UK Borders Bill

I shall also speak to Amendment No. 65, which is tabled in my name. Noble Lords have tended to concentrate on the problems for children who have been trafficked. I understand that, and it is right that both amendments have been framed to cover all those who are victims of trafficking, regardless of age. If the person is a child it is easier to define him as a victim of trafficking because he can be said not to have had an element of choice about travelling. I appreciate that the Government have difficulty when dealing with older victims of trafficking because some of them may be victims who had no choice, whereas others may have exercised a choice to come to this country illegally and it is difficult to make sure that the distinction between the two is retained if they are to be treated differently. There is also a third category, which I suspect arises frequently, comprising adults who choose to be trafficked to this country but the initial choice soon disappears because they are then subjected to duress. Whenever we discuss matters such as this we have to have in mind that, unless one has full information, it is difficult to determine on a case-by-case basis who is a victim of trafficking and who may not be. It is therefore difficult to make provision in the Bill to protect victims of trafficking. However, just because something is difficult, that does not mean that it is not worth trying to get it. I have a lot of sympathy with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. It would be strange if I did not because it is very similar to an amendment moved in another place by my honourable friend Mr Anthony Steen. Although the Government have signed the Council of Europe convention, as other noble Lords said, which provides for renewable residency permits for the victims of trafficking, there is no structure in place within the UK for residency permits. As such, no alternative to temporary or permanent residency exists other than referring, for example, children through the asylum route. It is important here to look at the issue of children alone, an issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, refers. It is important to know from the Government what they intend to do to remedy that issue. What other route will be provided? Although it will be appropriate for some trafficked children to be returned to their family or guardians in their country of origin, many trafficked children, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said, will be living in fear of violence, sexual abuse and retrafficking if they are forced to return to their own community. A couple of years ago I saw a very telling documentary screened at the UNICEF AGM of a young girl who had been trafficked and was in fear of being returned to her community but who had been resettled with the assistance of UNICEF and provided with a trade. It would have been extremely dangerous for her to return to her country. We have to bear such cases in mind. ECPAT says that it has regularly seen trafficked children’s appeals statements being rejected and claims refused in this country because of a basic lack of awareness and concern about human trafficking from both BIA—then IND—staff and immigration solicitors. What are the Government doing to address that? I turn specifically to my Amendment No. 65, which looks at trafficking within the remit of what the chief inspector should be doing in the clauses at the end of the Bill. Clauses 47 to 55 are welcome additions to the Bill made by the Government in Committee in another place. In particular, Clause 47 requires the Secretary of State to appoint a chief inspector of the Border and Immigration Agency. The chief inspector will monitor and report on the efficiency and effectiveness of the agency. My amendment seeks to draw attention to the evil of people trafficking and covers all persons, not just children. It emphasises the fact that the chief inspector should report on the agency’s treatment of those claimants and applicants who claim that they have been trafficked into the United Kingdom. I purposely shadowed the drafting used by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, because I think it important that we look at those who have made a claim that they are trafficked and not merely concentrate on those for whom it has been proved that they have been trafficked. At an earlier stage I expressed my concern about the way in which the provisions of Clause 16 may have an impact on unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. My amendment goes wider. It asks the Government to put on the record what action they believe should be taken by the BIA to assist those who have been trafficked into this country, including those who claim that they have been trafficked, and including also those who try to give evidence against the traffickers and thereby risk their own lives for a second time in agreeing to give that evidence—the first time being when they are brought into the country, often by the most hazardous means. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has been assiduous over the past years in drawing to the attention of the House the importance of assisting those who give evidence in these cases. He has argued repeatedly that they should not be removed from the United Kingdom until the process of identifying the traffickers and prosecuting them has been completed. It would be useful for the Committee to hear today what the Government’s position is on that matter now. It is encompassed by my amendment, which would require the chief inspector to report on such matters. What assistance is given to all those who are prepared to give evidence? What improvements do the Government intend to introduce in the future, and when?