c) who the chief officer believes has been to it previously or had connections with the area.”

Clause 16(4) gives a chief officer the power to make an application for a prevention order in two cases, and states:

“A chief officer of police may make an application under this section only in respect of a person—

(a) who lives in the chief officer’s police area, or

(b) who the chief officer believes is in that area or is intending to come to it.”

In amendment 68, I have suggested a third category for the Minister to consider, which is someone

“who the chief officer believes has been to it previously or had connections with the area.”

I hope that the amendment will help to provide additional certainty. I can envisage a chief officer wanting to impose a slavery and trafficking prevention order to reduce the level of people trafficking or slavery in his or her police area. Under the clause, they may do that only if the person lives in their police area or if they believe that that person is in their area or intending to come to it. However, that does not cover, which I propose in my amendment, those who have been to the area previously or those who have connections to that area.

I will give an example. At present, it is possible for the chief constable of North Wales police to apply for a trafficking prevention order for someone who lives in my area. He could also do that if he thinks that they are in, or will come to, the area. There might be individuals who were previously involved in trafficking in my area who are not currently resident in the area or intending to return there, but they might have connections with it through their family or business or in other ways. I tabled the amendment because subsection (4)(a) and (b) does not cover every base. The amendment—the Minister may want to take it away, reflect on it and come back with words to similar effect—could mean that the police have full powers.

To use my area of north Wales again, it is quite possible that an individual could conduct activity that should be covered under a slavery and trafficking prevention order, but the chief of police would not be able to make an application for an order, because that individual does not live in the area, is not in the area and does not intend to come to the area, but they have been to it previously or have connections to it. I want to test whether the Minister feels that all the bases are covered in applications for orders under the clause.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for tabling the amendment and for providing me with the opportunity to explain the rationale behind the provision of powers to chief officers of police to make applications for slavery and trafficking prevention orders. The orders have been designed to manage the risk of harm that would be caused by an individual committing a modern slavery offence. Because the orders relate to risk of future harm, the relevant police areas are those that the individual is believed to be in or intending to come to for the purposes of triggering an application.

As the right hon. Gentleman said, cases in which an individual no longer lives in an area but the chief officer of police has reason to believe they are likely to return there, would be covered by the existing provision. In the few cases in which an individual posing a risk is unlikely to return to an area, it would be appropriate for the police to inform the National Crime Agency or the police force where the individual resides so that it could take steps to manage the risk. I see another role for the anti-slavery commissioner, which we will be debating later, in ensuring that police forces throughout the country talk to each other and to the National Crime Agency to gather all possible intelligence and information.

Given that the force that is best able to manage the risk is the one in which the future harm is likely to take place—the one where the suspected offender is residing or likely to reside—we believe that the chief officer of police for that force is the right person to make the decision about the order. For that reason, the clause as drafted provides appropriate powers for police in relation to slavery and trafficking prevention orders.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Given that that is the Minister’s view, what would happen if, in an appeal under clause 22, I, as the recipient of an order said, “I don’t live in the area any more, I am not in the area now and I do not intend to come back again”? We would then be reliant on one police force telling others to look at that person and then there are further potential defences. I am trying to box this off: the addition of amendment 68 would not water down subsection (4)(a) and (b), but give further potential, because that chief officer of police would have the most local knowledge.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that comment. The National Crime Agency will have the power to apply for these orders for the whole of the United Kingdom, so it could do that in such cases. However, I will consider the points he has made and confirm that we are happy that there are no gaps. I do not consider that there are, but I do understand the point that he makes. I apologise, as earlier I should have said “England and Wales”, not “UK”. I wish to put on the record the fact that that is what we are talking about. Given that clarification, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I do not wish to be difficult and press this to a vote. However, I do want a commitment from the Minister that she will take away amendment 68 and look at it. The Minister told the Committee that if a chief officer of police believes the conditions under subsection (4)(a) and (b) have been met, he or she may apply for a slavery and trafficking prevention order. If paragraphs (a) and (b) do not apply, but the officer thinks that the person might be away and working elsewhere, he or she can tell another police force or ask the National Crime Agency to act.

That is how things slip through the net. The National Crime Agency operates on a national basis. Another police force can operate as it so wishes. I genuinely do not see the harm in giving an extra power to the local police officer who has suspicions that are not covered by the provisions in paragraphs (a) and (b). It is for officials to look at whether that is legally the right wording. The principle is that there is still a gap. I would welcome the Minister’s commitment to look at that and write to me as to whether she thinks that is a real gap, rather than my withdrawing the amendment today.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. I still believe that the right police force to manage the risk in its local area is the local force. I take his points and, as with all discussions in Committee, I will reflect on them and ensure that we test and check that any points of concern raised are clarified and confirmed, and that we are confident that the Bill covers all gaps.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 17 - Meaning of “relevant offender”

David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 18 stand part.

Clause 19 stand part.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

It is helpful to group these clauses together. I want to make only a couple of comments. I have nothing to say on clause 17, so the Minister can put away her notes on that, unless she wishes to contribute.

Clause 18 concerns the effect of slavery and trafficking prevention orders. Subsection (1) says bluntly:

“A slavery and trafficking and prevention order is an order prohibiting the defendant from doing anything described in the order.”

Before we pass the clause—which, for the benefit of the doubt, I wish to do—it is important that the Minister deliberates and tells the Committee in more detail what is meant by

“from doing anything described in the order”.

I am interested to know what measures the Minister believes the order could contain. These are important matters, with important liberties potentially being withdrawn. We had a lot of debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North on the issue of control orders when dealing with terrorism offences. At the moment, under clause 18(1), the order could describe anything. It could put any restriction on an individual; it could limit contact by phone, e-mail or movement. It could force movement. It could mean a whole range of things. It is important that the Minister clearly sets out for the Committee what areas are likely to be in the order.

Clause 18(3) states:

“The order may prohibit the defendant from doing things in any part of the United Kingdom, and anywhere outside the United Kingdom.”

We have debated control orders, and terrorism prevention and investigation measures, which I do not disagree with—I am not a lily-livered liberal—but we must understand what they do. [Interruption.]

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

rose—

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

With due respect to lily-livered liberals on the Committee.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

Leaving aside the state of my liver, may I say that nobody on the Committee would be tempted to believe that the right hon. Gentleman is a Liberal?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I will take that as a badge of honour.

The point of my discourse, before I became distracted, is that the order will

“prohibit the defendant from doing things in any part of the United Kingdom”,

but what does that mean? The Minister must explain to the Committee what sort of things the defendant could be prohibited from doing in any part of the United Kingdom. In theory, the order could create a draconian power to prevent anything from happening in the court at large. Will the Minister explain what sanctions she believes could be imposed under clause 18, so we can compare and contrast them with the sanctions that can be imposed under control orders and terrorism prevention and investigation measures?

Clause 19 prohibits foreign travel

“for a fixed period of not more than 5 years.”

Again, I do not disagree with the thrust of the clause, but it is incumbent on the Minister to indicate to the Committee how the prohibition on foreign travel will work. We have been debating a range of matters relating to terrorism, including the withdrawal of passports and citizenship. Although the clause does not have a direct parallel with those things, the order could impose a major penalty on UK citizens and people travelling inside or outside the country. Before we pass clauses 18 and 19, the Minister must put on the record how they will work so that Members from all parties can ensure their livers are in good stead before we continue to clause 20.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

As somebody undertaking sober September at the moment, my liver has never been in better shape.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

It is only the 9th.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

It is still in better shape than it has ever been.

Clause 17, which I will not dwell on, is a definition clause to assist the courts and those issuing the orders. Clause 18, which the right hon. Gentleman has spent some time discussing, sets out what the slavery and trafficking prevention orders will do—namely, prohibit an individual from doing anything set out in the order if the court is satisfied that it is necessary to prevent harm. A slavery and trafficking prevention order may contain only prohibitions that the court deems necessary for the purpose of protecting people

“from the physical or psychological harm which would be likely to occur if the defendant committed a slavery or human trafficking offence.”

The explanatory notes state:

“The nature of any prohibition is a matter for the court to determine. A prohibition may include preventing a person from participating in a particular type of business, operating as a gangmaster, visiting a particular place, working with children or travelling to a specified country. The court may only include in an order prohibitions which it is satisfied are necessary for the purpose of protecting persons generally, or particular persons, from physical or psychological harm which would be likely to occur if the defendant committed a slavery or human trafficking offence”.

To enable law enforcement agencies and courts to respond to changing slavery and human trafficking practices, and to tailor prohibitions to the specific risk posed by individuals, we have deliberately not specified in the Bill the type of restrictions that can be included in a prevention order. That is appropriate, given the range of types of abuse that modern slavery involves, and the changing nature of the crime.

The prohibitions can apply to acts in any part of the UK and anywhere outside of the UK. They may apply for a fixed period of at least five years or until a further order is issued. The orders can specify different periods for different prohibitions. Where the court makes a slavery and trafficking prevention order in relation to someone who is already subject to a slavery and trafficking order, the earlier order ceases to have effect. I therefore hope that the Committee will be able to support the clause’s inclusion in the Bill.

Let me turn to clause 19 and prohibitions on foreign travel. Modern slavery, particularly human trafficking, is an international problem. The types of restrictions available under a slavery and trafficking prevention order need to reflect that. Clause 19 enables the court to prohibit travel to some or all countries outside the UK for a fixed period of up to five years, which may be extended for further periods of up to five years. As with other restrictions, the court can impose travel restrictions only where it is satisfied that the restriction is necessary to prevent harm that would be likely to be caused to an individual by the defendant committing a further modern slavery offence.

When the prohibition applies to all countries outside the UK, the defendant is required to surrender all passports to the police. The passports will be returned once the period of prohibition has ended, unless the passports have been returned to the issuing countries or organisations. I hope the Committee will be able to support clauses 17 to 19.

Clause 20 - Variation, renewal and discharge

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 20, page 15, line 17, at end insert—

“() where the order was made on an application under section 16 by the Director General of the National Crime Agency (“the Director General”), the Director General.”

David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 10, 11, 13, 16 and 17.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

The National Crime Agency plays a key role in the fight against modern slavery. Where it has applied for a slavery and trafficking prevention or risk order, it is important that it also has the ability to continue to manage the risk posed by the individual concerned. Amendment 7 adds the director general of the NCA to the list of individuals who can apply to vary, renew or discharge a slavery and trafficking prevention order. Amendment 13 makes a similar change in relation to the slavery and trafficking risk order.

Amendments 10 and 11 require the director general to inform the relevant chief of police when he has made an application to vary, renew or discharge a slavery and trafficking prevention order. Amendments 16 and 17 make similar changes in relation to the slavery and trafficking risk order. This ensures that those responsible for law enforcement at a local level are aware of the NCA’s activities in their area in relation to individuals who pose a risk of modern slavery. These amendments enable the effective onward management of individuals who pose a risk of causing harm by committing modern slavery offences.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 20, page 15, line 24, after “defendant” insert

“or require the defendant to comply with section (Slavery and trafficking prevention orders: requirement to provide name and address) (3) to (6)”

David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 9, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, new clause 1 and new clause 2.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

Where an individual is made the subject of a slavery and trafficking prevention or risk order because it is necessary to prevent the likely harm caused by their committing further modern slavery offences, law enforcement bodies need to be able to manage the risk posed by that individual effectively. In many cases, it will not be possible to manage that risk appropriately if law enforcement bodies are not aware of where the individual lives and what name he or she is using. This group of amendments therefore enables the court to impose notification requirements in relation to the names and addresses of an individual subject to a slavery and trafficking prevention or risk order.

New clause 1 makes provision for the court to impose a notification requirement on individuals subject to a slavery and trafficking prevention order. The court can require an individual to provide details of any names used and their home address to a relevant authority, where they consider that this is a necessary measure to protect persons from harm likely to be caused by the individual committing a modern slavery offence.

New clause 2 makes similar provision in relation to risk orders. An individual must provide those details within three days of the order being served and notify any further changes within three days of such changes taking place. The order must specify to whom and how such notification is to be made. Where changes in those details are notified to the director general of the National Crime Agency or an immigration officer, the director general or the officer must give details of any notification to the chief officer of police for each relevant police area.

Amendments 8 and 9, which relate to prevention orders, and amendments 14 and 15, which relate to risk orders, ensure that an order may be varied to require the defendant to provide details of his name and address if the court considers it necessary to manage the relevant risk proposed.

Amendment 12 enables the court to impose a notification requirement in respect of name and address as part of an interim slavery and trafficking prevention order. Amendment 18 makes a similar change for risk orders. Amendment 20 makes it an offence for an individual to fail to give notification of that individual’s name or address where that requirement has been imposed as part of a slavery and trafficking prevention or risk order, or an interim order. Amendment 19 is consequential to that amendment and ensures that drafting of the provisions retains an offence of failing to surrender a passport when that is required by order under part 2 of the Bill. The amendments are important to enable the slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders to be used effectively on the front line to manage the risk posed by individuals where a court has determined that their behaviour demonstrates a risk of committing modern slavery offences.

Clause 21 - Interim slavery and trafficking prevention orders

David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)

I call the right hon. Member for Delyn to move amendment 78.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

We have had quite a discussion about evidential tests, so I will not move amendment 78.

Clause 23 - Slavery and trafficking risk orders

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I beg to move amendment 80, in clause 23, page 17, line 35, leave out “an” and insert “a senior”.

David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 79, in clause 23, page 17, line 40, after first “a” insert “sufficiently serious”

Amendment 87, in clause 23, page 18, line 2, at end insert—

‘(2A) An order will be “necessary” for the purposes of subsection (2)(b) where—

(a) there is insufficient evidence to bring a prosecution, but there is clear evidence of future risk of commission of trafficking or slavery offences,

(b) the defendant(s) have been convicted of offences linked to trafficking or slavery overseas (but not an equivalent overseas offence under section 17(4)) and where there is evidence of a future risk of offending involving slavery or trafficking,

(c) the defendant(s) have been charged, but not convicted of a slavery or trafficking offence, and protection from the risk of the commission of a slavery or trafficking offence cannot be achieved by bail conditions alone, or

(d) the defendant(s) are part of or affiliated with a group or organisation engaged in slavery or trafficking offences and whose core offenders are currently being prosecuted.”

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

You were not in the chair this morning, Mr Crausby, but we had a discussion about the question of chief immigration officers in earlier parts of the Bill. Clause 23(1)(b) simply states that a slavery and trafficking risk order can be made by an immigration officer—the lowest level of officer. We discussed a menu of options when drafting our amendments, to get some certainty about the Bill, and chose to insert the word “senior”, which is reflective of earlier clauses in the Bill. I would welcome the Minister’s view on that, because there seem to be things that immigration officers can do in clause 23 that they cannot do in earlier clauses. I would like some indication of the level of responsibility involved. Why does a slavery and trafficking risk order have to be made on an application by a chief officer of police, rather than by a constable, yet an immigration officer—a lower grade—may also make an application, rather than the chief or senior immigration officer cited earlier?

Amendment 79 would insert the words “sufficiently serious”. We have discussed the evidential test, and I do not wish to labour the point. I will be interested to hear what the hon. Member for Brent Central says about her amendment.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent Central)

I have tabled amendment 87 to get some clarity from the Minister about the orders, and it picks up on some of the points that the right hon. Member for Delyn made about half an hour ago. Some of my questions about the evidential proof required were answered by the Minister’s earlier response, but I have others I would like to put to her. My main concern is that such orders could be used as an alternative to prosecution and thereby drive down, rather than up, the number of prosecutions in this area. A lot of the Committee’s discussion thus far has been about the low rate of prosecutions—and, indeed, the low rate of convictions. I think everyone in the Committee is of one mind, and I know she is very determined that we should drive up prosecutions. However, I have some worries about how the clause has been drafted; it may not yield the desired results.

I have some concerns about the workability of the orders, which is something the Joint Committee focused on in its examination of the Bill. The key issue is that there is no connection with the criminal justice system; there is no need for prosecution or charge. I completely accept the difficulty of prosecution. The Minister will say that that is precisely why we need extra tools in the toolbox to protect victims, but there is a danger of that becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. The key question for me is: under what circumstances would there be insufficient evidence to prosecute someone for what is a very serious offence—trafficking or slavery—and yet enough evidence for the court to deem a risk order necessary? She said to the right hon. Member for Delyn that the same evidential level of proof is required: a criminal level of proof. Will she clarify that?

In an earlier evidence session, the Magistrates Association stated:

“if there is not any evidence to lead to a prosecution, is there any evidence to lead to an STRO? Where is that line drawn? If it is at criminal proof, it is at a very high level—beyond reasonable doubt. There will need to be clarity about what the potential risk is and specific evidence that that risk is in danger of materialising.”

The question is whether, if different standards of proof are required, that will be a shortcut to avoid prosecution. If the same level of proof is required, I cannot quite see how we are going to meet the required evidence level to pursue the risk orders. We cannot seem to have one or the other. The worst possible scenario would be if we ended up with risk orders being used as a shortcut to avoid going to trial when we need to ensure that people are prosecuted and convicted.

I am certain that the Minister is on the same page as me and I hope she will reassure me with facts. The Government’s fact sheet on this part of the Bill says that the Government

“must be able to prevent very serious modern slavery offences where the risk is clear, but we cannot secure a criminal conviction for a previous offence.”.

The fact sheet notes that the police have said that risk orders will be useful to disrupt peripheral activity when the investigation is focused on core offenders. Finally, it mentions that risk orders could be useful where it is proven to be “difficult to prosecute” in instances where witnesses

“are unwilling to give evidence”.

The intention behind the amendment is to put that on the face of the Bill, so that it is a bit clearer on the circumstances in which such orders might be used.

These are significant powers—this picks up on the point that the right hon. Member for Delyn made. We need to know that they are used appropriately and to ensure that they are not used as a shortcut to avoid serious prosecution. I will not read out the amendment because Members are perfectly able to read it themselves. I am trying to ensure that we are absolutely clear about what the orders are for, rather than allowing them to hamper what I think the Committee is in one mind in trying to achieve.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central for tabling the amendments and for giving me the opportunity to explain how the Government have framed the provisions to ensure that they are used appropriately to manage the risk of harm from modern slavery offences. The Government’s intention in proposing slavery and trafficking risk orders is to prevent modern slavery offences. As I have stated, prevention is a key part of the Government’s approach to stopping these terrible crimes. Clause 23 is intended to give the courts appropriate powers to manage the risk of causing harm posed by an individual who may commit a slavery or human trafficking offence, such that it is necessary to protect others from physical or psychological harm that would be likely to occur.

Amendment 79 relates to the test for imposing a slavery and trafficking risk order. The test includes a requirement that the order must be necessary to protect people from the risk of harm from a slavery and trafficking offence or offences. The amendment seeks to ensure that the level of risk of the new modern slavery offences taking place is established—that it is sufficiently serious before an order is imposed. The change is not needed because the current test provides appropriate safeguards, which have a similar effect in practice to the proposed amendment.

To meet the existing test set out in the clause, the court must already be satisfied that a restriction is necessary. A court can conclude that a restriction is necessary only if the risk that the restriction is intended to manage is real and substantial and if no lesser steps would work to address the risk. For the court to be satisfied that a prohibition is necessary because no lesser measure will manage the identified risk, it is implicit that it must be satisfied that there is a sufficiently serious risk that must be managed in this way. I can assure Members that the clause as drafted provides sufficient safeguards regarding the appropriate application of orders.

On amendment 87, the orders are drafted in line with other existing orders—for example, those relating to sexual harm, which leave the determination of which behaviours and scenarios indicate that an order may be necessary to the courts. Therefore, it makes sense to mirror existing legislation that is already working effectively. There is a risk that, in defining a list of scenarios, some behaviours of individuals who pose a risk might not be captured. For example, an individual prosecuted for an offence other than one relating to slavery or servitude, but where there is nevertheless evidence of a risk of future modern slavery offences, might not be covered by the amendment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central wanted confirmation that such orders would not be used as an easy get-out from prosecutions or used as an alternative way. Her view is that the high threshold means that they are no different to a prosecution. There is a difference between proving the risk of future harm and proving that a specific offence has been committed in the past. We need to focus on that difference. Where a specific offence has been committed in the past and can be proved, we would expect a prosecution to be taken forward. However, there will be instances where the future offence is the risk. For example, someone might be convicted of a different offence, but it might become clear during the court proceedings that there is a risk of their committing future modern slavery offences.

Risk orders can also be used where somebody is awaiting trial, but the trial will not take place immediately. Protections will need to be in place for the victims. Victim safety is paramount, even in the absence of conviction. My hon. Friend mentioned the National Crime Agency’s point, which it made in oral evidence to the Committee, that the slavery and trafficking risk orders could be used where a prosecution could not take place because the victim was unable to give evidence. We all want prosecutions to take place, but there will inevitably be cases where the victims are just too vulnerable to give evidence—or are unable to do so safely—so that we can obtain a conviction. If a risk order can be applied for and obtained, that gives the public protection, because the individual cannot continue their activities.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

The Minister is being extremely helpful, but will she comment on where the situation where a case collapses and a conviction has not been secured? There might be reasonable suspicions that the person concerned was still involved in the same business. Would such orders be applicable in those circumstances?

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

My right hon. Friend is right that there will be instances where that happens, and risk orders can be used at that point. We are all disappointed when prosecutions fail and convictions are not secured—that can happen for a multitude of reasons—but we will at least have something to fall back on if we know that we can prevent future harm.

It is worth saying that the police have indicated that they expect risk orders to be used to restrict the behaviour of individuals at the periphery of modern slavery investigations, where there may be insufficient evidence to convict those individuals, but the risk is still clear. The police also considered that risk orders could be useful in controlling the behaviour of others who posed a risk, but where it was difficult to prosecute—for example, brothel keepers who advertise internationally for women and who move the women backwards and forwards across borders. There may be insufficient evidence to convict them of a trafficking offence.

Where an individual has a relevant conviction overseas, but not for a specific modern slavery offence that would fall under the prevention order regime, risk orders could be used to effectively manage any threat that that individual posed in the UK.

In some situations, a victim does not wish to provide evidence or to support a prosecution, but the information they provide would give grounds for identifying a subject for such an order. Last week, we talked at length about the need for evidence, but some victims are just not prepared to give evidence, and they will have good reasons for that. In that case, risk orders could at least be used.

Risk orders follow the approach of existing non-conviction orders, such as risk of sexual harm orders, which have been used to prevent serious sexual offences.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central asked a question to the effect of whether the orders were a second-best solution. It is important that they are available to law enforcement. We must be absolutely sure that victims are protected when they are at risk. We also absolutely want offenders to be brought to justice. Prosecution should be pursued whenever possible, but risk orders are there to give extra protection to those we so desperately wish to protect.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent Central)

What is the Minister going to do to make it clear to the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions that the priority is prosecution, rather than using these orders? If people find they can apply quite quickly and get things sorted, the case might never proceed to conviction, especially when victims will undoubtedly be nervous about giving evidence. How will we ensure that we prioritise prosecution?

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

My hon. Friend asks an important question, and that is part of the Government’s overall strategy on modern slavery. The message from the Committee should be clear—that we wish to see prosecutions—but I also want to see the anti-slavery commissioner, which we will debate later, put in place to ensure that those prosecutions are pursued in the best way they can be. The orders will be used only when it is not possible to convict somebody or where we have no evidence that they have committed a crime to date, but we have evidence that they will commit crimes in the future. It is an enhancement; it is certainly not a replacement.

My hon. Friend’s amendment 87 would make the process for seeking an order more complex by introducing further criteria and increase the likelihood of legal challenges as individuals subject to an order could argue that their behaviours were outside the triggering behaviours listed in the legislation. That is why we did not want to give an exhaustive list. We know that criminals tailor their behaviour to try to find loopholes in legislation, and there is a risk that they would use the list as a checklist by reference to which they could evade law enforcement.

Amendment 80 would ensure that only a senior immigration officer could make a slavery and trafficking risk order on application. The clause is drafted with reference to existing recognised legal persons, and specific positions of senior staff in immigration enforcement are not set out in legislation. We will establish, through Home Office policy, that any decision to apply for a slavery and trafficking prevention or risk order must be approved by the director of criminal investigations, a person of equivalent seniority to those who can apply for orders within the police and NCA. We consider that this safeguard will ensure that the orders are used appropriately without that provision appearing in the Bill. We have set substantial and appropriate safeguards to ensure that the orders will be used only in appropriate circumstances and with the approval of senior persons within enforcement bodies. Given that reassurance, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will not press their amendments.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 24 - Effect of slavery and trafficking risk orders

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I beg to move amendment 124, in clause 24, page 19, line 3, after subsection (6) add—

‘(7) The Secretary of State shall publish statutory guidance on the measures that may be included in a slavery and trafficking risk order within one month of this Act receiving Royal Assent.”

Amendment 124 would simply make publishing statutory guidance a matter of course for the Minister following the passing of the Bill. Going back to a range of discussions on the draft Bill, it was suggested that guidance be brought forward on a statutory basis. Indeed, Ministers indicated in the response to the Joint Committee’s scrutiny that they would bring forward statutory guidance, but I am conscious of the fact that saying they will and actually doing so are different things. I want to get that commitment from the Minister that she will publish statutory guidance on the measures that may be included in the risk order within one month of the Bill receiving Royal Assent.

We have had explanatory notes to the Bill and to the clauses, and we have the commitments that have been given in the response to the pre-legislative scrutiny, but I felt it appropriate to give the Minister an opportunity to say that she will publish statutory guidance, what it will include, when she will publish it and anything else she wishes to enlighten the Committee about. That was the purpose of tabling the amendment.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for setting out the intention behind the amendment. The Government will support law enforcement to implement the new slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders and to use them appropriately and effectively to protect the public. Clause 32 will help to achieve that goal by requiring the Secretary of State to issue guidance to chief officers of the police, immigration officers and the director general of the National Crime Agency regarding the use of their powers in relation to the orders.

The guidance will include advice on how to use orders effectively, covering, for example, the types of restrictions that could assist in managing the risk posed by individuals and the onward management of others. We expect that the guidance will also be used to help law enforcement deal appropriately with more vulnerable people. We will work with law enforcement bodies and wider partners to develop the guidance. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that guidance on the measures that may be included as part of a slavery and trafficking risk order, which he wants to introduce through the amendment, will be included in the broader guidance.

The amendment is also intended to ensure that such guidance is published within one month of the Bill reaching Royal Assent. Although we can anticipate what the guidance will include, we cannot finalise it until full discussion of the Bill has concluded. We will work with law enforcement and wider partners to develop the guidance, and we will consider including guidance on issues that are raised as the measures are debated in Parliament. Consequently, we must ensure that there is sufficient time to consult on the draft guidance. It would be unwise to bind the Government into achieving that in such a short time frame.

As the guidance will be issued at the same time as the provisions of the Bill commence, requiring the guidance to be issued one month after Royal Assent would tie the Government into commencing the provisions at the same time. The Bill may receive Royal Assent close to the date of the dissolution of Parliament before the general election. When a general election campaign is under way, it would be impractical to require any guidance to be completed within a month. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 26 - Variation, renewal and discharge

Clause 27 - Interim slavery and trafficking risk orders

Clause 29 - Offences

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I beg to move amendment 109, in clause 29, page 22, line 14, leave out “not exceeding £5,000”.

David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 83, in clause 29, page 22, line 18, leave out from “(3)(b)” to end of line 20.

Amendment 84, in clause 29, page 22, line 20, at end add—

‘(6) The court may refer to the crown court any matter relating to the order for consideration of action by the said court under Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.”

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Clause 29 provides a list of remedies to offences that could be committed in the event of an individual breaching a slavery trafficking prevention order, an interim slavery and trafficking prevention order, a slavery and trafficking risk order, or an interim slavery and trafficking risk order. The clause contains two sets of penalties for individuals who breach those orders. A person guilty of an offence is liable

“on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years”,

and

“on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding £5,000 or both.”

I think the prison terms are a reasonable punishment for breaching an order. However, I want to test what the Minister thinks about the fine not exceeding £5,000. Amendment 109 would delete “not exceeding £5,000”, so that in theory a court could impose an unlimited fine on an individual who breached an order. People trafficking is a profitable business. Although there is the potential for custodial sentences, a fine of £5,000 seems a tad on the low side for someone who breaches an order. I would welcome hearing from the Minister why she has judged that £5,000 is a reasonable level of fine.

Amendment 83 would remove the Secretary of State’s ability to increase the fine, because if we had an unlimited fine there would be no need to increase the fine from £5,000.

Amendment 84 states:

“The court may refer to the crown court any matter relating to the order for consideration of action by the said court under Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.”

I recognise that under clause 7 we dealt with the confiscation of assets under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. However, I tabled the amendment to find out what would happen if somebody had an order placed upon them, which was then subsequently breached. As well as a prison term and a fine—currently £5,000, but if my amendment is accepted it could be an unlimited sum—would the provisions of clause 7 apply to them? If we place an order on an individual and they have not had an order for the original crime, it may be an appropriate penalty to make them potentially subject, not automatically subject, to an attack on their assets. It would be quite draconian, but the offences in question are serious.

If we are serious about reducing trafficking and having strong enforcement of the orders that the Committee has already considered and approved, we need effective measures of deterrence. I accept that a five-year or six-month prison sentence is serious, but I am not sure that the £5,000 fine is sufficient to hurt people who breach their order. I am not sure whether an attack on someone’s assets is an appropriate penalty for such an offence. As confiscations are covered in clause 7, my amendment seeks to ask that question. I would welcome the Minister’s view on the level of the fine and whether measures can be taken to attack assets in the event of a breach of any of these orders.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for tabling amendments 109, 83 and 84, which would remove the limit on the fine that can be imposed on summary conviction for not complying with a slavery and trafficking prevention or risk order and, consequently, the ability to amend that fine. The maximum fines have been set in line with existing limits on fines commensurate with the offence committed, and are in line with those for the sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders introduced in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. To ensure that the measures can respond flexibly to future changes in sentencing policy, the clause also provides for the Secretary of State to amend or remove the maximum amount of the fine that may be imposed on summary conviction for breach of an order.

Members will be aware that the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 includes a provision that, when commenced, will remove any upper limit on maximum fines in the magistrates courts, which, on the commencement day, are set at £5,000 in the type of circumstances covered by the provision. The wording of the clause allows for amendment of the fine if the provision in the 2012 Act is commenced before the Bill receives Royal Assent in order to bring it into line with the new policy. I assure Members that the clause provides appropriate flexibility to respond to changes in sentencing limits, so the amendment is not required.

Amendment 84 suggests that we should add an explicit reference to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. I assure Members that asset recovery powers are already fully effective in relation to the breach of an order. The prosecutor is already able to apply to the Crown court for a confiscation order in relation to any offence where there is a benefit, which the court would then consider. That includes a conviction for the breach of a slavery and trafficking prevention or risk order. Where there is no financial benefit from the crime, a confiscation order cannot be made. The 2002 Act is designed for the seizure of criminal assets, not the imposition of financial sanctions. That is the approach taken to all offences; no other criminal statute makes specific provision for a reference for action under the 2002 Act, and I am not aware of any issues arising from that approach. Given that clarification, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

We were just testing where the Proceeds of Crime Act fell into line with the Bill, and I did not intend to press amendment 84.

I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation in relation to the current £5,000 limit. Perhaps she could give a little more clarification on when she expects the 2012 Act to which she referred to be implemented. The clause gives the Secretary of State the flexibility to remove or increase the limit, so that does not cause a problem, but, if she is anticipating that implementation, I would be grateful if she would indicate when that might happen. My amendment would achieve the same result without the need to look at that legislation and pass a further order later on.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

We anticipate that the commencement date will be before the Bill receives Royal Assent, but I have no further details.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

If that is the case, I cannot see why the Minister will not accept my amendment, which would leave out the £5,000 limit, because effectively it follows Government policy, and it would save a bit of parliamentary time and save her from having to produce the regulations to remove that limit at a later date.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the provisions in the 2012 Act need to be accompanied by regulations that will enable the new powers to work properly in practice. Such regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and, accordingly, require debates in both Houses of Parliament. We expect that to happen before the Bill receives Royal Assent, but I will reflect on his points.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am grateful to the Minister. Like other members of the Committee, I wish send a strong signal to the people who will be affected by orders that there will be a penalty attached to breaching them. The orders will be in place for a reason—they will be part of a range of measures for tackling slavery, trafficking and the risks associated with those crimes. My amendment would remove the £5,000 limit on the fine for breaching the orders, which is a reasonable proposition and one that the Government have said they are considering. I accept in good faith what the Minister said, but we would save parliamentary time if we sorted this issue out today. I therefore wish to press amendment 109.

Clause 30 - Cross-border enforcement

David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 31 stand part.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

With clause 30 we are back to the old chestnut that the hon. Member for Foyle and I mined earlier on the Bill’s impact on Scotland and Northern Ireland. Clause 30 will give the Secretary of State the power to

“amend section 29(1) so as to add or remove from the list of orders in that section any relevant UK order.”

“Relevant UK order” means

“an order under the law of Scotland or Northern Ireland which appears to the Secretary of State to be equivalent or similar”

to the orders we are discussing today.

The Scottish Parliament is considering similar orders to those in the Bill—it may have already put them in place—and Lord Morrow intends to introduce something similar in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Will the Minister update the Committee on the progress of the orders in the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly? That would help the Committee understand how we are to achieve UK-wide coverage on these matters for as long as we still have a UK, which I hope is a long time.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

Modern slavery is a cross-border issue, so we must ensure that the UK has a joined-up approach to prevent these horrific crimes. That important principle is not only reflected in the Government’s approach but was shown in the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee’s report, which highlighted the fact that

“modern slavery straddles borders without respect for jurisdiction: the UK government must work closely with the devolved institutions as they produce their own legislative responses.”

Clause 30 reflects that principle. It will enable the Secretary of State to add or remove any relevant UK order to the list of orders in clause 29 that would constitute an offence if breached in England and Wales. The Government have worked closely with the devolved Administrations on tackling modern slavery, and will ensure that similar reciprocal measures are in place so that orders made in England and Wales can be enforced throughout the UK. Both Scotland and Northern Ireland are introducing legislation on modern slavery that offers such an opportunity.

If Scotland or Northern Ireland pass legislation to introduce orders similar to the slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders, the Secretary of State will be able to ensure that breaches of those orders are criminal offences in England and Wales. That will mean that individuals who pose a risk can be managed effectively across the UK. For example, if an individual was made subject to an order in one of the devolved Administrations and then moved to London, the risk they posed could be managed through enforcing the original order.

The Government recognise that making changes through regulations under the clause would broaden the offence in clause 29(1). The Bill therefore provides for the regulations to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in order to provide the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny.

Clause 31 ensures that the court proceedings for the determination of applications for orders against children and young people under part 2 of the Bill are managed appropriately. It sets out certain circumstances—essentially, whether it is in a young person’s interest—in which rules of court may allow a youth court to deal with a person aged 18 or over in respect of applications for slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders.

First, the clause provides that the rules of court may allow the youth court to give permission for it to hear an application against a person aged 18 or over when an application has also been made against a person under 18 and the youth court thinks that it would be in the interests of justice for the applications to be heard together. Secondly, rules of court may set out how to deal with cases against a person who is under 18 but reaches the age of 18 during the proceedings. The rules of court may set out the circumstances in which the proceedings may or must remain with the youth court and also make provision for transfers to an adult magistrates court, where that is the appropriate response. I hope that the Committee will support the inclusion of both clauses in the Bill.

Michael Connarty (Labour, Linlithgow and East Falkirk)

We are on the cusp of a political change in the United Kingdom. Whether we get a yes or no vote on 18 September, if we continue as we are I think we will eventually end up with a yes vote, because I do not think that the Scottish people want to continue with what they sometimes see as a role of subservience to the laws of the rest of the UK. Despite people’s lack of understanding, I believe that Scotland does have a social structure and set of moral aspirations that are different from those held by many of the people who appear to accept the way we do things through the UK in England.

I hope that Scotland will one day take a decision to take the kind of approach that was taken in Italy. International criminal organisations are massively international and flexible, and they do not recognise Governments, borders or politics. The only way to deal with the mafia was to pass a law such that suspicion meant that a person was immediately beyond the pale, their assets were seized and their ability to carry out criminal transactions was halted because it was their assets that gave them power. If anyone would like to study the mafia battles, which included, of course, the killing of quite a few prominent judges—it was a very violent organisation as well as being very large, with links to America and many of the drug-producing countries of the world—they will see that the only way to deal with that kind of organisation was to say, “If you are suspected, you are immediately removed, particularly in asset terms.” Nothing in the Bill takes that stance. I would hope that some courage might be shown in a debate in Scotland and that that would be the stance, because it is the only way to deal with it.

I have been to the Serious Organised Crime Agency and seen the model it has created of international criminality in people trafficking, which is like a multi-dimensional, multi-layered spaceship to look at because it is so tortuous. To deal with that, we have to unplug it from its power source, which is money and assets. It is money that makes those people tick and function. The orders are useful, but they will not deal with the problem. Is the Minister willing, in cross-border enforcement and the meek, mild-mannered approach to crime that I see in England and Wales, to take a lead from Scotland? Is she willing to take the lead from a country with a different moral stance and approach?

I read the provision as one that will be enacted in reverse, in the sense that Scotland will be expected to line up with the orders and not show the way. I would hope that it would show the way and the UK would follow. There is a lack of vision in the English approach. It is unfortunate, but I do not think they are offering to take a lead from another country and bring a much bolder approach to English law to tackle that massive criminal organisation that exploits children and other people in society.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I do not wish to repeat our earlier discussion about the role of the devolved Administrations, nor do I wish to dictate to those devolved Administrations. Scotland and Northern Ireland are working on their own modern slavery offences, and I look forward to seeing them and working with them to ensure that we can tackle the problem together.

Clause 32 - Guidance to chief officers of police etc

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I beg to move amendment 85, in clause 32, page 23, line 2, after “guidance”, insert

“no later than within one month of this Act obtaining Royal Assent.”

David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 86, in clause 32, page 23, line 8, after “published”, insert

“in both Houses of Parliament and”

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I will be extremely brief. We have had a full discussion on guidance being published one month after the Bill attaining Royal Assent, so I do not intend to develop that further. The guidance that is outlined in clause 32(3) states:

“The Secretary of State must arrange for any guidance issued or revised under this section to be published in a way the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

I tabled the amendment because it is appropriate that the Secretary of State publishes the guidance in both Houses of Parliament, as well as issuing it to the chief of police, director-general of the National Crime Agency and immigration officers. It is important that she inform the House what the guidance is, given that we are passing the legislation. I want to fetter the Secretary of State’s discretion somewhat. Instead of the Government saying that they consider guidance appropriate, would they publish it for those officers and in both Houses of Parliament so that it is formally known?

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. Like him, I will not repeat our earlier discussion regarding the time frame within which the guidance will be published. Instead, I shall direct my remarks to amendment 86, which deals with where the guidance will be published. I assure the Committee that the document will be made public, and we will ensure that it is widely available on the Government website and easily available to everybody. Therefore, I do not feel that there is a need to dictate that is also published in both Houses of Parliament, as it will be available to any member of the public who wishes to see it. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman is happy to withdraw his amendment.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 34 - The Anti-slavery Commissioner

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I beg to move amendment 117, in clause 34, page 24, line 19, leave out “a person as the” and insert “an independent”.

David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 112, in clause 34, page 24, line 20, at end insert—

‘(2A) Before making this appointment the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate must go through a pre-appointment hearing with the Home Affairs Select Committee.”

Amendment 118, in clause 34, page 24, line 23, leave out “may” to end of line 30 and insert—

“shall pay remuneration and allowances to the Commissioner and—

(a) shall before the beginning of each financial year specify a maximum sum which the Commissioner may spend on functions for that year

(b) may permit that to be exceeded for a specified purpose, and

(c) shall defray the Commissioner’s expenditure for each financial year subject to paragraphs (a) and (b).

(4) The Commissioner may appoint staff.”

Clause stand part.

New clause 19—Establishment of the Anti-Slavery Commissioner—

‘(1) There is to be an office of Anti-Slavery Commissioner (in this section “the Commissioner”).

(2) The Commissioner shall be appointed by the Secretary of State, following a pre-appointment review by Parliament of the candidate proposed by the Secretary of State.

(3) The Commissioner may appoint their own staff.”

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

We now move on to part 3 of the Bill. The clauses in part 3 all relate to the role of the anti-slavery commissioner. First, on the amendments to clause 34 in this group, I am pleased that the Government have brought forward clauses to establish the anti-slavery commissioner. The Government have previously said that that is one of the most important aspects of the Bill. I refer to the Centre for Social Justice’s report of March 2013 into modern-day slavery in the UK, “It Happens Here”. That report said:

“Measures to address modern slavery…and provide support for…victims and survivors in the UK are the remit of numerous government departments, local government agencies and a wide range of NGOs from across civil society. Such diverse activity requires independent oversight and coordination for it to be effective.

There is significant need in the UK for the appointment of a single individual to oversee efforts to fight modern slavery in the UK, in light of the disparate national response”.

Leading on from that, the report “Establishing Britain as a world leader in the fight against modern slavery”, which came out of the work the Home Secretary commissioned from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and other right hon. Members, also made it clear that there was an important role for the anti-slavery commissioner. The report said that the role should be,

“independent from Government and accountable to Parliament”;

that it should,

“act as a bridge between civil society and Government”;

and that it should represent and be a voice for victims.

It was clear from the evidence witnesses gave to the Joint Committee on the Bill that there was a real need for coherent leadership on modern slavery. It was felt the independent anti-slavery commissioner could bring that to the role. I also noted that the Joint Committee, in its pre-legislative scrutiny, raised two issues. The first relates directly to the clause before us on setting up the role, and concerns,

“the absence of statutory protection to secure the…stated intention of independence”

in the way the Bill is currently drafted.

I read very carefully what the Joint Committee said, because it paid tribute to the current Home Secretary and her commitment to an independent anti-slavery commissioner. I know the Minister has made it clear she wants a strong anti-slavery commissioner to do a lot of the work she has discussed in her contributions to the Committee, to ensure there are far more prosecutions and that victims see justice being done. However, the Joint Committee made the point that there is no guarantee that any future Home Secretary or Minister would take a similar approach to the current Home Secretary or Minister. The Committee therefore felt it was vital that the Bill explicitly stated that this role was independent.

The Joint Committee also raised concerns about the narrowness of the role as defined in the Bill. We will come on to that when we look at clause 35 next. The focus was far too narrowly on the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of offences; it needed to have a wider remit, but we will come on to that.

I would like to test the view of the Committee on amendment 117. The amendment is a simple one, which seeks to set things out clearly. As drafted, the clause reads:

“The Secretary of State must appoint a person as the Anti-slavery Commissioner”.

The amendment would replace “a person as the” with “an independent” to make it clear that the role is that of an independent anti-slavery commissioner. For the reasons set out by the Joint Committee, it is important to include that word.

Amendment 112 seeks to require a pre-appointment hearing before the Home Affairs Committee in advance of the Secretary of State appointing a commissioner. Amendment 118 deals with the remuneration and allowances of the commissioner and gives permission to the commissioner to appoint staff, to beef up the independence of the role. We have used the text that was set out in the alternative Bill produced by the Joint Committee in amendments 117 and 118. Also, my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle has tabled new clause 19, which is included in this group. It has a similar effect to our amendments, so I will come on to that in a moment.

On the independence point, it is worth looking at the evidence taken by the Joint Committee on the role of an independent anti-slavery commissioner. The Joint Committee report, at paragraph 145, refers in particular to what the Dutch national rapporteur said. Her role

“illustrated the importance of statutory independence for a UK Anti-Slavery Commissioner when she told us that the long-standing effectiveness of her own role lay in its statutory independence and the trust engendered as a consequence.”

The Joint Committee, which spent a lot of time looking at the matter, was concerned and wanted to see something similar to the Dutch model in the Bill.

As hon. Members recognise, there is a lot of good will and support from charities, voluntary organisations, churches and non-governmental organisations. It is important that the anti-slavery commissioner is seen to be independent of Government and to have the credibility to co-operate with all those other groups, organisations and sectors that we rely on to work with victims to ensure that prosecutions are brought whenever possible.

I wanted to mention the Finnish model to the Minister as well. That has been held up as an example of the best way to set up an anti-slavery commissioner. In Finland, the Ombudsman for Minorities is an independent and autonomous authority located administratively within the Ministry of the Interior. The national rapporteur on trafficking human beings within that organisation analyses and evaluates the implementation of legislation and activities to combat trafficking in human beings, and issues recommendations to make the Finnish Government’s actions against human trafficking more effective.

The main duties of the national rapporteur are to monitor issues relating to human trafficking such as the fulfilment of international obligations and the effectiveness of national legislation; to issue proposals, recommendations, statements, opinions and advice; to keep in contact with international organisations; to provide legal advice to and assist victims of trafficking as necessary; and to report annually to the Government and every four years to Parliament on human trafficking and related issues.

I will be grateful if the Minister could say why the Finnish model—or the Dutch model, as preferred by the Joint Committee—is not appropriate in this country. Obviously, this arrangement is being set up from scratch. It seems to me that we should look at good practice from around the world to see what is working, and if people think there is a case for using those models here.

I turn now to the amendment on pre-appointment hearings. It is important because Parliament should be involved in the process for two key reasons. Parliament has an opportunity to have a role in scrutinising appointments otherwise made by the Executive. Although we recognise and accept that the Secretary of State will make the appointment and does not have to follow any Select Committee recommendations about a pre-appointment hearing, we think it is an important role for Parliament to exercise.

Many hon. Members will recall when the Children’s Commissioner had a pre-appointment hearing with the Education Committee, and that Committee chose not to say that that person should be confirmed in post, but the Secretary of State at the time went ahead and appointed that person. In a way, this is not saying that the Secretary of State would be bound. It is just an opportunity for Parliament to ask some questions.

That leads me on to the second point. A pre-appointment hearing would ensure that hon. Members felt that they could question and see for themselves, and ensure that Ministers were not deliberately appointing candidates who might be less challenging to them in the role of anti-slavery commissioner.

The point is to give Parliament that opportunity. It follows the line of the Wright proposals in giving Back Benchers more of an opportunity to have their say. In Committee on what is now the Justice and Security Act 2013, there was much interest in having the heads of the intelligence services come before the Intelligence and Security Committee for a pre-appointment hearing. If the Government are minded to consider such hearings for that type of appointment, it would seem sensible to consider them in this case. I look forward to hear what the Minister has to say about pre-appointment hearings.

Amendment 118 provides an opportunity to amend the Bill to give more independence to the anti-slavery commissioner in staffing, accommodation, equipment and facilities. As the Bill is drafted, those are all to be provided by the Secretary of State. The Joint Committee on the Bill did us a great service by looking at this area and making some comments. Paragraph 147 of the report is on evidence of the Independent Police Complaints Commission. It stressed the importance of freedom to appoint to the commissioner’s independence.

“The perception of that independence, if not its reality, may be affected by its statutory closeness to the department. Unlike the Prisons Inspectorate or the IPCC (or indeed the Victims Commissioner), the Anti Slavery Commissioner…will be unable to engage his or her own staff, or be located outside the department. He or she will therefore be relying on negotiating the right number and expertise of departmental civil servants, whose careers and ultimate accountability lie within the department. In my view, this is unfortunate, as it does not provide the Commissioner with any visible separation from the department.”

The Joint Committee went on to consider other domestic and international commissioners, and focused particularly on the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson. He was able to appoint a specialist adviser. Given his role, he said that it was essential that he should be allowed to make that decision.

The independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, who at that time was John Vine—I think he has since left—told the Joint Committee that his staff

“were largely civil servants from across the civil service but that he was ‘able to advertise for staff in newspapers in order to get a good mix of skills’.”

The Joint Committee also noted that

“under the UK Borders Act 2007, section 49, ‘the Chief Inspector may appoint staff’.”

On the basis of the information provided to the Joint Committee it seems eminently sensible that the anti-slavery commissioner should also be able to appoint the staff that he would feel confident with, and be able to get the right skill mix. I ask the Minister to consider that again. I looked carefully at page 15 of the Government’s response to the Joint Committee on the issue of staff, explaining why the commissioner should not be able to appoint his own staff. Perhaps the Minister can help me, as I am not sure it is the best answer I have seen.

The response states:

“The Commissioner role will be supported by a small team of analytical and support staff. It would not be effective or efficient for such a role to be supported by an independent human resources function.”

I did not quite follow that. It seems to me that it cannot be beyond the wit of man, or woman, to provide assistance to an independent anti-slavery commissioner in the appointment of staff, without creating an independent human resources function. Perhaps the Minister can help the Committee on that point.

The amendments are intended to make it clear that the commissioner should be independent, should be subject to a pre-appointment hearing, and should have flexibility with respect to the appointment of staff and their budget.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

As the hon. Lady has suggested, I want clause 34 to be deleted and replaced by new clause 19, which would be the hanger for new clause 20. That deals much more comprehensively with the role and functions of the anti-slavery commissioner.

I agree with the Opposition spokesperson. As she said, my new clause is intended in large part to achieve the same purpose, with the same principles, as her amendments. On that basis, I would not want to press matters or set up a rival context. However, I want to take the opportunity to reinforce the key point about making the appointment subject to a pre-appointment hearing.

In my new clause, I deliberately did not specify that the hearing should be held by the Home Affairs Committee because I believe that Parliament could devise a wider way of having the hearing, to make sure that, unlike with the Home Affairs Committee, the interests of the different devolved areas were reflected, out of sensitivity to the position in law of the devolved authorities. The hearing could also have proper regard to what I want to see, which is a wider and more effective remit for the Anti-slavery Commissioner than that in the Bill at present.

It seems that there is a sense—as we heard during the opening stages of our proceedings, when concerns were expressed that the position had already been advertised—that the job has already been decided. Inevitably, people will have suspicions that the job spec means that a likely candidate is standing. One reason why I sought to take the approach in new clause 19 is that, notwithstanding the fact that the Secretary of State would make the appointment and have a leading position in the process, people would be suitably assured about the basis on which the appointment was made.

Similarly, as the hon. Lady indicated, there is the issue of actual authority, in terms of the remit and competence of the commissioner. Under the Bill at present, the commissioner does not seem to be independent enough even in relation to their own competence in terms of determining staff arrangements and so on. Again, I have sought to improve that with new clause 19. I am glad to see that my hon. Friends are also trying to improve it with amendments 118 and 111, which assist us on that key word, “independent”.

As the hon. Lady said, and as has been shown in evidence to the all-party group of which I have been a member for a number of years, when we look at best practice and world-leading examples, we find ourselves talking about the Netherlands and Finland. What the Government are proposing is a poor shadow of what those countries have. We need to do better if we are to maintain the idea that this is world-leading legislation or that we are even keeping pace with other countries. The Joint Committee found that to be the case, also, when it looked at these issues. Although there have been some improvements on the envisaged role and remit of the commissioner in response to the Joint Committee, the Bill still falls short of what was recommended. All members of this Committee will have received evidence submissions from many groups that work diligently and thoroughly in the field. They, too, have pointed out inadequacies they have identified in and concerns they have with the Government’s provisions.

I know that these issues will be dealt with more substantively when we discuss other clauses and my own new clause 20, but, for the sake of establishing a bridgehead argument about the need to beef up the role of the commissioner, the scope of the brief and, most importantly, the commissioner’s standing, I am glad to hear that my hon. Friends are prepared to press some of their amendments.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

I welcome this debate, particularly on clause 34. There is utter consensus on how important it is to have an anti-slavery commissioner. It will be an important appointment. The commissioner’s functions will lock in on and hold close to the fire, in the Home Secretary’s words, those agencies responsible for ensuring there is good practice, as we will debate later on clause 35, in

“the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of offences”.

Covering all those functions gives the commissioner a wide remit, which is very welcome.

The anti-slavery commissioner and indeed much of the Bill has come about as a result of a lot of effort by a lot of people on a lot of sides, not least the Centre of Social Justice, which in its important report, “It Happens Here”, calls for an anti-slavery commissioner to

“offer independent oversight across the whole of the UK’s government and non-government response to modern slavery, helping to improve its strategic coherence and continuity.”

Amendment 117 looks to provide what the Joint Committee refers to as tangible evidence of independence. It is important to the debate to ensure that we are on the same page, which I think we all are. The explanatory notes, at paragraph 127, state:

“Subsection (1) provides for the establishment of an Anti-slavery Commissioner (‘the Commissioner’ who will be an independent office holder appointed by the Secretary of State…)”.

We therefore all agree on the need for independence; it is how we get to that point of being assured of the tangible evidence.

The reality, as I understand it, is that the Government’s intentions, as expressed through the explanatory notes, are that the commissioner should be independent, whether that is shown in the Bill or in practical effect. Nevertheless, I welcome the amendment, because I look forward to hearing from the Minister about that independence, which is what we all want. We have other commissioners, such as the Children’s Commissioner or the Victims’ Commissioner, but it is important to recognise that the anti-slavery commissioner is unique and important. It must stand alone and we must ensure that it does the job that we all want it to do.

I was also struck by other evidence to the Joint Committee, not least from the Dutch national rapporteur. I appreciate that we are not seeking to mirror the rapporteur system. Nevertheless, she said:

“in my view, independence is quite an important element. Why is it so important? If you worked for the Government, you could not pull off what I did with my research on the judiciary—the judges would not really believe you or care for you meddling. They would see that as political, which would make it difficult. Being independent, for me there was no restriction in doing that.”

Whatever happens with the amendment, no one is suggesting that there would not be sufficient independence to allow the commissioner to hold to account all those responsible for ensuring that we increase the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of offences. I am not suggesting that we have a rapporteur system. We have a good history, with good models, not least some of our commissioners who are independent. Some things depend on who holds the post. The characteristics of independence are often dependent on particular individuals and how they hold everyone to the fire. It will therefore be interesting when we debate amendment 112 on the process of appointment and how it ensures that we get the right people for the job. Whatever we put in the Bill, the office holder will be important.

It is important to be sure that independence is very much at the heart and soul of the commission. That is important for all the agencies and people looking on, all of whom are involved in the worldwide issue of modern-day slavery, so that they understand that we mean what we say by independence. The debate has been a useful and important beginning, but partly we will do that when discussing subsequent amendments to clause 35, which is on the functions of the commissioner, how that clause demonstrates independence and how it does what we and the Minister all want to achieve in ensuring good practice. I look forward to hearing from her about amendment 117, which has much to commend it.

I understand the aims of amendment 112 on the appointment process, although I am not sure that it is necessary to give statutory effect to a pre-appointment process. A statutory basis for such a process for all the appointments around is unnecessary. It is healthy for there to be transparency in the appointment process and wide confidence built up around the office holder, but the provision does not need to be in the Bill to achieve that. It is important for Parliament to be involved with that vital office holder.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that other Bills have provided for pre-appointment hearings, not least in respect of financial services?

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

I hear the point being made. That is one way, but it is not the only way for us to have both transparency and confidence in the process. Nevertheless, it would be good to hear the Minister’s response to that point.

It is important that we recognise that, on the issue of the anti-slavery commissioner, we are very much on a similar page. We must ensure that we give proper effect and evidence to the reality of what we all want, which is to ensure that the commissioner will be independent and do the job that we want.

Michael Connarty (Labour, Linlithgow and East Falkirk)

I apologise if I take some time over these provisions, but I keep referring back to the fact that I get the feeling that we on the Joint Committee wasted 12 weeks of our time and the time of the 112 people who submitted written evidence, as well as the time the other members and I took over drafting our recommendations, because the Government have entirely ignored the thrust of what we tried to absorb and then draft into recommendations in the draft Bill we submitted.

In the evidence from people from the Centre for Social Justice, the Children’s Commissioner, the Finnish Ombudsman Eva Biaudet, the ombudsperson for the Netherlands and all the aspirant organisations that wrote to us—such as Queen’s university—the key word that came up again and again was independence. We were told that the commissioner must be someone who stands outside the remit of Government and who can criticise and assist the Government. That was the key to it.

The role was supposed to be bigger than what I described in a parliamentary debate as the Home Secretary’s poodle, but that is what has been designed into the Bill. The role is not independent and it is not appointed independently. As the hon. Member for Foyle said, there is no parliamentary scrutiny of the appointment in the sense of the role answering to Parliament. We might say that that is how things operate in Parliament: people get appointed by Ministers and are somehow answerable to Ministers. I am not against that idea, but I do not like the idea that the Minister becomes the conduit through which they operate.

Quite honestly, the role is like that of some sort of prosecuting assistant on behalf of the Home Secretary. The remit is not what the Joint Committee discussed; it is about this obsession with the idea that we can prosecute our way out of the unbelievable, growing scandal of the abuse of human beings. Everyone tells us that we cannot do that. We have to build a bigger allowance and have a wider remit. If those things are not there, it is clearly not going to work. That is the point: the Bill is not going to work and the role of commissioner is not going to work. If the Government do not change, we are wasting the Committee’s time and Parliament’s time.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

I am reluctant to be too critical of the hon. Gentleman, because we all agree about the need for independence. Nevertheless, the explanatory notes say that the commissioner

“will be an independent office holder”.

There is merit in the hon. Gentleman’s argument—we are all concerned about independence—but to go to the point of saying that the intention is any way to have the commissioner as the Home Secretary’s poodle and that we are completely on different pages is just protesting too much. It is important to look at where we can show the tangible evidence. We all agree—it is in the explanatory notes as well—that we want an independent office holder; the issue is how that is going to be achieved practically.

Michael Connarty (Labour, Linlithgow and East Falkirk)

The point is that what is in the Bill does not achieve what the Joint Committee recommended or what was suggested by the people who gave us evidence—people who are already in post and are independent, and who have had to fight off the Government to ensure that no one interferes with how they do their job. Other jurisdictions, such as Finland, the Netherlands and as others, respect the fact that sometimes we have to drive Government in a different direction. The Government are obsessed with prosecution. It is clear that all these clauses lead towards an assistant to prosecution. That is what it is about, not the other things that were recommended.

We will come to this when get to later clauses, but the question at the moment is one of independence. I go back to the words of Lord Judge. We should say what we mean, not something that has to be interpreted. If we mean “independent,” we should say “independent.” If we mean “answerable to Parliament,” we should say “answerable to Parliament.” If we say “answerable through the Home Secretary”––not even “to the Home Secretary” but “through the Home Secretary”––we are saying that the Home Secretary will decide what the commissioner can do, so there is no independence in reality. Later clauses even say that the Home Secretary can amend what is said in a report. Is that in case a report criticises the Government? Is that the case? Someone is not independent if they cannot criticise the Government. If the Government are getting it wrong, as they are at the moment—over and again we find statistics about failures to prosecute, failures to arrest and failures to save children and other people—we will be in the same position.

The purpose of having a commissioner is properly to implement the recommendation of the directive. The directive recommended an ombudsman, a commissioner or something similar. What did we end up with? A joint ministerial committee that was often not attended by ministers but by civil servants. Some people from the Scottish jurisdiction tell me that they participated by telephone, and it was not the Minister but a civil servant. It was a deliberate attempt not to implement the directive. Looking back at the history, we have to remember that we dragged the Government to implement the directive. They fought it off for months, and I certainly embarrassed the Prime Minister on three occasions by being lucky and having parliamentary questions come up on the Order Paper, so I asked him again and again when he was going to find his moral compass and implement the directive.

It is not unusual to find me suspicious that the clause seems to do whatever it can to push the recommendation away from independence and from a commissioner who would drive the Government and the authorities across the board and who would link up with the NGOs, which are currently deeply suspicious of working with Departments, the national referral mechanism, the border police and everyone else because of the history of what they see as the diminution of the rights of victims and an increase in prosecutions, particularly for immigration breaches, and the dispatching of people back into the hands of the traffickers who sent them here in the first place. That is all history that should have been addressed by the clause, and we could have done that by saying that we want someone who will assist the Government on their own terms, not on the terms that the Government find acceptable.

When I studied business at university, I was told, “Finding a problem is like finding a gem in the works because, by solving the problem, you can make things work better.” My worry is that, as described in the clause, the commissioner is so constrained by the Home Secretary’s wishes that we will end up with someone who does not have the power to help the Home Secretary, the Government, Parliament or the process. The amendments are correct, and they are in the spirit of the Joint Committee’s recommendations. But from all we have done so far, I do not get the feeling that the Government are willing to listen. They will just blunder on, forcing through the view they already had, which is that they want a prosecution Bill and someone who will come in to assist the Home Secretary on those prosecutions and just go on with it. They did not want the person to go outwith that remit in case the Government were diverted from their equation, which is to get harder by pulling all these offences together and hitting people who are making money from trafficking over the head with them, and somehow we will win. But we are clearly not winning. Unless someone has a bigger vision, which would be the commissioner, the Government will never win and we will never win—we will have failed the people who sent us here.

Fiona Bruce (Conservative, Congleton)

I welcome the Bill’s provision for an anti-slavery commissioner, which will be a specific role to lead the charge against modern slavery and a key to reaching the goal of identifying and supporting more victims and prosecuting more criminals. However, such an important and strategic role must be equipped with the status and resources to enable the commissioner to speak critically to the Government, law enforcement agencies, Parliament and elsewhere in the public sphere. I hope that the Minister will take note of the concerns expressed across the House regarding these issues, particularly independence.

Stating from the outset that the commissioner must be independent, as amendment 117 does, has merit, and I hope the Minister will take note of this concern. The wording of the Joint Committee report on the draft Bill was quite strong. The report said:

“the statutory safeguards intended to ensure independence for the Commissioner fall short of those applicable to comparable roles, such as the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism and the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration. The draft Bill does not offer sufficient protection for the Commissioner’s independence in the long term. Failure to do so will undermine the Commissioner’s credibility”.

If the anti-slavery commissioner is to encourage good practice in identifying victims and in prosecuting offenders, they will need to interact with a variety of agencies overseen by different Government Departments, as well as with health professionals, teachers, social workers, prison officers, and with a range of non-governmental agencies and international experts. So their credibility is essential in ensuring good working relationships with that range of partners. Central to achieving that credibility is that the commissioner is, and is seen to be, an independent voice, able to be a critical friend who can challenge, where necessary, the Home Office, other Departments and indeed Government as a whole.

The process for appointing the commissioner set out in clause 34 also concerns me. It appears to be a process more like that used to fill an in-house civil service position than that required to create an independent commissioner. Again, I would appreciate it if the Minister could address concerns about that issue, which have been expressed across the House.

It is particularly concerning that under the existing provisions the power to appoint the commissioner rests solely with the Secretary of State. I ask the Minister to give careful thought to the alternative approach set out in new clause 19 and amendment 112. A role of such importance deserves to receive the scrutiny of Parliament, and it is essential for the credibility of the commissioner that the appointment process is seen to take place in public, and in a fully transparent manner.

On Second Reading, the Home Secretary suggested that other independent commissioners were

“fiercely independent regardless of the method of their appointment.”—[Official Report, 8 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 176.]

While that might be true of those particular officers, we need to bear it in mind that relying on the “fiercely independent” nature of an individual post holder is perhaps not always an adequate approach.

The right hon. Member for Hazel Grove reminded us that the Home Secretary also said that she wanted this Bill to be a “world-class Bill”, perhaps setting a precedent for other legislatures to consider. That being the case, it is important that the statutory framework and the appointment process underpin and support the commissioner’s independence, and that that independence does not necessarily rely on an individual office holder.

In earlier sittings, I raised a point of order about the recruitment process for a commissioner-designate, which is already under way. I repeat the point that by recruiting for a position that does not yet exist, and that has not yet been defined or endorsed by Parliament, we risk getting ahead of ourselves. I hope that the Minister will re-reassure the Committee that the Government are committed to listening to concerns and questions about the role of the commissioner, for example from NGOs, that they are willing to engage actively with those concerns and that the ongoing recruitment will not hinder that discussion and the possible development of the role of the commissioner, or indeed comments from this Committee.

In that regard, a pre-appointment scrutiny process by Parliament would perhaps be welcome, to offer the opportunity to establish a degree of transparency and review regarding the appointment, once the final form of the role has been confirmed. That can only benefit the commissioner’s credibility.

I turn to new clause 19, tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle in his characteristically thoughtful manner, and to amendment 118, both of which would enable the commissioner to appoint staff. The chief inspector of borders and immigration, who has similar statutory powers, told the Joint Committee that the ability to advertise publicly for staff was a key factor in enabling him to gather a team with what he described as

“a good mix of skills”.

Ultimately, the commissioner’s staff will be funded by the Secretary of State, who should naturally be able to set the budget. If the commissioner is to carry weight as the head of his or her team, however, thought must be given to empowering the commissioner to appoint their own team. The staffing provision in clause 34(4) sets out that the Secretary of State will discuss with the commissioner how many staff are required and select them from existing Home Office staff. That might be required initially, but in the long term the commission may be better served by developing a staff team strategically and bringing in people with the necessary skills to achieve the commissioner’s objectives in a truly robust way. I would be grateful if the Minister would reassure us of the expected involvement of the commissioner in recruiting staff under subsection (4), to allay our concerns.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I want to say by way of introduction that we should not talk the Bill down. It is extremely important in concept, and it can deliver a great deal of good and tackle many of the evils that we all want to tackle. From the discussion that we have had in Committee so far, however, it is clear that someone will have to—

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I was making the point that the Home Secretary has every reason to be congratulated on introducing the Bill. In many respects, it is excellent and can do a good job. We earlier noted that there are a number of aspects of the Bill that clearly require refinement, of which consent has been one. I will not rehearse them all because I would be out of order if I did.

One thing we can be clear about is that, however good the Bill, it is not on its own going to do the job. It is about ensuring that as part of the process of tackling the evils of modern slavery, we have somebody—a body or a person—who is dedicated 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year to ensuring that we do not lose the focus on tackling modern slavery.

That is why the commissioner is so important. That person and office is going to be the body that year after year, Government after Government, says, “Hang on a minute, that is not working properly. Hang on a minute, victims are not getting the respect and support they need. Hang on, we have identified a gap in the law.” That is exactly the kind of thing that the Children’s Commissioner, the chief inspector of borders and immigration and the chief inspector of prisons do at the moment.

We need such a person to be there and to be able to speak truth to power. If any Government get it wrong, they need to hear that and so does Parliament, from the person who has been appointed to oversee the process. It is really important that this be an independent anti-slavery commissioner—not just in the intention of this Government or in the explanatory notes, but in the Bill. That will make it clear that that is the nature of the post we are creating.

The second important point, which is more a matter for the next string of amendments, relates to the scope the commissioner has. Whether the Minister is comfortable with my saying it, the truth is that the way it has been presented in the Bill is different from the vision set out in the Joint Committee’s report. It is different in that it appears on the face of it to cramp the scope the commissioner will have for investigating and reporting on every aspect of modern slavery. I will not rehearse all the issues, but that is the criticism.

The problem is that at the moment the independence is not there explicitly and transparently, and the scope does not appear to have the breadth and width that the Joint Committee thought it should. In the long term, the role of the commissioner is not just to ensure that the job gets done, but to keep Governments honest and focused on the job. I am not suggesting for one moment that there is any lack of honesty or focus from the current ministerial team—from the Home Secretary or the Minister here—nor from the Government corporately. However, Governments change, their focus and emphasis change and it is important that the commissioner is there, through thick and thin, making the case for keeping the issue under control and tackling it properly.

The Home Secretary herself, in setting this is train—she and her colleagues deserve to be congratulated for doing so—spoke of the UK creating a world-leading Bill. Although it is not exactly going to be a unique anti-modern slavery Bill, it will certainly be one of the first and it could be one of the best. Our colleagues across the Commonwealth and in the United Nations are all struggling with the same issue and we have an opportunity to provide leadership. That is another good reason for us ensuring that we produce a Bill that is not just adequate or sufficient, but excellent. I hope the Minister will take note of that.

The Joint Committee took direct evidence from the gentleman who performs a similar role in the United States, from the lady who has the rapporteur role in the Netherlands and from our colleague in Finland. All of them value their independence from their respective Governments and their capacity to report directly to their legislative chambers as being fundamental to their ability to do their job in their political environments. Our political environment is somewhat different. We have systems in this country which, when written down on paper, make it unclear how it can possibly be said that people are acting independently. We have a system of appointing people inside the system who then, it seems, can turn round and, so to speak, bite the hand that feeds them.

To build that independence into a model that we believe is going to match international standards and be the one we would want to advocate to our Commonwealth colleagues—let us say in Nigeria or other areas where slavery is a significant problem, and where trafficking often originates from—and say that they should do as we do, strongly suggests to me that we should be saying to them, “What you need is an independent anti-slavery commissioner, not one appointed by your Minister of the Interior to sit inside your Interior Ministry.” There are reasons to do so at the local and the practical level of operations here in the UK—or in England and Wales—and also in achieving the Home Secretary’s ambition for us to be world-leading and trend-setting.

I mentioned the prisons inspector, the chief inspector of borders and immigration and the Children’s Commissioner, all of whom have the capacity to appoint staff. That appears to be denied, or at least obscured, in clause 34. Therefore, it is important that the Minister give us some reassurances about what she has in mind. There is a certain amount of talk behind hands, and whispers that the Home Office does not want to create somebody who dares to be as independent as the Children’s Commissioner. I hope that is not true, and it is not the fear that they might get somebody a bit stroppy or difficult to handle that is making the Home Office reluctant to accept the reality of what is needed here.

That brings me to a point that is in amendment 112 but particularly in new clause 19, tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle: ensuring that this person is answerable to Parliament. I want to see a process, and I am more interested in this person reporting to Parliament directly than I am in the pre-appointment review, although I do not see any objection to that. By the time we get to next year it might well be so routine that it is not even built into legislation. What is important is that this person report directly to Parliament, without their reports and reviews being filtered through the Home Office.

I want to make it clear that if there is debate about whether the Bill creates a glass that is half full or half empty, I believe it is more than half full. However, I also believe that, before it leaves Committee and certainly before it comes into law, we should ensure that we make it full. The new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle is excellent in practically all regards, and measures my view quite well. Amendment 117, which adds the word “independent”, is a statement of the obvious that I hope the Minister can indicate she is minded to take very seriously indeed. I do not think amendment 112 does a great deal, as the Home Affairs Committee is a creature of the House. I would like to see the version that appears in new clause 19, which is that the House should hold that pre-appointment hearing, and that it would be for the House to decide how that hearing should be conducted.

I am taking a pick-and-mix approach to what is before us, but what I am trying to get across to the Minister and the Committee is that we are at the heart of the mechanism for ensuring that this process continues beyond the length of this Parliament and the people elected and serving in it, and that it becomes and remains a core activity in tackling modern slavery. If we do not have that independent commissioner, with a wide scope in the form set out in new clause 20, I fear we will fail to do that.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I thank members of the Committee for their contributions. I will address my comments to the amendments and new clauses tabled, and to clause 34 itself. A number of other points have been raised relating to later clauses. I hope I will cover all the points that have been raised, if not during this contribution then in contributions to debates on later clauses and groups of amendments. If I fail to do so I will, as always, endeavour to write to the Committee to put on the record any points that have not been covered.

I am grateful to all members of the Committee for the amendments and new clause they have tabled, and for speaking to them. The amendments and new clause in this group seek to amend the appointments process for the role of the anti-slavery commissioner, how the commissioner’s budget is set and how staff are appointed.

The creation of the anti-slavery commissioner is a very important provision in the Bill and marks a critical step forward in our collective fight to stamp out modern slavery in this country. Our debates over the course of the Committee, on Second Reading and during much of the pre-legislative scrutiny centred on the fact that this crime, while not unique, has an unusual aspect. The victims are so vulnerable that they need special protection and special provisions to be able to give the information and evidence we need to convict the slave masters. We keep talking about whether we catch and convict to protect, or whether we protect by catching and convicting. I do not think it matters which emphasis we apply. Ultimately, if we are to protect victims and make the UK an unwelcoming place for anybody who wishes to abuse other human beings, as slave masters do, we need to catch and convict successfully. The role of the commissioner is integral to co-ordinating the efforts of all bodies and agencies involved in protecting victims by catching and convicting, and in providing victims with the protections they need. I am pleased that we are talking about introducing a commissioner and that there is support across the Committee for the idea, although I appreciate that views differ about how the role should look.

Clause 34 establishes the role of the commissioner. For the first time, there will be a senior figure dedicated to tackling modern slavery and ensuring that law enforcement agencies do all they can to target and bring to justice those who seek to profit from the misery of others. We will debate the commissioner’s remit in detail during our debate on clause 35, but I want to mention briefly that in making provision for the commissioner role, we have deliberately focused the role on the area in which it will have the greatest impact: encouraging good practice in the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of modern slavery offences, and improving the identification of victims.

We looked at a number of roles to establish the best framework. We purposely did not want to create a role that replicated that of existing commissioners and duplicated their work, nor did we want the commissioner simply to engage in general advocacy without a clear focus. To date, operational agencies have not done enough to understand modern slavery or establish the mechanics to drive an effective response, and I want the anti-slavery commissioner to change that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton touched on the process of appointing an anti-slavery commissioner designate. Yesterday morning I attended our modern slavery operational leads meeting, which I hold regularly at the Home Office with representatives of all the bodies and agencies that are involved in operations to find and help victims, and find perpetrators. Sitting at that table, it was clear that there is a gap and that we need somebody who can come to those meetings and deal with the agencies and bodies beyond the regular operational meetings.

We need someone to ensure that the bodies all talk to each other and exercise best practice, so that we can get the prosecutions we want, prevent risk orders from being used instead of prosecutions, ensure that victims have the support and protection they need, and make sure that prosecuting authorities are not, as Christine Beddoe described in her evidence, looking for coercion or a “perfect victim”. We need someone to ensure that that does not happen, and to make sure that the CPS knows that it needs to take on such cases and develop a track record of achieving successful prosecutions. Only when there is confidence in the criminal justice system will people start to see this crime as one that we can tackle and on which we can achieve results.

Mike Kane (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

The key point is about comparable roles. I would love to understand the thinking of the Minister and the Department on the difference—she just mentioned this point—between the new commissioner and the independent reviewer of terrorism or the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I will come to that. I have looked carefully at how the different roles compare and I have a full analysis of the differences, so I will cover those points. We want a dedicated individual who will work tirelessly to resolve some of the problems surrounding the lack of investigations, awareness and prosecutions, which we debated last week when we considered offences. I also want an individual to focus on the prevention of modern slavery offences, working with agencies and organisations, including the strong and active NGO sector. Preventing people from becoming victims in the first place is paramount, but it is also critical to identify quickly and seamlessly those who become victims. Those are vital elements of the commissioner’s role. We intend the role to have the autonomy and authority to work with senior ranks across law enforcement agencies to corral them into action. Ultimately, locking up more slave masters and traffickers is paramount.

Although the commissioner will be appointed by the Secretary of State, they will be independent from the Government. In practice, the commissioner will work independently with a number of partners and agencies to meet their objectives and deliver their plan without interference from the Secretary of State or Parliament.

If I may, I will compare the anti-slavery commissioner with the Victims’ Commissioner, the Children’s Commissioner, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, the surveillance camera commissioner and the biometrics commissioner. There are small differences in the way in which they operate, but in all cases they are appointed by the relevant Secretary of State, they are located in offices provided by the Departments, their remuneration and expenses are provided as determined by the Secretary of State—these are in subsection (4) for the anti-slavery commissioner—and they all send their reports for the Secretary of State for them to lay in Parliament. There are similarities in how this role fits with those of other commissioners.

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

Will the Minister repeat what she just said? She referred to clause 34(4), which sets out that the Secretary of State will provide staff, accommodation, equipment and other facilities in respect of the anti-slavery commissioner, but I did not catch what she said about the other commissioners that she referred to. Are all of them treated exactly the same as the anti-slavery commissioner?

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

All of them have the same provision. The Secretary of State pays remuneration and expenses as determined in the clause.

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I was referring specifically to the staff, accommodation, equipment and other facilities.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I apologise; I will come to that point later if the hon. Lady will permit me.

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

Following on from the Minister’s comparison of the anti-slavery commissioner with the other bodies, and drawing on the earlier intervention, is the word “independent” referred to in statute for the other bodies—not least the independent reviewer of terrorism—and is that necessary?

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. I was going to come to that point. I checked the legislation, and although we do refer to the independent reviewer of terrorism and the independent chief inspector of borders, in both cases the term “independent” does not appear; rather, they are widely referred to in that way. We will come to amendment 117 and the need for the word “independent”, but there is no reason why the commissioner could not use that term, in the same way that the reviewer of terrorism is known as the independent reviewer of terrorism, even though they are not called that in statute.

Amendment 117 seeks to include the word “independent” in the title of the role. I understand why right hon. and hon. Members have suggested such an amendment. Given that the word does not appear in the legislation for roles that are known by everyone as independent, I want to check whether putting it in statue would be problematic or without harm. I have heard the points made, and at this stage I would like to reflect on them. However, I can reassure the Committee that the commissioner’s role will be independent, whether it says so in the name or not, despite their being, as with the other commissioners, physically located in the Department and appointed by the Secretary of State.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I very much welcome the Minister’s approach, but approach is one thing and time scale is another. How long does she think it will take for the Home Office to decide whether including the word “independent” would be a cause of harm? Does she feel that it is something that might come by way of a Government amendment on Report?

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I am sure that my right hon. Friend, who has ministerial experience, will know that the important thing is to get it right. I will therefore not give a time scale, but I will ensure that we look at this point carefully. I understand the strength of feeling across the Committee that it must be clear to all that the role of the commissioner is independent.

New clause 20 and amendment 112 seek to amend the appointments process in slightly different ways. New clause 20 suggests that the Secretary of State can appoint a commissioner only following Parliament’s pre-approval. Will the hon. Member for Foyle clarify whether, by “Parliament”, he means the Home Affairs Committee or some other body?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I indicated that I was deliberately not prescriptive. The right hon. Member for Hazel Grove picked up on the fact that my amendment would enable Parliament to decide exactly how the process was done. My reservation about giving that role to the Home Affairs Committee relates to sensitivities around the devolved field—I would like the commissioner to look at areas of devolved responsibility as well—in that the amendment would leave it open for more involvement for those conducting the pre-appointment hearing than the Select Committee would allow.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments; I thought that was what he had said, but wanted to be sure.

Amendment 112 suggests that the commissioner can be appointed only following

“a pre-appointment hearing with the Home Affairs Select Committee.”

Before explaining the appointment process outlined in the Bill, I want to return to the other commissioner roles. The shadow Minister referred to the Children’s Commissioner, which is different from the other commissioners, in that it is set up as a corporation sole—it is a non-departmental public body. It therefore has a different relationship with Government from the other commissioners, which are all statutory office holders. None of those has a pre-appointment hearing with the Select Committee or other bodies of Parliament. As is normal for an arm’s length body, the Children’s Commissioner does have a pre-appointment hearing. That is why there is a slight difference.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

The Minister says there is a slight difference, but there is a rather fundamental difference between the person being appointed by the Home Secretary and then Parliament getting told, and Parliament having a look and the Home Secretary then appointing the person. Why should the approach to the anti-slavery commissioner be different from the Children’s Commissioner?

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

As I explained, the Children’s Commissioner is the only one of these bodies that is an NDPB—an arm’s length body. The normal process with arm’s length bodies is a pre-appointment hearing by the relevant Select Committee. For all the other commissioners, there is no pre-appointment hearing and they are appointed by the relevant Secretary of State. As this role is a statutory office holder—as are the Victims’ Commissioner, the independent reviewer of terrorism and the biometrics commissioner—it will go through the same process. I will ask my officials to check whether any statutory office holders go through a pre-appointment hearing, but I believe it would be highly unusual to have one in this case.

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

Will the Minister say whether any thought was given to the creation of the anti-slavery commissioner as an NDPB? Why was the commissioner role created as a statutory role?

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I will come to that point, but I will first answer the question about the other statutory office holders. There is no parliamentary pre-approval for any statutory office holder. In the case of the Children’s Commissioner, there is a requirement in statute to do so, which has been decided by Parliament. That is not, however, the case with statutory office holders.

The reason why the anti-slavery commissioner is a non-arm’s length body lies in the approach across Government to arm’s length bodies and government bodies. We consider that this role can be carried out by a statutory office holder, and there is therefore no need to create a new NDPB.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I am very sorry to intervene again, especially as the Minister is being so helpful and constructive. I am encouraged that she is able to produce evidence to show that the word “independent” does not appear with the other statutory office holders. I hope she will not use that as a convincing and conclusive argument not to consider it in this case, bearing in mind the assurance she gave earlier.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I want to reassure my right hon. Friend. I want to check that there was no need to put the word “independent” into the legislation that set up and created the independent reviewer of terrorism and the independent chief inspector of borders. I want to check why that was done in that way, given that they are known colloquially as the independent reviewer of terrorism, for example. I want to check whether there was any particular reason why the word “independent” was not put in, and whether putting that word in leads to unintended consequences. I want to ensure we are absolutely clear on that point. Then we can obviously consider the implications of that finding. I hope my right hon. Friend understands.

Let me return to the appointments process envisaged in the Bill. A number of safeguards are already built into the appointment process for the anti-slavery commissioner. First, the appointment must be made through a fair and open competition. Secondly, the appointment can be made only following a clearly established public appointments process set out by the Cabinet Office. Thirdly, an appointment can be made only once all candidates have been sifted against the criteria for the role, interviewed by a panel, including an independent member, and, where appropriate, interviewed by the Home Secretary. Finally, in appointing the commissioner, the code of practice set out by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments must be adhered to. Given the strategic importance of the role, the Prime Minister will also take an active interest in ensuring that the successful individual has the right experience and skills to perform the role effectively and make a real difference on the ground.

I want to make a point about scrutiny of the commissioner. A number of right hon. and hon. Members have talked about parliamentary scrutiny. It is highly likely that the anti-slavery commissioner designate will be called before the Select Committee on Home Affairs, as has happened in similar circumstances. We would not be surprised if that Committee wished to interview the commissioner designate and ascertain the role to be carried out. I believe the existing safeguards are sufficient to ensure that the right candidate is appointed to the role, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will see fit not to press their amendments.

Proposed new clause 19 and amendment 118 would give the commissioner statutory power to appoint his or her own staff. I fully understand the objective to ensure the commissioner’s independence and I share the concern. I am grateful for the chance to explain to the Committee why I do not believe these changes are needed—and why, therefore, the extra cost involved would not be justified. The commissioner role will be supported by a small team of analytical and support staff. Following normal Government practice for roles of this nature, we would expect staff to be recruited from the civil service using Home Office human resources. By that we mean that having an independent work force or staff would require the recruitment process, the payroll and the HR procedures all to stand alone. That seems an unnecessary expense at a time of austerity, when we are all looking to ensure that things are done efficiently and effectively.

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I referred earlier to the fact that the chief inspector can appoint his own staff. Will the Minister explain why it is possible to make payment to staff and have payroll and HR functions to support the chief inspector appointing his own staff, but not possible for the anti-slavery commissioner to have the same powers?

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

In line with typical practice, we would expect the commissioner to take part in the selection process, to ensure that he or she has confidence in the team. We have looked at the support provided to the Victims’ Commissioner, the Biometrics Commissioner and the Surveillance Camera Commissioner. That works in practice at an effective and efficient cost to the public purse, but it also ensures that the commissioner has a role in selecting staff. Given the role the commissioner will have, we feel they will play an important part in selecting their staff. There will be no fettering of independence—staff will not be imposed on the commissioner.

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I am sorry to press the Minister, but I am not clear about why the chief inspector can advertise in newspapers for staff and appoint them, but we are being told that the anti-slavery commissioner cannot because the human resources support is not available and some whole new apparatus would have to be set up. How come the chief inspector can get away with it but the anti-slavery commissioner cannot? I just do not understand that.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

We have taken the view that that is the most efficient and cost-effective way to do all this while still enabling the commissioner to be independent. It should be remembered that the chief inspector is running a substantial organisation—it is a full inspectorate—whereas we envisage a relatively small number of staff for the commissioner. The cost of setting up a stand-alone HR function, payroll and so on, would be prohibitive for that small number of staff. It is probably also worth saying that what is envisaged will mean that the staff themselves will have civil service pay grades, benefits and so on, which I am sure will be attractive to them.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The wording I used in my new clause 19 was that the commissioner “may” appoint their own staff. It does not have an absolute “will”, or mean that from day one the commissioner has to have appointed staff. There are many situations where staff are in place, on secondment or otherwise from the civil service, and where responsibilities are worked up and a work programme is developed. Staff appointments are then made according to the scope of that work programme and the necessary capacity.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

Given the size and scale of the operation we are talking about, we consider what we are proposing to be the most cost-effective and efficient way. In practical terms, the commissioner will have a say over the staff working in his or her team. The provisions are a way of achieving that in a cost-effective and efficient manner.

To go back to the pre-appointment hearings, I want to clarify something. I am concerned that I may have given the impression that provisions for the Children’s Commissioner include pre-approval hearings. Having checked through all the legislation, there is no requirement in statute for any pre-appointment hearing for any of the other commissioner roles that we have been discussing or that I have set out in our consideration of the framework for the anti-slavery commissioner. That includes the Children’s Commissioner: there is no requirement for a pre-approval hearing in the statutory provisions for that post. I wanted to put that clearly on the record.

Amendment 118 would require the Secretary of State to specify how much the commissioner may spend on performing his or her functions, would enable the commissioner to overspend where it is for a specified purpose and would require the Secretary of State to pay the commissioner’s expenditure for each year. The Bill already includes provisions for the Secretary of State to pay expenses, remuneration and allowances to the commissioner. In practice, those will be agreed with the commissioner upon appointment for the term of office and set out in the framework agreement that sits alongside the formal terms of appointment governing the role. That agreement will also include the support staff, resources and equipment available to the commissioner, which will be agreed between the commissioner and the Secretary of State.

The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk made a point that I know we will come on to later, but I want to make sure that the Committee is aware of this fact. He suggested that the Home Secretary would be able to amend the commissioner’s reports to remove criticism of the Government through redaction, but that is absolutely not the case: the only redaction will be concerned with people’s safety and with making sure that prosecutions or national security are not put at risk. There is no suggestion whatever that the Home Secretary will be able to amend the reports to take out criticism of the Government—that is absolutely not the case.

To return to amendment 118, I do not believe it is necessary. It is right and proper to have the appropriate checks and balances in place when setting up a statutory office holder, to ensure that the role adds real value, the post holder is provided with the necessary tools and resources for their specific role, and the role is cost-effective.

Michael Connarty (Labour, Linlithgow and East Falkirk)

In clause 36, which we will come to, the strategic plan can be modified or amended by the Secretary of State. If someone is given a remit that is then amended before they start, it is quite easy to decide what kind of report comes at the end.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, we will discuss that in detail shortly, so we will leave that until then. On the basis of the discussion that we have had and the comments on clause 34, I hope that hon. and right hon. Members will withdraw their amendments and support this important clause, which sets up the anti-slavery commissioner.

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

This has been a very helpful debate, aided by the fact that we have number of hon. and right hon. Members who sat on the Joint Committee and could bring their experience of listening to all the witnesses’ evidence to the issue of the independence of the anti-slavery commissioner. As amendment 117 was tabled some time ago, giving Home Office officials time to consider whether inserting “independent” into clause 34 would cause trouble or problems for them further down the line, I am not particularly persuaded that the Home Office is now going to suddenly decide that it can look at this and report back at a later date. I still take the view that it is important that we say loudly and clearly on the face of the Bill that this is an independent anti-slavery commissioner.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I want to be clear that I am reflecting the strong views that have been expressed in the Committee. The Government are firmly of the view that the word “independent” is not necessary but because I understand the strong views that have been expressed, I want to check whether putting that word in would have a detrimental effect. I want to reflect on and consider the views expressed, which is why I wish to look at that issue further.

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I am grateful that the Minister has listened to views reflected on both sides of the Committee. That is very welcome. I am sure, having read the evidence to the Joint Committee, its recommendations and noting the hour upon hour of time that it spent looking at the particular issue, it is necessary for this Committee to take a view on whether adding “independent” to clause 34 is the best thing to do to make the views of the Committee very clear. New clause 19, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle, is a good clause. We will not be able to vote on that clause at this stage but if that is pressed to a vote, I will support it.

The Minister talked at great length about pre-appointment hearings and went through a number of the statutory office holders and the children’s commissioner, who has a slightly different capacity, and said that there was no requirement for any of them to have pre-appointment hearings. She needs to be mindful that Parliament now is trying very much to assert that it has a role to play in holding the Executive to account. Most hon. and right hon. Members would think that it was good practice for the Home Affairs Committee or other Committees of the House to have the opportunity to question and to listen to the answers of people who are being appointed to important roles by the Executive. Although it may not be a statutory requirement, it is good practice. On being able to appoint staff, I am not with the Minister. There is a case, as in new clause 19, for the term “may” to be included in the responsibilities of the anti-slavery commissioner—that they

“may appoint their own staff”

where appropriate. On that basis I will press amendment 117 to a vote.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.