Protection of Freedoms Bill

My Lords, I hope that I can respond relatively briefly but I will have to write a number of letters to noble Lords. On the issue of what further work we have to do through secondary legislation and other means, I shall write in detail to my noble friend, both noble Baronesses who have spoken and place a copy in the Library setting out exactly what we intend to do. The advice I have is that, although we were very nearly compliant, there were certain things that we had to do through primary legislation—and we have found this vehicle through which to do them—and other things that we can do through secondary legislation. Obviously it would be right for me to spell that out in detail. My noble friend also had some queries about the drafting of the new clauses. In particular, he was concerned that the new clauses referred to offences committed by ““a person””. I can assure him that ““a person””—as I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, would have confirmed if he was still in his place—includes legal persons. That will include companies and other bodies, other than an individual as he and I understand that. That is the nature of the law. Then there was the question that both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, asked about whether we would become non-compliant as a result of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill currently passing through this House. We are going to a great deal of trouble to become compliant and I very much hope that at the same time we are not trying to become non-compliant. That point can be argued out when we get to the appropriate part of that Bill. I believe that I shall be assisting my noble friend Lord McNally on some parts of it and I am more than happy to take part in those debates. My noble friend asked when we would have the Committee stage of the Bill, but he will appreciate that that is not a matter to which I can respond, but no doubt the usual channels will take that into account in due course. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, asked detailed questions about the extension of jurisdiction. Again, I am sure that that is, or will be there, and we will make sure that we are perfectly compliant in that respect. I will write to her as part of the letter that I intend to send to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, to make that clear. The same will be true with regard to Articles 12 and 13 in relation to child victims and on her concerns about our current arrangements with regard to Article 16 and a national rapporteur. Our own cross-government committee is appropriate and reaches the degree of compliance that we want. We have a good record in this country of complying with matters coming from Europe and we made it clear that although we had an opt-out, we decided to opt in and reach proper compliance in due course. It was a matter of finding the right vehicle and I am very grateful that this Bill is a vehicle for part of it. As I said, we will use other means to achieve perfect compliance in other ways. I beg to move. Amendment 152B agreed. Amendment 152C Moved by