UK Borders Bill

moved Amendment No. 30: 30: Clause 31, page 17, line 26, at end insert— ““(5) Where there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person is a victim of trafficking, that person shall not be removed from the UK until the process for identifying whether they are such a victim is complete. (6) A recovery and reflection period of 3 months shall be granted to a person who has been identified as being a victim of trafficking, during which time no immigration enforcement measures shall be taken against them. (7) Renewable residence permits of up to 6 months’ duration may be granted to victims of trafficking.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, recent reports of extensive police activity, not just in London but across the country, have vividly illustrated how widespread the consequences of trafficking are. The numbers are growing; the physical dangers and psychological traumas for those involved are immense. As a nation, we are beginning to realise that those being trafficked are likely to be primarily victims of a ruthless trade rather than just an extension of illegal immigration or sordid prostitution. We dealt with these issues in Grand Committee but, in view of the seriousness of what is happening and the frequently acute danger to and suffering of the victims, I seize this opportunity to beg my noble friend to take another look at what is proposed by this amendment and consider it more favourably. Why have we still not ratified the Council of Europe convention? Why can we not have a clear target date for its ratification in order to bring the necessary discipline and urgency to preparing for its implementation? Of course the Government’s case—that they do not want to ratify until we are able to implement—is an honest position that one can respect, but one must have some discipline in place to ensure that preparations are being made with a sense of urgency. What has happened to the action plan during the summer? Why are the Government not prepared to reconsider their reservation on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in this context so that the paramount importance of the protection of children, in line with the firm exhortations of the Prime Minister about the need for inclusive policies towards children, can be ensured? The director of Bail for Immigration Detainees has this month written to a number of noble Lords about the issues, stating: "““Our research has found that … the speed of the detained fast track process at Yarl’s Wood makes it nearly impossible for women to get a fair hearing and the vast majority of asylum claims are refused … women don’t have enough time to disclose traumatic experiences, or to prepare properly for their asylum appeals by gathering expert reports or medical information … approximately one third of women are not legally represented in their asylum appeal … a high number of women sent to Yarl’s Wood are subsequently found to have cases that cannot be decided quickly and fairly in detention, including those who have suffered sexual violence and gender based persecution … women can spend long periods in detention once their case has been turned down and there is no systematic process in place to identify those who are not fit to be detained””." I submit that the wording of the amendment is explicitly relevant and clear in its formulation to this grave social challenge. The fears of vicious bodily harm and other disturbing consequences for those apprehended, or for their families, and the anxieties about the nightmare of being retrafficked, cannot be overestimated. I beg to move.