My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and to contribute for the first time at this stage of proceedings. I would like to pause for a moment and congratulate the previous Prime Minister, Theresa May, who introduced the Bill in its early stages in, I think, 2019. As she said at the time, this is a landmark piece of legislation, and I am delighted to see it progressing today.
The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, powerfully and effectively made the case for why carers should potentially be considered as personally connected. I lend my support to the strong terms in which she expressed that. However, I will focus my main remarks on the amendments expertly moved and spoken to by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who speaks with great authority from her years of experience at the highest level in the family courts.
I would like to put a question to my noble friend. The Explanatory Notes and the Bill itself refer to a number of other pieces of legislation that are being amended and are therefore within the remit of the Bill, which is all to the good. Could my noble friend, in
summing up, say whether there is a reason why the Modern Slavery Act and other pieces of legislation, to which the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, referred in speaking so eloquently to her amendments, were not included and the subject not brought within the remit of the Bill? I am thinking in particular of modern slavery.
6.45 pm
I pay tribute to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and my noble friend Lord Randall; while the focus is on residence, their two amendments show that a frequent visitor should also be considered as falling within the requirements. At the moment, my understanding is that they would not be included because they do not physically reside in the home in which the abuse allegedly took place. In relation to Amendments 8 and 9 and the relevant legislation thereunder, it would be helpful to know why modern slavery and legislation relating to enforced marriages seem specifically excluded from the Bill. Was that intentional? Why would that be so?
Looking at Clause 3 and the Explanatory Notes, of which I am reading paragraph 86, it seems appropriate, for the purposes of Amendments 10 and 14, that the covert or overt abuse a child may witness should fall under Clause 3, as I read it.
I hope my noble friend will look favourably on these amendments. If there was some way the Government could see fit to widen the scope to encompass the caring provisions set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, and others, as well as enforced marriages and the harrowing situation to which the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, referred, the Bill would be much improved.