Duty to co-operate with Commissioner

I beg to move amendment 108, in clause 37, page 26, line 38, at end insert—

‘(6) Specified public authority can also include a public authority which has been specified under relevant procedures of devolved institutions.”

The amendment is in a similar vein to my amendment to clause 36: it is essentially about providing an opt-in for the relevant devolved services or authorities. On the previous amendments, the Minister said she wanted to allow time for the discussions between the Government and the devolved authorities to ripen before making any provision for the devolved areas. However, I should make the point that nothing in the amendment is prescriptive. It is a straightforward enabling provision to specify that a specified authority can

“include a public authority which has been specified under relevant procedures of devolved institutions.”

The choice is therefore entirely there in relation to the devolved institutions. This is about enabling them to make the most of their services and commitments, as well as their co-operation with the services, enforcement officers and agencies we are looking at in the Bill.

I know the Minister is precious about what she sees as the sensitivities around this issue, but from talking to people from a range of parties in Northern Ireland, I am aware of no sensitivity, and people will be looking forward in anticipation to such a measure being passed. No doubt the Minister will say that, although that is what I have picked up through my contacts, she cannot presume anything on that basis about the conduct of business here.

I think we will have to come back to this point, but I will park it for now—I have no wish to drive it to a Division. I do not accept what the Minister said about not doing these things now, but if the understanding with the devolved authorities ripens, and the scope of devolution changes, as seems likely, depending on developments next week, we will return to this matter, so I will leave it until then.

It is a pleasure to have you back in the Chair, Mr Crausby.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Foyle for tabling and speaking to amendment 108, which would include those public authorities related to the devolved Administrations. I was hoping to hear more from the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk about his views on the devolved Administrations, because I know how much he adds to these debates. [Interruption.] No, I genuinely was.

The commissioner will have a fundamental role in working with public authorities. Public authorities working at the coal face are the very organisations and institutions that are likely to come into contact with potential victims and investigate the perpetrators. We have talked about how the commissioner would practically carry out their work, particularly with the third sector; we discussed that in the previous debate. In carrying out their functions, the commissioner will need to work collaboratively with a range of stakeholders and partners. Although the commissioner does not have a specific  remit to work with non-governmental organisations, they do have a role to play in consulting and co-operating with people in the UK and internationally.

At present, the commissioner has a remit that covers England and Wales only. Amendment 108 would include in the list of specified public authorities those authorities specified under relevant procedures in the devolved Administrations. I understand absolutely why the hon. Member for Foyle tabled the amendment and I am sympathetic with the intention behind it. Since the inception of the Bill, we have been working collaboratively with our colleagues in Scotland and Northern Ireland, recognising that there could be real benefits of a UK-wide commissioner. Those discussions are continuing and I hope that we may, at some point—soon, I hope—reach an agreement that results in the commissioner’s having a remit that covers the whole UK. That would be the best outcome for all concerned. However, I am of course committed to respecting the devolution settlements and to not legislating for the devolved Administrations in circumstances where their agreement is, by convention, needed first.

Given that we have an ongoing commitment to working with Scotland and Northern Ireland on establishing whether the commissioner could be UK-wide, I hope the hon. Gentleman will ask leave to withdraw his amendment and that we can at some point bring forward changes to the Bill that will allow for what he is intending through his amendment.

I make it clear that, contrary to what the Minister said, my amendment would not include the authorities, but would allow for the inclusion of authorities in the devolved area under devolved choice. So the point that she made about the principle of choice, and not transgressing on choice or the rightful locus of devolved authorities, is taken care of in the amendment.

Absolutely. I was just making clear again the point about the devolved Administrations. However, the fact that the commissioner is able to work with organisations, both in England and Wales and outside, means that that power is already there, even though it is not specified absolutely in relation to devolved Administrations; it obviously relates to those bodies outside England and Wales.

The Minister’s intervention assists my amendment, because it is right that, if the commissioner is potentially going to be working with devolved agencies, there is a clear trigger point and clear designation consistent with devolved responsibilities and with relevant procedures; and that also allows choice about the determination of relevant procedures for specifying to be a matter for the devolved authorities as well. So the due locus of the devolved authorities is being respected on a number of levels here.

Although I do not accept the Minister’s arguments, I am encouraged by her anticipation that aspects of the Bill may be re-pointed in future to take account of understandings that will be devolved, which hopefully can be expressed in relation to the work of the commissioner as well. For that reason, as indicated, I am happy to park the amendment for now rather than driving it to a Division.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That clause 37 stand part of the Bill.

The clause provides that the commissioner may request that a public authority co-operate with the commissioner in any way that he or she thinks necessary for the purposes of the commissioner’s functions. Specified public authorities must co-operate, where it is reasonably practicable to do so, with the commissioner’s request. The public authorities to which this will apply will be specified in regulations. In practice, we intend this to include the police, local authorities, the NHS, Border Force and immigration.

In complying with the commissioner, public authorities that disclose information will not breach any obligation of confidence owed by the public authority. However, public authorities are not required to disclose information where it would breach any other restriction of information, however that is imposed.

It is important for the commissioner, in carrying out his or her functions effectively, to work closely with public authorities to build their trust and confidence, so that they are better able to support victim identification and the effective prosecution of offenders. That is an important part of the commissioner’s role. We have talked at length in Committee about the need to raise awareness and ensure that all public bodies that could come into contact with victims work together so that victims can be identified as soon as possible.

The Minister is going to quite some lengths to try to describe the methodology. She commented in earlier debates about not wanting to cross over the responsibilities of various commissioners that are already in England and Wales. Perhaps she could say a word about how the commissioner is expected to relate to, for example, the Children’s Commissioner for Scotland, Tam Baillie, and people who are already in post in Scotland? There may be people who end up in post through Jenny Marra’s Bill, which looks as if it will go on to the statute book in Scotland, even in a devolved Assembly forum. How might they work together in the way that the police are now working, with the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the Scottish Serious Organised Crime Taskforce working together on other matters?

Clearly that is something the commissioner will have to work with. It is also part of our continuing discussions with the devolved Administrations, to ensure that we have the right understanding between the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and Westminster, so that we can get the right and appropriate relationship and the result we all want—to find the victims as quickly as possible.

For example, the Children’s Commissioner has given some very good evidence to the Joint Committee, and some of it has been read into the record here. We also have a Children’s Commissioner for Scotland, Tam Baillie. Is there practice that the Minister might exhibit to the Committee, that is already being looked at, which works in that area and might be a form that would work across the wider scale of human trafficking? I am sure there must be a relationship.

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point and I will endeavour, at some point before the end of our discussions today, to deal with it—or perhaps I will write to him if I cannot find the right sort of  examples before then—and explain how the two Children’s Commissioners work together. It is important that the Committee should understand how existing commissioners work and how, therefore, we would see the anti-slavery commissioner fitting into the jigsaw, for want of a better word, of commissioners and bodies with responsibility for protecting the most vulnerable in society.

We have talked about the rapporteur-type function and it is worth pointing out that the anti-slavery commissioner will not be the UK national rapporteur. That role remains with the interdepartmental ministerial group. The commissioner has a specific role and remit in strengthening our law enforcement response, but the role of the rapporteur, as set out in the EU directive, is fulfilled by that group, and it is important for that to be clear and for the Committee to be aware of it.

The Minister talked about the disclosure of information under clause 37(4), which provides that

“subsection (2) does not require or authorise any disclosure of information which contravenes any other restriction on the disclosure of information”.

Will she give an example, so that the Committee can understand what kind of information a public authority would not have to disclose?

Yes. As to specific examples, perhaps it would be better for me to respond to the hon. Lady later, or write to her. I think the information will help the Committee, and we should look into it.

I hope the Committee feels able to support the clause on the basis of the discussion we have had.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.