My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee of the Human Trafficking Foundation and the work that I do with the University of Nottingham’s Rights Lab, as declared in the register of interests. If it is okay with your Lordships, I will not repeat that declaration during this session.
We are starting with a debate on modern slavery, which of course is of real interest to us all. But first, can the Minister update us on the progress that he is making on the publication of an impact assessment? I said that I would ask him at each sitting, as I think that it is incumbent on him to tell us; he has said “in due course”, and we are wondering whether “in due course” has got any closer—or certainly whether it will be between Committee and Report. It is an issue of immense importance to this Committee. We saw yesterday, with the publication at speed of the JCHR report, what can be done if there is a will. Parts of the impact assessment will be available in the Home Office, because the Home Office will be basing the Bill on evidence and on various assumptions that it is making, and it should share those with the rest of us, for us to consider in our deliberations.
It is even more important that we understand what the Government seek to do since they are already abandoning what they put in their Bill last year. We said that it simply would not work, and the Government refused to accept the amendments that we tabled—but we see in a Written Ministerial Statement, sneaked out by the Government on Thursday evening, that they have now abandoned group 1 and group 2 refugee status in the Nationality and Borders Act. We are all pleased with that, but we told the Government that it would not work, would create a bureaucratic backlog and be unfair. The Government have found that out for themselves, and now they are telling everyone that the two groups are to be joined together. I hope that the Minister learns from that and understands that often, with the various amendments that we table, we disagree not only on the principles contained in the Bill but with the practicalities.
With those opening remarks, I shall speak to Amendment 85 in my name and in the names of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who cannot be with us today, as well as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, along with many other amendments in this group, particularly Amendments 87 and 89. They are part of a package that seek to probe and understand how victims of modern slavery under the Bill can enter the national referral mechanism and receive the appropriate support.
It is of deep regret to me that one of the flagship policies of the last Conservative Government has been smashed. I find it unbelievable that noble Lords would support driving through something that is doing that. It was something that we all regretted—to see the former Prime Minister at Second Reading sitting on the steps in this House and looking with absolute dismay and horror at what this Government are proposing. Of course, the current version of the Conservative Government dismiss that as irrelevant and as something that is not important. However, as somebody who is as tribal as they come with respect to being Labour, I would say that sometimes Governments get it right—and, certainly, the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was a landmark piece of world-leading legislation, and it is unbelievable that a Conservative Government would seek to unpick that and drive it through.
These amendments look at how victims of modern slavery do—or, more particularly, do not—enter the national referral mechanism, including victims of sexual exploitation. There is a non-conformity to the ECHR and Article 4 of the Council of Europe’s directives against trafficking, as the JCHR report just published makes clear. As the noble Lord, Lord McColl, will say under his amendment, we have not had an Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner for well over a year, which is astonishing—because whoever that was, he or she would have been able to inform our debates.
3.30 pm
Is it these clauses that have led the Government to not make a Section 19(1)(a) statement under the Human Rights Act—in other words, incompatibility with convention rights? Paragraph 47 in their ECHR memorandum, as published, seems to imply that this is the case. Can the Minister confirm that it is this particular group of clauses that leads to what is said about Section 19(1)(a)? Clauses 21 to 28 are so draconian, such an absolutely desperate part of this legislation, and so unbelievable—is that why the Government have put a sunset clause in? Are even the Government so embarrassed by how bad the legislation is that they have had to put a sunset clause in? It can be renewed, of course.
These clauses disapply various protections to victims of slavery and trafficking who have arrived irregularly, or “illegally” as the Government put it. For example, the 30-day recovery period, where not removed, is gone. Support and assistance are gone. Limited leave to remain is gone, and protection from removal is gone. All are denied any chance to have individual cases assessed and all, with one exception, will be deemed a threat to public order. The only exception, and I will come back to this later, is where there is co-operation with criminal investigation or prosecution, if the Secretary of State considers it necessary—and the presumption in these clauses is that it is not necessary.
This breaks international conventions. According to the JCHR, it not only breaks them but makes our international obligations untenable. Without going back over the debate over whether it is a law, or a breach or whatever, my point, and the point of many noble Lords, is that when we sign an international
convention, the understanding is that we will keep that convention and not unilaterally abandon it and say that we will not act in a way which is consistent with it. These clauses do that. Even an individual with a reasonable grounds decision, as determined by the Home Office, can be deported before a conclusive grounds decision is made. Amendments 85, 87, 88, 89 and 92, put forward by me and supported by others, probe how victims of modern slavery can enter the national referral mechanism in that case—or is it just being abandoned?
Why are the Government doing it? I go back to the point that I and other noble Lords have made: frankly, we have a Government at the moment who say that deterrence, whether it works or not, trumps human rights; deterrence is more important than any other aspect. The Government also say that the system is being abused, so everyone has to be deemed a fraud. It is a blanket approach to sexual slaves, child labour and forced labour. Victims will be left without hope: there is no individual assessment, just a blanket ban. Instead of tackling the criminal gangs, the Government are tackling the victims. It is like the victims of a burglary being charged for allowing their home to be burgled—forget the burglars and trying to tackle them.
Let us look at the most recent NRM figures. These are not made-up figures but figures taken from the Home Office’s latest statistics. They show an increase from 2,337 in 2014 to 16,938 in 2022—I point out that 25% of that increase are British. This means, according to the Government, that the system must be being abused. Where is the evidence for that? I would have thought that after 2014 came the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and that the Government would have pointed to that: “Here is the success of our Modern Slavery Act; here is the success of what we do as we identify more victims”.
The fundamental point, which came out when we discussed the Bill last week, is that people do not refer in. They cannot self-refer into the NRM; they are referred in by first responders. These first responders are verified by the Home Office, and Home Office officials then make a reasonable grounds decision or not. A conclusive grounds decision is then made or not. It is Home Office officials who decide that, not some mystical other being. Are the Home Office Minister and the Home Secretary accusing their own officials of allowing the system to be gamed? Is the Minister saying that their own officials do not know what they are doing?
Amendment 85 asks directly how anyone who is a victim of modern slavery is to access the NRM. Will the Minister tell us why these Home Office figures are wrong and not to be used, given that, as I say, they are all over the Home Office website? Is the current backlog of reasonable grounds to conclusive grounds decisions 12,907 just for the year 2022? What is the overall backlog figure? Can the Minister confirm that the average wait from reasonable grounds to conclusive grounds in 2022 was 543 days, up from 449 in the previous year? Would sorting that out not help with some of the problems the Government are seeking to deal with?
Can the Minister confirm that of the 82,236 people who arrived in the United Kingdom in small boats between January 2018 and December 2022 just 7% were referred into the NRM, and of them, 95% applied for asylum? Can the Minister tell me whether those Home Office figures are wrong? Is it not the case that of the 12,561 Albanians who entered the UK on small boats only 12%—that is 2,691—consented to enter the NRM? Is it not the case that 89% of referrals were issued with conclusive grounds decisions in 2020, 91% in 2021 and 89% in 2022? So even after a reasonable grounds decision, when the Home Office look at it, sometimes well over a year later, Home Office officials themselves are saying there are conclusive grounds—not just reasonable but conclusive grounds. Why is the Minister blaming his officials for this complete allowing of the gaming of the system?
My amendments, led by Amendment 85, and others seek to expose the myths the Government have used to completely undermine our world-leading legislation and break our international obligations and the conventions that we have agreed. Is it the case that they cannot even use the figures, which makes it even more complicated? Home Office figures announced on 9 May show that as a consequence of the changes the Government made in their Nationality and Borders Act 2022 the proportion of reasonable grounds decisions issued has reduced from 85% in quarter 4 of 2022 to 58% in quarter 1 of 2023. I would have thought the Minister would use the tightening of thresholds, even under the existing legislation, to say the existing legislation is starting to work. Why is that figure wrong?
These amendments question how under these clauses a victim of, say, sexual exploitation—pointed to in Amendment 88—will be identified and protected. Can the Minister spell out how a victim of sexual exploitation, child labour or forced labour will be protected under this blanket ban? The reality of these clauses is that detaining and removing anyone who arrives irregularly means we will not identify or support victims of modern slavery and make it harder to prosecute traffickers. Instead of offering protection and support in line with our own Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the various directives and conventions from Article 4 of the ECHR and the Council of Europe, potential victims will face, instead of support, detention and removal.
Even more shockingly, at Third Reading in the other place, the Government themselves inserted an amendment—I think it was Amendment 95—which meant that protection from removal for victims co-operating with an investigation or criminal proceedings, which meant they had to be in the UK, was changed to allow them to be removed. It is heartless, but it is also absolutely ridiculous—investigations undermined by the Government’s own amendment. How on earth do we expect victims to continue to give evidence or support to an investigation from the source of their exploitation? The only people celebrating will be the traffickers and criminal gangs.
In Clauses 21 to 28, various protections and support are undermined—unless, according to the Home Secretary, there are
“compelling circumstances which require the person to be present in the United Kingdom”.
We have no idea what these are. It is completely meaningless in the real world of trafficking and criminal slavers. What of children impacted by all this, including unaccompanied children? Outrageously, under these clauses, children will be disqualified from access to protection and support and the measures will reduce investigations and prosecutions of those who have exploited children. Can the Minister justify these clauses as they apply to children? Again, much of that will be addressed in the third group.
These measures will leave victims in destitution, unable to escape the abuses that they have been subject to. They will drive more men, women, children, young people and families into destitution. Frankly, it is a shocking change in public policy and shamefully undermines a policy of which we were all so proud.