UK Borders Bill

I pay tribute again to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on his remarkably assiduous work on the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the way in which he has pursued many of the issues on which it has made recommendations in Grand Committee. It is very useful that we have had that voice raised periodically throughout these proceedings. We also had a useful debate on trafficking initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, on 27 June in which, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has pointed out, the House gave a general welcome to the Government’s signature of the Council of Europe convention, to their production of the UK action plan on human trafficking and to the establishment of the UK Human Trafficking Centre and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, all of which are very useful measures that should help us to make a real impact on this wicked phenomenon of trafficking. As often happens, in that debate far more points were raised than the Minister was able to cover in his response. I think that I am right in saying that we still look forward to his promised letter following up all those points, although we understand that, as he has to cope single-handedly with all the Home Office work, including this Bill, it is not easy for him to keep up with that correspondence. Article 13 of the Council of Europe convention stipulates a minimum of 30 days for recovery and reflection, but the JCHR heard evidence—as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has just told us—suggesting that three months would be more appropriate. The impact on victims can be devastating, resulting in a variety of physical, psychological and emotional problems, as the UK action plan emphasises. The experience of women referred to the Poppy Project, whose needs were culturally diverse as well as varying widely according to their particular experience, seems to indicate that a more flexible approach is required, covering not only the immediate assistance to be provided but also the range of support and resettlement services needed by the women given leave to remain. The action plan calls for, among other things, the establishment of a multi-agency group to review victim-centred trafficking measures. We would like to see the more radical and comprehensive programme that will emerge from the trafficking centre and the NGO advisory group’s recommendations, which will address three areas: better identification and referral procedures, enhanced support and rights for adult victims, and their reintegration and resettlement. With regard to children, in previous debates we asked a number of questions and had answers to many of them in the Minister’s letter of 19 July. It is apparent that, as a result of the global visa regulations introduced in February 2006, the number of UASC entering the country is falling, and because every child subject to an entry clearance must be accompanied by what is called a ““vignette””, on which is recorded the personal details of the child and of the person with whom the child is supposed to be travelling—or, in the case of an unaccompanied child, of the UK sponsor—the opportunities for trafficking have, we hope, already been reduced. However, where there is a discrepancy between the information on the vignette and the actual details of the child or sponsor, the possibility of trafficking should be flagged up. I asked whether a central record was kept of the discrepancies and the action taken to follow them up. Having been unable to find any reference to it on the web, I also asked about the best practice code on the carriage of minors which the action plan said was to be published in May. I asked whether, in the event of any suspicion arising, the child and the adult sponsor would be interviewed separately. The Minister’s letter of 19 July was very long—in fact I think it was something of a record at nine pages. We are grateful to him for all the information that he has provided, but I wonder whether he could check it again and ensure that those questions were answered. On a quick skim, I think that they may not have been covered. The arrangements for protection of child victims of trafficking are, of course, different from those for adults. They would be in no danger of removal as illegal entrants because all children, trafficked or not, are given ““discretionary leave”” under APU Notice 3/2007, to the age of 17 and a half since March, so they would have no need of the first leg of this amendment. Once identified as trafficked, a child must be provided with care and protection under the Children Act 1989 and equivalent legislation in Scotland. The action plan promises that national best practice guidance will be issued to professionals on how to provide support for trafficked children, supplementing the DfES publication Working Together to Safeguard Children, published in April 2006. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell the Committee when this guidance is to be published. I have every sympathy with the thinking behind this amendment, but I wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and others may think that we should await the revised version of the action plan, following the Government’s consideration of the 200-odd responses to the consultation on the plan, to see how far it meets the needs of victims of trafficking—not just for recovery and reflection, but for their care, rehabilitation and resettlement. It would be useful if the amended action plan could be published before Report so that the House could then consider, in the light of all that work, whether any legislative changes need to be inserted into the Bill.