UK Borders Bill

I do not think that there is a great deal of difference between Members of the Committee on how we view this issue. In this year of all years it is very important that we try to make genuine progress to improve the work which we do within government on the issue of trafficking. Everyone accepts that trafficking is an evil and appalling crime that does terrible things to those caught up in its effect and its wake. No one really is at odds over the appalling nature of the crime. That makes my job the more difficult because I have to resist these amendments. On the plus side, it provides me with a helpful opportunity to set out the Government’s approach on the issue more generally. As well as using the Bill to strengthen existing trafficking offences, which has been acknowledged in Committee, the Government take very seriously their responsibilities towards victims of trafficking. The publication of the UK action plan and the signing of the European Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings by the Home Secretary on 23 March this year demonstrate our commitment to do more to help to identify the victims of this vile crime. It is another step towards our main aim of making the UK a hostile place for traffickers. The Home Office has developed an online checklist or toolkit—call it what you wish—aimed at practitioners to increase the awareness of trafficking. Training to identify and handle potential victims of trafficking has been provided throughout the regional enforcement offices. We have also provided staff with guidance on identifying victims of trafficking at the earliest stage. To support the identification of children in need, the Border and Immigration Agency has provided specialist training for about 600 operational members of staff nationwide. It is quite an extensive training programme. The message that children arriving in the United Kingdom may be here as a result of coercion or criminal activity, including trafficking, is central to the theme of the course. When deciding whether to pursue the repatriation of an individual, very careful consideration is given to our obligations under immigration law and the Human Rights Act, including any risk that that individual might face on return and other reasons why they should be allowed to remain in the United Kingdom. The Government recognise that some individuals who have suffered exploitation at the hands of their traffickers will need time to recover and reflect on their position. Where appropriate, permission to remain in the UK may be granted indefinitely or on a limited basis. Each case is rightly assessed on its individual merits, and repatriation will be considered only where it is considered to be safe and the right thing to do. On proposed new subsections (6) and (7) of Amendment No. 51, we have always said that we are wholly sympathetic to the objectives behind the Council of Europe convention. The convention will build on our strategy to combat human trafficking by providing minimum standards of protection and victim support. We have already done good work to develop an effective enforcement response to this horrendous crime by establishing the UK Human Trafficking Centre last year. That has been widely welcomed, including in the debate secured the other week by the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh. The centre will become a central point for the development of police expertise and, more importantly in many respects, operational co-operation. We also continue to support adult victims of human trafficking through an investment of £2.4 million in the Poppy Project, which provides shelter and support to victims who have been trafficked into the UK for sexual exploitation. It will inevitably take some time before we move from signing the convention to it being ratified, and for good reasons. Amendments to primary and secondary legislation will be required, as will the development of guidance and the institution of new processes. It would be premature to accept Amendment No. 51 before we assess the best way of implementing all the requirements imposed on us by the convention. Amendment No. 65 would place a specific duty on the chief inspector to consider, and to make recommendations about, the treatment of those who claim to have been trafficked into the United Kingdom. Close attention to Clause 47(2) will pay dividends, because it is already drafted in such a way as to allow the chief inspector to give equal consideration to the treatment of claimants and applicants from all backgrounds. This includes those who may have been trafficked. The chief inspector will look at the processes by which decisions are made and how Border and Immigration Agency staff deal with people on a day-to-day basis. Where there is a specific area of concern, the Secretary of State will be able to ask the chief inspector to investigate and report on the matter. As has been acknowledged in Committee, we have already made a considerable amount of progress. I accept that there is more to be done. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, argued passionately, as ever, and with great understanding that we need to ensure that protection is more adequate. We are all in agreement with that; I do not think that there is any dissent on that point. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, urged that we should consider the matter further when we have had the opportunity to look at the revised action plan. I cannot give a specific timetable on when we will have the opportunity to do that. I agree with the noble Lord that it would be useful if we could see some of that work completed by Report. I will ask officials whether that is possible. It is not that we are complacent or that we do not see the urgency of this—I do, and the Government do. We want to ensure that we have adequate plans and measures in place so that we can give proper effect to the act of signing up to the convention. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked whether we were behind or ahead of European best practice. That is a difficult judgment to make. In some respects, the creation of the UK centre has been a big step forward, particularly on enforcement. We may well be in advance of other European states, but that is a hard judgment to make. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked me to check on a particular case. I will ask officials whether they have any understanding of the case that the noble Earl referred to; I cannot give an answer on it today.