Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for giving us another opportunity to debate this matter. He has very carefully developed the text of his amendment in various Bills as time has gone on, and so it becomes more and more difficult to object to what he puts forward. It is also perfect timing, not only because it is this Bill but also because this week the Government published their document entitled A Coordinated Prostitution Strategy. I want to ask the Government one or two questions that arose in my mind as a result of that before I turn to consider the exact drafting of the noble Lord’s amendment. The Government state—it may be more true to say ““understate””—their case at Section 5.7 of the strategy:"““Trafficking in human beings for the purposes of sexual exploitation is thought to be on the increase””." As the noble Baroness said, some years ago it was something that one thought of as happening in other countries and not here. My experience and that of colleagues from this House who have attended meetings of the European Mediterranean women’s Parliament is that there has been a dramatic—something like fourfold—increase certainly over the past six years but also over the past three. I agree with the Government that the harm to the individuals involved is considerable. The strategy goes on:"““Traffickers are known to use violence to ensure the cooperation of their victims from an early stage in the trafficking process—this can include rape/gang rape, abduction, torture and, frequently, the threat of violence against their families. Once in this country the sexual exploitation is frequently exacerbated by continued threats of violence and debt bondage””." Given that that is the Government’s position at Section 5.7 of the report, one then asks how the noble Baroness can possibly resist the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. It will be interesting to see. The noble Lord referred to Project Reflex and the Poppy Project. Reflex is simply aimed at trying to detect the perpetrators. It does not do anything to assist those trafficked, except to get them out of the clutches of those people for the time being. He also referred to the Poppy Project and the possible continued—I hope that it will be ““definitely”” continued—funding. As the JCWI points out, the people covered by Poppy are those who have been trafficked for the purposes of sexual crime. So far as I am aware, as yet there is nothing to assist those who have been trafficked for economic crime. It is to the Government’s credit that they included those who are trafficked for economic crime in the definition of trafficking in the previous Bill. We welcomed that. Will the Minister not only answer the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and other Members of the Committee with regard to the lifespan of Poppy, its effectiveness and its continued funding, but also say what the Government’s plans are to assist victims of economic trafficking as well? A similar system to Poppy might be set up to assist them. Another issue that I noted in Section 5 of the Government’s report is that of victim care. The noble Earl mentioned what has happened to some of the people in Poppy. I notice that in paragraph 5.9 referring to Poppy, the Government stated that:"““Shelter and basic care is provided up to four weeks while the women consider what they want to do - and for longer where a woman decides to stay to help provide evidence against her exploiters””." What kind of plans are the Government trying to put in place to extend that kind of assistance? Is the person allowed to remain only while the case is proceeding through the courts? What if a conviction is obtained, and is then appealed? Do the Government allow the witnesses to remain secure in this country pending the outcome of that appeal? I know that that person may institute a further appeal beyond the Court of Appeal to the House of Lords and that may take some time. I recognise that the Government may face difficulty in giving a blanket ““Yes”” answer because of the time involved, but this matter needs to be considered. I now come back to the precise text of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. He made a plea to the Minister to excise the words ““pull factor”” from her brief. Anybody looking at how one might protect people being trafficked has to consider whether there is a pull factor. If there is one—and I believe there is—how can we prevent it being exacerbated? If there is a pull factor, any exaggeration of it damages the people who have been trafficked in the past and who may be trafficked in future. I know the noble Lord is trying to get a copper-bottomed guarantee that the innocent victims of trafficking will be protected and that there can be no encouragement to others. But the difficulty of trying to frame that provision is reflected in subsection (2) of Amendment No. 73 which states:"““For the purposes of this section, a person is ““trafficked”” if another person forces him to enter the United Kingdom or deceives him to do so or otherwise fraudulently encourages him to do so for the purposes of sexually or economically exploiting him””." I understand what the noble Lord is getting at. It is the vile gangs whose sole business is to get people here. They will make huge amounts of money out of them and will represent to them that there is a much better life here or, if they are being brought here for sexual exploitation, they will say that they are coming here to work in a massage parlour, without saying that they will be locked up in a cellar when they get here and will be forced to do other duties too. The noble Lord is trying to get at those people. He is also covering the situation where parents sell their children into what is, effectively, slavery, as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said. It is extraordinary to our way of thinking that parents are prepared to do that. Sometimes it is because they believe that it will be a better life for their child when he gets here, so perhaps the parents have been misled. But sadly, often, they are not. They see it as a way of getting money for themselves, and leave their children to the mercy of the traffickers. Indeed, the parents may be perfectly willing to benefit regardless of what happens. I believe that the noble Lord, in trying his very best to achieve his objective, still leaves in subsection (2) a situation where there would be a pull factor. It would be disingenuous of me to believe that parents would not continue to traffic their children if that were in place. I think they would then see an even greater good for their children: the guarantee that once here, they would stay here. Sadly, therefore, although my heart would very much like to support the amendment, I am afraid that my mind still cannot. But I am still listening.