Immigration and Asylum Bill
Tuesday 27th October 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 1 day, 14 hours ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:25
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Or colleagues. Before we get into the detail of the various clauses, I wanted to place part five of the bill and all the provisions that concern modern slavery that we will be debating today. In their wider context, modern slavery is a vicious, cruel, barbaric. Yeah, yeah. Thank you very much, Doctor Myerson. And it's a pleasure again to serve under your chairmanship today. And good morning to. Crime that dehumanizes people. This government is absolutely committed to tackling it in all its forms and to identifying victims and giving them the support they need. But for the government to continue to meet that commitment, we must go further.
We need a robust end to end system supporting earlier identification, ensuring clear decisions and addressing opportunities for improper use so that the system works effectively for those it is intended to protect. These measures will improve alignment with wider immigration and support systems while enhancing protections for child victims. And we need to reduce the risk of exploitation further by increasing expectations on businesses to tackle abuse in their supply chains and strengthening enforcement powers available to our courts and the police to stop offenders in their tracks. The clauses in this bill will do all of that. So I'll now turn to clauses 25 to 34.
These clauses are focused on strengthening slavery, slavery and trafficking, prevention and risk orders. As modern slavery offending continues to evolve, the tools used to manage offending behaviour must keep pace to enable law enforcement and the courts to take more efficient and tougher action. Slavery and trafficking, prevention and risk orders give law enforcement agencies and the courts powers to apply for, and grant orders to prohibit certain behaviour and to prevent harm. But they are not operating as effectively as they could be. The measures in this Bill will strengthen these powers, making them more efficient and flexible to use and improving their effectiveness as preventative tools.
These changes will help to prevent further exploitation, better protect victims from harm and reduce the risk of exploitation and reoffending. Clause 25 amends the Modern Slavery Act of 2015 and provides the power for the court, before which a person is acquitted of slavery and human trafficking offence. To make a slavery and trafficking risk order. The appropriate court is either the court where the person was acquitted following a trial, or the court allowing an appeal, or the Crown Court on Remittal following a successful appeal to the Court of Appeal. Under current legislation, a slavery and trafficking risk order is only available on application to the Magistrates Court in circumstances where a person is acquitted of slavery and trafficking offences by the Crown Court.
The existing process places additional pressure on law enforcement and court time, allowing the court that made the acquittal decision, including on appeal, to make an order and extending the power to make an order to the higher court will remove the delays caused by the current process. As the trial court has already heard the evidence, it will not need to be repeated in the magistrates court. It will also mean the courts can make an order of their own motion. This will improve efficiency and effectiveness by dealing with an individual immediately following the trial, reducing the risk of offending and preventing harm to others without delay.
Clause 25 also enables the court to adjourn proceedings relating to slavery and trafficking relating to a slavery and trafficking risk order on acquittal. The reasons for why we need a chairman of proceedings will be discussed in further detail in clause 30. Government amendment 113 sets out a technical amendment to clause 25 to clarify which court is responsible for dealing with any future application to vary, renew or discharge a Slavery and Trafficking Risk order made by the Court of Appeal on acquittal. The amendment makes very clear that any subsequent application will be heard by the Crown Court, rather than the Court of Appeal.
This aligns the provision of the Slavery and Trafficking Risk order made on acquittal with the existing approach in section 29 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which covers appeals of the decision to make to order an order and ensures a consistent process for managing these orders. It will also ensure the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal will not be taken up by further matters in respect of the orders, and I beg to move the amendment standing in my name.
We need a robust end to end system supporting earlier identification, ensuring clear decisions and addressing opportunities for improper use so that the system works effectively for those it is intended to protect. These measures will improve alignment with wider immigration and support systems while enhancing protections for child victims. And we need to reduce the risk of exploitation further by increasing expectations on businesses to tackle abuse in their supply chains and strengthening enforcement powers available to our courts and the police to stop offenders in their tracks. The clauses in this bill will do all of that. So I'll now turn to clauses 25 to 34.
These clauses are focused on strengthening slavery, slavery and trafficking, prevention and risk orders. As modern slavery offending continues to evolve, the tools used to manage offending behaviour must keep pace to enable law enforcement and the courts to take more efficient and tougher action. Slavery and trafficking, prevention and risk orders give law enforcement agencies and the courts powers to apply for, and grant orders to prohibit certain behaviour and to prevent harm. But they are not operating as effectively as they could be. The measures in this Bill will strengthen these powers, making them more efficient and flexible to use and improving their effectiveness as preventative tools.
These changes will help to prevent further exploitation, better protect victims from harm and reduce the risk of exploitation and reoffending. Clause 25 amends the Modern Slavery Act of 2015 and provides the power for the court, before which a person is acquitted of slavery and human trafficking offence. To make a slavery and trafficking risk order. The appropriate court is either the court where the person was acquitted following a trial, or the court allowing an appeal, or the Crown Court on Remittal following a successful appeal to the Court of Appeal. Under current legislation, a slavery and trafficking risk order is only available on application to the Magistrates Court in circumstances where a person is acquitted of slavery and trafficking offences by the Crown Court.
The existing process places additional pressure on law enforcement and court time, allowing the court that made the acquittal decision, including on appeal, to make an order and extending the power to make an order to the higher court will remove the delays caused by the current process. As the trial court has already heard the evidence, it will not need to be repeated in the magistrates court. It will also mean the courts can make an order of their own motion. This will improve efficiency and effectiveness by dealing with an individual immediately following the trial, reducing the risk of offending and preventing harm to others without delay.
Clause 25 also enables the court to adjourn proceedings relating to slavery and trafficking relating to a slavery and trafficking risk order on acquittal. The reasons for why we need a chairman of proceedings will be discussed in further detail in clause 30. Government amendment 113 sets out a technical amendment to clause 25 to clarify which court is responsible for dealing with any future application to vary, renew or discharge a Slavery and Trafficking Risk order made by the Court of Appeal on acquittal. The amendment makes very clear that any subsequent application will be heard by the Crown Court, rather than the Court of Appeal.
This aligns the provision of the Slavery and Trafficking Risk order made on acquittal with the existing approach in section 29 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which covers appeals of the decision to make to order an order and ensures a consistent process for managing these orders. It will also ensure the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal will not be taken up by further matters in respect of the orders, and I beg to move the amendment standing in my name.
09:29
09:29
09:29
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you. As ever, it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Doctor Morrison. Clause 25 allows a court to make a slavery and trafficking risk order when someone is acquitted of a slavery or trafficking offence. It may do so only where it is satisfied that the person's conduct shows a risk that they will commit such an offence, and that an order is necessary to protect people from harm. It's worth reminding the committee that these orders exist because of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, brought forward by Theresa May as Home Secretary. That legislation put this country at the forefront of the fight against modern slavery, and the opposition welcomes measures that build on it.
Modern slavery is a vile crime. It preys on the vulnerable. It hides in plain sight in our towns and on our high streets. And the police need every reasonable tool to get ahead of it. Let me be clear an acquittal must be respected and nobody should treat a risk order as a second verdict. But a trial can bring out evidence of risky conduct that falls short of proving the offence charged. Where the statutory test is met, it makes sense for the court that has heard all the evidence to be able to act there, and then the alternative is that the police must start again in another court with another application, another handover and another chance for the case to fall through the cracks.
The person at risk cannot afford that. But this power will not will not use itself. Prosecutors and police need to have considered it before the trial ends. With the evidence ready and a plan for who will manage any restrictions afterwards. Otherwise, we risk passing a good clause that goes unused at the very moment it matters. Government amendment 113 corrects the government's own drafting, and I suspect it will not be the last correction we see in this committee, because an appeal against one of these orders will be treated like an appeal against sentence. The Court of Appeal may end up making an order itself.
The amendments make sure that any late application to vary, renew or discharge that order goes to the Crown Court. Officers should know which court to go to without a dispute over jurisdiction, so we support it. But we should be honest about where many of these applications will land. The Crown Court backlog reached a new record of more than 80,800 cases at the end of June. Every additional application joins that queue, and victims are already waiting far too long. That is not a reason to oppose this power, but it is a reason for the government to tell the committee what assessment they have made of the court time it will need , and how it will be found.
The clause also amends the Scottish and Northern Irish legislation, so that breaching one of these new orders is an offence there too. Those who exploit others do not stop at borders, and some one, subject to an order, must not be able to escape enforcement by moving to another part of the United Kingdom. We support clause 25 and amendment 113, but I would be grateful if the minister could answer three questions first. Who will be responsible for identifying suitable cases before an acquittal brings proceedings to an end? And what guidance will prosecutors be given? Second, how many of these orders do the government expect to be made each year?
And third, if someone subject to one of these orders moves to Scotland or Northern Ireland, how will the order be enforced ? Promptly there. Thank you.
Modern slavery is a vile crime. It preys on the vulnerable. It hides in plain sight in our towns and on our high streets. And the police need every reasonable tool to get ahead of it. Let me be clear an acquittal must be respected and nobody should treat a risk order as a second verdict. But a trial can bring out evidence of risky conduct that falls short of proving the offence charged. Where the statutory test is met, it makes sense for the court that has heard all the evidence to be able to act there, and then the alternative is that the police must start again in another court with another application, another handover and another chance for the case to fall through the cracks.
The person at risk cannot afford that. But this power will not will not use itself. Prosecutors and police need to have considered it before the trial ends. With the evidence ready and a plan for who will manage any restrictions afterwards. Otherwise, we risk passing a good clause that goes unused at the very moment it matters. Government amendment 113 corrects the government's own drafting, and I suspect it will not be the last correction we see in this committee, because an appeal against one of these orders will be treated like an appeal against sentence. The Court of Appeal may end up making an order itself.
The amendments make sure that any late application to vary, renew or discharge that order goes to the Crown Court. Officers should know which court to go to without a dispute over jurisdiction, so we support it. But we should be honest about where many of these applications will land. The Crown Court backlog reached a new record of more than 80,800 cases at the end of June. Every additional application joins that queue, and victims are already waiting far too long. That is not a reason to oppose this power, but it is a reason for the government to tell the committee what assessment they have made of the court time it will need , and how it will be found.
The clause also amends the Scottish and Northern Irish legislation, so that breaching one of these new orders is an offence there too. Those who exploit others do not stop at borders, and some one, subject to an order, must not be able to escape enforcement by moving to another part of the United Kingdom. We support clause 25 and amendment 113, but I would be grateful if the minister could answer three questions first. Who will be responsible for identifying suitable cases before an acquittal brings proceedings to an end? And what guidance will prosecutors be given? Second, how many of these orders do the government expect to be made each year?
And third, if someone subject to one of these orders moves to Scotland or Northern Ireland, how will the order be enforced ? Promptly there. Thank you.
09:33
09:33
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, and I thank the honourable gentleman for his response to this debate. As discussed, clause 25 makes important amendments to the Modern Slavery Act in 2015 and provides the power for the court before which a person is acquitted of a slavery and human trafficking offence to make a slavery and trafficking risk order. Just referring to a couple of the points that he raised. He asked whether this would contribute to an increase in court time. The court will have heard the evidence during the trial or considered it in an appeal, and they will be best placed to assess if an order is necessary.
This amendment will also mean that the evidence heard in the Crown Court does not need to be repeated in the magistrates court, so court times in the magistrates court will be reduced. Where a case no longer needs to be reheard, improving efficiency and effectiveness by handling the case immediately following the trial. The honourable gentleman also asked about whether these measures will increase the use of orders and how much we expect to see that. As honourable members know, we've published an impact assessment setting out the analytical case for the proposed measures and developed a justice impact test with the Ministry of Justice.
The estimated impacts are therefore only indicative, as there is no available evidence or data to estimate the magnitude of the increase in number of orders issued as a result of the changes. But these scenarios assume an increase in the number of prevention or risk orders will increase by between 25 and 75%, which equates to an increase of 20 to 30 orders per year. Government amendment 113 is technical in its nature and will merely clarify which court is responsible for dealing with any future application to vary, renew or discharge a Slavery and trafficking Risk order made by the Court of Appeal on Acquittal.
Therefore, I beg to move that amendment one. Amendment one, one three and clause 25 stand part of the bill.
This amendment will also mean that the evidence heard in the Crown Court does not need to be repeated in the magistrates court, so court times in the magistrates court will be reduced. Where a case no longer needs to be reheard, improving efficiency and effectiveness by handling the case immediately following the trial. The honourable gentleman also asked about whether these measures will increase the use of orders and how much we expect to see that. As honourable members know, we've published an impact assessment setting out the analytical case for the proposed measures and developed a justice impact test with the Ministry of Justice.
The estimated impacts are therefore only indicative, as there is no available evidence or data to estimate the magnitude of the increase in number of orders issued as a result of the changes. But these scenarios assume an increase in the number of prevention or risk orders will increase by between 25 and 75%, which equates to an increase of 20 to 30 orders per year. Government amendment 113 is technical in its nature and will merely clarify which court is responsible for dealing with any future application to vary, renew or discharge a Slavery and trafficking Risk order made by the Court of Appeal on Acquittal.
Therefore, I beg to move that amendment one. Amendment one, one three and clause 25 stand part of the bill.
09:35
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Government 113 proposed clause 25 as on the amendment paper. The question is that the amendment be made as many as are of the opinion, say I. I to the contrary, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to the question that clause 25, as amended, stand part of the bill, which has just been debated. The question is that clause 25, as amended, stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion, say I, I to the contrary, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to Group 24, and the question that clause 26 stand part of the bill with which it will be convenient to consider clause 27 stand part.
The question is that clause 26 stand part of the bill. Minister.
The question is that clause 26 stand part of the bill. Minister.
09:35
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Building on the debate we've just had, the honourable gentleman was right to raise some of the concerns of law enforcement partners, that there are currently some limitations to the effectiveness of our slavery and trafficking, prevention and risk orders, and that is the issue that we seek to deal with here. Our ambition is to ensure that law enforcement agencies have exactly the right tools they need to respond as offending evolves. Currently, the British Transport Police must rely on a local force to make an application for a slavery and trafficking order on their behalf, even if the British Transport Police has undertaken all relevant investigations.
This means there are delays between identifying the risks and the application for slavery and trafficking order. Clause 26 extends the list of bodies to allow the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police to apply to a magistrates Court to make, vary, discharge and renew slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders. Given an express power to the British Transport Police, will enhance the force's capability to disrupt and tackle criminal exploitation, exploitation and sexual exploitation on the transport network and to keep pace with how modern slavery offending has evolved. This will also reduce the costs and time spent by local forces to make and process an application of these orders on behalf of the British Transport Police.
It would enable swifter protection of victims by minimising the gap from where the offence takes place to the application being made. Extending these powers to the British Transport Police would send a message to organised criminal gangs that all areas of law enforcement are equipped to take decisive action against perpetrators who exploit vulnerable individuals. There is a further limitation impacting how law enforcement can apply for the slavery and trafficking orders. Clause 27 will remove the restriction on chief officers of police only being able to make applications for slavery and trafficking orders in relation to a person who lives in their police force area.
The nature of modern slavery, offending, and the links to other crime types have evolved since the Modern Slavery Act of 2015 was introduced. Both criminal and sexual exploitation offending can take place across force areas in multiple locations across the country and online. The legislation also needs to evolve to remain effective and to reduce the risk of offending and harm caused. The current legislation does not account for instances where the perpetrator has never visited, or does not intend to visit the location where the offending occurs. This also includes circumstances where the offending takes place online. In such cases, the offending is more likely to be identified by the force in the location where the offending occurs, and currently, the responsibility for applying for an order would fall on the force in the perpetrator's area of residence.
Removing this restriction will enable law enforcement to better target and disrupt modern slavery and human trafficking, offending by relieving the burden on forces and cut back on application delays by allowing any force to apply for the order. The application will need to be made in the area where the defendant lives, or the police area where the applicant believes the defendant is or is intending to come to. For these reasons, I beg to move that clauses 26 and 27 stand part of the bill.
This means there are delays between identifying the risks and the application for slavery and trafficking order. Clause 26 extends the list of bodies to allow the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police to apply to a magistrates Court to make, vary, discharge and renew slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders. Given an express power to the British Transport Police, will enhance the force's capability to disrupt and tackle criminal exploitation, exploitation and sexual exploitation on the transport network and to keep pace with how modern slavery offending has evolved. This will also reduce the costs and time spent by local forces to make and process an application of these orders on behalf of the British Transport Police.
It would enable swifter protection of victims by minimising the gap from where the offence takes place to the application being made. Extending these powers to the British Transport Police would send a message to organised criminal gangs that all areas of law enforcement are equipped to take decisive action against perpetrators who exploit vulnerable individuals. There is a further limitation impacting how law enforcement can apply for the slavery and trafficking orders. Clause 27 will remove the restriction on chief officers of police only being able to make applications for slavery and trafficking orders in relation to a person who lives in their police force area.
The nature of modern slavery, offending, and the links to other crime types have evolved since the Modern Slavery Act of 2015 was introduced. Both criminal and sexual exploitation offending can take place across force areas in multiple locations across the country and online. The legislation also needs to evolve to remain effective and to reduce the risk of offending and harm caused. The current legislation does not account for instances where the perpetrator has never visited, or does not intend to visit the location where the offending occurs. This also includes circumstances where the offending takes place online. In such cases, the offending is more likely to be identified by the force in the location where the offending occurs, and currently, the responsibility for applying for an order would fall on the force in the perpetrator's area of residence.
Removing this restriction will enable law enforcement to better target and disrupt modern slavery and human trafficking, offending by relieving the burden on forces and cut back on application delays by allowing any force to apply for the order. The application will need to be made in the area where the defendant lives, or the police area where the applicant believes the defendant is or is intending to come to. For these reasons, I beg to move that clauses 26 and 27 stand part of the bill.
09:38
09:38
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you. Clause 26 brings the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police into the arrangements for applying for Slavery and trafficking, prevention orders and risk orders. Clause 27 widens the ability of territorial police forces to apply for these orders against people who live outside their area. The opposition welcomed both the gangs behind modern slavery, do not respect police boundaries, and our ability to stop them should not be hemmed in by those boundaries either. They move people by road and by rail. They recruit in one town and exploit in another, and they rely on the gaps between agencies.
Officers on our railways may be the first to see what is going on. If a British Transport Police officer keeps seeing the same man shepherding the same frightened young people between stations, gathers the evidence and identifies the risk, the next step should not be a phone call asking another force to make the application. Clause 27 deals with the same problem for territorial forces. Under the current law of force can apply only in respect of someone who lives in its area or who is intending to come to its area. But someone can live in one force area and do their damage in another.
The force holding the evidence should be able to act. But wider powers need clear responsibility. If several forces have an interest in the same individual who leads, who checks that the person is complying with the order, who answers the phone when a victim reports contact, that may breach it. Criminals exploit gaps and we should not hand them a new one between two police forces. I want to make one point here that applies to the whole of this part of the bill, so that it did not have to repeat it in every group. Every new power in clause 25 to 34 comes with work attached.
Officers have to recognise when an order is appropriate. Build an application that will stand up in court, attend hearings and then manage the order for years. The British Transport Police already have a demanding job keeping passengers safe and our courts are already stretched. This is not about point scoring on resources, but none of these powers will work just because a clause has been passed. They need training, guidance and capacity, and ministers cannot hand force his new duties and leave them to pick up the bill. We support clauses 26 and 27, but I would be grateful if the Minister could answer the following questions first.
Were these changes requested by chief Officers, including the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police, and what problems did they identify? Second, will there be an agreed protocol in place before these powers come into force? Setting out which force leads when more than one is involved? And third, what assessment have the government made of the training, guidance and capacity that forces will need to use the new powers across this part of the bill?
Officers on our railways may be the first to see what is going on. If a British Transport Police officer keeps seeing the same man shepherding the same frightened young people between stations, gathers the evidence and identifies the risk, the next step should not be a phone call asking another force to make the application. Clause 27 deals with the same problem for territorial forces. Under the current law of force can apply only in respect of someone who lives in its area or who is intending to come to its area. But someone can live in one force area and do their damage in another.
The force holding the evidence should be able to act. But wider powers need clear responsibility. If several forces have an interest in the same individual who leads, who checks that the person is complying with the order, who answers the phone when a victim reports contact, that may breach it. Criminals exploit gaps and we should not hand them a new one between two police forces. I want to make one point here that applies to the whole of this part of the bill, so that it did not have to repeat it in every group. Every new power in clause 25 to 34 comes with work attached.
Officers have to recognise when an order is appropriate. Build an application that will stand up in court, attend hearings and then manage the order for years. The British Transport Police already have a demanding job keeping passengers safe and our courts are already stretched. This is not about point scoring on resources, but none of these powers will work just because a clause has been passed. They need training, guidance and capacity, and ministers cannot hand force his new duties and leave them to pick up the bill. We support clauses 26 and 27, but I would be grateful if the Minister could answer the following questions first.
Were these changes requested by chief Officers, including the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police, and what problems did they identify? Second, will there be an agreed protocol in place before these powers come into force? Setting out which force leads when more than one is involved? And third, what assessment have the government made of the training, guidance and capacity that forces will need to use the new powers across this part of the bill?
09:41
09:41
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I thank the honourable gentleman for his contributions and his questions, and we appreciate the support he is giving to these important clauses. Put simply, clauses 26 and 27 deal with the important issues of how law enforcement agencies will deal with the issues in their area. Clause 26 extends these provisions to British Transport Police, while clause 27 removes a restriction on chief officers of police only being able to make applications for orders in relation to those living in their local area. As I laid out earlier, currently there are unnecessary limitations on law enforcement's ability to apply for the slavery and trafficking orders.
The constraints on how they can be applied for restricts their effectiveness. This means that we could be doing more to manage the risks identified to protect vulnerable people, being put at risk of exposure to these horrendous crimes. To manage this, we have worked closely with enforcement colleagues and as the honourable gentleman has asked, indeed British Transport Police to design new clauses which will allow them for the to apply for the orders and remove the restriction on chief Officers of police only being able to apply for orders in relation to individuals living in their local police area.
This will allow forces to better manage individuals who are committing offences across police force boundaries. The hon. Gentleman asked about how the responsibility for monitoring and enforcing would be managed and how the process would be applied. This amendment will improve cooperation between local forces and the British Transport Police, as they have to work collaboratively at almost every stage of the process, from application to monitoring. The British Transport Police will still need to engage with the relevant local forces to give notice of the application to the Chief Officer of Police and to conduct monitoring of the orders.
He also asked whether a national monitoring system would be introduced. Law enforcement are responsible for monitoring and managing compliance with the slavery and trafficking orders. The former Modern Slavery and Organised Immigration Crime Unit issued guidance to law enforcement on obtaining and managing slavery, slavery and trafficking, prevention and risk orders to help ensure consistency across forces in England and Wales. That statutory guidance for law enforcement will also be updated to align with these changes to the orders when they are introduced, and to ensure that all those involved will have the right training and preparation for these new clauses.
Taken together, these clauses allow the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to remain relevant to the modern world. Therefore, I beg to move.
The constraints on how they can be applied for restricts their effectiveness. This means that we could be doing more to manage the risks identified to protect vulnerable people, being put at risk of exposure to these horrendous crimes. To manage this, we have worked closely with enforcement colleagues and as the honourable gentleman has asked, indeed British Transport Police to design new clauses which will allow them for the to apply for the orders and remove the restriction on chief Officers of police only being able to apply for orders in relation to individuals living in their local police area.
This will allow forces to better manage individuals who are committing offences across police force boundaries. The hon. Gentleman asked about how the responsibility for monitoring and enforcing would be managed and how the process would be applied. This amendment will improve cooperation between local forces and the British Transport Police, as they have to work collaboratively at almost every stage of the process, from application to monitoring. The British Transport Police will still need to engage with the relevant local forces to give notice of the application to the Chief Officer of Police and to conduct monitoring of the orders.
He also asked whether a national monitoring system would be introduced. Law enforcement are responsible for monitoring and managing compliance with the slavery and trafficking orders. The former Modern Slavery and Organised Immigration Crime Unit issued guidance to law enforcement on obtaining and managing slavery, slavery and trafficking, prevention and risk orders to help ensure consistency across forces in England and Wales. That statutory guidance for law enforcement will also be updated to align with these changes to the orders when they are introduced, and to ensure that all those involved will have the right training and preparation for these new clauses.
Taken together, these clauses allow the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to remain relevant to the modern world. Therefore, I beg to move.
09:44
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
The question is clause 26 part of the bill? As many as are of that opinion, say I. I to the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to question to the question of clause 27, part of the bill, which has just been debated. The question is that clause 27 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say I, I of the contrary. No. I think the ayes have it. We now come to Group 25 with the question of clause 28 stand part of the bill with which it will be convenient to consider clause 29 stand part.
The question is that clause 28 stand part of the bill. Minister.
The question is that clause 28 stand part of the bill. Minister.
09:44
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Currently under section 19 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, courts may require those subject to slavery and trafficking, prevention orders and slavery and trafficking risk orders to notify the police or another specified agency of personal information, including their name and address. But monitoring and enforcement is currently inconsistent across police forces, affecting their ability to manage individuals and respond effectively to risk. This can result in police forces collecting information on individuals subject to an order in different ways, leading to delays in identifying breaches and an inconsistent approach in preventing individuals from engaging in criminal behaviour.
Clause 28 and 29 will make existing notification requirements mandatory. This will help to ensure greater consistency in the way individuals subject to slavery and trafficking, prevention and risk orders are managed. It will also improve law enforcement ability to proactively manage and monitor the orders, especially in instances where individuals subject to an order move across different geographical areas or are at different stages of the criminal justice system, such as between custody and being on licence in the community. These clauses also provide courts with a discretionary power to require notification of additional information, which would be tailored specifically to the risk the individual poses.
This could include phone numbers, email addresses, online usernames and vehicle registrations, and be considered by the judge on a case by case basis specific to and by assessing the proportionality and necessity based on the individual's risk of offending. These additional requirements will be introduced through a regulation making power subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure, ensuring flexibility to amend the regulations so they remain appropriate to offending behaviour. These clauses send a tough message to perpetrators that exploitation will be detected, and that modern slavery offending will not go unnoticed.
And I beg to move here.
Clause 28 and 29 will make existing notification requirements mandatory. This will help to ensure greater consistency in the way individuals subject to slavery and trafficking, prevention and risk orders are managed. It will also improve law enforcement ability to proactively manage and monitor the orders, especially in instances where individuals subject to an order move across different geographical areas or are at different stages of the criminal justice system, such as between custody and being on licence in the community. These clauses also provide courts with a discretionary power to require notification of additional information, which would be tailored specifically to the risk the individual poses.
This could include phone numbers, email addresses, online usernames and vehicle registrations, and be considered by the judge on a case by case basis specific to and by assessing the proportionality and necessity based on the individual's risk of offending. These additional requirements will be introduced through a regulation making power subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure, ensuring flexibility to amend the regulations so they remain appropriate to offending behaviour. These clauses send a tough message to perpetrators that exploitation will be detected, and that modern slavery offending will not go unnoticed.
And I beg to move here.
09:46
09:46
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you. Clause 28 and 29 make the call. Notification requirements compulsory for slavery and trafficking, trafficking, prevention orders and risk orders, respectively. Both clauses also allow further information to be specified in regulations, which a court can then require in a particular order. The principle here is simple if the police are to enforce an order, they need to know who the person is and where to find them. An order is not worth the paper it's written on. If the person it covers can simply disappear. So the opposition welcomed making these requirements compulsory rather than optional. A requirement to notify must mean exactly that a requirement, not a polite request.
Anyone who gives false details or deliberately keeps the police in the dark should expect consequences. We made the same argument during the Crime and Policing Bill when we tabled amendments to put real penalties behind registered sex offenders who fail to notify an obligation with no teeth is no obligation at all. But collecting information is only half the job. A notification requirement is only as good as the system behind it. If someone moves and the police are still working from the old address, officers knock on the wrong door and time is lost. Where someone is at risk of exploitation, lost time can mean real harm.
An address on a form does not prove that anyone lives there. Someone has to check it, record it and make sure it reaches the officers who need it, including those in other forces. Both clauses also lead further requirements to regulation. I welcome the fact that those regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure. But before we give the minister this power, the committee should understand the gap it is meant to close. What can officers not currently find out through these orders, and how would that information help them prevent exploitation? Finally, I want to raise the orders already in force.
Under the current law, a court making one of these orders can choose whether to include notification requirements, so some existing orders will contain none at all. Clause 28, six and 295 make it clear that the new requirements will not apply to orders made before the clauses come into force. That means a person already subject to an order may have no duty to tell the police their name or address, even after this bill becomes law. We'll come to the powers to vary and renew orders under clause 34, but the government should not wait for those cases to come back to court by chance.
They need to plan to. They need a plan to find the existing orders without these requirements and bring them up to the new standard. We support clauses 28 and 29, but for these requirements to work in practice, the Committee needs answers to three questions. First, on the regulation making powers in both clauses. What additional information do the government expect to require, and will the committee see draft regulations before report stage? Second, on enforcement, who will check that the details of person gives are true? And how will that information reach other police forces when the person moves?
And third, on existing orders, how many are currently in force without notification requirements? And what is the government's plan for reviewing them?
Anyone who gives false details or deliberately keeps the police in the dark should expect consequences. We made the same argument during the Crime and Policing Bill when we tabled amendments to put real penalties behind registered sex offenders who fail to notify an obligation with no teeth is no obligation at all. But collecting information is only half the job. A notification requirement is only as good as the system behind it. If someone moves and the police are still working from the old address, officers knock on the wrong door and time is lost. Where someone is at risk of exploitation, lost time can mean real harm.
An address on a form does not prove that anyone lives there. Someone has to check it, record it and make sure it reaches the officers who need it, including those in other forces. Both clauses also lead further requirements to regulation. I welcome the fact that those regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure. But before we give the minister this power, the committee should understand the gap it is meant to close. What can officers not currently find out through these orders, and how would that information help them prevent exploitation? Finally, I want to raise the orders already in force.
Under the current law, a court making one of these orders can choose whether to include notification requirements, so some existing orders will contain none at all. Clause 28, six and 295 make it clear that the new requirements will not apply to orders made before the clauses come into force. That means a person already subject to an order may have no duty to tell the police their name or address, even after this bill becomes law. We'll come to the powers to vary and renew orders under clause 34, but the government should not wait for those cases to come back to court by chance.
They need to plan to. They need a plan to find the existing orders without these requirements and bring them up to the new standard. We support clauses 28 and 29, but for these requirements to work in practice, the Committee needs answers to three questions. First, on the regulation making powers in both clauses. What additional information do the government expect to require, and will the committee see draft regulations before report stage? Second, on enforcement, who will check that the details of person gives are true? And how will that information reach other police forces when the person moves?
And third, on existing orders, how many are currently in force without notification requirements? And what is the government's plan for reviewing them?
09:52
09:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I thank the honourable gentleman again for his questions and contributions. As he has set out, the orders in clauses 28 and 29 are crucial tools to allow our law enforcement to protect the victims, and we appreciate His Majesty's Opposition's support for these clauses. These clauses address a gap in the current framework for managing individuals subject to slavery and trafficking, prevention and risk orders. Currently, notification requirements are discretionary, which has contributed to different approaches to monitoring and enforcement across police forces and can limit law enforcement's ability to identify breaches, manage risk and safeguard prevent potential victims.
Clauses 28 and 29 strengthen this regime by making the notification requirements mandatory, while also enabling courts to impose additional risk based notification requirements where necessary and proportionate. This flexibility will allow the requirements placed on individuals to keep pace as modern slavery evolves. And just to respond to some of the questions that he asked, he asked about the additional data under clause 29 that would be collected. Currently, each force collects and records their data differently. And that's part of the problem we're trying to address here according to local needs. It's for the forces to decide how to monitor and manage individuals subject to an order.
He also asked about some of the things that might be requested in collated. This includes could include phone numbers, email addresses, online usernames, vehicle registrations, and they'll be considered by the judge on a case by case basis specific to and by addressing the proportionality and necessity based on an individual's risk of offending. And he also mentioned regulations. Bear with me. Two seconds. I think sorry, forgive me. I think I've answered that point about additional data. And as to publishing, we'll publish as soon as possible the the regulations that we refer to together these measures will support a more consistent and effective approach to monitoring individuals subject to orders.
Strengthening these and increasing notification requirements sends a strong message to both perpetrators and victims that exploitation will be detected, and I beg to move that. Clauses 28 and 29 stand part of the bill.
Clauses 28 and 29 strengthen this regime by making the notification requirements mandatory, while also enabling courts to impose additional risk based notification requirements where necessary and proportionate. This flexibility will allow the requirements placed on individuals to keep pace as modern slavery evolves. And just to respond to some of the questions that he asked, he asked about the additional data under clause 29 that would be collected. Currently, each force collects and records their data differently. And that's part of the problem we're trying to address here according to local needs. It's for the forces to decide how to monitor and manage individuals subject to an order.
He also asked about some of the things that might be requested in collated. This includes could include phone numbers, email addresses, online usernames, vehicle registrations, and they'll be considered by the judge on a case by case basis specific to and by addressing the proportionality and necessity based on an individual's risk of offending. And he also mentioned regulations. Bear with me. Two seconds. I think sorry, forgive me. I think I've answered that point about additional data. And as to publishing, we'll publish as soon as possible the the regulations that we refer to together these measures will support a more consistent and effective approach to monitoring individuals subject to orders.
Strengthening these and increasing notification requirements sends a strong message to both perpetrators and victims that exploitation will be detected, and I beg to move that. Clauses 28 and 29 stand part of the bill.
09:57
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
The question is clause 28 stand part of the bill. As many as are there. I know that the ayes have it. We now come to the question. That clause 29 stand part of the bill, which has already been debated. The question is that clause 29 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say I. I want to know. I think the ayes have it. We now come to Group 26, and the question that clause 30 stand part of the bill. The question is that clause 30 stand part of the bill. Minister.
09:58
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. There is a risk within the current legislation the. Where it is not clear that the court is able to adjourn proceedings. It is currently common practice in courts to adjourn proceedings in relation to the Slavery and Trafficking Prevention Orders. Clause 30 will make it explicit that a court can adjourn proceedings where a person has been found guilty of a slavery and trafficking offence before making a Slavery and Trafficking Prevention order. This clause will ensure that the court has the option to adjourn proceedings for a slavery of human trafficking offence, even after sentencing.
The purpose of this clause is to remove any existing or future doubt. This clause will also include provision for where an individual does not attend proceedings to ensure the criminal justice process is able to continue. It is simply about ensuring courts have the necessary powers to ensure a smooth and effective court process in these proceedings, and I beg to move that clause 30 stand part of the bill. Yes.
The purpose of this clause is to remove any existing or future doubt. This clause will also include provision for where an individual does not attend proceedings to ensure the criminal justice process is able to continue. It is simply about ensuring courts have the necessary powers to ensure a smooth and effective court process in these proceedings, and I beg to move that clause 30 stand part of the bill. Yes.
10:00
10:00
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
For 30 allows the court to adjourn proceedings on a Slavery and Trafficking Prevention order at sentencing. If the defendant does not attend the adjourned hearing, the court may adjourn again, issue a warrant for their arrest or subject to safeguards. Proceed in their absence. A court deciding whether to make one of these orders needs the evidence to get it right, and the opposition support giving it the time to do so. Proposed restrictions may need checking, or information from another force may still be outstanding. Rushing that work could produce an order that misses the very conduct it is meant to stop.
We should be clear about what an adjournment means in practice. Another hearing has to be listed. Officers may have to return to court and if the offender is not in custody, the risk they pose has to be managed while the case awaits. When someone has been convicted of exploiting another human being, the public will rightly expect any continuing risk to be dealt with promptly. And with the Crown Court backlog standing at a record of more than 80,000 cases, nobody should be adding avoidable hearings to that list. It's also worth noting that the clause places no limit on how long proceedings can be adjourned, or how many times.
That is why so much depends on preparation. The possibility of a prevention order should not suddenly occur to someone at the end of a sentence. In hearing. An adjournment may sometimes be necessary, but it must not become the fallback for an application that nobody got ready. We very much welcome the power to proceed when the defendant fails to attend, a convicted offender should not be able to hold up a protective order simply by staying at home. The safeguards in this clause matter here. Before issuing a warrant, the court must be satisfied that the defendant had adequate notice of the hearing before proceeding in their absence.
It must also be satisfied that the defendant was told the hearing could go ahead without them. If that is not done properly, the court cannot take the next step. Getting the paperwork right is what allows the court to act firmly. We must not forget the victim. If the hearing has been put off. The victim needs to know the restrictions are not yet in place. Otherwise there may be relying on protection that does not yet exist. We support clause 30, but be grateful. If the minister could answer some following the following questions. When proceedings are adjourned and the offender is not in custody, how will any immediate risk be managed until the order is made?
Who will be responsible for telling victims that an order has been delayed and what has and has not been put in place? And will the government monitor how often these proceedings are adjourned, and how many times in a single case, so that a sensible power does not become another source of delay?
We should be clear about what an adjournment means in practice. Another hearing has to be listed. Officers may have to return to court and if the offender is not in custody, the risk they pose has to be managed while the case awaits. When someone has been convicted of exploiting another human being, the public will rightly expect any continuing risk to be dealt with promptly. And with the Crown Court backlog standing at a record of more than 80,000 cases, nobody should be adding avoidable hearings to that list. It's also worth noting that the clause places no limit on how long proceedings can be adjourned, or how many times.
That is why so much depends on preparation. The possibility of a prevention order should not suddenly occur to someone at the end of a sentence. In hearing. An adjournment may sometimes be necessary, but it must not become the fallback for an application that nobody got ready. We very much welcome the power to proceed when the defendant fails to attend, a convicted offender should not be able to hold up a protective order simply by staying at home. The safeguards in this clause matter here. Before issuing a warrant, the court must be satisfied that the defendant had adequate notice of the hearing before proceeding in their absence.
It must also be satisfied that the defendant was told the hearing could go ahead without them. If that is not done properly, the court cannot take the next step. Getting the paperwork right is what allows the court to act firmly. We must not forget the victim. If the hearing has been put off. The victim needs to know the restrictions are not yet in place. Otherwise there may be relying on protection that does not yet exist. We support clause 30, but be grateful. If the minister could answer some following the following questions. When proceedings are adjourned and the offender is not in custody, how will any immediate risk be managed until the order is made?
Who will be responsible for telling victims that an order has been delayed and what has and has not been put in place? And will the government monitor how often these proceedings are adjourned, and how many times in a single case, so that a sensible power does not become another source of delay?
10:05
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Again, I thank the honourable gentleman for his very thoughtful contributions. Clause 30 is a simple one. While courts can adjourn proceedings, the current legislation does not explicitly provide for this. This has created the potential for real uncertainty during the passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act in 2022 in the House of Lords, specific provision was requested in relation to serious violence reduction orders to make it clear that proceedings could be adjourned even after sentencing took place. Specific provision for adjournment has been included in domestic abuse protection orders, so this is intended to enable the court to determine any outstanding prevention orders even after the criminal proceedings have concluded.
Replicating measures such as these for instances of modern slavery will remove any current or future doubt that the court is able to determine a slavery and trafficking prevention after sentencing. Adjournment is a procedural tool which the court might take after sentencing or acquittal to consider imposing an order. The court may then consider further evidence related to the future risk of offending when considering whether to make a Slavery and Trafficking Prevention order. This is about enabling the court to more effectively address offending while the defendant is still under their power. Ensure that and ensure that outstanding matters in a case can be dealt with.
At the same time, adjourning proceedings in relation to the making of a prevention order is currently common practice, but we are making this explicit and mirroring mirroring the similar provisions in other legislation providing for civil orders. The honourable gentleman asks whether this measure would result in an increase in non-attendance by the courts, and potentially an increase in warrants. A court can hear the proceedings in a person's absence. If it is satisfied that the person has had adequate notice of the time and place of the adjourned proceedings, and has been informed that if they do not appear for those proceedings, the court may hear the proceedings in their absence.
As such, a person cannot continually delay proceedings by not attending, but the notice requirements are safeguarded to ensure defendants are aware of the proceedings. The court cannot issue a warrant unless it is satisfied that the person has had adequate notice of the time and place of the adjourned proceedings. The court also makes clear that sorry. The clause also makes clear that a court can adjourn proceedings where a person has been found guilty of a slavery and trafficking offence before making a Slavery and trafficking prevention order. I will pick up the point the honourable gentleman made about a victim liaisons.
I think that's important and I'll undertake to get back to him in the committee on that. It also undertakes a court process which is currently common practice in relation, as I've said to these orders and mirrors established legislative precedent from other civil orders. So I beg to move.
Replicating measures such as these for instances of modern slavery will remove any current or future doubt that the court is able to determine a slavery and trafficking prevention after sentencing. Adjournment is a procedural tool which the court might take after sentencing or acquittal to consider imposing an order. The court may then consider further evidence related to the future risk of offending when considering whether to make a Slavery and Trafficking Prevention order. This is about enabling the court to more effectively address offending while the defendant is still under their power. Ensure that and ensure that outstanding matters in a case can be dealt with.
At the same time, adjourning proceedings in relation to the making of a prevention order is currently common practice, but we are making this explicit and mirroring mirroring the similar provisions in other legislation providing for civil orders. The honourable gentleman asks whether this measure would result in an increase in non-attendance by the courts, and potentially an increase in warrants. A court can hear the proceedings in a person's absence. If it is satisfied that the person has had adequate notice of the time and place of the adjourned proceedings, and has been informed that if they do not appear for those proceedings, the court may hear the proceedings in their absence.
As such, a person cannot continually delay proceedings by not attending, but the notice requirements are safeguarded to ensure defendants are aware of the proceedings. The court cannot issue a warrant unless it is satisfied that the person has had adequate notice of the time and place of the adjourned proceedings. The court also makes clear that sorry. The clause also makes clear that a court can adjourn proceedings where a person has been found guilty of a slavery and trafficking offence before making a Slavery and trafficking prevention order. I will pick up the point the honourable gentleman made about a victim liaisons.
I think that's important and I'll undertake to get back to him in the committee on that. It also undertakes a court process which is currently common practice in relation, as I've said to these orders and mirrors established legislative precedent from other civil orders. So I beg to move.
10:11
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
The question is that clause 30 stand part of the bill, as many as are of that opinion, say I, I, I contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. We now come to Group 27 and the question that clause 31 stand part of the bill with which it will be convenient to consider. Clauses 32 and 33 stand part. The question is that clause 31 stand part of the bill. Minister.
10:12
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Mr. Mason. There is currently no power, no express power in the Modern Slavery Act of 2015 to impose an electronic monitoring requirement as a condition of slavery and trafficking, prevention and risk orders. Although case law suggests that this may be within the court's existing powers. However, as it is not explicit in the current legislation, it can be unclear to the court that electronic monitoring or tagging, as we would know it, is an option as a monitoring tool for slavery and trafficking orders. Introducing an express power will ensure there is no doubt that electronic monitoring can be used where it is deemed necessary.
Clauses 31 and 32 therefore, set out the explicit provision for courts to impose an electronic monitoring requirement as part of a Slavery and Trafficking Prevention Order, or an Interim Slavery and Trafficking Prevention Order, and for slavery and trafficking risk orders, or interim slavery and trafficking risk orders. It will only be applied where the court is satisfied that the requirement is necessary for the purpose of protecting persons from physical or psychological harm. We want to ensure that law enforcement have all the tools they need to manage offenders effectively. Electronic monitoring enables law enforcement to monitor compliance with the conditions of an order, where they include an exclusion zone, a curfew or travel restrictions.
The conditions imposed by each order are tailored by the court, depending on the nature of the individual's risk and offending. Electronic monitoring as a condition of slavery and trafficking order would also help to prevent reoffending and prevent offenders from fleeing, leaving the country and escaping criminal punishment. We know that electronic monitoring of an offender can make victims and survivors feel safer in some instances, and improve their engagement with the criminal justice system. Electronic monitoring can also act as a deterrent to perpetrators whilst the tag is being worn. Electronic monitoring will ensure certainty of detection when protective licence conditions are breached.
Strengthening offender management helping victims and survivors feel safe following the release of their perpetrators and help prevent further offending. Finally, clause 33 sets out a number of consequential amendments to the Modern Slavery Act of 2015 to support the introduction and enforcement of electronic monitoring requirements for individuals subject to slavery and trafficking, prevention and risk orders. This clause updates section 30 of the Modern Slavery Act, so that the existing offence of breaching an order applies consistently to all of the modern slavery and trafficking orders. This ensures a consistent enforcement framework across the full range of orders.
Clause 33 also sets out a requirement for the Secretary of State to issue a Code of practice governing the processing of data obtained through electronic monitoring. This will provide clear guidance on the handling of information gathered through electronic monitoring, while ensuring appropriate safeguards are in place. This clause also provides the appropriate regulation making framework for electronic monitoring arrangements. It clarifies the parliamentary procedure for regulations specifying who may be responsible for electronic monitoring. These measures strengthen the operation of slavery and trafficking. Prevention and risk orders, support the use of electronic monitoring, and provide a clear framework for enforcement, governance and oversight.
I beg to move that clauses 31 to 33 stand part of the bill.
Clauses 31 and 32 therefore, set out the explicit provision for courts to impose an electronic monitoring requirement as part of a Slavery and Trafficking Prevention Order, or an Interim Slavery and Trafficking Prevention Order, and for slavery and trafficking risk orders, or interim slavery and trafficking risk orders. It will only be applied where the court is satisfied that the requirement is necessary for the purpose of protecting persons from physical or psychological harm. We want to ensure that law enforcement have all the tools they need to manage offenders effectively. Electronic monitoring enables law enforcement to monitor compliance with the conditions of an order, where they include an exclusion zone, a curfew or travel restrictions.
The conditions imposed by each order are tailored by the court, depending on the nature of the individual's risk and offending. Electronic monitoring as a condition of slavery and trafficking order would also help to prevent reoffending and prevent offenders from fleeing, leaving the country and escaping criminal punishment. We know that electronic monitoring of an offender can make victims and survivors feel safer in some instances, and improve their engagement with the criminal justice system. Electronic monitoring can also act as a deterrent to perpetrators whilst the tag is being worn. Electronic monitoring will ensure certainty of detection when protective licence conditions are breached.
Strengthening offender management helping victims and survivors feel safe following the release of their perpetrators and help prevent further offending. Finally, clause 33 sets out a number of consequential amendments to the Modern Slavery Act of 2015 to support the introduction and enforcement of electronic monitoring requirements for individuals subject to slavery and trafficking, prevention and risk orders. This clause updates section 30 of the Modern Slavery Act, so that the existing offence of breaching an order applies consistently to all of the modern slavery and trafficking orders. This ensures a consistent enforcement framework across the full range of orders.
Clause 33 also sets out a requirement for the Secretary of State to issue a Code of practice governing the processing of data obtained through electronic monitoring. This will provide clear guidance on the handling of information gathered through electronic monitoring, while ensuring appropriate safeguards are in place. This clause also provides the appropriate regulation making framework for electronic monitoring arrangements. It clarifies the parliamentary procedure for regulations specifying who may be responsible for electronic monitoring. These measures strengthen the operation of slavery and trafficking. Prevention and risk orders, support the use of electronic monitoring, and provide a clear framework for enforcement, governance and oversight.
I beg to move that clauses 31 to 33 stand part of the bill.
10:18
10:18
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you. Clauses 31 to 33 provide for electronic monitoring in Slavery and Trafficking prevention orders and risk orders, including interim orders, and require a code of practice on how the monitoring data is handled. A court order must mean something. If somebody is told to stay away from a potential victim or a particular place. The authorities need to know when that order is broken and they need to act. Electronic monitoring can help with that. And we on these benches support these powers, but we should not view tagging through rose tinted glasses. A tag tells the authority where someone is.
It cannot stop the person from picking up a phone and getting someone else to do their dirty work, and a tag is only as good as the response when it goes off. Picture someone who walks into an area the court has barred them from because a potential victim lives there. The device records it and an alert is raised. Then what? Who receives that alert first? How quickly is it passed to the police? And how quickly do officers arrive? Someone at risk at 11:00 on a Saturday night. Cannot wait until Monday morning for someone to check a screen.
This is not a theoretical concern. Only this week, Sky news reported that the Metropolitan Police will no longer respond to curfew or tag battery breaches lasting under an hour, unless the wearer is judged to pose a particular risk. The commissioner says his officers are dealing with more than 100 tag breaches a day, driven in part by the government's early release scheme. One sergeant put it simply there are not enough cops, and the met itself described cases where officers were told about a breach many hours after it had happened. So the problem is at both ends, alerts that are slow to reach the police and police to stretch, to respond when they do.
The minister must tell us how alert under these new orders will avoid both. Monitoring can also only be imposed where suitable arrangements are available in the area, so a court may decide that monitoring is necessary and still be unable to order it. Will monitoring be available consistently across the country from the day these powers come into force? Or will protection depend on where a victim happens to live? The person being monitored must allow the equipment to be fitted and maintained and must not interfere with it. Deliberate tampering cannot be allowed to defeat an order and it must be treated as the enforcement matter.
It is. Equally, officers need to be able to tell a flat battery from a deliberate attempt to go off the radar, so they spend their time on the real risks. Clause 33 requires a code of practice on monitoring data. That code must protect the data properly, but it must also let the right officers get hold of information quickly and make sure it's preserved where it may be needed as evidence. We support clauses 31 to 33 but have questions for the Minister. When an alert is raised under one of these orders, who receives it? How is it passed to the police and how quickly will offenders will officers respond, including at night and weekends?
Where will the monitoring be available when these powers come into force, and when will it be available everywhere? And when will the committee see a draft of the Code of Practice on monitoring such data?
It cannot stop the person from picking up a phone and getting someone else to do their dirty work, and a tag is only as good as the response when it goes off. Picture someone who walks into an area the court has barred them from because a potential victim lives there. The device records it and an alert is raised. Then what? Who receives that alert first? How quickly is it passed to the police? And how quickly do officers arrive? Someone at risk at 11:00 on a Saturday night. Cannot wait until Monday morning for someone to check a screen.
This is not a theoretical concern. Only this week, Sky news reported that the Metropolitan Police will no longer respond to curfew or tag battery breaches lasting under an hour, unless the wearer is judged to pose a particular risk. The commissioner says his officers are dealing with more than 100 tag breaches a day, driven in part by the government's early release scheme. One sergeant put it simply there are not enough cops, and the met itself described cases where officers were told about a breach many hours after it had happened. So the problem is at both ends, alerts that are slow to reach the police and police to stretch, to respond when they do.
The minister must tell us how alert under these new orders will avoid both. Monitoring can also only be imposed where suitable arrangements are available in the area, so a court may decide that monitoring is necessary and still be unable to order it. Will monitoring be available consistently across the country from the day these powers come into force? Or will protection depend on where a victim happens to live? The person being monitored must allow the equipment to be fitted and maintained and must not interfere with it. Deliberate tampering cannot be allowed to defeat an order and it must be treated as the enforcement matter.
It is. Equally, officers need to be able to tell a flat battery from a deliberate attempt to go off the radar, so they spend their time on the real risks. Clause 33 requires a code of practice on monitoring data. That code must protect the data properly, but it must also let the right officers get hold of information quickly and make sure it's preserved where it may be needed as evidence. We support clauses 31 to 33 but have questions for the Minister. When an alert is raised under one of these orders, who receives it? How is it passed to the police and how quickly will offenders will officers respond, including at night and weekends?
Where will the monitoring be available when these powers come into force, and when will it be available everywhere? And when will the committee see a draft of the Code of Practice on monitoring such data?
10:25
10:26
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I thank the honourable gentleman again for his helpful and thoughtful contributions and for his support for these clauses as discussed. As discussed, this group covers the electronic monitoring requirements for the Slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders, along with their consequential amendments. As I laid out previously, law enforcement does not always have the tools needed to support them in effectively monitoring those subject to these orders or to identify breaches at an earlier stage. These clauses will enable courts, where necessary, proportionate, to impose electronic monitoring requirements, which will strengthen the management and enforcement of orders, help identify breaches sooner and disrupt further offending, and provide greater protection and reassurance to victims.
The honourable gentleman raised a few questions which I'm very happy to respond to. He asked, firstly whether the code of practice will be subject to parliamentary procedure and given the likely content and nature of the code, the fact that it's not going to define or create any new legal responsibilities, and that the processing of data must be in accordance with the requirements of data protection legislation. The government does not consider it necessary for the code to be subject to any parliamentary procedure. He asked for some more detail on what the code of practice would look like.
This clause sets out the Secretary of State must issue the Code of Practice relating to the processing. Processing. Forgive me of data gathered in the course of electronic monitoring of individuals where this has been imposed. The Code of Practice is intended to set out the appropriate tests and safeguards for the processing of such This has been imposed. The Code of Practice is intended to set out the appropriate tests and safeguards for the processing of such data, in order to ensure compliance with UK General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act of 2018. The government considers that a code of practice is the most appropriate vehicle to set out expectations and.
responsibilities in relation to the processing of data gathered under. electronic monitoring requirements. It is important to have flexibility to update the code to keep pace with any changes to that. legislation and to ensure it can be aligned with operational guidance. He asked about resource. There is currently no intention to increase the number of electronic monitoring cases. Electronic monitoring will only be used in cases where justified against the legislative. requirements and considered necessary to protect persons from harm. The number of issues the number of orders issued with electronic monitoring as a condition will depend on the nature of offending.
The assessment of the court's hearing, the cases and other conditions available that could address the risk. As such, it is not possible to say whether, overall, the use of electronic monitoring will increase or decrease. It is about giving the courts the clarity that they need. Electronic monitoring can help reduce the amount of resource, which is an important thing to consider. It is when the resource use trying to trace offenders who breach the conditions of their orders. The electronic monitoring would actually enable these forces to more effectively respond to the risk posed by offenders, and can we could see some early intervention and prevention as a case of that.
Electronic monitoring can only be a condition of an order. If the court has been notified by the Secretary of State that electronic monitoring arrangements are available in the relevant area, and that the court is satisfied that the necessary provision can be made under the arrangements currently available. We have covered. Yeah, I think I've covered the issues raised by the honourable gentleman. These clauses will also align the slavery and trafficking, prevention and risk orders with other civil orders, as I've already mentioned, which have explicit provision for electronic monitoring.
So this is about clarity for .
The honourable gentleman raised a few questions which I'm very happy to respond to. He asked, firstly whether the code of practice will be subject to parliamentary procedure and given the likely content and nature of the code, the fact that it's not going to define or create any new legal responsibilities, and that the processing of data must be in accordance with the requirements of data protection legislation. The government does not consider it necessary for the code to be subject to any parliamentary procedure. He asked for some more detail on what the code of practice would look like.
This clause sets out the Secretary of State must issue the Code of Practice relating to the processing. Processing. Forgive me of data gathered in the course of electronic monitoring of individuals where this has been imposed. The Code of Practice is intended to set out the appropriate tests and safeguards for the processing of such This has been imposed. The Code of Practice is intended to set out the appropriate tests and safeguards for the processing of such data, in order to ensure compliance with UK General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act of 2018. The government considers that a code of practice is the most appropriate vehicle to set out expectations and.
responsibilities in relation to the processing of data gathered under. electronic monitoring requirements. It is important to have flexibility to update the code to keep pace with any changes to that. legislation and to ensure it can be aligned with operational guidance. He asked about resource. There is currently no intention to increase the number of electronic monitoring cases. Electronic monitoring will only be used in cases where justified against the legislative. requirements and considered necessary to protect persons from harm. The number of issues the number of orders issued with electronic monitoring as a condition will depend on the nature of offending.
The assessment of the court's hearing, the cases and other conditions available that could address the risk. As such, it is not possible to say whether, overall, the use of electronic monitoring will increase or decrease. It is about giving the courts the clarity that they need. Electronic monitoring can help reduce the amount of resource, which is an important thing to consider. It is when the resource use trying to trace offenders who breach the conditions of their orders. The electronic monitoring would actually enable these forces to more effectively respond to the risk posed by offenders, and can we could see some early intervention and prevention as a case of that.
Electronic monitoring can only be a condition of an order. If the court has been notified by the Secretary of State that electronic monitoring arrangements are available in the relevant area, and that the court is satisfied that the necessary provision can be made under the arrangements currently available. We have covered. Yeah, I think I've covered the issues raised by the honourable gentleman. These clauses will also align the slavery and trafficking, prevention and risk orders with other civil orders, as I've already mentioned, which have explicit provision for electronic monitoring.
So this is about clarity for .
10:32
David Smith
-
-
David Smith
The courts on the face of the law. I therefore beg to move. Yes. The question is that clause 31 stand part of the bill, as many as are that people say, I. I know that the ayes have it. We now come to the question of clause 32. Stand part of the bill. With the leave of the Committee. I shall put a single question on clause 32 and 33, which are both already been debated. The question is that clause clauses 32 and 33 stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion, say I, I of the contrary.
No, I think the ayes have it. We now come to Group 28 and the question of clause 34 stamp out of the bill. The question is that clause.
No, I think the ayes have it. We now come to Group 28 and the question of clause 34 stamp out of the bill. The question is that clause.
10:34
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
34 stand part of the bill. Minister, thank you very much. Clause 34 strengthens building on the the group we've just discussed. It strengthens the operation of slavery, trafficking, prevention and risk orders by allowing courts to include additional notification. requirements and electronic monitoring when orders are renewed or varied. So it ensures that such measures may only be applied when the court is satisfied that the requirement is necessary for the purpose of protecting persons from physical or psychological harm, and it introduces safeguards governing the use of electronic monitoring, including limits on the duration of monitoring extensions.
10:35
10:35
10:35
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
34 stand part of the bill. Clause 34 brings the new. notification and electronic monitoring requirements into the process for varying and renewing slavery and trafficking prevention orders and risk orders. An order has to keep protecting people long after the day it's made. Those subjects to these those subject to these orders can move, change how they operate or find a way around a. restriction and the police must be able to respond.
The opposition support the clause. There should be no reward for wriggling around an order. If the evidence shows the restrictions need.
The opposition support the clause. There should be no reward for wriggling around an order. If the evidence shows the restrictions need.
10:36
10:36
10:36
10:36
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Not waiting for someone to come to further harm. But a power to apply for a variation does not tell an officer when to use it. Take someone whose activities have shifted to a different town. The police know things have. changed and that the original condition is no longer fit the risk. But unless someone picks up the file and takes it back to court, the order stays exactly as it was. Someone has to be responsible for spotting that gap and closing it. The clause also deals with orders made before this bill. As we discussed under clause 28 and.
10:38
10:38
10:38
10:38
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
They must be included. That is welcome, but it means the protection. depends on someone bringing the order order back to court. Electronic monitoring brings deadlines of its own. A court can extend a monitoring. requirement by no more than 12 months at a time, so every order with a tag will need to come back to court at least once a year to keep it in place. Expiry date should never come as a surprise. An ongoing risk must not go. unmonitored because a renewal application was left sitting in someone's in-tray. There's a practical catch, too. A tag can be added on.
variation only if the defendant is present in court, so the person who stays away from the hearing may be the very person who cannot be tagged. I'd be grateful if the minister could say how that would be handled. The clause rightly keeps the requirement for the court to assess risk and necessity. Good evidence makes a stronger order and a stronger order is one officers can enforce with confidence. I set out our concerns about the police and court capacity when we debated clauses 26 and.
variation only if the defendant is present in court, so the person who stays away from the hearing may be the very person who cannot be tagged. I'd be grateful if the minister could say how that would be handled. The clause rightly keeps the requirement for the court to assess risk and necessity. Good evidence makes a stronger order and a stronger order is one officers can enforce with confidence. I set out our concerns about the police and court capacity when we debated clauses 26 and.
10:41
10:41
10:42
10:42
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
But be grateful if the minister could answer the following questions. Who will review existing. orders and who will make sure a renewal reaches the court before the order or the monitoring runs out? How quickly will an urgent variation be heard when fresh evidence shows the risk has grown? And what happens if the defendant does not attend? How will victims be told when an order is varied, renewed or allowed to lapse so that they .
10:42
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Know what protection they actually have? I thank the honourable gentleman for his contribution. As I laid out earlier, we want to ensure law enforcement and the courts have the tools required to prevent harmful behaviour, including when orders are renewed or varied. Put simply, clause 34 strengthens the operation of slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders by allowing courts to include additional notification. requirements and electronic monitoring when orders are renewed and varied, which will enable orders to. respond to changing risks, help law enforcement manage these risks effectively and better protect potential victims. We discussed earlier that his questions about resource, and again, I think it's important to.
re-emphasise that electronic monitoring can often reduce the resource wasted in trying to trace offenders, and instead would allow forces to effectively respond to the risk posed by offenders. And in terms of the process of who would be involved, this would be the existing process. undertaken by those police forces. I just want to say a little bit further about the the sort of balance between the sort of the powers that we're giving and and human rights, I think is important to get this on the record to . Electronic monitoring would only be applied by a judge to orders where appropriate, within the confines of the Echr.
There are also restrictions to the specified length of the electronic monitoring period, which can be applied based on the circumstances of the individual cases, for example for up to 12 months. The decision to. electronically monitor a subject will only be made following great consultation. Sorry, great consideration by the courts and applied where there is. justification and it's demonstrated to be proportionate. In that case, providing the courts with this explicit power to require electronic monitoring as a condition of slavery and trafficking order, does not mean the threshold for what is considered and constitutes as acceptable from electronic monitoring will be lowered.
This provision will only allow for it to be quickly put in place where merit is.
re-emphasise that electronic monitoring can often reduce the resource wasted in trying to trace offenders, and instead would allow forces to effectively respond to the risk posed by offenders. And in terms of the process of who would be involved, this would be the existing process. undertaken by those police forces. I just want to say a little bit further about the the sort of balance between the sort of the powers that we're giving and and human rights, I think is important to get this on the record to . Electronic monitoring would only be applied by a judge to orders where appropriate, within the confines of the Echr.
There are also restrictions to the specified length of the electronic monitoring period, which can be applied based on the circumstances of the individual cases, for example for up to 12 months. The decision to. electronically monitor a subject will only be made following great consultation. Sorry, great consideration by the courts and applied where there is. justification and it's demonstrated to be proportionate. In that case, providing the courts with this explicit power to require electronic monitoring as a condition of slavery and trafficking order, does not mean the threshold for what is considered and constitutes as acceptable from electronic monitoring will be lowered.
This provision will only allow for it to be quickly put in place where merit is.
10:46
10:47
10:47
David Smith
-
-
David Smith
Safeguards governing the use of electronic monitoring. And I beg to move. Yeah. The question is, at clause 34 stamp bill, as many as I can see, I know that the ayes have it. We now come to Group 29. And the question that clause. 35 stand part of the bill with which it will be convenient to consider. Schedule four and clause. 36 stand part.
The question is that clause.
The question is that clause.
10:48
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
35 stand part of the bill. Minister, thank you very much, doctor. I now speak to clauses 35 to 43. Since the modern slavery system was established, the nature and volume of referrals have changed compared with. 2014 referrals into the national referral mechanism. The system for identifying potential victims of modern slavery have. increased by. 900% in 2025. Modern slavery referrals from those who arrived by small boat were the highest since records began in.
10:49
10:49
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And more than half of referrals now relate to. exploitation that took place overseas. Our system seeks to identify, support and protect individuals at the earliest. opportunity and that is in everyone's interests. However, we cannot ignore the fact that because of the protections offered by the system, there is value for some in seeking to misuse it.
10:50
10:50
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Over a third of charter flight returns that failed to go ahead involved a modern slavery referral lodged after that return was arranged. This type of action undermines the integrity of the. system and creates. disproportionate operational pressures. We need a robust end to end system, one that supports earlier. identification of.
10:51
10:51
10:51
10:51
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And addresses opportunities for improper use. Importantly, one that works effectively for those it is intended to protect. This government has been particularly clear in its commitment to embed protections for those most vulnerable, including exploited and trafficked children. These clauses will bring balance and order to the system to do just that. I turn first to clause 35. Clause 35 will clarify a key part of our modern slavery system.
Who can make decisions about whether an individual is victim of modern slavery? For the purposes of part five of the Nationality and Borders Act 2020.
Who can make decisions about whether an individual is victim of modern slavery? For the purposes of part five of the Nationality and Borders Act 2020.
10:52
10:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
For adults, this will formalise the existing operational model where the Secretary of State acts as the competent authority, the decision making body for all modern slavery decisions. For children, it will enable the Secretary of State to nominate other public. authorities to act as the competent. authority in relation to reasonable and conclusive grounds decisions on a case by case basis. We know that this model can be successful. We've been piloting this approach since.
10:52
10:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Enabling local safeguarding partners who will often be involved in the child's care to make decisions about whether the child is a victim of modern slavery. Stakeholders have told us that embedding decisions with those working directly with the child removes the perceived disconnect between. identification and.
10:53
10:53
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And delivers a more sustainable model of decision making aligned with existing safeguarding frameworks. However, to implement this approach on a greater scale, legislative change is required. That is what this clause delivers the legal. foundation to devolve modern slavery decision making for children nationally, ensuring decisions are made by those best placed to safeguard them. By embedding these. responsibilities within existing local safeguarding.
10:54
10:54
10:54
10:54
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Supports earlier identification of vulnerable children, and creates greater opportunities to prevent harm before it occurs. Turning to schedule four, which will play a critical role in implementing the changes made through clause 35 of this bill, making consequential amendments to reflect the definition of competent. authority and ensure consistency across the statute book. It will enable the Secretary of State to lay regulations on the making of reasonable or conclusive grounds. decisions by all competent.
10:55
10:55
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And issued guidance on the processes to be followed by nominated public authorities. Together, these measures will enable consistent quality, devolved decision making for children by local safeguarding partners. Firstly, schedule four updates definitions to reflect the change in who can make decisions set out in clause 35. Secondly, the regulations ensure consistent decision making across all decision making bodies, setting a clear framework for which modern slavery decisions are made, by which bodies, and how these decisions should be taken.
This will be underpinned by guidance that makes clear what is expected of public.
This will be underpinned by guidance that makes clear what is expected of public.
10:56
10:56
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
While also providing. transparency on how their competence will be addressed. This will help to ensure consistent and quality decision making, and that public authorities are trained and supported to deliver to the required standard. Thirdly, regulations will make clear that information sharing and joint working across multi-agency safeguarding partners is paramount to strong decision making, enabling the Secretary of State to require public authorities other than the Home Office, to engage in decision making. This is crucial not just for information sharing from partners with the Home Office, but to deliver the tried and tested approach to decision making for children, which sees.
responsibility be embedded with those best able to make decisions for children while ensuring this is done in a consistent and controlled way. I turn now to clause 36. This government is committed to ensuring that decisions made under the national referral mechanism are robust, preventing opportunities for improper use of the system and providing clarity in legislation. To deliver this, it is essential that the factors that a decision maker must consider as negatively impact a person's. credibility are clear. Currently, decision makers can consider factors such as the timing of. disclosure and consistency in the information a person has.
responsibility be embedded with those best able to make decisions for children while ensuring this is done in a consistent and controlled way. I turn now to clause 36. This government is committed to ensuring that decisions made under the national referral mechanism are robust, preventing opportunities for improper use of the system and providing clarity in legislation. To deliver this, it is essential that the factors that a decision maker must consider as negatively impact a person's. credibility are clear. Currently, decision makers can consider factors such as the timing of. disclosure and consistency in the information a person has.
10:58
10:58
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Which may have an impact on the credibility of a person's account. This assessment can be used to inform the outcome of a reasonable grounds or a conclusive grounds decision. However, there is no legal requirement for this credibility. assessment to form part of the decision making. Clause 36 will place these credibility considerations on a statutory footing, making clear that these factors, which can often be an indicator of a lack of veracity, will be considered to be damaging to a person's. credibility unless good reasons are put forward. This will provide a more robust framework, supporting consistent decision making and a clear.
understanding across potential victims and those representing them. We recognise that there may be factors which explain the presence of credibility indicators. For example, a person suffering from coercion, fear or trauma. That is why the legislation also requires decision making to assess whether there are good. reasons which can explain the presence of factors which would otherwise impact on an individual's credibility. Detailed guidance will be set out on what will constitute good reasons, recognising that these are. non-exhaustive and will support decision makers in considering each person's individual. circumstances and experience. This is a key safeguard which balances the importance of preventing improper claims, with recognition that some factors which point to a lack of.
credibility are the result of individual. circumstances which require consideration. By setting out a statutory duty to consider credibility. considerations and the impact of those factors on.
understanding across potential victims and those representing them. We recognise that there may be factors which explain the presence of credibility indicators. For example, a person suffering from coercion, fear or trauma. That is why the legislation also requires decision making to assess whether there are good. reasons which can explain the presence of factors which would otherwise impact on an individual's credibility. Detailed guidance will be set out on what will constitute good reasons, recognising that these are. non-exhaustive and will support decision makers in considering each person's individual. circumstances and experience. This is a key safeguard which balances the importance of preventing improper claims, with recognition that some factors which point to a lack of.
credibility are the result of individual. circumstances which require consideration. By setting out a statutory duty to consider credibility. considerations and the impact of those factors on.
11:01
11:01
11:02
11:02
11:02
11:02
11:02
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Into the national referral mechanism last year, the highest since it began, and. 25,373 in the year to June. Behind those numbers are genuine victims who deserve our protection. But there are also people who've worked out that a modern slavery claim can be used to frustrate removal. The British public want two things from our modern slavery system, and they're not in conflict. They want genuine victims.
11:03
11:03
11:03
11:03
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
And delays the removal of people with no right to be here. And every bad decision risks leaving someone who's been. exploited in the hands of the very people who exploited them. The opposition believes these. clauses can help on both counts, and we support them. Clause 35 sets out who makes these decisions. For adults, it's a Secretary of state. For children, it can be the Secretary of State or another public authority nominated for that purpose. Schedule four makes the consequential changes needed for that to work. A name in. legislation has to mean real accountability. A child's treatment should not depend on whose death the file happens to land on.
11:05
11:05
11:06
11:07
11:07
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
The decision maker should test that difference hard. And where an account bears an uncanny resemblance to someone else's, officials must be free to ask whether they are looking at genuine evidence or a script supplied to frustrate removal. The principle behind this clause is one we legislated for in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. That late.
11:07
11:07
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Without good reason, should count against credibility. Labour opposed the act at the time, so I welcome the fact that the government now recognise the value of that. principle and are building upon it. On this there is common ground across the Committee. The clause is carefully drawn. It's about damage to credibility. It does not say that every claim must fail or that every.
inconsistency proves a lie. And it allows for good reasons. Someone threatened by a gang may be terrified to speak.
inconsistency proves a lie. And it allows for good reasons. Someone threatened by a gang may be terrified to speak.
11:09
11:09
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
The horrific. events they've witnessed may not get it all out at once. But the bill does not define a good reason. It leaves that to guidance. That guidance must help. caseworkers tell a genuine. explanation from a convenient excuse. And it needs to be ready before the clause comes into force, not cobbled together afterwards. These rules will also only work if caseworkers have the.
information to apply them. The clause asks them to compare an account with what the person said in an asylum claim or in court.
information to apply them. The clause asks them to compare an account with what the person said in an asylum claim or in court.
11:10
11:10
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
And with accounts given by other people. That is not much use if the caseworker cannot see the earlier account or has no means of spotting. The same story has appeared in a dozen other claims. We support clauses. 35 and. 36 and schedule three and schedule four. But I'd be grateful if the minister could answer the following questions. First, which authorities does the Minister expect to be. nominated to make decisions in children's cases? Has legislative consent been sought from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? And who will check the quality of those decisions across the United Kingdom?
Second, will the guidance on what counts as a good reason be published in draft before report stage? And how will it apply the reasonable ground stage where the threshold is deliberately low? Third, what. systems will caseworkers have to see earlier accounts held elsewhere in the Home Office and to identify striking. similarities across different claims? Clear credibility rules should mean decisions that are both quicker and better. What happens to support once a decision is made? Is the subject of clause.
Second, will the guidance on what counts as a good reason be published in draft before report stage? And how will it apply the reasonable ground stage where the threshold is deliberately low? Third, what. systems will caseworkers have to see earlier accounts held elsewhere in the Home Office and to identify striking. similarities across different claims? Clear credibility rules should mean decisions that are both quicker and better. What happens to support once a decision is made? Is the subject of clause.
11:13
11:13
11:13
11:13
11:13
Paul Kohler
-
-
Paul Kohler
Who notes, as the Minister also noted, this has been successfully. piloted and has. demonstrated strong. identification and support. Where local authority partners, such as social care workers can. contribute to decision making, my party consequently supports clause 35. Clause 36 amends the Nationality and Borders Act to set out the factors which are competent authority must take into account when deciding whether an individual is a potential victim or victim of modern slavery.
Under subsection two of section 60 A, these are listed as delay in making a claim, delay in providing relevant status .
Under subsection two of section 60 A, these are listed as delay in making a claim, delay in providing relevant status .
11:15
11:15
11:15
11:15
Paul Kohler
-
-
Paul Kohler
Or omission in relevant status information. Any striking similarity between the relevant status information provided by the person and any information provided by another person. Now, I note that subsection three of section. 60A60A sets out that subsection two will not apply where the competent authority is satisfied. There are good reasons for the factors listed in subsection two. But I ask the minister, is this an adequate enough safeguard to prevent actual victims from being penalised? I note what the minister said.
The government will issue.
The government will issue.
11:16
11:16
11:16
11:16
11:16
11:16
11:16
11:17
11:17
Paul Kohler
-
-
Paul Kohler
Risk dismissing legitimate cases without due regard to the realities of trauma and the difficulties of presenting evidence. So I asked the minister, is it fair to put the burden of proof on potentially traumatised victims? Would the government consider, for example, reversing the burden of proof with an appropriately worded. Provision of an appropriately worded presumption, for example?
11:18
11:18
11:18
11:18
11:18
11:18
11:18
11:18
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Reflects and results from the awfulness of the rhetoric around migration in recent years in which the. government has joined in the British Medical. Association and its written evidence to the. committee makes this point. It says we are also concerned by the rise in. anti-migrant rhetoric in the UK, public debate on immigration and asylum is too often relied on.
11:20
11:20
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Alarmist language and unfair. scapegoating of migrant communities. Sections of the media and some politicians have played a significant role in shaping and. amplifying this hostile framing. For example, language used by the then prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, when launching the. Immigration White Paper, they are. referring there to the islands of Ireland of.
11:20
11:20
11:21
11:21
11:21
11:21
11:21
11:21
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
And a recent Royal College of Nursing survey showed a. 55% increase in. racist incidents experienced by nursing staff in the last three years, with the real figures likely to be much higher. This is the. background to this bill, and I absolutely believe that clause. 36 needs to be removed. The International.
11:22
11:23
11:23
11:23
11:23
11:23
11:23
11:23
11:23
11:23
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
And striking similarities between a person's claim and another person's claim or related legal proceedings. The Home Office has said these. factors will not apply where there is a good reason, and ministers lean heavily on this in that human rights memorandum and say decision makers must assess evidence fairly and exercise powers reasonably.
11:24
11:24
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Ministers have yet to define for us what a good reason is. This clause introduces vagueness and an automatic duty to doubt victims into law. Whereas the Nationality and Borders Act. 2022 already has clauses that would enable further questions and deadlines to be put to victims, where. credibility is. genuinely in doubt. Treating all survivors this way.
11:25
11:26
11:26
11:27
11:27
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
That's all there were that were made after 3 p.m. on the day before an arranged return. These are really small numbers. We also hear that in the national referral mechanism as a whole, only six potential victims were disqualified on bad faith grounds, and only. 224 in total were disqualified on any ground, public order or bad faith combined, which is under 1%, again, of all.
11:28
11:28
11:28
11:28
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Said that that the office doesn't have any evidence to confirm these claims, and reprimanded the previous Home. Secretary for failing to back up public statements with evidence. There is a lack of further background in relation to how long since arrival people were removed, for example. It doesn't offer a breakdown of the other reasons why someone may not have been removed. So even the data that the minister is quoting at us is not is not reliable. Going back to my speech. The independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner also points out the absolutely vital issue that you. cannot self refer.
And in written evidence that we've also received from Professor Chandra and via unseen UK. He says that this. approach overall of adding all these reasons to doubt to the. legislation is legally wrong. He says it creates a statutory adverse. inference from. precisely the. features that frequently arise in. trafficking and modern.
And in written evidence that we've also received from Professor Chandra and via unseen UK. He says that this. approach overall of adding all these reasons to doubt to the. legislation is legally wrong. He says it creates a statutory adverse. inference from. precisely the. features that frequently arise in. trafficking and modern.
11:31
11:31
11:31
11:31
11:32
11:32
11:32
11:32
11:32
11:32
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
So can the government really. justify mixing up these. motivations at such. detriment to the wider population of victims? Beyond the tiny number of examples of abuse they have talked about? I think this is a very important objection that we've received from many groups. This clause will apply to all victims of trafficking and exploitation. including children and UK nationals. It will. include doubting young women who have been sexually.
11:33
11:33
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Children involved in county lines and older people, and disabled people who are cuckooed in their homes. Survivors across the board are calling for this clause to be removed. In her briefing to us, the independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner quoted participants in her recent summit with. representatives from 15 lived experience advisory panels where they said trauma affects memory, behaviour and disclosure, trauma shapes.
11:34
11:34
11:34
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:35
11:35
11:35
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:37
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
While the institutions around them may completely fail to recognise what is happening. They say we are deeply. concerned that these changes will make it even harder for survivors to be believed and get the support they need, simply because they were not able to come forward sooner. We also have, via the independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, the evidence. The quote here from Sosa, who is a survivor of child criminal exploitation. She said I was 11 years old when I was first exploited by a gang. I didn't know I was a victim, I was a child. When I was 12, I tried to tell social services what was happening.
I was called a fantasist. This bill will create the. conditions for more. children like Sosa to be treated like fantasists. This bill, this clause is not trauma informed and will cause. incredible harm. I also think we should listen to those people who are actually involved in.
I was called a fantasist. This bill will create the. conditions for more. children like Sosa to be treated like fantasists. This bill, this clause is not trauma informed and will cause. incredible harm. I also think we should listen to those people who are actually involved in.
11:39
11:39
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Those victims matter too. I make the point that this relates to this also harms wider victims of. trafficking and exploitation. But this is what people say who are facing immigration enforcement. They say when people arrive, like with any. serious trouble, they don't. Sorry, people. People have people are exhausted. They can't go into these things straight away. They don't trust the Home Office or the police. It is really hard to talk about these things because you don't know what it might bring you. It might bring you trouble as well. That quote comes via the Gatwick Detainees Self.
Advisory Group. Now, I also think the government has made good. progress on violence against women and girls and modern slavery in recent years, and this clause is completely contrary to very, very recent government. promises to believe and support. survivors of violence against women and girls.
Advisory Group. Now, I also think the government has made good. progress on violence against women and girls and modern slavery in recent years, and this clause is completely contrary to very, very recent government. promises to believe and support. survivors of violence against women and girls.
11:41
11:41
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Vawg strategy, which is called freedom from violence and abuse at knowledges that victims are more likely to struggle to engage with support due to trauma and negative previous. experiences with services. And it says, we also. recognise how immigration. status can affect victims of violence against women and girls, and that many migrant and asylum seeking victims will not come forward to report abuse out of fear about their future. So how does this bill fulfil the pledges in that government strategy? We've heard from the.
11:42
11:42
11:42
11:42
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And it's written evidence that clause. 36 also. inverts the trauma informed approach that article 13 of the European Convention Against Trafficking in Human Beings requires. These are really important, really, really important points. Going back to my final point, the members opposite won't have received these because the. organisation working on this campaign.
11:44
11:44
11:44
11:44
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:45
11:45
11:46
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you very much. I thank all honourable members for their contributions. I think that's a really important discussion because these are important clauses. Clause 35 clarifies who can make decisions about whether an individual is a victim of modern slavery. For the purpose of part five of the. Nationality and Borders Act. 2022 for adults. As I've said, this will formalise the existing operational model. The Secretary of State acting as a competent. authority for all modern slavery. decisions for children. It will enable the Secretary of State to nominate other public authorities to act as the competent authority.
This will allow modern slavery. decision making for children to be devolved nationally, ensuring that decisions are made by those best placed to safeguard and support them. Building on the success of the pilot schedule for complements these changes by making important, consequential amendments to reflect the definition of competent authority and ensure consistency across the statute book. It will enable the Secretary of State to lay regulations on the making of reasonable or conclusive grounds. decisions by all competent authorities, and issue guidance on the processes to be followed by nominated public authorities. Clause 36 places credibility considerations already set out in guidance on a statutory footing.
This will make clear that these factors will be considered to be damaging to a person's.
This will allow modern slavery. decision making for children to be devolved nationally, ensuring that decisions are made by those best placed to safeguard and support them. Building on the success of the pilot schedule for complements these changes by making important, consequential amendments to reflect the definition of competent authority and ensure consistency across the statute book. It will enable the Secretary of State to lay regulations on the making of reasonable or conclusive grounds. decisions by all competent authorities, and issue guidance on the processes to be followed by nominated public authorities. Clause 36 places credibility considerations already set out in guidance on a statutory footing.
This will make clear that these factors will be considered to be damaging to a person's.
11:48
11:48
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Unless there are good reasons put forward. This will provide a more robust framework, one that supports consistent decision making while recognising factors which could impact credibility. indicators such as person suffering from coercion, fear and trauma. And so I want to just come back to a lot of the points that have been raised during this discussion again. I'm afraid I do take issue with the honourable member from Brighton Pavilion talking about rhetoric, as if the purpose of this bill is just to drive rhetoric and, you know, drive a sort of political argument. These are important measures to give our.
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:50
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
That they genuinely are there to protect those who. require support and. deserve support from the horrendous issue that is modern slavery. And it's really important that we protect them from abuse. And I want to just go back to some of the facts that I've already mentioned, the evidence. The honourable lady seems to dismiss the evidence out of hand, but there are some important factors here. I mentioned in my. introductory statement that modern slavery referrals are up. 900% since 2014. 34% of returns that have been arranged. So this is people who have failed, who have gone through numerous appeals processes, have had numerous.
opportunities in which to highlight issues or concerns that they may have had, but now are on the basis of being. returned because they have no right to be in this country. 34% of returns that were arranged but failed to go ahead involved a referral for modern slavery. Over a third of involved referral to modern slavery after the return was arranged, not prior, but after the return was arranged. 76% of cases which raised national referral mechanisms. referrals ahead of all charter flights within national. referral mechanism out of hours decision making service were raised between the hours of 3 p.m.
on the day prior to the planned.
opportunities in which to highlight issues or concerns that they may have had, but now are on the basis of being. returned because they have no right to be in this country. 34% of returns that were arranged but failed to go ahead involved a referral for modern slavery. Over a third of involved referral to modern slavery after the return was arranged, not prior, but after the return was arranged. 76% of cases which raised national referral mechanisms. referrals ahead of all charter flights within national. referral mechanism out of hours decision making service were raised between the hours of 3 p.m.
on the day prior to the planned.
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Were raised after 11 p.m.. And the honourable lady, I'm just to address her point, she said. These aren't big statistics or that she dismissed them. They might appear small in scale, but they place a hugely. disproportionate pressure on operations. The Home Office is working with the Home Office. Officials are getting all the paperwork in place. It involves liaison with a number of different countries. They are liaising with airlines. This is hugely expensive and damaging for operations.
It delays removal actions due to. disingenuous claims. It prevents proper decision.
It delays removal actions due to. disingenuous claims. It prevents proper decision.
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Need it most. And that's what this bill is aiming to address. I think the minister's points are I hope this is this is a useful debate, because I think the minister's points are really speaking to the the. operational nature of this. And I hope that she will be going away and. reflecting upon the wider harm that will be caused by adding this to all.
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Late. referral may occur in those circumstances. I appreciate her intervention. I will come on to talk about trauma and the exemptions we've got, because this is really important and we want to make sure genuine victims are protected. But again, I just want to outline another fact because I think the facts are really important here. The UK refers more. victims of modern slavery than the whole of Europe put together.
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
So I don't think anyone can accuse us of not living up to our obligations when it comes to modern slavery. So I want to just address the point that the Honourable Lady and the honourable gentleman for Wimbledon raised about trauma and the importance of trauma victims. We, as a government, we've engaged. extensively with those. organisations who work to address modern slavery. We had a call for evidence. We have lived. experience forums. We've ensured a range of expert insights, including survivor voices, to ensure that we have informed policy development. This has helped to ensure the reforms reflect how the system operates in.
11:52
11:52
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
And to take a trauma informed approach to. identifying and supporting victims. We'll continue to engage with stakeholders as the bill progresses to ensure the system remains. responsive to victims need. And I just want to reiterate again the point about the process, the opportunities people have throughout their immigration process. Individual individuals may raise any modern slavery related .
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
To and then I will actually make the point I was intending to make. Minister refers repeatedly to individuals making the claim, but people cannot. self-refer into the national referral mechanism. Some other. professional is making the judgement that they may be a potential victim. Will the minister. acknowledge that and and these claims of abuse, I think, really do hinge on .
11:52
11:52
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Belief that it is individuals making claims when it is not. Absolutely. The honourable lady mustn't misinterpret us. We. We are absolutely clear that individuals do not make those claims, but they raise. information and it is very clear if they're raising. information at. When they're on the flights, on the steps of a flight, it is very clear that many individuals know and are gaming the sorts of information that will be relevant for modern slavery claim. Individuals can raise the the information, any information relating to that? Not a referral, but any. information at all relating to any concerns they may have had about their experience of modern slavery at any point throughout the immigration process could be from the moment they arrive at a UK port, when they are encountered by immigration officials.
Could be to police, could be to any local authority, to any community or charity group. All of this information can be flagged if modern slavery information is raised or is identified through a general immigration screening processes. A first responder, a trained first responder. In these circumstances, UK visas and immigration, Border force, immigration enforcement or the police will make a national referral National referral mechanism referral adults must consent to the National Referral Mechanism referral being made. The referral process includes questions designed to surface any modern slavery. experience to aid decision making by the single competent. authority and the immigration enforcement competent authority.
People are trained specifically to ask questions throughout the process to. identify victims of modern slavery, and just responding again to to the issues of trauma. As we've said, the government, you know, we recognise the horrific experience many victims of modern slavery have endured. And we understand that trauma can have a profound effect on their ability to raise and discuss this. And that's why decision makers are trained and must consider whether there are good reasons to explain the factors that might otherwise be viewed as undermining individual's credibility. Detailed guidance will support decision makers in considering each person's individual circumstances and.
experience that will be trauma informed, and that will ensure that credibility assessments are made fairly and on a case by case basis. First responders are also trained to recognise any signs of modern slavery and identify potential. victims to use trauma informed approaches to help individuals disclose their. experiences and, where appropriate, refer them into the national referral mechanism. The honourable lady asked about the provisions applying to children. The credibility of provisions in the Bill will apply to individuals of all ages, but specific safeguards will be in place with regards to age. The government recognises the specific vulnerabilities that children can have, which may affect their ability to disclose relevant modern slavery information.
This will be factored into the consideration of good reasons, where decision makers will consider whether there are good reasons to explain the factors that might otherwise be viewed as undermining an individual's credibility. This could include, for example, a child's developmental stage and emotional.
Could be to police, could be to any local authority, to any community or charity group. All of this information can be flagged if modern slavery information is raised or is identified through a general immigration screening processes. A first responder, a trained first responder. In these circumstances, UK visas and immigration, Border force, immigration enforcement or the police will make a national referral National referral mechanism referral adults must consent to the National Referral Mechanism referral being made. The referral process includes questions designed to surface any modern slavery. experience to aid decision making by the single competent. authority and the immigration enforcement competent authority.
People are trained specifically to ask questions throughout the process to. identify victims of modern slavery, and just responding again to to the issues of trauma. As we've said, the government, you know, we recognise the horrific experience many victims of modern slavery have endured. And we understand that trauma can have a profound effect on their ability to raise and discuss this. And that's why decision makers are trained and must consider whether there are good reasons to explain the factors that might otherwise be viewed as undermining individual's credibility. Detailed guidance will support decision makers in considering each person's individual circumstances and.
experience that will be trauma informed, and that will ensure that credibility assessments are made fairly and on a case by case basis. First responders are also trained to recognise any signs of modern slavery and identify potential. victims to use trauma informed approaches to help individuals disclose their. experiences and, where appropriate, refer them into the national referral mechanism. The honourable lady asked about the provisions applying to children. The credibility of provisions in the Bill will apply to individuals of all ages, but specific safeguards will be in place with regards to age. The government recognises the specific vulnerabilities that children can have, which may affect their ability to disclose relevant modern slavery information.
This will be factored into the consideration of good reasons, where decision makers will consider whether there are good reasons to explain the factors that might otherwise be viewed as undermining an individual's credibility. This could include, for example, a child's developmental stage and emotional.
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Ensuring that credibility assessments are made fairly and on a case by case basis. The honourable lady also asked whether the credibility applies to British nationals. Yes, the credibility provisions will apply to all individuals, including British nationals. We recognise that some individuals, including British nationals who have experienced modern slavery, may have had reasons to be unable to disclose information at an early opportunity. For example, victims of historic exploitation may not have previously come into contact or had repeated interactions with.
11:52
11:52
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Which resulted in delayed disclosure. Equally, victims may not recognise themselves as a victim of modern slavery or be reluctant to be identified as such, and that is why our first responders, as I've said, are trained to understand and identify signs which may indicate a person is a victim. The clause also requires decision makers to consider all relevant. circumstances and evidence when assessing the credibility of an individual's account on a case by case basis. And as I've said, whether I identify there are good reasons for the delay in disclosure, they will not draw a negative credibility finding on that basis alone.
The honourable lady also mentioned, I think, our fired.
The honourable lady also mentioned, I think, our fired.
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Must refer consenting adults and. children into the national referral referral. mechanism when modern slavery indicators are present. This is true regardless of how long ago the incidents may have occurred. Decision makers will take this into account when considering cases and where there is an explanation for time taken between the exploitation and disclosing it, the delay in disclosure will not result in negative credibility finding on that basis alone, the credibility provisions on delay of disclosure are focused on where individuals have had repeated. opportunities to disclose and did not do so. It is not a blanket provision on all lateness.
Honourable members have asked for more detail on the good.
Honourable members have asked for more detail on the good.
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
When assessing the account of an individual referred into the referral mechanism. While while recognising there may be legitimate reasons for these issues arising where the competent authority is satisfied, there are good reasons for the issues with an individual's account, such as delaying disclosure and consistency in account. etc. this will mitigate against any adverse credibility. Finding the legislation does not include an exhaustive list of good reasons, primarily because the range of potential mitigating. circumstances is so broad that any attempt to provide a closed list would. inevitably fail to capture the full range of potential mitigating circumstances.
Decision makers decision makers should not be restricted to a set of good reasons. Having these reasons in guidance will retain flexibility for decision makers to consider individual factors which appear to impact on an individual's credibility. Those decision makers should consider all relevant factors in the in the round on a case by case basis before making a credibility. Finding relevant considerations in terms of good reasons may include the impact of trauma, fear of.
Decision makers decision makers should not be restricted to a set of good reasons. Having these reasons in guidance will retain flexibility for decision makers to consider individual factors which appear to impact on an individual's credibility. Those decision makers should consider all relevant factors in the in the round on a case by case basis before making a credibility. Finding relevant considerations in terms of good reasons may include the impact of trauma, fear of.
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
The effects of grooming, coercion and control. ER, the Honourable gentleman on behalf of His Majesty's Opposition, asked about. consistency across local authorities and local decision making structures. I think it is important to say that any individual would receive a consistent decision and outcome that's important to us, irrespective of which competent authority makes a decision. Regulations will be put in place to establish a clear framework that all competent. authorities will be expected to operate within a framework with which they will be expected to operate within, in order to ensure decisions are taken consistently across all areas, all decisions will be made in line with modern.
slavery statutory guidance that will be consistent across all competent. authorities for decisions made by local public authorities. There will be separate additional guidance will set out the process and timelines for decision making through this model ahead of any public authority. He asked who might be nominated, but ahead of any public authority being nominated as a competent authority. They will be provided with a comprehensive programme of training to ensure they understand their. responsibilities as a competent authority and are able to make timely and accurate decisions. In addition, the Home Office will be will put in place clear oversight processes that will include clear intervention steps that will be taken should concerns be raised about performance.
He also asked about how the measures would apply in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The intention is for this model of decision making to apply for children across all parts of the United Kingdom. We already have successful pilot sites operating in all four nations, as the model allows for local safeguarding partners to have flexibility on how they deliver many of the elements of the decision making process. This means the decision can work alongside any differences in legislative framework across the UK, while ensuring all decisions are made to a consistent standard. We will continue to work with local safeguarding partners and devolved governments on this approach and implementation.
He asked us about. engagement throughout this pilot. Officials have engaged with the pilot areas and the devolved governments to understand the impact of this model of decision making on local safeguarding partners. As the planned model for national rollout is developed, officials will continue to engage with local.
slavery statutory guidance that will be consistent across all competent. authorities for decisions made by local public authorities. There will be separate additional guidance will set out the process and timelines for decision making through this model ahead of any public authority. He asked who might be nominated, but ahead of any public authority being nominated as a competent authority. They will be provided with a comprehensive programme of training to ensure they understand their. responsibilities as a competent authority and are able to make timely and accurate decisions. In addition, the Home Office will be will put in place clear oversight processes that will include clear intervention steps that will be taken should concerns be raised about performance.
He also asked about how the measures would apply in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The intention is for this model of decision making to apply for children across all parts of the United Kingdom. We already have successful pilot sites operating in all four nations, as the model allows for local safeguarding partners to have flexibility on how they deliver many of the elements of the decision making process. This means the decision can work alongside any differences in legislative framework across the UK, while ensuring all decisions are made to a consistent standard. We will continue to work with local safeguarding partners and devolved governments on this approach and implementation.
He asked us about. engagement throughout this pilot. Officials have engaged with the pilot areas and the devolved governments to understand the impact of this model of decision making on local safeguarding partners. As the planned model for national rollout is developed, officials will continue to engage with local.
11:52
11:52
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Wider safeguarding partners and the devolved governments to understand that the impact this measure may have on them. Any implementation will not begin before a new burdens assessment or equivalent has been completed and agreed. And I think he finally asked about whether the good reasons could be listed on the bill. I think I've already answered that previously, but as I said, good reasons will be set out in guidance and cover factors such as the impact of trauma, fear of authorities, a lack of. self-identification as a victim or for children, factors such as developmental stage maturity and effects of grooming, coercion and control.
So hopefully I've covered all the issues that honourable members have raised, and for these .
So hopefully I've covered all the issues that honourable members have raised, and for these .
11:52
11:52
David Smith
-
-
David Smith
I beg to move these clauses, standard parts of the bill. The question is that clause. 35 . stand part of the bill, as many as are of that opinion, say I, I the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. We now come to schedule four, which has just been debated. The question is that schedule four be the fourth . schedule to the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say I, I the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. We now come to the question that clause. 36 stand part of the bill, which has already been debated.
The question is that that clause. 36 .
The question is that that clause. 36 .
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Of the bill. Minister, thank you very much. This government is clear that we must be able to move. individuals more efficiently through the system without unnecessary delay and ensure that those who are deemed not to be victims of modern slavery do not receive protection and support that they do not need and are not entitled to. Of course, 37 will make clear that a negative, conclusive grounds decision ends the modern slavery recovery period. There will be no requirement to wait for the 30 day recovery period to end before confirming an individual is not a victim. At present, after referral into the national referral mechanism, if an individual receives a positive reasonable grounds decision, they receive a statutory 30 day recovery period, which protects them from removal and enables access to support.
Even where a decision maker has the evidence to issue a negative conclusive grounds decision within 30 days to conclude the individual was not a victim. This would not end the recovery period nor these. entitlements under clause 37. This is. rectified so that where there is enough evidence to. conclude that an individual is not a victim of modern slavery, a negative conclusive grounds decision can be issued within the recovery period, and the issuing of that negative decision will end the recovery period. This is important to ensure we remove inefficiencies in our system and do not retain unnecessary barriers to removal.
It will also ensure support resources remain focused on supporting and. protecting genuine victims.
Even where a decision maker has the evidence to issue a negative conclusive grounds decision within 30 days to conclude the individual was not a victim. This would not end the recovery period nor these. entitlements under clause 37. This is. rectified so that where there is enough evidence to. conclude that an individual is not a victim of modern slavery, a negative conclusive grounds decision can be issued within the recovery period, and the issuing of that negative decision will end the recovery period. This is important to ensure we remove inefficiencies in our system and do not retain unnecessary barriers to removal.
It will also ensure support resources remain focused on supporting and. protecting genuine victims.
11:52
11:52
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Clause 37 raises a simple question . Once the competent authority has considered a claim and reached a negative, conclusive grounds decision, why should the recovery period carry on? Just because the calendar has not yet reached 30 days? Under the clause, the recovery period ends when a negative conclusive grounds decision is made, even if that is before the usual 30 days are up. When no decision has been made by then, the period continues until one is corresponding changes are made for further recovery periods. The opposition supports this principle. The recovery period exists so that a claim can be properly considered once it has been considered and found wanting.
That protection should not roll on automatically. Our immigration system will not command. respect if an. unsuccessful claim simply bars another stretch of waiting at the taxpayer's expense. Where the legal process is complete and someone has no right to be here, they should leave. But we should be honest about what this clause does and does not do. Ending a recovery period lifts the legal bar on removal and ends the support that goes with it, but it does not remove a single person. That depends on entirely what happens next. And it's a point that applies just as much to the groups either side of this one.
Too often a decision is made in one part of the Home Office, while another part carries on as if nothing has happened. Ministers should be lining up the next steps while a case is still being.
That protection should not roll on automatically. Our immigration system will not command. respect if an. unsuccessful claim simply bars another stretch of waiting at the taxpayer's expense. Where the legal process is complete and someone has no right to be here, they should leave. But we should be honest about what this clause does and does not do. Ending a recovery period lifts the legal bar on removal and ends the support that goes with it, but it does not remove a single person. That depends on entirely what happens next. And it's a point that applies just as much to the groups either side of this one.
Too often a decision is made in one part of the Home Office, while another part carries on as if nothing has happened. Ministers should be lining up the next steps while a case is still being.
11:52
11:52
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
So that a negative. decision is followed swiftly by action, not by a trip to the back of another queue. Speed must not come at the expense of getting it right. A rushed decision that falls apart under scrutiny helps nobody and ends up in court. In the year to June, more than. 4 in 5 conclusive grounds, decisions that were. reconsidered came out positive.
Whatever the reasons for that, it tells us that first decisions are not always holding up. If a negative decision is now going to end, support.
Whatever the reasons for that, it tells us that first decisions are not always holding up. If a negative decision is now going to end, support.
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
And that number has been rising. The Home Office's own. statistics say the number of cases awaiting a final decision fell every quarter until April this year, and has risen since by. 23% between March and June and a further 6% in September alone. I'd be grateful if the minister could explain what the government mean by cleared, and what they're doing to stop the queue from growing again. The person, their. representative and the. organisation supporting them also need to know what has been decided and what happens next. A recovery period that ends overnight must not leave anyone unsure whether they are still entitled to support.
We support clause.
We support clause.
11:52
11:52
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
But be grateful if the minister could answer the following questions. What checks will take place before a negative conclusive ground decision is issued? And how will a genuine mistake be put right without that process becoming an endless source of delay? Once a negative decision is made, who takes ownership of the case and how will cases already in the. system when the clause comes into force, be treated? And thirdly, will the government publish regular. figures showing how long it takes after a negative, conclusive grounds decision for the next enforcement step to happen? Counting decisions alone will tell us nothing about whether the .
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
Paul Kohler
-
-
Paul Kohler
The Nationality and Borders Act, a person is entitled to a minimum 30 day recovery. period from the day on which they receive a positive, reasonable grounds decision. Clause 37 amends section. 61 defected. In the event a person receives a negative conclusive grounds decision within the 30 day period, the recovery period is associated with. protections will come to an end. It also makes similar provision, enabling an equivalent outcome with regard to any additional recovery period under section 62. This cliff edge risks placing vulnerable people in the way of future harm. A report published by the Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centre at the University of Oxford.
describes overturn rate of negative NRM NRM decisions as extremely high. These decisions are not.
describes overturn rate of negative NRM NRM decisions as extremely high. These decisions are not.
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
Paul Kohler
-
-
Paul Kohler
The proportion of reconsidered decisions that turn positive have been higher than the proportion of initial decisions that are positive at both the reasonable grounds and conclusive ground stages at the reasonable ground stage. Positive outcomes after. reconsideration ran. between 62% and 82% between 21.
11:52
11:52
11:52
Paul Kohler
-
-
Paul Kohler
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Build trust with support providers or access legal advice. Given the complexity of many cases and the evidential. requirements often associated with conclusive grounds, decisions including the need for medical or mental health assessment reports, many. individuals may find it difficult to obtain and submit the the necessary evidence within such a short time frame made even shorter. I believe there will also be impacts on wider.
survivors and wider. society . with risks. particularly in terms of increasing.
survivors and wider. society . with risks. particularly in terms of increasing.
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
May be rushed. We may see. political or. administrative pressure in future on decision makers to to rush. processes to make sure that the decisions are made more quickly so that support can be withdrawn. And I think the overturning data is very instructive on this point. And I agree that the quality of. decisions made. means more matters more than speed. So I believe this clause is very, very risky in terms of its potential to do harm. If the clause is retained, a proposal we have received in written evidence from the Immigration Law Practitioners. Association suggests that rather than a cliff edge, a further short 30 day period of support should be provided.
There is no amendment to that effect, but I would like to ask the minister whether she really intends people to receive literally nothing risking homelessness, risking.
There is no amendment to that effect, but I would like to ask the minister whether she really intends people to receive literally nothing risking homelessness, risking.
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you very much, and I appreciate all the. contributions honourable members have made. As I've made clear, this government is committed to ensuring that the modern slavery national referral mechanism operates efficiently and effectively. Clause 37 is an important part of this. It will remove inefficiencies and allow for support to be targeted to those who are recognised as victims, rather than having an arbitrary period to wait. When we. conclusively have identified an individual is not a victim. As I am sure honourable members would agree, support should be removed in a recovery period where there is sufficient evidence to conclude an individual is not a victim of modern.
11:52
11:52
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
And I respond at this point to some of the points colleagues have made, and I think it's important. I've heard language talking about people who've had conclusive grounds that they are not a victim of slavery. Described as survivors, the conclusive grounds is that they are not a victim of modern slavery, and therefore they are not considered to have recovery needs stemming from modern slavery. It stands to reason those individuals should not be entitled to the recovery period or modern slavery specific support, nor would they need them. Someone who does not receive a negative, conclusive grounds decision in the recovery period, those protections will continue for the duration of the 30 days, or until such time as the conclusive grounds decision is made during the recovery period, where there are still reasonable grounds to.
suspect that a person is a victim of modern slavery. Protection from removal and entitlement to support will be ongoing. The recovery period itself is not being reduced. The new provision merely makes clear that where there is sufficient evidence to warrant making a negative. conclusive grounds. decision during that time, doing so ends the recovery period. Just to pick up on some of the issues, colleagues have raised, the quality of decision making has been flagged from a number of members opposite, but we are talking about highly trained staff here and negative , conclusive grounds decisions. Always have a second pair of eyes checked.
They have quality assurance. They have effective decision making.
suspect that a person is a victim of modern slavery. Protection from removal and entitlement to support will be ongoing. The recovery period itself is not being reduced. The new provision merely makes clear that where there is sufficient evidence to warrant making a negative. conclusive grounds. decision during that time, doing so ends the recovery period. Just to pick up on some of the issues, colleagues have raised, the quality of decision making has been flagged from a number of members opposite, but we are talking about highly trained staff here and negative , conclusive grounds decisions. Always have a second pair of eyes checked.
They have quality assurance. They have effective decision making.
11:52
11:52
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Of the. 17,560 negative decision makings, only. 1467 were accepted for reconsideration. But changing the outcome does not mean the original decision was incorrect. In most cases, additional information was provided, which was not originally available. So that's not an issue of quality of decision making. The honourable Lady for Brighton Pavilion asked about whether this would mean a cliff edge and people exiting support immediately, the decision to exit someone from support takes into account the particular circumstances of the individual. As is the case now, when an individual receives a negative conclusive grounds decision, this ends their support and protection entitlements.
A negative conclusive ground decision means that the individual is not deemed to be a victim of modern slavery, and therefore they should not be entitled to the recovery period or the national referral mechanism. Specific support because they do not have recovery needs. Where a victim is being supported by the modern slavery care.
A negative conclusive ground decision means that the individual is not deemed to be a victim of modern slavery, and therefore they should not be entitled to the recovery period or the national referral mechanism. Specific support because they do not have recovery needs. Where a victim is being supported by the modern slavery care.
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
The honourable lady also asked about potential knock on effects and costs to local authorities, homelessness and safeguarding services and so on. This measure does not change the threshold for conclusive grounds decision, nor does it change the move on arrangements that apply following a negative conclusive grounds decision. The measure applies in cases where an individual has been assessed and confirmed not to be a victim of modern slavery, as is the case now, a negative conclusive grounds decision means that the individual is not deemed to be a victim of slavery, and therefore they should not be entitled to the recovery period or the NRM specific support because they do not have recovery needs.
Nonetheless, where a victim is being supported by the Modern slavery victim care.
Nonetheless, where a victim is being supported by the Modern slavery victim care.
11:52
11:52
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
When they receive a negative, conclusive grounds, as I've said, they will have a 14 day move on period to ensure there is no cliff edge. The government has not identified evidence that this measure will result in significant additional burdens across public services. The honourable gentleman opposite asked how this change will impact national referral mechanisms.
11:52
11:52
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
For potential victims. This provision does not change the support model, available potential and confirmed adult victims of modern slavery, where individuals receive a negative conclusive grounds decision, their support and protection entitlements will end, as is the case now. The provision means simply that a conclusive grounds decision can be made earlier than 30 days, where decision makers have sufficient evidence to issue a conclusive grounds decision within the recovery period. A negative conclusive grounds decision means the individual is deemed not to be victim of modern slavery, therefore, should not be entitled to the recovery period or the specific support because they would not have recovery needs, as is the case now.
If a victim is being supported by the care contract and not in immigration.
If a victim is being supported by the care contract and not in immigration.
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Amendment 114. Thank you very much. I'm on. Slavery system is generous in the rights and protections it provides to those who require them to to. recover from this abhorrent crime. And this government remains committed to ensuring those protections are available for those for whom they are attended. It is right, and indeed, within our international obligations, that the government can also deny modern slavery. protections to those who pose a threat to public order or seek to misuse the system through dishonest claims, those made in bad faith. However, there have been long standing challenges in the practical operation of the current.
11:52
11:52
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Including in cases involving foreign national offenders. The current. disqualification framework does not always provide sufficient clarity as to when. disqualification should apply and what the consequences of that decision are, or when a claim should be treated as having been made in bad faith. These ambiguities have created operational.
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
While maintaining appropriate safeguards for children and those at risk of retrafficking. Firstly, it expands the grounds on which a person can be. disqualified based on the national security or public order threat that they pose to include suspended. sentences reflecting the changes made in the Sentencing Act. Secondly, it clarifies the. consequences that follow a decision to.
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
In the UK, the national security or public order disqualification will not apply. This is a necessary and targeted. safeguard that provides clarity for decision makers, potential victims and. professionals and balances the need to protect people at significant risk with their duty to disqualify. This exemption ensures that where there is a direct risk of someone being exploited or exploited again in the UK, they retain access to NRM support and protection. Clause 38, combined with amendment. 115 . , also introduces a specific targeted exemption from. disqualification for all children on public order grounds, while maintaining the. disqualification where the national security criteria are met to ensure the acute vulnerabilities of children are appropriately recognised.
Importantly, the clause also separates bad faith from public order and, for the first time in statute, defines. circumstances in which a claim is to be treated as having made been made in bad faith. This includes claims based on falsified. documents or claims made only after removal action is. commenced without compelling.
Importantly, the clause also separates bad faith from public order and, for the first time in statute, defines. circumstances in which a claim is to be treated as having made been made in bad faith. This includes claims based on falsified. documents or claims made only after removal action is. commenced without compelling.
11:52
11:52
11:52
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Helping to ensure that the modern slavery system safeguards the public interest and commands public. confidence and strengthens the government's ability to respond. Where individuals pose a threat to public order or seek to misuse the system. This clause therefore addresses existing uncertainty that underpins the current. disqualification framework, strengthens and clarifies the. circumstances in which disqualification will apply, embeds more appropriate. safeguards and ultimately supports a more effective modern slavery system. Turning now to government amendments. 115 as mentioned, it ensures that all children are treated equally under the Public Order. Disqualification Act, clause. 38 with amendment 114 consequential to this.
Presently, clause 38 exempts children with leave to remain or right of abode in the UK from. disqualification based on public order threat based on. criminality amendments 114 and 115 recognise the vulnerabilities of all children and make an important change to ensure that all children under the age of 18 are treated. consistently and therefore affords the same exemption from the public order disqualification on criminality grounds to all children, regardless of their immigration status. These amendments do not affect. disqualification on national security grounds for which all children remain in scope. I hope members will agree that this is a sensible and proportionate amendment which ensures the public order.
Presently, clause 38 exempts children with leave to remain or right of abode in the UK from. disqualification based on public order threat based on. criminality amendments 114 and 115 recognise the vulnerabilities of all children and make an important change to ensure that all children under the age of 18 are treated. consistently and therefore affords the same exemption from the public order disqualification on criminality grounds to all children, regardless of their immigration status. These amendments do not affect. disqualification on national security grounds for which all children remain in scope. I hope members will agree that this is a sensible and proportionate amendment which ensures the public order.
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
In section 53 of the 2022 act. This creates a clearer distinction between a. disqualification decision and a temporary permission to stay decision under section 65 of the same act, the latter of which can only be considered after a positive, conclusive grounds decision has been made. Importantly, section 65 already makes clear the circumstances in which the duty to grant permission to stay does not apply, including where public order, national security or bad faith concerns arise. These amendments therefore, improve the clarity and consistency of the. legislation without changing the underlying policy intent. I beg to move that government amendments .
11:52
11:52
11:52
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Amendment paper, the question is that the amendment be made. Shadow Minister, a modern slavery claim must never become a get out of jail free card for someone who threatens our national. security or is deliberately abusing our immigration system. Clause 38 deals with. disqualification from. protection on grounds of national.
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
The now former prime minister said our modern slavery measures would drive a coach and horses through protections. Labour then kept those measures in government and now they're adding to them. We welcome this. What the committee needs to understand is exactly who is caught, which protections fall away, and how these .
11:52
11:52
11:52
13:59
13:59
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
Good afternoon, and it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Twigg. As we read the amended clause, the national security ground still applies regardless of age. Now the grateful. If the Minister could confirm that where a child has been groomed and exploited into offending, that must be properly weighed. But the public will also expect serious offending by under-age teams to be dealt with. So the Minister should tell us what assessment has been made of. The case is affected and how the safeguarding, criminal justice and security systems will handle that. The bad faith provisions apply to claims made as an adult, including where someone knowingly provides false information or makes a claim when their removal is due.
We all know the pattern. The claim that appears at the 11th hour just as the flight is booked. The Home Office's own figures show the scale of it. Last year, around a third of charter flights returns that failed to go ahead involved a modern slavery referral, made after after the return had been arranged and on flights with an out of hours decision service. Three quarters of those referrals were made between 3 p.m. the day before and 6 a.m. on the day of removal, with 1 in 7 made after 11 p.m.. Members can draw their own conclusions about what that pattern tells us.
The clause contains exceptions to the timing rule, where someone met a claim notice deadline, or had compelling reasons for not claiming earlier. Those exceptions have their place, but compelling reasons has to mean something. It cannot become a catch all for explaining away every claim made at the departure gate. I would welcome the Minister giving the committee examples of what would and would not meet that test, and telling us who will make that judgement. At the same time, a late claim and a knowingly fabricated one are not the same thing. Decisions need clear reasons if they are to survive a challenge.
Otherwise, an attempt to tackle delayed just produces another round of litigation. Government amendments 116 and 117. Take the provisions on leave out of the disqualification sections and amendment 118 deals with leave in section 65 itself, covering national security, adult public order cases and bad faith claims made as an adult. We accept that restructuring, but the decisions on protection and on leave must join up, and the minister should set out how existing grants of leave will be reviewed and how revocation decisions will be made. Where the law allows and disqualification is not removal. The point I made on clause 37 applies here in full.
Once a disqualification decision is made, the case must not fall into the gap between two processes. These measures are a step in the right direction and we support clause 38 and the government amendments. We look to the Minister to ensure that the amended clause will work in practice.
We all know the pattern. The claim that appears at the 11th hour just as the flight is booked. The Home Office's own figures show the scale of it. Last year, around a third of charter flights returns that failed to go ahead involved a modern slavery referral, made after after the return had been arranged and on flights with an out of hours decision service. Three quarters of those referrals were made between 3 p.m. the day before and 6 a.m. on the day of removal, with 1 in 7 made after 11 p.m.. Members can draw their own conclusions about what that pattern tells us.
The clause contains exceptions to the timing rule, where someone met a claim notice deadline, or had compelling reasons for not claiming earlier. Those exceptions have their place, but compelling reasons has to mean something. It cannot become a catch all for explaining away every claim made at the departure gate. I would welcome the Minister giving the committee examples of what would and would not meet that test, and telling us who will make that judgement. At the same time, a late claim and a knowingly fabricated one are not the same thing. Decisions need clear reasons if they are to survive a challenge.
Otherwise, an attempt to tackle delayed just produces another round of litigation. Government amendments 116 and 117. Take the provisions on leave out of the disqualification sections and amendment 118 deals with leave in section 65 itself, covering national security, adult public order cases and bad faith claims made as an adult. We accept that restructuring, but the decisions on protection and on leave must join up, and the minister should set out how existing grants of leave will be reviewed and how revocation decisions will be made. Where the law allows and disqualification is not removal. The point I made on clause 37 applies here in full.
Once a disqualification decision is made, the case must not fall into the gap between two processes. These measures are a step in the right direction and we support clause 38 and the government amendments. We look to the Minister to ensure that the amended clause will work in practice.
14:03
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Many thanks, chair. Just very briefly, I wish to speak again. 38. This is because the public order disqualification, in a way, has been applied so far, has exacerbated ongoing systemic issues arising from failures in identification and safeguards within the criminal justice system. Available evidence shows that this provision has disproportionately affected individuals subject to criminal exploitation. As we have heard in previous clauses, many survivors of criminal exploitation are forced to commit offences as part of their exploitation and are often prosecuted for these crimes as a result of gaps in the application of the non punishment principle in the UK, including section 45 defence.
Those who have criminal convictions are at heightened. Risk of exploitation to the criminalisation of survivors has been used time and time again as a tool to control and keep people in exploitation. And so this clause, I believe, is an unnecessary extension of existing harms and should be dropped.
Those who have criminal convictions are at heightened. Risk of exploitation to the criminalisation of survivors has been used time and time again as a tool to control and keep people in exploitation. And so this clause, I believe, is an unnecessary extension of existing harms and should be dropped.
14:04
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you very much, Mr. Twig, and it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today. I'd like to thank colleagues for their contributions on the discussion on clause 38, clause 38 strengthens and clarifies the public, public order and bad faith disqualification frameworks due to long standing challenges in their practical operation, especially in cases involving foreign national offenders. It expands the grounds on which an individual can be disqualified if they pose a threat to national security or public order, by including suspended sentences to reflect the changes in the Sentencing Act. And it provides clarity in statute as to what is meant by bad faith, ensuring that those who seek to misuse the system with false and fabricated claims, or by raising information for the first time only after removal directions have been set, can be disqualified, ensuring that they are not able to take advantage of the generosity of our system.
It also makes clear that no further modern slavery decision making is required should someone become disqualified. And finally, it exempts child victims from disqualification on public order grounds and makes the exemption for all victims where there is a risk of retrafficking clear. This will provide a more consistent and robust approach to disqualification decisions and strengthen the government's ability to respond. Where individuals pose a threat to public order or seek to misuse the system. I just wanted to respond to a couple of the points honourable members have made in this debate. The Honourable Gentleman for His Majesty's Opposition asked about some case studies or examples of when this would be implemented, and I wanted to just to give him an example here.
So say individual C is convicted and receives an 11 month custodial sentence, for example, for common assault or battery or breach of a restraining order which is not covered by public order disqualification. Therefore, when they raise modern slavery grounds, these are considered by the national referral mechanism and where they are a victim, the individual would proceed through the decision making stages, gaining protection from removal, access to support and on to a conclusive grounds determination and where they have ongoing needs and no right to remain a temporary permission to stay consideration under the new system, even when they are a modern slavery victim, a foreign national offender who has received any custodial sentence, including a suspended sentence, will fall within the scope of public order disqualification.
Where the disqualification is applied, they will be qualified, sorry, they will be disqualified from support and no further decision making on modern slavery will take place unless an immediate and significant risk of retrafficking in the UK is identified. This means they will not receive a conclusive grounds decision and will not therefore be eligible for temporary permission to stay. British nationals are subject to a different threshold. They will be disqualified on the basis of a public order threat where they have committed one of the crimes set out in section four to the Modern Slavery Act. The hon.
Gentleman also asked about whether children are still sorry. Why are children are still a scope of the national security disqualification. And it's right that we can withhold modern slavery protections where an individual poses a threat to national security, and that principle should apply regardless of age. Retaining the power to disqualify a child on national security grounds exists solely as a backstop for the rare circumstances in which an individual under 18 poses a significantly serious national security threat, that disqualification from the national referral mechanism is appropriate. The exception to disqualification, where there is a risk of retrafficking in the UK, will still apply to require decision makers to consider the facts of each case.
This approach is intended to strike an appropriate balance between safeguarding children and ensuring that national security considerations are prioritised where necessary. In parallel to the UK's modern slavery response, the UK has one of the most robust counter-terrorism frameworks in the world. Prevent is one of the four pillars of the UK's counter-terrorism strategy. It operates in the non-criminal space and is designed to support people away from radicalisation before they commit an offence. The Home Office is testing new approaches to better spot and refer individuals at risk of radicalisation, radicalisation online and how these insights can be translated into timely, proportionate interventions.
This is particularly important considering the rise in children being arrested for terrorism related activity, much of which is carried out online. And the Honourable Lady for Brighton Pavilion asked about ensuring people who are exploited in criminal activity won't be unduly penalised for exploitation that they've suffered. And I think it's really important that the criminal justice system contains safeguards against penalising victims of exploitation, including under section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. This provides a defence in criminal proceedings for people who have been forced or compelled to commit crimes through slavery, slavery or exploitation. Clause 38 also expressly sets out that disqualification will not apply, where the person is considered to be an immediate and significant risk of exploitation in the UK.
So, for the reasons I hope , I've responded to all of the questions and clarifications for honourable members here today. So I beg to move Mr. Twigg the amendments 118, 118 and clause 38 stand part of the bill.
It also makes clear that no further modern slavery decision making is required should someone become disqualified. And finally, it exempts child victims from disqualification on public order grounds and makes the exemption for all victims where there is a risk of retrafficking clear. This will provide a more consistent and robust approach to disqualification decisions and strengthen the government's ability to respond. Where individuals pose a threat to public order or seek to misuse the system. I just wanted to respond to a couple of the points honourable members have made in this debate. The Honourable Gentleman for His Majesty's Opposition asked about some case studies or examples of when this would be implemented, and I wanted to just to give him an example here.
So say individual C is convicted and receives an 11 month custodial sentence, for example, for common assault or battery or breach of a restraining order which is not covered by public order disqualification. Therefore, when they raise modern slavery grounds, these are considered by the national referral mechanism and where they are a victim, the individual would proceed through the decision making stages, gaining protection from removal, access to support and on to a conclusive grounds determination and where they have ongoing needs and no right to remain a temporary permission to stay consideration under the new system, even when they are a modern slavery victim, a foreign national offender who has received any custodial sentence, including a suspended sentence, will fall within the scope of public order disqualification.
Where the disqualification is applied, they will be qualified, sorry, they will be disqualified from support and no further decision making on modern slavery will take place unless an immediate and significant risk of retrafficking in the UK is identified. This means they will not receive a conclusive grounds decision and will not therefore be eligible for temporary permission to stay. British nationals are subject to a different threshold. They will be disqualified on the basis of a public order threat where they have committed one of the crimes set out in section four to the Modern Slavery Act. The hon.
Gentleman also asked about whether children are still sorry. Why are children are still a scope of the national security disqualification. And it's right that we can withhold modern slavery protections where an individual poses a threat to national security, and that principle should apply regardless of age. Retaining the power to disqualify a child on national security grounds exists solely as a backstop for the rare circumstances in which an individual under 18 poses a significantly serious national security threat, that disqualification from the national referral mechanism is appropriate. The exception to disqualification, where there is a risk of retrafficking in the UK, will still apply to require decision makers to consider the facts of each case.
This approach is intended to strike an appropriate balance between safeguarding children and ensuring that national security considerations are prioritised where necessary. In parallel to the UK's modern slavery response, the UK has one of the most robust counter-terrorism frameworks in the world. Prevent is one of the four pillars of the UK's counter-terrorism strategy. It operates in the non-criminal space and is designed to support people away from radicalisation before they commit an offence. The Home Office is testing new approaches to better spot and refer individuals at risk of radicalisation, radicalisation online and how these insights can be translated into timely, proportionate interventions.
This is particularly important considering the rise in children being arrested for terrorism related activity, much of which is carried out online. And the Honourable Lady for Brighton Pavilion asked about ensuring people who are exploited in criminal activity won't be unduly penalised for exploitation that they've suffered. And I think it's really important that the criminal justice system contains safeguards against penalising victims of exploitation, including under section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. This provides a defence in criminal proceedings for people who have been forced or compelled to commit crimes through slavery, slavery or exploitation. Clause 38 also expressly sets out that disqualification will not apply, where the person is considered to be an immediate and significant risk of exploitation in the UK.
So, for the reasons I hope , I've responded to all of the questions and clarifications for honourable members here today. So I beg to move Mr. Twigg the amendments 118, 118 and clause 38 stand part of the bill.
14:09
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Amendments 14 clause 38 as on the amendment paper, the question is the amendment be made? I made that opinion, say I, I, I can't, you know, think the ayes have it. The eyes have it. We now come to government amendment 115 to clause 38, which has already been debated. We believe the committee. I shall put a single question on amendments one one 5 to 1 one eight which have already been debated. Minister to formally, formally. The question is that amendments one one 5 to 1 one eight be made as many of that opinion say I of the contrary?
No. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to the question clause 38, as amended, stand part of the bill, which has already been debated. The question is that clause 38, as amended, stand part of the Bill, as many of that opinion say, I. On the contrary, no. The eyes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to Group 32 and amendment 119 to clause 39, with which it will be convenient to consider.
Clause 39 stand part and clause 29. I call the Minister to move. Amendment 119.
No. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to the question clause 38, as amended, stand part of the bill, which has already been debated. The question is that clause 38, as amended, stand part of the Bill, as many of that opinion say, I. On the contrary, no. The eyes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to Group 32 and amendment 119 to clause 39, with which it will be convenient to consider.
Clause 39 stand part and clause 29. I call the Minister to move. Amendment 119.
14:10
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you very much, Mr. Twigg. Through this bill, the government is seeking to simplify and clarify protection and leave routes while ensuring fairness and public confidence in the system. The modern slavery system and the associated temporary permission to stay provision are not intended to be a broad route to immigration status for victims of modern slavery. Instead, the UK offers comprehensive protection and leave routes for individuals who would otherwise be at risk upon return, or who need to remain in the UK for broader reasons. The modern slavery specific provision is intended for very particular purposes. Which clause 39 seeks to clarify.
This clause will end the provision of a specific form of modern slavery. Leave to remain in the UK to assist victims in their recovery from physical or psychological harm arising from their exploitation. The government's view is that granting temporary permission to stay on recovery grounds goes beyond what is necessary to meet our international obligations, and we simply need to restore the right balance to the system. Temporary permission to stay will remain available for victims who need to remain in the UK to seek compensation, or to support police investigations to bring perpetrators to justice. I want to be extremely clear up front that this government remains absolutely committed to supporting victims of modern slavery.
This change does not alter the support entitlements for victims while they are in the UK. Access to modern slavery support in the UK is not dependent on the grant of temporary permission to stay. This government provides a comprehensive support package whilst individuals are in the UK. Confirmed adult victims will continue to access specialist support where they have ongoing needs through the Adult Victim Support contract and wider state services. Confirmed child victims will continue to receive statutory safeguarding support via local authorities, healthcare and the independent Child Trafficking Guardian Service, both currently and following this change. Individuals not granted temporary permission to stay will continue to have access to other routes to remain in the UK, depending on their circumstances.
Any applications will be considered on their individual merits in line with published policy. For example, permission to stay may be available to a victim of modern slavery who entered the UK as an overseas domestic worker, domestic worker in a private household or as a private servant in a diplomatic household. The change to temporary permission to stay will not alter that. An individual's immigration status and assessment of risk upon return is considered if an individual makes a protection claim. This includes an assessment of serious harm and consideration of risk of retrafficking, and reflects risks of success of specific exploiters, wider vulnerabilities of the individual to retrafficking, and the ability of the return country to protect that individual.
Any claim will be considered on its individual merits. Clause 39 will therefore create a clearer and more coherent temporary permission to stay framework, while maintaining support for victims and preserving the appropriate immigration and protection routes for those who qualify. Amendment 109 is a technical change that clarifies the eligibility criteria for individuals to be considered for temporary permission to stay. It makes clear that individuals who already hold valid leave to enter, leave to remain, or a right of abode in the United Kingdom are not eligible for temporary permission to stay. The change relates only to eligibility for temporary permission to stay.
It does not change the grounds for granting temporary permission to stay, nor the entitlements available to those granted the leave. As I have already made clear, this change does not impact support entitlements. Victims will still have access to support provided through the National Referral Mechanism while they remain in the UK. A grant of temporary permission to stay is not needed to access support. I ask that the committee support the government's amendment. Sorry, I haven't finished. Beg your pardon? Very importantly, turning now to New clause 29. In the name of the hon. Lady for Brighton Pavilion, which I'll respond to more in full once the hon.
Lady has moved it. This clause would require the Secretary of State to grant all eligible confirmed victims of modern slavery at least five years leave to remain with a route towards settlement. While I appreciate the intention behind the amendment, temporary permission to stay was never intended to be a general immigration route or a pathway towards settlement to meet the UK's international obligations under the Refugee Convention. The amendment goes far beyond what is proportionately reasonable in these circumstances. I look forward to the arguments the honourable member will set out for her clause, and I beg to move that government amendment 119 and clause 39 stand part of the Bill.
This clause will end the provision of a specific form of modern slavery. Leave to remain in the UK to assist victims in their recovery from physical or psychological harm arising from their exploitation. The government's view is that granting temporary permission to stay on recovery grounds goes beyond what is necessary to meet our international obligations, and we simply need to restore the right balance to the system. Temporary permission to stay will remain available for victims who need to remain in the UK to seek compensation, or to support police investigations to bring perpetrators to justice. I want to be extremely clear up front that this government remains absolutely committed to supporting victims of modern slavery.
This change does not alter the support entitlements for victims while they are in the UK. Access to modern slavery support in the UK is not dependent on the grant of temporary permission to stay. This government provides a comprehensive support package whilst individuals are in the UK. Confirmed adult victims will continue to access specialist support where they have ongoing needs through the Adult Victim Support contract and wider state services. Confirmed child victims will continue to receive statutory safeguarding support via local authorities, healthcare and the independent Child Trafficking Guardian Service, both currently and following this change. Individuals not granted temporary permission to stay will continue to have access to other routes to remain in the UK, depending on their circumstances.
Any applications will be considered on their individual merits in line with published policy. For example, permission to stay may be available to a victim of modern slavery who entered the UK as an overseas domestic worker, domestic worker in a private household or as a private servant in a diplomatic household. The change to temporary permission to stay will not alter that. An individual's immigration status and assessment of risk upon return is considered if an individual makes a protection claim. This includes an assessment of serious harm and consideration of risk of retrafficking, and reflects risks of success of specific exploiters, wider vulnerabilities of the individual to retrafficking, and the ability of the return country to protect that individual.
Any claim will be considered on its individual merits. Clause 39 will therefore create a clearer and more coherent temporary permission to stay framework, while maintaining support for victims and preserving the appropriate immigration and protection routes for those who qualify. Amendment 109 is a technical change that clarifies the eligibility criteria for individuals to be considered for temporary permission to stay. It makes clear that individuals who already hold valid leave to enter, leave to remain, or a right of abode in the United Kingdom are not eligible for temporary permission to stay. The change relates only to eligibility for temporary permission to stay.
It does not change the grounds for granting temporary permission to stay, nor the entitlements available to those granted the leave. As I have already made clear, this change does not impact support entitlements. Victims will still have access to support provided through the National Referral Mechanism while they remain in the UK. A grant of temporary permission to stay is not needed to access support. I ask that the committee support the government's amendment. Sorry, I haven't finished. Beg your pardon? Very importantly, turning now to New clause 29. In the name of the hon. Lady for Brighton Pavilion, which I'll respond to more in full once the hon.
Lady has moved it. This clause would require the Secretary of State to grant all eligible confirmed victims of modern slavery at least five years leave to remain with a route towards settlement. While I appreciate the intention behind the amendment, temporary permission to stay was never intended to be a general immigration route or a pathway towards settlement to meet the UK's international obligations under the Refugee Convention. The amendment goes far beyond what is proportionately reasonable in these circumstances. I look forward to the arguments the honourable member will set out for her clause, and I beg to move that government amendment 119 and clause 39 stand part of the Bill.
14:14
14:14
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thanks, chair. So I speak essentially essentially to leave out clause 39 and replace it with my new clause 29, which is intended to be a replacement for that clause. My new clause is a redrafted version of clause 19 and would, if that clause is omitted, give limited leave to remain to all victims of slavery or human trafficking and prevent such leave being withheld. If the Secretary of State believes a victims needs can be met elsewhere. Clause 39 currently removes the Secretary of State's duty to grant temporary permission to stay for the purpose of assisting survivors in their recovery from any physical or psychological harm arising from their exploitation.
This is currently the most common reason for granting leave to remain of this kind. 96% of those granted leave to remain as victims of trafficking in 2024 were given it for recovery purposes. However, grants of leave continue to be low and usually for very short periods, leaving survivors at risk. Clearly, removing this duty altogether will reduce grants further and cause harm. Forcibly returning more survivors of trafficking to their countries of origin does risk disrupting existing therapy and support, leaving them unable to obtain specialist care and putting them at further risk on return, including of re trafficking.
And we must remember the purpose of survivors securing limited leave now and long term immigration immigration status as I propose it. This provides victims with the security necessary to engage meaningfully with recovery, protection and support processes, and to rebuild their lives free from the influence of traffickers. This is the essence of our obligations under international agreements. Insecure immigration status is a well recognised vulnerability factor that perpetrators frequently exploit to facilitate and maintain survivors in exploitation, using the threat of immigration enforcement, detention or removal as a means of control. So, as my amendment sets out, granting a 60 month residence permit with a pathway to settlement is therefore an essential safeguard both in addressing these vulnerabilities, freeing people from exploitation, bringing perpetrators to justice, and in providing meaningful protection and support to victims while supporting their reintegration into society and rebuilding their independence.
And it is so important for so many survivors to have this alternative route to leave, to remain. The minister has talked about other options that people might have within the immigration system, but we do know that there are examples of migrant victims of human trafficking and modern slavery who still have a valid skilled worker visa, who have been denied leave on those grounds. This meant that those victims could be tied to their exploiters due to their visas, including those cooperating with the authorities to prosecute their exploiters. Following a legal challenge in August 2026, the Home Office did concede that discretion can be exercised when considering whether or not to grant leave to someone with a valid skilled worker visa.
But from what I've heard from the minister today, this seems to be something that is going backwards as a result of this clause. We know now that this concession is only applied on a discretionary basis. It's therefore susceptible to a range of variables and the need for a duty to grant long term leave to recognise victims, I think, remains critical to make sure that we are providing the recovery, protection and support for survivors that we need to, and preventing trafficking and modern slavery going further. It's also important to note that the government, as well as providing no rationale for this scrapping of leave, the government hasn't provided any data showing how many survivors of trafficking are granted leave by other routes.
And therefore, I think if the government should press if the government does press ahead with this, they should provide further evidence and much more detail of how these rights will still be protected under this clause.
This is currently the most common reason for granting leave to remain of this kind. 96% of those granted leave to remain as victims of trafficking in 2024 were given it for recovery purposes. However, grants of leave continue to be low and usually for very short periods, leaving survivors at risk. Clearly, removing this duty altogether will reduce grants further and cause harm. Forcibly returning more survivors of trafficking to their countries of origin does risk disrupting existing therapy and support, leaving them unable to obtain specialist care and putting them at further risk on return, including of re trafficking.
And we must remember the purpose of survivors securing limited leave now and long term immigration immigration status as I propose it. This provides victims with the security necessary to engage meaningfully with recovery, protection and support processes, and to rebuild their lives free from the influence of traffickers. This is the essence of our obligations under international agreements. Insecure immigration status is a well recognised vulnerability factor that perpetrators frequently exploit to facilitate and maintain survivors in exploitation, using the threat of immigration enforcement, detention or removal as a means of control. So, as my amendment sets out, granting a 60 month residence permit with a pathway to settlement is therefore an essential safeguard both in addressing these vulnerabilities, freeing people from exploitation, bringing perpetrators to justice, and in providing meaningful protection and support to victims while supporting their reintegration into society and rebuilding their independence.
And it is so important for so many survivors to have this alternative route to leave, to remain. The minister has talked about other options that people might have within the immigration system, but we do know that there are examples of migrant victims of human trafficking and modern slavery who still have a valid skilled worker visa, who have been denied leave on those grounds. This meant that those victims could be tied to their exploiters due to their visas, including those cooperating with the authorities to prosecute their exploiters. Following a legal challenge in August 2026, the Home Office did concede that discretion can be exercised when considering whether or not to grant leave to someone with a valid skilled worker visa.
But from what I've heard from the minister today, this seems to be something that is going backwards as a result of this clause. We know now that this concession is only applied on a discretionary basis. It's therefore susceptible to a range of variables and the need for a duty to grant long term leave to recognise victims, I think, remains critical to make sure that we are providing the recovery, protection and support for survivors that we need to, and preventing trafficking and modern slavery going further. It's also important to note that the government, as well as providing no rationale for this scrapping of leave, the government hasn't provided any data showing how many survivors of trafficking are granted leave by other routes.
And therefore, I think if the government should press if the government does press ahead with this, they should provide further evidence and much more detail of how these rights will still be protected under this clause.
14:22
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
Thank you. Supporting the victim of modern slavery and deciding what immigration permission . That person should have a related questions, but they're not the same question. The law must protect people who have been exploited while keeping an immigration system that is controlled, and that the public can have confidence in. Clause 39 removes the specific duty to grant limited leave to help someone recover from physical or psychological harm caused by their exploitation. It keeps the duty where leave is needed for a victim to seek compensation or to cooperate with an investigation or criminal proceedings. So whatever some may claim, this is not the removal of every route by which a confirmed victim can receive leave.
The opposition support keeping this route focused on a specific evidence need. A finding that someone has been exploited does not answer every question about where they should live or for how long. But the minister needs to tell us how this will work for a genuine victim who still needs help, and how continuity of recovery support will be ensured. There is a bigger point here to the ground that the grounds that remain are the ones that matter most for bringing traffickers to justice. Yet, according to the figures charities have put before this committee, in 2024, only a handful of grants were made so that victims could seek compensation or help with criminal proceedings.
A prosecution that collapses because the key witness has left the country is a win for the trafficker, and nobody in this room wants that. So I would be grateful if the minister could tell us how the Home Office will make sure these remaining grounds are actually used, and that its decisions never undermine a victim's ability to help put an exploiter behind bars. Government amendment 119 adds existing leave to enter and the right of abode to the circumstances in which there is no duty to grant leave under this provision. Avoiding duplication makes sense and we support it.
New clause 29 goes in a very different direction. It would require at least five years leave for qualifying confirmed victims, with access to public funds and permission to work and eligibility for settlement after five years residence with any form of leave, there is a very substantial immigration proposal. It would send exactly the wrong signal to the gangs who sell places on small boats, and we oppose it. Being recognised as a victim is a serious finding, but it should not automatically settle the separate question of a long period of residence, access to public funds and a route to settlement.
Those who back the new clause need to explain why five years is the right minimum. In every single qualifying case, how many people it would cover and what it would cost in housing and public services, and why residents under any form of leave should count towards settlement. We support clause 39 and amendment 119 and hope the Minister will set out the safeguards that will sit alongside them.
The opposition support keeping this route focused on a specific evidence need. A finding that someone has been exploited does not answer every question about where they should live or for how long. But the minister needs to tell us how this will work for a genuine victim who still needs help, and how continuity of recovery support will be ensured. There is a bigger point here to the ground that the grounds that remain are the ones that matter most for bringing traffickers to justice. Yet, according to the figures charities have put before this committee, in 2024, only a handful of grants were made so that victims could seek compensation or help with criminal proceedings.
A prosecution that collapses because the key witness has left the country is a win for the trafficker, and nobody in this room wants that. So I would be grateful if the minister could tell us how the Home Office will make sure these remaining grounds are actually used, and that its decisions never undermine a victim's ability to help put an exploiter behind bars. Government amendment 119 adds existing leave to enter and the right of abode to the circumstances in which there is no duty to grant leave under this provision. Avoiding duplication makes sense and we support it.
New clause 29 goes in a very different direction. It would require at least five years leave for qualifying confirmed victims, with access to public funds and permission to work and eligibility for settlement after five years residence with any form of leave, there is a very substantial immigration proposal. It would send exactly the wrong signal to the gangs who sell places on small boats, and we oppose it. Being recognised as a victim is a serious finding, but it should not automatically settle the separate question of a long period of residence, access to public funds and a route to settlement.
Those who back the new clause need to explain why five years is the right minimum. In every single qualifying case, how many people it would cover and what it would cost in housing and public services, and why residents under any form of leave should count towards settlement. We support clause 39 and amendment 119 and hope the Minister will set out the safeguards that will sit alongside them.
14:28
14:28
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I thank all honourable members who have contributed to this group and laid their amendments, starting with the new clause 29. Moved by the honourable member for Brighton Pavilion. As set out earlier, the proposed amendment would grant all eligible confirmed victims of modern slavery at least five years leave to remain with a route towards settlement. I want to be clear that temporary permission to stay is a targeted and temporary form of leave, designed to meet specific needs arising from an individual's experience of exploitation, which meets the UK's international obligations under the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings.
Temporary permission to stay will continue to be available where it is necessary for a confirmed victim to remain in the UK to cooperate with law enforcement agencies in the investigation of crimes, or to seek compensation in relation to their exploitation. This amendment would require the government to grant leave, so I haven't even got to responding yet. I apologise this government would require. This amendment would require the government to grant leave in a way which would go beyond what is proportionate or reasonable, and which would significantly exceed what is required under our international obligations.
Temporary permission to stay will continue to be available where it is necessary for a confirmed victim to remain in the UK to cooperate with law enforcement agencies in the investigation of crimes, or to seek compensation in relation to their exploitation. This amendment would require the government to grant leave, so I haven't even got to responding yet. I apologise this government would require. This amendment would require the government to grant leave in a way which would go beyond what is proportionate or reasonable, and which would significantly exceed what is required under our international obligations.
14:30
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
The Minister for giving way, just in relation to the question within my speech around people who are here, not as not claiming asylum, but people who are here under other forms of immigration status. The minister does not see the the replacement of that, with leave being reduced as a result of this clause, because that is that is one of the things I wanted to raise as a problem, that when people are here under potentially coercive forms of leave, as in visas that are sponsored as work visas, will leave still be available as a replacement for that in order to prevent people being left in the in the in the hands of, of exploiters.
14:32
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I think I'm going to cover that in the more in depth response to the honourable lady's comments, if that's okay. So I will come to that at the appropriate time. As I said, the amendment will require the government to grant leave in a way which would go beyond what is proportionate or reasonable, and which would significantly exceed what is required under our international obligations. Where individuals require protection or are seeking to remain in the UK, other routes remain available depending on their individual circumstances, creating an automatic pathway to long term leave and settlement through modern slavery provisions would conflate the modern slavery identification and support system with an immigration route, and thus risks blurring that distinction.
This has the potential to increase opportunities for improper use of the system, and would have significant implications for wider immigration objectives, which, we have been clear must operate on the principles of fairness, and I hope to cover some of the points the honourable lady raised. If I fail to pick them up, please do come back to me or I can respond in writing, if not as well. So the honourable lady asked, I think particularly about the temporary permission to stay framework and whether it meets our international obligations. A decision to grant temporary permission to stay does not automatically lead to removal from the UK.
There are various routes to remain in the UK that will remain available to foreign nationals. Depending on their circumstances. Any applications will be considered on their individual merits in line with published policy. She also asked whether there were any further statistics that could be shared. Temporary permission to stay data is currently drawn from a number of different home office systems. Further work is underway to establish the most robust data set, and we're continuing to assess what information can be shared publicly and will provide further data in due course, where appropriate. The honourable lady also asked about the recovery from exploitation that victims are we by removing this?
Are we disadvantaged them? In this aspect, the measure does not prevent individuals from accessing support from the point of their positive, reasonable grounds decision or earlier if emergency support is required to assist with recovery from the exploitation. Access to the National referral mechanism support is based on national referral mechanism status, not immigration status. All adult victims in England and Wales who need to do so will be able to continue to access specialist needs based support to assist their recovery, irrespective of their immigration status or a refusal of temporary permission to stay. She also flagged whether these were compliant with international law.
It's absolutely the view of this government that this change to the temporary permission to stay policy does not impede our compliance with our international obligations. Temporary permission to stay in its current form goes beyond what is required under article 14 of the European Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings. These changes will provide stronger clarity on the UK's obligations whilst still complying with article 14. Article four of the European Convention on Human Rights imposes a positive obligation on Member states to identify and protect victims of trafficking, which is met in part through the operation of the National Referral Mechanism.
This obligation does not go so far as to require Member States to grant leave. In any event, support is not dependent on temporary permission to stay leave being granted so that even where an individual is not granted, temporary permission to stay, to stay, leave, they can still access modern slavery support while they remain in the UK. Further, an individual's immigration status and assessment of risk upon return is considered if an individual makes a protection claim. This includes an assessment of whether the individual has a well-founded fear of persecution or is at real risk of serious harm.
Any claim will be considered on its individual merits in line with published policy and country information. She also asked about skilled workers, which I wanted to respond to. As of October 2026, skilled workers who receive a positive, conclusive grounds decision where that decision was made during their most recent permission may have their visa amended for that remaining period of extended leave. Individuals will not need to be sponsored and can work in any occupation. The change supports skilled workers to leave exploitative employers and move to new, safe employment. In the Immigration White Paper, the government committed to explore introducing further reforms to our sponsorship system by putting more responsibility and accountability on effective and responsible sponsors.
This will include exploring whether the government can make it easier for workers to move between licensed sponsors for the duration of their visa, giving them more control over who they work for and reducing the risk of exploitation. Now, the honourable gentleman asked about whether this what this means for compensation and people's cooperation with the process. Under the changes, temporary permission to stay victims can continue to engage with law enforcement agencies in supporting with criminal investigations and pursue compensation in relation to their exploitation. By focusing temporary permission to stay on these specific purposes, the government can ensure that it remains available in supporting victims engagement with the criminal justice system and accessing compensation more broadly.
The government's strengthening the tools available to law enforcement and courts to disrupt criminal activity, prevent modern slavery and protect those at risk. And continuing on the the point about victim engagement with the criminal justice system, the Modern Slavery Victim Care contract provides adult victims in the National Referral Mechanism with dedicated. A dedicated support worker to assist them to access legal, aid and legal representation. This support will be further strengthened when the Modern Slavery Victim Care contract is replaced by the new support for victims of Modern Slavery service. The new contract introduces specialist support workers to support victims to better engage with the criminal justice system.
This will include, but is not limited to, providing, providing tailored guidance and advocacy to help victims understand complex legal processes, help remove barriers to access and receive the assistance they need at every point in the criminal justice process. Independent Child Trafficking Guardians, which we will discuss in more detail, explain criminal justice processes to children in accessible terms, help the child participate in relevant interviews or meetings, and facilitate access to qualified independent legal advice. The Victims Code also establishes the rights that all victims in England and Wales have, including the right to be referred to support services to be provided with information about compensation and to be given information about the trial, trial processes and their role as a witness.
So I think hopefully that's answered the questions raised by honourable members. I think the government's view is that the current policy goes above and beyond what is required by our international obligations. Furthermore, changes and challenges to the policy over time have resulted in a much broader and expansive provision. We are maintaining our commitment to ensure necessary support is available to victims, including those without immigration status, while they are in the UK and where eligible for it. We will continue to provide this leave where individuals need to remain in the UK to assist with investigations and prosecutions into modern slavery crimes, or to seek compensation in relation to their exploitation.
For these reasons, I ask the honourable member to withdraw her amendment and I also beg to move. Amendments 119 and clause 39 stand part of the bill.
This has the potential to increase opportunities for improper use of the system, and would have significant implications for wider immigration objectives, which, we have been clear must operate on the principles of fairness, and I hope to cover some of the points the honourable lady raised. If I fail to pick them up, please do come back to me or I can respond in writing, if not as well. So the honourable lady asked, I think particularly about the temporary permission to stay framework and whether it meets our international obligations. A decision to grant temporary permission to stay does not automatically lead to removal from the UK.
There are various routes to remain in the UK that will remain available to foreign nationals. Depending on their circumstances. Any applications will be considered on their individual merits in line with published policy. She also asked whether there were any further statistics that could be shared. Temporary permission to stay data is currently drawn from a number of different home office systems. Further work is underway to establish the most robust data set, and we're continuing to assess what information can be shared publicly and will provide further data in due course, where appropriate. The honourable lady also asked about the recovery from exploitation that victims are we by removing this?
Are we disadvantaged them? In this aspect, the measure does not prevent individuals from accessing support from the point of their positive, reasonable grounds decision or earlier if emergency support is required to assist with recovery from the exploitation. Access to the National referral mechanism support is based on national referral mechanism status, not immigration status. All adult victims in England and Wales who need to do so will be able to continue to access specialist needs based support to assist their recovery, irrespective of their immigration status or a refusal of temporary permission to stay. She also flagged whether these were compliant with international law.
It's absolutely the view of this government that this change to the temporary permission to stay policy does not impede our compliance with our international obligations. Temporary permission to stay in its current form goes beyond what is required under article 14 of the European Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings. These changes will provide stronger clarity on the UK's obligations whilst still complying with article 14. Article four of the European Convention on Human Rights imposes a positive obligation on Member states to identify and protect victims of trafficking, which is met in part through the operation of the National Referral Mechanism.
This obligation does not go so far as to require Member States to grant leave. In any event, support is not dependent on temporary permission to stay leave being granted so that even where an individual is not granted, temporary permission to stay, to stay, leave, they can still access modern slavery support while they remain in the UK. Further, an individual's immigration status and assessment of risk upon return is considered if an individual makes a protection claim. This includes an assessment of whether the individual has a well-founded fear of persecution or is at real risk of serious harm.
Any claim will be considered on its individual merits in line with published policy and country information. She also asked about skilled workers, which I wanted to respond to. As of October 2026, skilled workers who receive a positive, conclusive grounds decision where that decision was made during their most recent permission may have their visa amended for that remaining period of extended leave. Individuals will not need to be sponsored and can work in any occupation. The change supports skilled workers to leave exploitative employers and move to new, safe employment. In the Immigration White Paper, the government committed to explore introducing further reforms to our sponsorship system by putting more responsibility and accountability on effective and responsible sponsors.
This will include exploring whether the government can make it easier for workers to move between licensed sponsors for the duration of their visa, giving them more control over who they work for and reducing the risk of exploitation. Now, the honourable gentleman asked about whether this what this means for compensation and people's cooperation with the process. Under the changes, temporary permission to stay victims can continue to engage with law enforcement agencies in supporting with criminal investigations and pursue compensation in relation to their exploitation. By focusing temporary permission to stay on these specific purposes, the government can ensure that it remains available in supporting victims engagement with the criminal justice system and accessing compensation more broadly.
The government's strengthening the tools available to law enforcement and courts to disrupt criminal activity, prevent modern slavery and protect those at risk. And continuing on the the point about victim engagement with the criminal justice system, the Modern Slavery Victim Care contract provides adult victims in the National Referral Mechanism with dedicated. A dedicated support worker to assist them to access legal, aid and legal representation. This support will be further strengthened when the Modern Slavery Victim Care contract is replaced by the new support for victims of Modern Slavery service. The new contract introduces specialist support workers to support victims to better engage with the criminal justice system.
This will include, but is not limited to, providing, providing tailored guidance and advocacy to help victims understand complex legal processes, help remove barriers to access and receive the assistance they need at every point in the criminal justice process. Independent Child Trafficking Guardians, which we will discuss in more detail, explain criminal justice processes to children in accessible terms, help the child participate in relevant interviews or meetings, and facilitate access to qualified independent legal advice. The Victims Code also establishes the rights that all victims in England and Wales have, including the right to be referred to support services to be provided with information about compensation and to be given information about the trial, trial processes and their role as a witness.
So I think hopefully that's answered the questions raised by honourable members. I think the government's view is that the current policy goes above and beyond what is required by our international obligations. Furthermore, changes and challenges to the policy over time have resulted in a much broader and expansive provision. We are maintaining our commitment to ensure necessary support is available to victims, including those without immigration status, while they are in the UK and where eligible for it. We will continue to provide this leave where individuals need to remain in the UK to assist with investigations and prosecutions into modern slavery crimes, or to seek compensation in relation to their exploitation.
For these reasons, I ask the honourable member to withdraw her amendment and I also beg to move. Amendments 119 and clause 39 stand part of the bill.
14:46
14:46
14:46
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Government amendment 119 proposed clause 39. As on the amendment paper. The question is that amendment be made and many of that opinion say I. I don't really know. The ayes have it, the eyes of it. We now come to the question of clause 39, as amended, stand part of the bill, which has already been debated. The question is that clause 39 is amended. Stand part of the Bill. Many of that opinion say I, I on the contrary, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to Group 33. And the question that clause 40 stand part of the bill with which it will be convenient to consider.
Clauses 4142 stand part. The question is that clause 40 stand part of the bill. Minister.
Clauses 4142 stand part. The question is that clause 40 stand part of the bill. Minister.
14:47
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you very much, Mr. Twigg. Turning now to our commitments to ensure all exploited and trafficked children can access the support they need for their recovery. Clause 40 seeks to amend sections 48 and 58 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to rename independent child trafficking advocates as independent child trafficking guardians. Following the recommendation by the Independent review of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and its subsequent renaming in June 2019, the government considers that Guardian better, reflects the role and is better understood and applied by children and professionals supporting them. The clause itself is a change in terminology and does not alter the functions or powers of independent child trafficking advocates.
As I have said, this government is committed to supporting vulnerable children. Clause 41 makes clear our ongoing commitment to providing specialist modern slavery support for children through the independent child trafficking guardians across England and Wales. The clause ensures that all children in England and Wales who are potential victims of this horrendous crime will have a statutory right to access this support. It reflects the lessons learned from the existing pilot and stakeholder engagement, and gives independent child trafficking guardians flexibility to respond to each child's needs. It clarifies that they can provide representation, support or both, either directly to the child or indirectly by supporting other professionals who provide services or make decisions about them.
While independent child trafficking guardians already engage from the point of referral in practice, references to reasonable grounds in section 48 of the Modern Slavery Act risk creating confusion with national referral mechanism decision making thresholds, which in turn risk an inconsistent approach to supporting vulnerable children. This clause clarifies that support should be provided at the earliest opportunity, and implements recommendations made by the Independent Review of the Modern Slavery Act. Importantly, this clause also clarifies the need for collaboration by requiring public bodies to have due regard to independent child trafficking guardians expertise to share relevant information and to involve independent child trafficking guardians in discussions and decisions relating to the child.
This will help independent child trafficking guardians work effectively with the authorities responsible for the child's care, providing specialist expertise to help ensure children access the support required to recover from this awful abuse. Further detail will be outlined in the regulations and statutory guidance, which will be published alongside national rollout of the service. This clause ensures that there is clear and consistent support for exploited children. I beg to move that pause. 41 stand part of the bill. Clause 42 removes a fulfilled requirement in section 48 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 for the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report setting out proposed steps in relation to the arrangements for independent child trafficking guardians within nine months of the Modern Slavery Act being passed.
The government at that time fulfilled that obligation in 2015, when it laid before Parliament a report setting out its proposed approach to implementing the service. Since then, the independent Child Trafficking Guardian Service has been developed, tested and refined through the pilot service, independent evaluations, feedback from children and young people, and recommendations from the Independent review of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The requirement to report again on the proposed approach is therefore no longer necessary, as the service model is now established and its operation well understood. The clause also removes the specific commencement provisions relating to the independent child trafficking Guardian measures in section 61 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
The relevant provisions in section 48 of the Modern Slavery Act will instead be subject to the general commencement arrangements in the act. The clause does not itself alter the functions or powers of independent child trafficking guardians. I beg to move that clauses 40 to 42 stand part of the bill.
As I have said, this government is committed to supporting vulnerable children. Clause 41 makes clear our ongoing commitment to providing specialist modern slavery support for children through the independent child trafficking guardians across England and Wales. The clause ensures that all children in England and Wales who are potential victims of this horrendous crime will have a statutory right to access this support. It reflects the lessons learned from the existing pilot and stakeholder engagement, and gives independent child trafficking guardians flexibility to respond to each child's needs. It clarifies that they can provide representation, support or both, either directly to the child or indirectly by supporting other professionals who provide services or make decisions about them.
While independent child trafficking guardians already engage from the point of referral in practice, references to reasonable grounds in section 48 of the Modern Slavery Act risk creating confusion with national referral mechanism decision making thresholds, which in turn risk an inconsistent approach to supporting vulnerable children. This clause clarifies that support should be provided at the earliest opportunity, and implements recommendations made by the Independent Review of the Modern Slavery Act. Importantly, this clause also clarifies the need for collaboration by requiring public bodies to have due regard to independent child trafficking guardians expertise to share relevant information and to involve independent child trafficking guardians in discussions and decisions relating to the child.
This will help independent child trafficking guardians work effectively with the authorities responsible for the child's care, providing specialist expertise to help ensure children access the support required to recover from this awful abuse. Further detail will be outlined in the regulations and statutory guidance, which will be published alongside national rollout of the service. This clause ensures that there is clear and consistent support for exploited children. I beg to move that pause. 41 stand part of the bill. Clause 42 removes a fulfilled requirement in section 48 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 for the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report setting out proposed steps in relation to the arrangements for independent child trafficking guardians within nine months of the Modern Slavery Act being passed.
The government at that time fulfilled that obligation in 2015, when it laid before Parliament a report setting out its proposed approach to implementing the service. Since then, the independent Child Trafficking Guardian Service has been developed, tested and refined through the pilot service, independent evaluations, feedback from children and young people, and recommendations from the Independent review of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The requirement to report again on the proposed approach is therefore no longer necessary, as the service model is now established and its operation well understood. The clause also removes the specific commencement provisions relating to the independent child trafficking Guardian measures in section 61 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
The relevant provisions in section 48 of the Modern Slavery Act will instead be subject to the general commencement arrangements in the act. The clause does not itself alter the functions or powers of independent child trafficking guardians. I beg to move that clauses 40 to 42 stand part of the bill.
14:55
14:55
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
A child who has been trafficked or enslaved, has already been let down by adults in the worst way imaginable. What they need now are adults who will take responsibility and keep them safe, not a maze of agencies arguing about whose job it is. That's the test we apply to these clauses, and on that test, the opposition support them. Clause 40 renames independent child trafficking advocates as independent child trafficking guardians. Those advocates were one of the innovations of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and we have no difficulty with the title that better describes their role. But a new name will not, on its own, protect a single child.
What matters is whether the Guardian has the expertise, access and authority to make a difference. Clause 41 is more substantive. It allows guardians to provide representation, support or both, and makes clear that the role covers children who may be victims of slavery as well as trafficking. That recognises that exploitation does not always fit neatly into one box. Many of us have seen in our own communities how county line gangs groom children to run drugs. That is exploitation, plain and simple. The clause also allows assistance to be given indirectly through the professionals who provide services to the child or make decisions about them.
Helping those professionals understand the risks has real value. But indirect support must never become a convenient substitute for someone actually being there for a child who needs them. I'd be grateful if the minister could tell us who will decide that indirect support is enough, and how the child's own voice will be heard in that decision. The Guardians involvement in decisions must also be meaningful. There is little point appointing someone to stand up for a child if the big decisions have been made before they are in the room. Guardians also need a clear and fast route to the police, where an exploiter is trying to get back in touch with the child.
They are part of the safeguarding response and the gangs who prey on children must be hunted down and prosecuted. Clause 42 removes the requirement to report to Parliament and propose steps under section 48 of the Modern Slavery Act and changes the commencement arrangements. In July, the government announced £25 million to extend the Guardian service to the remaining 179 local authorities in England that do not have it yet. We welcome that. But a child in one of those areas needs a guardian now. So can the minister tell us when the service will be available in every one of them?
And removing a reporting requirement must not mean that Parliament knows less about whether children are actually being kept safe. Finally, the service will only work if it can meet demand. Can the minister tell us how many children the expanded service is expected to support, and what will happen when demand outstrips capacity? The government should set out how they will measure whether guardians are actually making children safer. So this is a real step forward and not simply a change of name.
We support clauses 40, 41 and 42.
What matters is whether the Guardian has the expertise, access and authority to make a difference. Clause 41 is more substantive. It allows guardians to provide representation, support or both, and makes clear that the role covers children who may be victims of slavery as well as trafficking. That recognises that exploitation does not always fit neatly into one box. Many of us have seen in our own communities how county line gangs groom children to run drugs. That is exploitation, plain and simple. The clause also allows assistance to be given indirectly through the professionals who provide services to the child or make decisions about them.
Helping those professionals understand the risks has real value. But indirect support must never become a convenient substitute for someone actually being there for a child who needs them. I'd be grateful if the minister could tell us who will decide that indirect support is enough, and how the child's own voice will be heard in that decision. The Guardians involvement in decisions must also be meaningful. There is little point appointing someone to stand up for a child if the big decisions have been made before they are in the room. Guardians also need a clear and fast route to the police, where an exploiter is trying to get back in touch with the child.
They are part of the safeguarding response and the gangs who prey on children must be hunted down and prosecuted. Clause 42 removes the requirement to report to Parliament and propose steps under section 48 of the Modern Slavery Act and changes the commencement arrangements. In July, the government announced £25 million to extend the Guardian service to the remaining 179 local authorities in England that do not have it yet. We welcome that. But a child in one of those areas needs a guardian now. So can the minister tell us when the service will be available in every one of them?
And removing a reporting requirement must not mean that Parliament knows less about whether children are actually being kept safe. Finally, the service will only work if it can meet demand. Can the minister tell us how many children the expanded service is expected to support, and what will happen when demand outstrips capacity? The government should set out how they will measure whether guardians are actually making children safer. So this is a real step forward and not simply a change of name.
We support clauses 40, 41 and 42.
15:03
15:03
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
The honourable gentleman for his contributions questions and I seek to respond to them in my reply. This group of clauses makes clear the government's commitment to providing specialist modern slavery support for children through the independent child trafficking guardians across England and Wales. Clause 40 amends the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to rename independent child trafficking advocates as independent child trafficking guardians, as recommended by the Independent Review of Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the service's renaming in 2019. Clause 41 ensures all children in England and Wales have a statutory right to access, support, and reflects lessons learned from the existing pilot and stakeholder engagement.
It clarifies that support should be provided at the earliest opportunity, and the need for collaboration between independent child trafficking guardians and public bodies. Clause 42 removes a requirement in the Modern Slavery Act 2015 for the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report setting out proposed steps in relation to the arrangements for independent child trafficking guardians within nine months of the act being passed. The government at that time fulfilled the obligation and now considers it as necessary, and it removes the commencement provisions relating to independent child trafficking.
Guardian measures in section 61 of the Modern Slavery Act, and instead they will be subject to
It clarifies that support should be provided at the earliest opportunity, and the need for collaboration between independent child trafficking guardians and public bodies. Clause 42 removes a requirement in the Modern Slavery Act 2015 for the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report setting out proposed steps in relation to the arrangements for independent child trafficking guardians within nine months of the act being passed. The government at that time fulfilled the obligation and now considers it as necessary, and it removes the commencement provisions relating to independent child trafficking.
Guardian measures in section 61 of the Modern Slavery Act, and instead they will be subject to
15:05
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Provisions relating to independent child trafficking. Guardian measures in section 61 of the Modern Slavery Act, and instead they will be subject to general commencement arrangements in the act. Responding to some of the questions the honourable gentleman has asked, he asked my about the UK wide application of the child trafficking Guardian service in England and Wales. We recently announced a. £25 million investment in the National Independent Child Trafficking Guardianship Service, which, combined with the provisions in the Bill to place the Guardian support on a statutory footing, will end the postcode lottery and ensure exploited and trafficked children will have access to the support that they need.
He asked about the model and the sort of more indirect model on how that was decided. The independent child trafficking Guardian support model remains largely unchanged from the. 2024 operational model. This flexible, needs based approach was found to better meet the needs of vulnerable children by the independent evaluation of the independent Child Trafficking Guardian Service, published in. 2024 and is supported by Best Practice and the Home Office response to the Modern Slavery Review. Every child is entitled to indirect support where independent child trafficking. guardians promote effective, multi-agency working to ensure that the child's needs are met by the most appropriate.
professional and provide specialist modern slavery and exploitation expertise to support professionals who may already have established relationships with children. Direct 1 to 1 support is generally provided to children where there is no figure of parental. responsibility for them. In the UK, however, the service also has the flexibility to provide direct support in other cases where this is appropriate to meet a child's needs. As the independent Child Trafficking Guardian Services rolled out nationally, the government will continue to monitor and evaluate its impact to ensure it remains effective in supporting child victims of modern slavery. The honourable gentleman asked about safeguarding partners if they already have legal duties.
Why are independent child trafficking guardians needed and how are people, different organisations, going to work together to not duplicate the contact with the child and help them navigate the system? Independent child trafficking guardians provide specialist modern slavery expertise and independent.
He asked about the model and the sort of more indirect model on how that was decided. The independent child trafficking Guardian support model remains largely unchanged from the. 2024 operational model. This flexible, needs based approach was found to better meet the needs of vulnerable children by the independent evaluation of the independent Child Trafficking Guardian Service, published in. 2024 and is supported by Best Practice and the Home Office response to the Modern Slavery Review. Every child is entitled to indirect support where independent child trafficking. guardians promote effective, multi-agency working to ensure that the child's needs are met by the most appropriate.
professional and provide specialist modern slavery and exploitation expertise to support professionals who may already have established relationships with children. Direct 1 to 1 support is generally provided to children where there is no figure of parental. responsibility for them. In the UK, however, the service also has the flexibility to provide direct support in other cases where this is appropriate to meet a child's needs. As the independent Child Trafficking Guardian Services rolled out nationally, the government will continue to monitor and evaluate its impact to ensure it remains effective in supporting child victims of modern slavery. The honourable gentleman asked about safeguarding partners if they already have legal duties.
Why are independent child trafficking guardians needed and how are people, different organisations, going to work together to not duplicate the contact with the child and help them navigate the system? Independent child trafficking guardians provide specialist modern slavery expertise and independent.
15:09
15:09
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Rather than duplicating the statutory safeguarding role of other agencies. The legislation strengthens collaboration by requiring public bodies to have due regard to independent child trafficking. Guardians views and. recommendations provide access to the relevant information and involve independent child trafficking guardians in discussions and decisions relating to the child. This means public authorities must properly consider and take account of independent child trafficking guardians views when exercising their.
15:10
15:10
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
But retain responsibility for making decisions and discharging their statutory duties. Details of how. Excuse me. Details of how this will be achieved will be outlined in the Independent Child Trafficking Guardians statutory guidance, which will be published alongside national rollout of the Guardians service. The legislation does not require public authority to follow any particular. recommendation made by an independent child trafficking guardian. Rather, public authorities must have due regard to the independent child trafficking guardians views and. recommendations before reaching their own decisions. This requirement will be further. supplemented by. guidance for public bodies are not paying due regard to independent child trafficking Guardians.
Concerns may be raised through existing. safeguarding and accountability processes. Public bodies remain accountable for ensuring their decisions are lawful, properly reasoned and consistent with their.
Concerns may be raised through existing. safeguarding and accountability processes. Public bodies remain accountable for ensuring their decisions are lawful, properly reasoned and consistent with their.
15:12
15:12
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The hon. Gentleman asked about. Again, it's sort of indirect and direct support. And talking about the more appropriate form of support. This will be for Barnardos, who are the service provider for this service, to determine what support a child needs, and there will be clear guidance provided by the Home Office to support this. The service also has the flexibility to determine where direct support is appropriate to meet a child's needs, for instance, where there is no figure of parental responsibility for the child in the UK. We believe it's appropriate that this decision making sit with the service provider who is best able to make this decision.
This flexible, needs based approach was found to better meet the needs of vulnerable children by the independent evaluation of the independent Child Trafficking Guardian Service, published in 2024. And finally, he asks about parliamentary scrutiny. The government is not reducing parliamentary scrutiny of the independent child trafficking Guardian Service. The previous requirement in section 48 of the Modern Slavery Act.
This flexible, needs based approach was found to better meet the needs of vulnerable children by the independent evaluation of the independent Child Trafficking Guardian Service, published in 2024. And finally, he asks about parliamentary scrutiny. The government is not reducing parliamentary scrutiny of the independent child trafficking Guardian Service. The previous requirement in section 48 of the Modern Slavery Act.
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
When it laid before Parliament a report setting out its proposed approach to implementing the service alongside the independent evaluation of the initial pilot. The changes to the commencement provisions are intended to ensure that section 48 of the Modern Slavery Act can be fully commenced when the independent Child Trafficking Guardian Service is rolled out nationally in 2027. Key details of the independent Child Trafficking Guardian Service, including appointment processes, conditions for acting as an independent. guardian and delivery arrangements will be set out in regulations.
These are intended to be subject to the affirmative parliamentary.
These are intended to be subject to the affirmative parliamentary.
15:15
15:15
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:16
15:16
15:16
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Calls for two parts of the bill, as many of that opinion say, are the contrary. No. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to the question of clause 41. Stan, pass the bill, which has already been debated. I believe the committee. I shall put a single question on clauses 41 and 42, which have both already been debated. The question is at clause .
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:17
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:18
15:18
15:18
15:18
15:18
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
It's the view of myself and a wide range of. refugee and modern slavery. organisations that particularly part three, subsection three of this clause , is. incompatible with article 12 of the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings. Iccat, which puts a duty on state parties to afford support to survivors of modern slavery in receipt of a reasonable ground decision, the removal of the duty to provide support will put adults, children and young people at risk of destitution, homelessness and further harm.
As we've discussed in relation to previous.
As we've discussed in relation to previous.
15:19
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:20
15:20
15:20
15:20
15:20
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
They do need to receive adequate resources in order to discharge these duties. appropriately and in the best interests of the child. Local authorities do not currently receive any funding to offer. specialist support to children affected by trafficking and exploitation. My amendments to this clause, therefore, seek both to reduce the harms being caused by it and boost the support that can be offered to survivors. Moving to my amendment.
15:21
15:21
15:21
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:22
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
And trained support. workers provide the support directly to. survivors and are responsible for carrying out detailed assessments of need. These assessments should be informed by the professional expertise of frontline. practitioners and, crucially, by survivors own views and experiences. I believe that both support workers and survivors are best placed to identify an individual's needs, because they are. indirect and ongoing. contact with the person concerned. It would therefore, I think, be harmful for the Secretary of State who is removed from this direct engagement to override such. assessments without having had contact with the. individual or a comparable understanding of their.
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:24
15:24
15:24
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Provider completes a needs assessment and submits it to the Home Office for approval. The Home Office then reviews the. assessment and either agrees or disagrees with the assessment itself and the level of support recommended. So it's concerning that this decision maker power that ultimately rests with the Home Office is now being given. directly to the. Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is going to be even more far removed from the care, safeguarding and day to day insights available to front line service.
15:26
15:26
15:26
15:26
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
That would more arbitrary, even more arbitrarily remove support from survivors. There is evidence the anti-trafficking monitoring group tells us that there are already ongoing issues with meeting the thresholds. required to secure additional support, including for mental health needs. The recovery needs assessment process is highly bureaucratic. Individuals are often discharged from support despite having significant unmet needs, and if a similar approach is applied to decisions relating to the recovery and reflection period, there is a substantial risk that individuals will be discharged from support whilst still. experiencing high levels of unmet need, exposing them to an increased risk of re exploit.
In terms of my amendment.
In terms of my amendment.
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I think it's very important. The Secretary of State. retains an. overriding overarching duty to ensure that children receive. support in line with article 12 of VCAT. This would help ensure national. accountability for the. protection and recovery of child. victims of trafficking, and not leave it to the piecemeal provisions of local authorities. Maintaining this duty would also ensure the Secretary of State remains.
responsible for. ensuring local authorities are adequately resourced. As my next amendment puts.
responsible for. ensuring local authorities are adequately resourced. As my next amendment puts.
15:29
15:29
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
It would be, therefore an important safeguard to ensure all children receive the support and assistance to which they're entitled, regardless of where they are located. Finally, my amendment. 73 does ensure that there is funding for local authorities to support. children and that we do need to make sure that they have.
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:30
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Funding for children affected by trafficking and exploitation. It is absolutely essential that we need this, as well as mainstream child. protection that local authorities provide. And the charity Pat, which stands for Every Child Protected Against Trafficking, has told me that the dedicated funding that is not provided to local. authorities to meet the entitlements of children is really just an enormous gap. What they say is the local.
The Home Office provides local authorities with. £143 per child per night towards the cost of supporting unaccompanied.
The Home Office provides local authorities with. £143 per child per night towards the cost of supporting unaccompanied.
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:32
15:32
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Pressure. So I really hope that the government will. listen to that point as well. The final point in relation to subsection three at the moment, all it says is where the Secretary of State disagrees, which is incredibly broad. So will the minister tell us whether the Secretary of State will actually publish. criteria governing when this override power may be used, and address the fact that there is. currently no defined. threshold for. displacing an authorised persons professional assessment by the Home Office as a whole. I won't be putting any of my amendments to divisions today. I won't be pressing them for a vote, but I do want to see the the.
risks and.
risks and.
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:34
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Which proposed several changes to clause 43 on support and. assistance provided to adult and child potential victims of modern slavery. I'll start out by just reiterating the purpose of clause 43 and then return to the amendments in turn. Currently, we're a potential victim has had suitable statutory support put in place to meet a modern slavery need, and that support is removed due to their conduct. The Secretary of State is required to provide that person with the equivalent support. Again, this results in the duplication of support provided across government and the associated excessive costs to the taxpayer.
Clause 43 will ensure that the Secretary of State is not required to provide equivalent support again in. In these.
Clause 43 will ensure that the Secretary of State is not required to provide equivalent support again in. In these.
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:36
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
They will no longer be able to access equivalent modern slavery accommodation in its place. This will safeguard the integrity of the modern slavery system, ensuring support is not provided. unconditionally and indefinitely. However, we recognise the specific vulnerabilities and impact trauma may have on an individual's. conduct to safeguard vulnerable victims. Support will not be withheld if there is good reason related to their modern slavery experience. For the conduct that led to that element of support being removed. I wish to be clear that the government remains committed to supporting vulnerable people. We have invested. £25 million in the National Independent Child Trafficking.
Guardianship Service, and we are in the process of procuring a new adult victim support contract to assist victims to achieve long term stability and live. independently and to reduce their risk of exploitation. Together, these investments form part of our wider programme of modern slavery reform, designed to safeguard the integrity of the system, ensure resources are targeted at those who need them. Clause 43 also makes technical amendments to section 50 A of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. These will not change the support provided to adult or child victims. Rather, the clause. ensures that current support arrangements for adults and child victims are correctly reflected in statute .
In line with existing practice. These amendments remove children from the provision to reflect that local that local authorities safeguard and promote the welfare of all children within their area. And the Independent Child Trafficking Guardian Service provides further specialist modern slavery support. These amendments also make it clear that an authorised support provider can assess the support needs of adult victims of modern slavery. Turning to amendment.
Guardianship Service, and we are in the process of procuring a new adult victim support contract to assist victims to achieve long term stability and live. independently and to reduce their risk of exploitation. Together, these investments form part of our wider programme of modern slavery reform, designed to safeguard the integrity of the system, ensure resources are targeted at those who need them. Clause 43 also makes technical amendments to section 50 A of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. These will not change the support provided to adult or child victims. Rather, the clause. ensures that current support arrangements for adults and child victims are correctly reflected in statute .
In line with existing practice. These amendments remove children from the provision to reflect that local that local authorities safeguard and promote the welfare of all children within their area. And the Independent Child Trafficking Guardian Service provides further specialist modern slavery support. These amendments also make it clear that an authorised support provider can assess the support needs of adult victims of modern slavery. Turning to amendment.
15:39
15:39
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Tabled by the honourable member for Brighton Pavilion, The Guardian, the government. understands their intention is to safeguard vulnerable potential victims, and this government shares that commitment and is equally committed to ensuring all victims of modern slavery, including child victims, can access the necessary support and assistance they require. However, the government does not consider these amendments necessary and they in fact directly contradict the intention of clause. 43 in 2 ways. Firstly, amendment 70 seeks to remove the Secretary of State's power to override an authorised persons. assessment that support is necessary to assist a potential victim in their recovery.
This would mean the Secretary of State is unable to.
This would mean the Secretary of State is unable to.
15:40
15:40
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
To ensure that outcome of a support assessment aligns with the relevant statutory guidance. I'm just going to just refer with a bit more. information on the point about the Secretary of State's power to override an assessor. This is a necessary power which will ensure fairness in the provision of support to adult victims across England and Wales. The power provides an important safeguard to ensure government issued guidance on the assessment of necessary support is appropriately adhered to. The need to intervene may arise in particularly complex. cases and where other state support services have jurisdiction. For example, an authorised service provider has determined that financial support is.
necessary but has not accounted for income the victim receives from another statutory service. The Secretary of State must be able to intervene to ensure financial support is not provided where it is not necessary in line with the guidance.
necessary but has not accounted for income the victim receives from another statutory service. The Secretary of State must be able to intervene to ensure financial support is not provided where it is not necessary in line with the guidance.
15:42
15:42
15:42
15:42
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
But they have not given due attention to the Non-engagement policy and the other statutory support available to a victim. The Secretary of State must be able to intervene to withdraw that support in line with statutory guidance on. Non-engagement to ensure consistency and fairness in the application of the policy across victims in England and Wales. However, I want to be clear the Home Office has a robust contract management regime in place to ensure our supplier will deliver a high quality service to. victims in line with their contractual. obligations and underpinned by statutory guidance. The suppliers consistently met and exceeded delivery.
expectations and the Home Office has a strong relationship with them. Amendments 70 seeks to remove the Secretary. Oh, sorry, I've covered that bit. The need to intervene may arise as I've just set out with some more detail in particularly complex. cases and where other state support services have.
expectations and the Home Office has a strong relationship with them. Amendments 70 seeks to remove the Secretary. Oh, sorry, I've covered that bit. The need to intervene may arise as I've just set out with some more detail in particularly complex. cases and where other state support services have.
15:44
15:44
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
For example, where an authorised support provider provider has determined that financial support is necessary but is not accounted for. Income the victim receives, the Secretary of State must be able to intervene on that. The provision is therefore necessary to ensure fairness and the provision of support to adult victims across England and Wales. Further, this safeguard ensures balance in where the Secretary of State can intervene. Secretary of state will retain the power to assess whether a support is. necessary and can therefore exercise this power to override. Where an authorised support provider determines that support is not necessary.
Secondly, amendment. 72 reinstates the duties on the Secretary of State to secure the necessary support for child victims during their recovery period, and adds that this duty exists irrespective of support a child may receive from a local authority or other public authority. This amendment will place a duty on the Secretary of State to provide support to children. especially specifically under the Modern Slavery Act. Duplicating the effect of other legislative. frameworks including the Children's Act.
Secondly, amendment. 72 reinstates the duties on the Secretary of State to secure the necessary support for child victims during their recovery period, and adds that this duty exists irrespective of support a child may receive from a local authority or other public authority. This amendment will place a duty on the Secretary of State to provide support to children. especially specifically under the Modern Slavery Act. Duplicating the effect of other legislative. frameworks including the Children's Act.
15:46
15:46
15:46
15:46
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Which provide for support for child victims and potential victims of trafficking. This is unnecessary and. counter-productive given the existing legal and operational frameworks for safeguarding and supporting children, which ensure that children's needs are considered holistically. The independent Child Trafficking Guardian Service also provides specialist support and. expertise to local authorities to further supplement this provision, and I just wanted to pick up the point the honourable lady raised about whether this is in contravention of our obligations. As we've already discussed, the government are rolling out the independent Child trafficking Guardian Service. Removing children from section 50 A of the Modern Slavery Act provides greater legislative clarity on.
responsibilities for children. It does not alter the safeguarding and support provision for children delivered by local authorities, or their ability to access the modern, slavery specific independent child trafficking Guardian Service providing additional specialist modern slavery support. iChat article 12 requires the provision of assistance, which. includes accommodation and financial.
responsibilities for children. It does not alter the safeguarding and support provision for children delivered by local authorities, or their ability to access the modern, slavery specific independent child trafficking Guardian Service providing additional specialist modern slavery support. iChat article 12 requires the provision of assistance, which. includes accommodation and financial.
15:48
15:48
15:49
15:49
15:49
15:49
15:49
15:49
15:49
15:49
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Meet these obligations. This is further supplemented by the independent Child Trafficking Guardian Service to provide. additional specialist support and expertise. The honourable lady said Will this be putting additional. responsibility and pressure on local authorities to support child victims of modern slavery? As I've said, this is not going to change how children themselves are supported and will not increase the responsibilities on local authorities. They will continue. Children will continue to be supported by local. authorities through their existing arrangements. This government is driving the biggest transformation of children's social care in a generation. Backed by historic. £2.4 billion investment over the multi-year settlement to deliver the Families First Partnership Programme, which is all ringfenced for prevention and.
15:51
15:51
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And furthermore, the Children's Wellbeing in Schools Act will also help protect children at risk of abuse, stopping vulnerable children falling through cracks and services and deliver a core guarantee of high standards. So as you can see, there is already a very. comprehensive network of support for children, particularly at local authority level. The honourable lady also asked whether the bill contained oh sorry. Why the bill contains a powerful Secretary of State to override a support provider's assessment. That support is necessary, but not for an assessment. That support is not necessary. Such an override power is not required because the Secretary of State will retain the power to assess whether that support is necessary.
The Secretary of State can therefore exercise this power where an authorised. provider has assessed that support is not necessary.
The Secretary of State can therefore exercise this power where an authorised. provider has assessed that support is not necessary.
15:51
15:51
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Goes further, requiring the Secretary of State to provide funding to local authorities to support child victims, and requires an annual report to be laid in Parliament on the provision and adequacy of this funding. This would increase Home Office responsibility and accountability for child. victims beyond what is set out in falls 43, which seeks to make clear that local authorities continue to be the best place to assist children in need of support and. protection to all children in their areas. And the Independent Child Trafficking Guardians service provides that additional specialist modern slavery support. On top of the funding and support that I've just outlined, local authorities in England have.
£78 billion available in core spending power for.
£78 billion available in core spending power for.
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Including children's services. And as previously stated, the Home Office has recently invested. £25 million in our child trafficking Guardian service. So I wish to reiterate quite clearly for the record, that clause 43 does not seek to change how support is provided to child victims. Rather, it seeks to reflect the current operational practice and provide greater legislative clarity on. responsibilities for children. As such, these amendments, including specific funding to local authorities, are not necessary. Finally, amendment 71 makes additions to the assessment of support requiring consideration of the best interests of adult potential victims and their dependent children, and that assessments are needs based and comply with the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Humans, Ecat and Echr.
These additions are unnecessary as the government is confident that support provisions for adult and child potential victims are compliant with our international obligations. Adult support needs assessments already. Consider the individual support needs and circumstances of victims, and local authorities already have a .
These additions are unnecessary as the government is confident that support provisions for adult and child potential victims are compliant with our international obligations. Adult support needs assessments already. Consider the individual support needs and circumstances of victims, and local authorities already have a .
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Regulation in future to to reassure us? I appreciate the honourable lady referencing that. And of course, we will always consider any issues and desire for clarification raised in this committee through the development of those regulations. So I know her concerns will have been noticed. But as I said, I am reassured that we are compliant with the Ecat and Echr obligations, but her her comments have absolutely been noted. I just wanted to also refer to a couple of other points that she made on issues about. Is this potentially going to risk increase the risk of homelessness and destitution?
The Home Office remains committed to meeting legal obligations, ensuring that policies do not leave people. destitute or at risk of retrafficking. However, individuals should not be able to use modern slavery to support to circumvent the conditions of other statutory support services to ensure a coherent approach to supporting victims across government. Adult modern slavery support will be withheld in particular. circumstances to align with decisions made by wider statutory services. To withdraw support to someone who has failed to follow reasonable. conditions to safeguard vulnerable victims. Support will not be withheld if a victim had a good reason related to their modern slavery .
The Home Office remains committed to meeting legal obligations, ensuring that policies do not leave people. destitute or at risk of retrafficking. However, individuals should not be able to use modern slavery to support to circumvent the conditions of other statutory support services to ensure a coherent approach to supporting victims across government. Adult modern slavery support will be withheld in particular. circumstances to align with decisions made by wider statutory services. To withdraw support to someone who has failed to follow reasonable. conditions to safeguard vulnerable victims. Support will not be withheld if a victim had a good reason related to their modern slavery .
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
To explain why they were unable to meet reasonable. conditions as only the particular element of modern slavery support that was removed by another service will be withheld where necessary. Support worker. assistance will remain available to advise and signpost to other avenues of accommodation or financial support. I think, oh sorry. The honourable lady also asked about oversight and. monitoring to ensure. As Home Office sort of oversight and monitoring of local.
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Ensuring that children don't fall through gaps in provision. I think I've covered most of this, but as I said, the Children's Social Care National Framework is statutory guidance for local authorities that sets the national direction for practice. It provides clarity on the outcomes that children's social care should achieve for children, young people and families working together to safeguard children. 2026 is the multi-agency statutory guidance provides detailed information on the duties and. responsibilities of all.
agencies to safeguard.
agencies to safeguard.
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Both pieces of statutory guidance, the National framework and working together should be read alongside each other. Ofsted independently inspects local authority children's services through its Inspecting Local Authority children's services framework. These inspections consider the experiences and progress of children and families, the quality of practice and leadership, and whether services are meeting their statutory duties. Local authorities are assessed using performance, data reform, delivery and wider regional intelligence to. determine the appropriate level of. support and intervention. So these amendments, as I've outlined, are. unnecessary as the government is confident that support provisions for adult and child potential victims are compliant with our international .
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Inserted by clause. 43 to clarify how the provision will work in practice. First amendment 120 to 122. Put beyond doubt that new section. 55ZA is a targeted provision such that where a particular form of support is to be withheld, for example. accommodation the duty to provide other forms of support, for example financial will continue. This will prevent the duplication of support provided across government and the associated excessive costs to the taxpayer by ensuring specific forms of support are not provided. unconditionally and indefinitely. However, we recognise the specific vulnerabilities and impact trauma may have on an individual's conduct, and that is why these amendments will make the safeguards for vulnerable potential victims clearer as a result of amendment.
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
And clause 43 stand part of the bill. Yeah. Matt Vickers support for potential victims must reach those who genuinely need it, with clear. responsibility for. decisions and proper. accountability for every pound of taxpayers money. Clause 43 raises three practical. questions who assesses that need? Who can overrule that. assessment and how this support fits alongside other services? The clause allows an authorised person to assess the assistance someone needs, while keeping a power for the Secretary of State to override a positive assessment. Amendment 70 would scrap that override. I understand the worry about specialist advice being set aside, but ministers must remain answerable to this House for the public money in this system, so we cannot support the amendment.
What the power does demand is clear reasons. I'd welcome the Minister telling us when the override is expected to be used, what evidence would justify it, and how a wrong decision would be put right.
What the power does demand is clear reasons. I'd welcome the Minister telling us when the override is expected to be used, what evidence would justify it, and how a wrong decision would be put right.
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Their individual needs and. compatibility with the relevant conventions. Good decision makers should already be weighing a person's need, but writing a long list of factors into statute invites challenge on every one of them and risk turning each decision into a legal contest. We do not support it. Government amendments. 120 to 123 are the latest in a string of changes to the government have made to their own Bill in this part alone, but amendments one. 2121 and. 122 are an. improvement where someone loses support elsewhere because of their conduct. The exclusion is narrowed to that particular kind of support they have lost, rather than letting the loss of one service become a reason to withhold everything, that is a fair balance.
Conditions attached to public. assistance must still mean something, and the taxpayer should not simply be asked to replace support that someone has lost through their own misconduct. Amendment one, two, three removes the word. properly from the test of whether that. conduct is attributable to harm arising from exploitation. We will not oppose it, but the Minister should explain why the word is going and confirm that this does not lower the bar. The question must still be answered on the evidence. Neither an automatic. excuse nor an automatic penalty makes for good decisions. Amendment 72 and 73 concern children.
Clause 43 removes children from these Home Office support duties, while separate duties on local authorities and other agencies remain. Amendment 72 would keep the Home Office duty for children, and amendment 73 would require resources for local authority provision and reporting on funding. Protecting children is essential, but keeping two overlapping. duties risks the very thing we all want to avoid two bodies, each assuming the other has it covered while a child falls through the middle. We do not support these amendments either, but the government must be clear about where. responsibility now lies. I'd be grateful if the minister could set out who is.
responsible at each stage of a child's case, how local authority provision will be funded, and what happens. immediately if that provision is not there. We .
Conditions attached to public. assistance must still mean something, and the taxpayer should not simply be asked to replace support that someone has lost through their own misconduct. Amendment one, two, three removes the word. properly from the test of whether that. conduct is attributable to harm arising from exploitation. We will not oppose it, but the Minister should explain why the word is going and confirm that this does not lower the bar. The question must still be answered on the evidence. Neither an automatic. excuse nor an automatic penalty makes for good decisions. Amendment 72 and 73 concern children.
Clause 43 removes children from these Home Office support duties, while separate duties on local authorities and other agencies remain. Amendment 72 would keep the Home Office duty for children, and amendment 73 would require resources for local authority provision and reporting on funding. Protecting children is essential, but keeping two overlapping. duties risks the very thing we all want to avoid two bodies, each assuming the other has it covered while a child falls through the middle. We do not support these amendments either, but the government must be clear about where. responsibility now lies. I'd be grateful if the minister could set out who is.
responsible at each stage of a child's case, how local authority provision will be funded, and what happens. immediately if that provision is not there. We .
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
While we take seriously the need to investigate modern slavery within the UK and to provide support to victims, we must also remain cognizant of the global reach of UK business and supply chains. Globally, it is estimated that. 27.6 million people are trapped in forced labour, with around two thirds of these cases linked to global supply chains. Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act established the UK as the first country in the world to require businesses to report on how they are tackling modern slavery in their operations and supply chains. Whilst the transparency of supply chains regime was widely welcomed by.
businesses and non-government organisations when it was first.
businesses and non-government organisations when it was first.
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
It has since faced criticism that is merely a tick box exercise and it lacks any teeth in respect to enforcement. Compliance with section 54 is difficult to quantify, but analysis from the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre in. 2021 suggested that only around. 60% of companies have met the basic reporting requirements. This month.
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Votes Against Slavery Report identified. 194 instances of. non-compliance across. 160 FTSE 350 companies over the last six years. The measures in this bill will address this by raising expectations on. businesses and public sector. organisations to better report and act on. exploitation in their supply chains, with stronger. consequences for non-compliance. We are bringing in a more consistent approach to how organisations.
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And by penalising those that do not comply, we can better highlight those that are taking positive action to ensure their supply chains are free from modern slavery. Those that fall short will be clearly exposed. Encouraging a race to the top. I turn first to clause 44. Clause 44 strengthens transparency by requiring. organisations to cover mandatory content in their annual slavery statement, as set out in schedule .
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
It replaces the existing discretionary reporting areas in section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act, with mandatory areas in new schedule four Z, a schedule five of the asylum of the Immigration and Asylum Bill. We expect businesses and the public sector to report meaningfully on the actions they are taking in making this change. Reports will become more.
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Following consultation with persons, the Secretary of State considers appropriate schedule five sets out the information that must be provided in a Slavery and human trafficking statement. Statements must include information on the organisation's structure, operations and supply chains, risks in their operations and supply.
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Training for staff and an assessment of the effectiveness of action taken. If an organisation does not have any relevant information to provide under any of these topics, they must provide a reason as to why this provides a clear and consistent framework for businesses and public. authorities to report on action they have taken to assess and address risks of modern slavery in their operations and supply chains. By standardising reporting in line with the government's comprehensive guidance, consumers and investors will have greater access to relevant. information to support making informed. choices on where to spend their money.
Moving on to clause 45, the Modern Slavery Act is ambiguous on its. expectations on organisational. accountability for the content of modern slavery. statements and how group. structures may meet their reporting requirements. The government wants to ensure that senior parties are held to account for the contents of their.
Moving on to clause 45, the Modern Slavery Act is ambiguous on its. expectations on organisational. accountability for the content of modern slavery. statements and how group. structures may meet their reporting requirements. The government wants to ensure that senior parties are held to account for the contents of their.
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And to certify that they are current. Clause 45 mandates that signatories state that the contents of their reports are accurate to the best of their knowledge and belief, and that they sign after the end of the financial year to which it relates. We also want to continue to allow the private sector to report in groups, where appropriate, as a means of balancing transparency with burdens on businesses. Clause 45 sets out that parent companies may produce statements on behalf of their subsidiaries. Clause 45 therefore clarifies responsibility for modern slavery statements by ensuring that accountability rests with the clearly.
identifiable senior individual. This will strengthen governance and oversight, promote greater board level.
identifiable senior individual. This will strengthen governance and oversight, promote greater board level.
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Risks, and I beg to move. Clauses 44 and 45 together with schedule five, concern what businesses must tell us about modern. slavery and who takes. responsibility for that information. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 put responsibility on. businesses to explain what they were doing about slavery in their. operations and supply chains. That was an important conservative reform. We should build on that. Where there are gaps and judge these changes by whether they help expose. exploitation and get it stopped. An honest business that pays its workers properly should not be undercut by someone whose low. prices depend on.
exploitation further down the chain. Nor should a customer have to wonder whether the bargain they bought came at somebody else's expense. Clear information can help with both, but a longer statement is not. necessarily a better one, and paying someone to produce a polished. document is no substitute for checking what is happening on the ground. Clause 44 and schedule five make reporting topics compulsory. They cover the. organisation and its supply chains, the risks and the steps taken to address them. Policies, checks, staff training and whether the action taken has worked. We support the principle of making statements more useful and easier to compare.
A reader should be able to work out what an. organisation has actually done without wading through pages of comforting language. And because ministers will have a power to change the required. content and be grateful for an assurance that any future. change will be assessed for its cost to business as well as its expected benefit. There is, however, an important qualification. Schedule five still allows an. organisation to say that it is not assessed a risk, but policy policies in place or taken particular steps provided it gives the required explanation. So the Minister should be clear about what is being promised.
This is a duty to. report on specified matters. It does not by itself require every. organisation to take every action described in the schedule. That raises an obvious question what happens when the same. organisation reports, year after year that it has done nothing? Who will look at the. explanation and what will prompt further scrutiny? There is a difference between being honest about a gap and treating an annual. explanation as permission to leave that gap untouched. The detail must be workable. A company may buy through several. suppliers before the chain reaches the people. Making the. product and information will not always be an easy option.
Easy to obtain. Ministers need to explain what reasonable enquiries look like and avoid creating a system where large companies simply pass endless. questionnaires down to smaller firms. Small suppliers should be able to spend their time dealing with real risks, rather than answering the same question in ten different formats. Businesses will also need proper notice before the new requirements apply, and I hope the minister can tell us how much they'll get.
Clause 45 deals with approval and signing, including.
exploitation further down the chain. Nor should a customer have to wonder whether the bargain they bought came at somebody else's expense. Clear information can help with both, but a longer statement is not. necessarily a better one, and paying someone to produce a polished. document is no substitute for checking what is happening on the ground. Clause 44 and schedule five make reporting topics compulsory. They cover the. organisation and its supply chains, the risks and the steps taken to address them. Policies, checks, staff training and whether the action taken has worked. We support the principle of making statements more useful and easier to compare.
A reader should be able to work out what an. organisation has actually done without wading through pages of comforting language. And because ministers will have a power to change the required. content and be grateful for an assurance that any future. change will be assessed for its cost to business as well as its expected benefit. There is, however, an important qualification. Schedule five still allows an. organisation to say that it is not assessed a risk, but policy policies in place or taken particular steps provided it gives the required explanation. So the Minister should be clear about what is being promised.
This is a duty to. report on specified matters. It does not by itself require every. organisation to take every action described in the schedule. That raises an obvious question what happens when the same. organisation reports, year after year that it has done nothing? Who will look at the. explanation and what will prompt further scrutiny? There is a difference between being honest about a gap and treating an annual. explanation as permission to leave that gap untouched. The detail must be workable. A company may buy through several. suppliers before the chain reaches the people. Making the. product and information will not always be an easy option.
Easy to obtain. Ministers need to explain what reasonable enquiries look like and avoid creating a system where large companies simply pass endless. questionnaires down to smaller firms. Small suppliers should be able to spend their time dealing with real risks, rather than answering the same question in ten different formats. Businesses will also need proper notice before the new requirements apply, and I hope the minister can tell us how much they'll get.
Clause 45 deals with approval and signing, including.
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
But it must not allow the activities of a. subsidiary to disappear inside a vague statement about the wider group. The person signing should have asked enough questions to stand behind the declaration of accuracy. Board approval should mean that somebody has actually paid attention, so the minister should explain how group reporting will stay clear about which businesses it covers, and what evidence directors should have in front of them before they sign.
We support clearer. reporting and proper. responsibility at the top, but the government must show that these changes will help.
We support clearer. reporting and proper. responsibility at the top, but the government must show that these changes will help.
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Minister, thank you very much, and I thank the honourable gentleman for his contributions and questions on this really important issue that we're very proud to to to bring in. As discussed, clause 44 strengthens transparency of modern slavery statements by requiring organisations to cover the mandatory topics set out in schedule 4ZA . This will allow these statements to be more.
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And open to greater public scrutiny. Schedule five provides a clear and consistent framework for businesses and public authorities to report on action they've taken to assess and address risks of modern slavery in their operations and supply chains. Clause 45 improves the accountability for reporting holding senior parties to account, whilst also allowing private sector group. structures to balance transparency on these important issues with the burdens of running a business. The hon. Gentleman asked what the mandatory sort of content requirements would be. As I said, they are set out in schedule four in schedule five of this bill.
Basically, statements will need to contain information on the organisation's.
Basically, statements will need to contain information on the organisation's.
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Relevant staff training, and the assessment of the organisation's effectiveness in preventing modern slavery in its operations and supply chains. If a statement does not contain relevant information under those topics, the organisation must state that the information has not been included for that topic and provide a reason as to why the mandatory content. requirements align with updated statutory guidance published in March 2025. The guidance was updated with input from stakeholders from governments, business, civil society and academia to ensure it reflects best practice and. international standards. The honourable gentleman asked why these topics in particular have been selected.
They build on the voluntary topics set out in the original.
They build on the voluntary topics set out in the original.
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Informed by updated statutory guidance. As I've just outlined, who that that was developed in consultation with, the guidance, sets out how an organisation may produce a modern slavery statement in line with best practice and international standards, which includes the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the.
15:52
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
To create one statement that would be compliant in all three countries. The hon. Gentleman asked about. enforcement and those that have. I said they would take no action or identified no risk. What is the teeth behind these? Well, these new measures require that businesses provide a reason. If they've not taken any steps to assess modern slavery risks, if they've assessed there are no risks, they must set out their risk assessment approach. The purpose of the regime is not to penalise organisations for identifying risks or for being at an earlier stage in managing them, but to ensure a greater transparency about the action they're taking and the basis for their decisions.
By bringing a more consistent approach to how businesses report, we can better shine a light on those that take positive action to ensure their supply chains are free from modern slavery, and highlight those that fall short. Encouraging a race to the top. Stronger transparency enables consumers and investors to make informed.
By bringing a more consistent approach to how businesses report, we can better shine a light on those that take positive action to ensure their supply chains are free from modern slavery, and highlight those that fall short. Encouraging a race to the top. Stronger transparency enables consumers and investors to make informed.
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Hold business and private sector organisations to account, encouraging more proactive efforts to manage modern slavery in supply chains. And of course, we'll be coming on to some of the other reporting and monitoring measures and the punishment measures in the coming groups. For businesses who have asked for further clarity on the reporting. requirements during the recent update to the Transparency and Supply chain guidance published in.
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
They themselves asked for greater clarity on how parent companies and their. subsidiaries can report as a group. The updated guidance now includes details about the best practice approach when reporting as a group, for example, where companies share the same procurement or operate in similar markets. To enable this practice to continue, we've included measures in this bill to make it clear that companies can report as a group and thereby continue to report in the most efficient way for their business. As I've said, clause five. improves accountability for reporting holding senior parties to account whilst allowing private sector group structures to balance transparency on these important issues with the burdens of running a business.
And I hope honourable members share our view that this is making these requirements mandatory will really help to support individuals. consumers and all of us concerned with the impacts of modern slavery in supply chains across the globe in being able to .
And I hope honourable members share our view that this is making these requirements mandatory will really help to support individuals. consumers and all of us concerned with the impacts of modern slavery in supply chains across the globe in being able to .
15:52
15:52
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Companies to account. And I beg to move. Many thanks, chair. I just wanted to add, I think my support to this broad approach taken in this section for for a change in this committee, but also to ask the minister, I mean, obviously, I realized the the scope of this this bill is very narrow, but has she or the Home Secretary had any. discussions with cabinet colleagues or other. departments about. extending these quite creative new. reporting and other requirements? The fact that the supply chain is covered, the fact that reasons have to be given for not doing things into potentially a template for use in other areas, such as environmental pollution or other human rights issues.
Will the minister commit, maybe the Home Office, to taking learnings .
Will the minister commit, maybe the Home Office, to taking learnings .
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Implementing this into other departments as a result of this? Lady makes a really important point, and we're really proud of these provisions. And I know there's a further review being undertaken by the Department for Business and Trade to look at how we can further develop these, and I hope that the Home Office is setting out best. practice in an example like this that other government departments can look to, to see about how we can make sure in a world of global business and global corporations, we're able to hold them to account through .
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. As we've just discussed, section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act requires large businesses to report on the steps they are taking to prevent modern slavery within their operations and supply chains. However, equivalent requirements do not currently apply to the public sector. Given that the government spends approximately. £295 billion annually on.
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
There is a clear risk that public sector supply chains may also be exposed to modern slavery. Clause 46 addresses this gap by extending transparency requirements to public. authorities and strengthening accountability for modern slavery risks in public procurement. Public authorities will be required to publish annual modern slavery. statements covering the mandatory topics set out in schedule. 4ZA and to upload these statements to the Modern Slavery Statement Registry within six months of the end of the relevant financial year. The clause also sets out who may sign a statement, requires signatories to confirm its accuracy to the best of their knowledge and belief, and provides for group reporting, where.
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Strengthen accountability and help ensure public money is not contributing to modern slavery. And I think it is important to note that this is really quite a quite a kind of groundbreaking and really. important aspect of this bill. As I've just set out, we are spending a huge amount through our public procurement contracts in this country, and I'm sure the vast majority of people in this country would hope and. expect that the money they spend, taxpayers money that is spent through this government and through our local authorities and our broader public sector, is not having any damaging effect on modern slavery around the world.
And I think being able to have this. responsibility on public bodies in the same way that we ask our private sector to do so, is a really. important not just a levelling up.
And I think being able to have this. responsibility on public bodies in the same way that we ask our private sector to do so, is a really. important not just a levelling up.
15:52
15:52
15:52
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
The bill. Clause 46 brings public authorities within the modern slavery reporting system, and it's right that we look closely at how they account for the money they spend. If we expect businesses to explain what they are doing about. exploitation in their supply chains, public bodies should be prepared to do the same. Taxpayers are entitled to know that money taken from their. wages is being spent responsibly. The fact that a contract is paid for by the state does not make the risks behind it disappear. We support the principle of this clause. Consider a public body buying.
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
But who has checked the arrangements further down the chain? Who's asked how the workers are. recruited or whether a. subcontractor is using labour. supplied on terms that should ring alarm bells? Those questions need asking before a problem becomes a scandal. The government should lead by example here. Ministers cannot demand standards from the private sector and then accept an annual statement from a public body as evidence that everything must be fine. The statement needs to reflect the decisions made by the people actually buying the goods and services. And if the procurement team finds a serious risk, it needs a clear route to someone who can act on it.
The threshold matters. The bill leaves both the minimum budget and the way it is calculated to .
The threshold matters. The bill leaves both the minimum budget and the way it is calculated to .
15:52
15:52
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
So until we see them, we cannot know which bodies will be covered or what the burden will be. Businesses must report once their turnover reaches £36 million. I'd be grateful if the minister could tell us whether the public sector. threshold will match that. How many authorities are expected to be covered, and what assessment has been made of their capacity to comply? The government's own notes also say that applying these duties to public.
authorities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland requires the consent of devolved.
authorities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland requires the consent of devolved.
15:52
15:52
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
So the Minister should tell us whether that consent has been sought. The clause also allows one public authority to certify another statement. There may be sensible reasons for that, particularly where services or purchase and arrangements are shared, but. responsibility must remain clear. If a statement turns out to be.
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Minister, thank you very much and I appreciate the contribution from the honourable gentleman. Abhorrent practices like modern slavery have no place in public supply chains. We've taken action in the Procurement Act to strengthen the rules around excluding suppliers due to serious. misconduct anywhere in their operations. including certain key subcontractors.
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The government updated procurement policy note. 009 tackling modern slavery and government supply chains, advocating a risk based approach to identifying and managing modern slavery risks, and encouraging departments to conduct due diligence using a range of tools such as the Modern Slavery Assessment Tool. The Modern Slavery Assessment tool is a risk identification and management tool. This tool has been designed to help public sector organisations work in partnership with suppliers to improve protections and reduce the risk of exploitation of workers in their supply chains. The government also made the anti-slavery risk tearing tool available to public sector buyers in October 2025.
This tool enables faster risk assessments and clear next steps to mitigate modern slavery risks across the.
This tool enables faster risk assessments and clear next steps to mitigate modern slavery risks across the.
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And this will likely result in approximately. 380 statements due to the ability to report in groups. As we've. explicitly applied for the government. Sorry. The honourable gentleman also asked about devolved government consent. We are in. conversations as part of this process. The hon. Gentleman asked about timings and when the public sector will start to publish its statements. Through this Bill, the government is extending the duty to report on actions being taken to address modern slavery in supply chains, as introduced in section four of the Modern Slavery Act. We expect the measures to take effect for an organisation's financial year that begins on or after commencement.
While commencement timelines are still to be finalised, we do not expect the first compliance statements will .
While commencement timelines are still to be finalised, we do not expect the first compliance statements will .
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And I think I hope I've answered the all the honourable gentlemen's questions. So, as I said, I want to thank members for their interest in this clause. As I said, we this this is about extending transparency requirements relating to modern slavery to public authorities. Our intention is to align the public sector procurement process with the private sector and ensure that every .
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Sector organisations that are expected to comply versus the private sector? I think it's difficult to make a direct comparison, and obviously there will be organisations will be expected to, to some extent, to lead this themselves. So, for example, the NHS will make a decision itself, NHS England, on whether it is accountable as a body, as a whole, or whether it does multiple. responses from sort of regional bodies. So for those organisations, they will be coming forward to us with their recommendations of how they would like to be reporting. So that will give us a sense of the scale, and I don't think it's directly comparable to the private sector in a like for like way.
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Organisations, as we've discussed this afternoon, are required to publish modern slavery statements on a prominent place on their website. If they do not have a website, they must make their statement available on request. This makes it very difficult to assess modern slavery statements, assess levels of compliance and hold. organisations to account by having no sort of central means of reporting. So clause 47 seeks to address this gap by creating a clear requirement for.
organisations to submit their modern slavery statements to a specified electronic.
organisations to submit their modern slavery statements to a specified electronic.
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Such as the Modern Slavery Statement Registry, which exists for voluntary submissions. This clause requires statements to be submitted within six months of the end of the relevant financial year, ensuring that reporting is timely, accessible and easily monitored. By centralizing statements at a single location, the government will be able to identify more organisations that are complying with their statutory. obligations and, of course, see and take action on those that are failing to do so. This will strengthen oversight, improve. transparency and support more effective enforcement of the reporting regime. It will also make information on modern slavery risks and actions more readily available to.
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
47 stand part of the bill. Having considered what the statement should contain, clause. 47 turns to whether they reach the people who need to read them. There's little value in requiring a statement if nobody can find it, or if the only version available is several years out of date. A customer, a supplier, or a member of the public should should be able to see what an. organisation says it is doing and when it last accounted for its actions. We support making that information easier to find. The clause requires publication on an. organisation's website, where it has one with a prominent link from the home page.
It also allows regulations to require electronic submission to the Secretary of State. Organisations must comply as soon as reasonably. practicable after the financial year ends and within six months at the latest. That gives. organisations a clear deadline. The practical question is whether the Home Office will know when it has been missed. A collection of statements tells us who has submitted one. It does not, on its own, tell us who should have submitted one, and it stayed silent. The existing registry can already send reminders to. organisations that have signed up, but it cannot chase an. organisation that should be reporting and has never registered at all.
I'd be grateful if the minister could explain how the department will identify every. organisation covered and how it will follow up missing statements. The submission process should also be straightforward. A business that has prepared and published its statements should not have to pay someone else to navigate a complicated government system. There is already a government registry for modern slavery. statements set up in.
It also allows regulations to require electronic submission to the Secretary of State. Organisations must comply as soon as reasonably. practicable after the financial year ends and within six months at the latest. That gives. organisations a clear deadline. The practical question is whether the Home Office will know when it has been missed. A collection of statements tells us who has submitted one. It does not, on its own, tell us who should have submitted one, and it stayed silent. The existing registry can already send reminders to. organisations that have signed up, but it cannot chase an. organisation that should be reporting and has never registered at all.
I'd be grateful if the minister could explain how the department will identify every. organisation covered and how it will follow up missing statements. The submission process should also be straightforward. A business that has prepared and published its statements should not have to pay someone else to navigate a complicated government system. There is already a government registry for modern slavery. statements set up in.
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
The coverage should be obvious. Otherwise, the public may think a business has failed to report when its statement is simply filed under a different name. I would welcome a clear timetable for the submission regulations. The point of all of this is to make scrutiny possible, and ministers must make sure the publication produces. information people can actually use.
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
We support clause 47. Minister, I thank the honourable gentleman for his. contribution and yes, to reassure him that we will be building on the Modern Slavery Statement Registry. There are already over. 34,000 organisations already registered there. Therefore. familiarisation costs to those organisations are likely to be minimal, so they already used that platform. For those organisations that have not used the registry before, we expect the cost of.
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Which includes the time taken for personnel to register and learn how to use it to be very low. The impact assessment estimates the first year cost of business as approximately £0.4 million. The ongoing cost is estimated to be approximately. £0.2 million per year. The honourable gentleman asked about a. timetable and should there be a a single.
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
It's important, I think, that we recognise businesses may have different financial reporting periods based on how their financial year operates. So most businesses reporting will align with their financial year timescales. We want to ensure that businesses businesses can align their modern slavery. reporting with their ongoing reporting. operations and. obligations to minimise those burdens. And I just want to clarify about the sort of broader impact of this, you know, these measures. Important to reiterate, this is not a new requirement. Businesses in scope should already be producing their modern slavery statements in line with section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act.
The measures in this bill will require some changes to the content and process for completing and submitting a statement, but that will be minimal. A full impact assessment and breakdown of costs, as I've said, has already been. published in terms of the.
The measures in this bill will require some changes to the content and process for completing and submitting a statement, but that will be minimal. A full impact assessment and breakdown of costs, as I've said, has already been. published in terms of the.
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
How to identify the. organisations covered. We are working with the Department for business to build the In-scope list, so I can keep them updated and keep the committee updated on that, and I think I've answered his question, or he asked about whether this sorry, the enforcement. There are multiple models that could be used to deliver this, including conferring functions on an existing regulator or within the Home Office itself. So we are doing the work to make sure the most appropriate model for. enforcement and for administering these financial penalties will be in place. We will consult on the draft regulations during the passage of this bill.
So I thank members for this important debate. This clause strengthens reporting.
So I thank members for this important debate. This clause strengthens reporting.
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Clause 48 stand part of the bill. Minister. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given the changes to reporting requirements in this bill, clause 48 seeks to ensure the provision for the Secretary of State to issue guidance that aligns with these states. Clause 48 sets out that the Secretary of State can issue guidance for both the private and public sector on how to write the modern slavery statement and provide examples of good practice in tackling modern slavery in supply chains, and examples of information that may be included in addition to the mandatory information. This will ensure that there is adequate information to support organisations in producing modern slavery.
Statements that cover all of the mandatory content requirements set out in schedule five. In summary, clause eight will help promote consistency. transparency and good practice in reporting across both the public and private.
Statements that cover all of the mandatory content requirements set out in schedule five. In summary, clause eight will help promote consistency. transparency and good practice in reporting across both the public and private.
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Move that clause 48 stand part of the bill. For these new duties to work. The people carrying them out need clear instructions. That's where the guidance under clause 48 comes in. There's a short clause, but the guidance will matter a great deal to people expected to make the preceding clauses work. They need to know what a useful statement looks like, what information they should seek from.
15:52
15:52
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
And how to explain a risk they've identified. They should not need a lawyer to translate the government's. instructions before they can get started. Timing matters. Organisations need time to understand the. requirements and put arrangements in place. Publishing guidance at the last minute would create avoidable mistakes and leave ministers blaming people for. confusion of the government's own making. I'd be grateful if the minister would commit to having the guidance available well before the new duties take effect. Businesses have also only recently been told to review updated Home Office. guidance on their statements. They should not have to rewrite everything a second time.
The new guidance should build on what. organisations have just put into place, rather than starting again from scratch. There also needs to be a clear. distinction between what the law. requires and what the government would like. organisations to do voluntarily. The clause allows guidance to cover additional. information that statements may include that should be plainly labelled. Businesses should not discover that an optional suggestion has become an official. requirement when somebody comes to assess their compliance. Practical examples would help, particularly for. organisations with different kinds of supply chain. Guidance should explain how to report a problem honestly, and what to do when there is evidence that somebody is being exploited.
Nobody should wait for the next annual statement before raising a serious concern with the appropriate authorities. We support clause 48. The Minister should tell us who will be consulted on the guidance and how future changes will be.
The new guidance should build on what. organisations have just put into place, rather than starting again from scratch. There also needs to be a clear. distinction between what the law. requires and what the government would like. organisations to do voluntarily. The clause allows guidance to cover additional. information that statements may include that should be plainly labelled. Businesses should not discover that an optional suggestion has become an official. requirement when somebody comes to assess their compliance. Practical examples would help, particularly for. organisations with different kinds of supply chain. Guidance should explain how to report a problem honestly, and what to do when there is evidence that somebody is being exploited.
Nobody should wait for the next annual statement before raising a serious concern with the appropriate authorities. We support clause 48. The Minister should tell us who will be consulted on the guidance and how future changes will be.
15:53
15:53
15:54
15:54
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Measures are intended to protect. I thank the gentleman for his statement. Simply put, clause 48 provides the Secretary of State with the power to provide practical guidance on how modern slavery statements should be prepared, in line with the new requirements in this Bill, including, as the honourable gentleman suggests, good practice in identifying and tackling modern slavery risks within operations and supply chains. He asked whether the updated guidance would be issued. The Secretary of State will issue the new guidance in time for commencement. I'm pleased to reassure him, and he said he's asking for sort of further clarity on the reporting.
15:55
15:55
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
During the recent update to the transparency and supply chain guidance published in March 25th. We consulted widely with businesses, NGOs and civil society. This has been well received. It aligns with international standards that I set out earlier, such as the OECD due diligence guidelines. The purpose of this clause is to support compliance and improve the overall quality of.
15:56
15:56
15:56
15:57
15:57
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And there are limited consequences for organisations that fail to meet their obligations. Clause 49 introduces a civil enforcement framework, including financial. penalties for organisations that fail to comply with their statutory reporting. obligations under section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The clause provides the Secretary of State with powers to impose penalties of up to. £1 million or 1% of annual turnover, or a budget for public. authorities to make sure there are real consequences for those who do not take this duty seriously. It also provides a power by regulation for the Secretary of State to set out procedural.
15:58
15:58
15:58
15:58
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Rights of appeal and provisions relating to determination of the penalty amount, cost recovery, interest on late payment and enforcement of unpaid penalties. This ensures that enforcement is fair, proportionate and effective. These changes are central to strengthening the. transparency of supply chains.
15:58
15:58
15:59
15:59
15:59
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Clause 49 stand part of the bill. Clause 49 brings us to the practical question of what happens when an. organisation fails to do what the law requires. We spent the preceding groups discussing what. organisations must report and how they must publish it. Those duties need to mean something. A business that takes its.
15:59
15:59
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Should not find a competitor, can ignore the rules and carry on without consequence. We support effective. enforcement against. organisations that fail to comply without a reasonable excuse. The clause allows ministers to establish financial penalties through regulations. The maximum for an individual penalty will be the higher of.
16:00
16:00
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Or 1% of the. organisation's total turnover, of a public. authorities total budget. That is a. substantial power. It's a ceiling, not a standard fine and there are penalties are set below. It will matter enormously. There must be a sensible. distinction between a genuine mistake that is quickly corrected and a deliberate refusal to comply. An organisation that has ignored repeated requests should not be. treated in the same way as one that has made an isolated. administrative error. Equally, the reasonable excuse. provision must not become a stock response for those who simply can't be bothered. Much of that detail is left to regulation.
The clause allows for warning notices. representations and appeals. Organisations should know how a penalty has been. calculated and have a fair opportunity to challenge a wrong.
The clause allows for warning notices. representations and appeals. Organisations should know how a penalty has been. calculated and have a fair opportunity to challenge a wrong.
16:02
16:02
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So be grateful if the Minister could confirm which of those. safeguards the regulations will include, and how the seriousness of a failure will be assessed. There is particular issue with public authorities. A fine on a public body. ultimately comes out of public money. That does not mean public bodies should escape enforcement. But moving money out of a service budget while leaving the same failures.
untouched would achieve very little. The minister should explain how a penalty will lead to better.
untouched would achieve very little. The minister should explain how a penalty will lead to better.
16:03
16:03
16:03
16:03
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
And the minister should explain how that route and the penalty regime will fit together, and who will make the decisions. There is a lesson here from the existing law. The 2015 act already allows the Home. Secretary to seek an injunction against a business that fails to publish a statement. Yet that power has, as far as I'm aware, never been used. A strong power on paper is of little use. If the enforcement team lacks the. information or capacity to use it. The Minister should tell us what resources have been judged. necessary and when the new arrangements will be up and running.
Finally, we should be clear about what these penalties address. They concern failures to comply with the reporting duties. A compliance. statement is not proof that. exploitation is absent, and a report and penalty is no. substitute for. investigating evidence of slavery where such evidence emerges. There needs to be a clear route to the agencies that can protect. victims and pursue the perpetrators. We support giving these duties proper teeth and we support clause 49. The test for ministers is whether persistent. non-compliance is tackled, whether decisions are fair and whether. identified risks lead to action. I look forward to the Minister's explain how these.
Finally, we should be clear about what these penalties address. They concern failures to comply with the reporting duties. A compliance. statement is not proof that. exploitation is absent, and a report and penalty is no. substitute for. investigating evidence of slavery where such evidence emerges. There needs to be a clear route to the agencies that can protect. victims and pursue the perpetrators. We support giving these duties proper teeth and we support clause 49. The test for ministers is whether persistent. non-compliance is tackled, whether decisions are fair and whether. identified risks lead to action. I look forward to the Minister's explain how these.
16:06
16:07
16:07
16:07
16:07
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Instances across. 350 companies is the data that she provides. And she says and points out to us that the legislation is silent on who will enforce these requirements. At the moment, the clause simply calls this the enforcement authority with lowercase letters. It's not an official body as yet, and this has yet to be decided. I think it's incredibly important that this is resolved properly, that the enforcement authority has teeth.
16:08
16:08
16:08
16:09
16:09
16:09
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Part of any new powers. Minister, I thank honourable members for their. contributions and questions to these. important clauses. The honourable gentleman opposite asked who will be determining, and I think so did the honourable Lady who will be determining and forcing the financial penalties. The Secretary of State may determine who will impose financial penalties on non-compliant.
16:10
16:10
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And there are a number of multiple models that can be used to deliver this. And this work is ongoing at the moment. It could be potentially through an existing regulator or within the Home Office itself. So I do appreciate that this is quite an important part of the the regulations. So we will be drafting regulations that will be shared during the passage of this bill. We'll continue to engage with partners so we can ensure the most appropriate model is developed for enforcement and administering financial penalties, without creating another additional burden on the taxpayer, creating some kind of sort of additional new institution.
The honourable gentleman asked about the High Court injunction power. Under the current framework, if an organization fails to publish a statement, the Home Secretary can seek an injunction to require compliance. However, that power has not been used to date due to the difficulties of monitoring compliance under the current regime, where there are no mandatory requirements or clear.
The honourable gentleman asked about the High Court injunction power. Under the current framework, if an organization fails to publish a statement, the Home Secretary can seek an injunction to require compliance. However, that power has not been used to date due to the difficulties of monitoring compliance under the current regime, where there are no mandatory requirements or clear.
16:12
16:12
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Pursuing an injunction can be a burdensome and resource intensive process, and the court could only require the injunction organisation to comply. It cannot issue a financial penalty. The measures in this Bill will provide clearer expectations on what compliance looks like, looks like, allow for more effective monitoring of.
16:12
16:12
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And introduce powers to impose stronger. consequences on those who do not take their duties seriously. In terms of the. expectation in collecting these civil penalties, the purpose of these penalties is to encourage. compliance with the transparency of supply chain requirements. We know from similar reporting regimes, for example, gender pay gap reporting and from companies House that. organisations typically comply with their. organisations once an investigation is opened and before it gets to a stage where a financial penalty is issued. Therefore, the expectation is that the number of penalties issued will actually be very low. In addition, the penalty amount will vary depending on a number of factors, including.
organisational turnover given the penalty calculations and the expected expectation of almost full.
organisational turnover given the penalty calculations and the expected expectation of almost full.
16:13
16:13
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
It is difficult to give an estimate of its expected revenue from civil penalties. The the the in terms of where that money will go, the Bill provides any financial penalties received by the enforcement agency must be paid into the Consolidated Fund, as is typical for such penalty regimes. The honourable gentleman also asked about public bodies. As I've said, public bodies will be in scope of the reporting requirements. Financial penalties will apply to organisations that are legally separate from the Crown, such as local authorities and arm's length bodies. As a matter of constitutional principle, the government does not impose financial.
penalties on itself. We expect the. provisions will apply to modern slavery statements that cover an organisation's financial year that begins on or after commencement. While commencement timelines are still to be confirmed, we do not expect the first compliance statements will be required any earlier than.
penalties on itself. We expect the. provisions will apply to modern slavery statements that cover an organisation's financial year that begins on or after commencement. While commencement timelines are still to be confirmed, we do not expect the first compliance statements will be required any earlier than.
16:15
16:15
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And yeah, I think in terms of the enforcement body and clarification on the details, as I've said, that will be provided as the bill progresses through Parliament. So I thank members again for their contribution to this discussion. Clause 49 will introduce a new civil enforcement framework, which will include financial penalties for companies who fail to comply with their reporting. obligations under section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act, as improved by the previous clauses. Doing this will strengthen this regime and give it real teeth.
When looking to tackle the problem of .
When looking to tackle the problem of .
16:16
16:16
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Slavery in supply chains. And I beg to move. The question is that clause 49 and part of the bill, as many of that opinion say, aye. I know, I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to government new clause one, which has already been debated. I call the minister to move new clause one formally, formally enforcement. The question is that new clause one be read a second time. As many of that opinion say, I. I have gone through no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that new clause .
16:17
16:17
16:18
16:18
16:18
16:18
16:18
16:18
16:18
16:18
16:18
16:18
16:18
16:18
16:18
16:18
16:18
16:18
16:18
16:18
16:18
16:18
16:18
16:18
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
War crimes or serious organised crime. Section seven of the Immigration Act. 1971 provides protection from deportation for certain Commonwealth and Irish. citizens who are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom before the 1st of January 1973. This is an important safeguard for many people with long standing ties to the UK. The recent high profile case of Shabbir Ahmed has highlighted a significant anomaly in the current law. In cases where the person's conduct is serious enough to justify the removal of their.
16:18
16:18
16:18
16:18
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Serious organised crime, sexual grooming or war crimes, should not be able to avoid. deportation purely on the basis that they were in this country since before 1973. Our amendment will end this disparity in the powers available to protect the public from the most dangerous people. Decisions to Disapply the exemption will be taken personally by the Home Secretary. Safeguards put in place by this amendment ensure that legislation will not affect the vast majority of people protected by section seven.
It will only be used to ensure that those individuals whose conduct .
It will only be used to ensure that those individuals whose conduct .
16:19
16:19
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Them among the most serious threats to the public can be deported. As we've seen with this particular case, changing the law is only half the problem. Arranging the deportation of such. individuals can take time, as successive governments have found previously. Making this important amendment will ensure that we have the power to deport this.
16:20
16:20
16:20
16:20
16:20
16:20
16:20
Tom Gordon
-
-
Tom Gordon
The question is that new clause for a second time. Blake Stevenson Thank you very much, Mr. Twigg. New clause five closes an anomaly that dates back to. 1973 that Commonwealth and Irish. citizens who were living here when the Immigration Act. 1971 came into force from deportation by section seven, however serious their conduct. The new clause would let the Home Secretary decide that such person is liable to.
deportation where they have been, or could have been deprived of. citizenship on conduct grounds. We support it and amendment.
deportation where they have been, or could have been deprived of. citizenship on conduct grounds. We support it and amendment.
16:22
16:22
Tom Gordon
-
-
Tom Gordon
Which brings it into force on royal assent. The conservative plan is to deport all foreign criminals, not some of them. All of them. Any measure that removes a barrier to deportation is a step in that direction. A new course five is indeed a step in the right direction, and it is, however, such a small step that it is challenging to see that it will make a noticeable impact. It is a personal discretion for the Home Secretary, not a duty. And every person who who it covers will still be able to resist removal under article eight and article three through the Human Rights Act.
Compare that with the much more robust new clause.
Compare that with the much more robust new clause.
16:33
16:33
Tom Gordon
-
-
Tom Gordon
Which my hon. Friend the member for Croydon South tabled. This would mean automatic deportation for every foreign national convicted of an offence. That is what our borders plan means by deporting all foreign criminals. But for the purposes of this debate, Mr. Twigg, I've got three questions for the minister, if I may. How many people does the government estimate are protected by section seven and could be made liable to. deportation under new clause five? What is the government's legal assessment of the clauses reliance on conduct before commencement. And how will the power apply to Irish. citizens given the Common Travel Area?
Has the Irish government been. consulted on this measure? We will support new clause five. But if the government accepts the principle that dangerous people should not be protected from deportation by legal.
Has the Irish government been. consulted on this measure? We will support new clause five. But if the government accepts the principle that dangerous people should not be protected from deportation by legal.
16:35
16:35
16:35
16:35
16:35
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Sean Burke. Thanks, chair. I just wanted to raise a few alarm bells that I can sort of feel in relation to this, and I hope the minister can answer them quite clearly. My misgivings are partly that the minister has talked about basing the need for this on a single case example, partly that this has been introduced into the Bill at a at a late.
stage in our.
stage in our.
16:36
16:36
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
That it will come into force immediately on Royal assent. It appears to be a rush, and and I'm not convinced that it doesn't have equalities. impacts and overlaps with the lessons we should have learned from the Windrush scandal. So if the Minister can give some more. assurance that this has been looked at carefully and not rushed into. On the .
16:37
16:37
16:38
16:38
16:38
16:38
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Serious organised crime or war crimes, cannot be deported even after we have stripped them of British. citizenship through this, this loophole. And I think it's important that we take steps now to address it. The I also do want to give some reassurance, though, because obviously there are other people who I think, you know, may raise concerns about protection given in law to others, for example, who say the Windrush generation or others who have been came here previously. And I want to be absolutely clear and explicit here in this committee. They will not be affected any any sort of broader protection for the Windrush generation.
It's not affected by this. The power will be exercised personally by the Home Secretary. The government is clear that wider protection is offered by section seven will remain intact. The legislation will not affect the overwhelming majority of people protected by section seven or their rights. This measure is intended solely to ensure that specific. individuals whose conduct places them amongst the most serious threats to the .
It's not affected by this. The power will be exercised personally by the Home Secretary. The government is clear that wider protection is offered by section seven will remain intact. The legislation will not affect the overwhelming majority of people protected by section seven or their rights. This measure is intended solely to ensure that specific. individuals whose conduct places them amongst the most serious threats to the .
16:40
Tom Gordon
-
-
Tom Gordon
Public can be deported. Well, yes. Sure. I thank the minister . Going way. We support closing this gap. And given that the test is a an issue with the Home Secretary's judgement rather than a conviction that it applies to Scotland. I think it would be really helpful if the Minister would be able to give reassurances that we were given how serious and sort of huge this power would be if we could have some sort of reporting .
16:41
16:41
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Often it's used and how many people fall under it. Minister, the honourable gentleman will be aware that it's actually very similar to powers the Home Secretary already has, including the ability to prevent people coming here and for asking people to be removed. And I think it's it's really, you know, we agree with him that the deprivation on conducive grounds is used sparingly, then it should be against those who pose a serious threat to the UK or whose conduct is involved very high harm other than where a decision is taken on on the ground, the person has conducted themselves in a manner which is seriously.
prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK. The conducive power is limited so that it can only be applied to those who are dual citizens. Parliament chose to enact the power on that basis in order to avoid the prospect of leaving people stateless, which would be contrary to the UK's commitments under the. 1961 Stateless convention. And just responding again further to his point about the Home Secretary, she is, of course, accountable to this place on a daily basis, and I'm sure we'll continue to give on high profile cases. Her usual. response on the floor of the House, the honourable gentleman asked about how many the estimated projection of this.
We don't have the statistics on this, but as I said, I've been very clear and upfront that this is responding to a particular case. And I think these we expect these to be very extreme and unusual. cases where someone has been guilty of a crime of this. magnitude . and yet is of that generation price.
prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK. The conducive power is limited so that it can only be applied to those who are dual citizens. Parliament chose to enact the power on that basis in order to avoid the prospect of leaving people stateless, which would be contrary to the UK's commitments under the. 1961 Stateless convention. And just responding again further to his point about the Home Secretary, she is, of course, accountable to this place on a daily basis, and I'm sure we'll continue to give on high profile cases. Her usual. response on the floor of the House, the honourable gentleman asked about how many the estimated projection of this.
We don't have the statistics on this, but as I said, I've been very clear and upfront that this is responding to a particular case. And I think these we expect these to be very extreme and unusual. cases where someone has been guilty of a crime of this. magnitude . and yet is of that generation price.
16:44
16:44
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
We he asked about the consideration of the legal assessment. We have reviewed the legal position very, very carefully. We are content. It is lawful, and that's why we are taking this forward. He also mentioned Irish citizens. Irish citizens are liable to deportation, but in practice only pursued in limited circumstances. So I thank members for their contribution to this important debate. As members will know, this government has made this change to end the disparity in powers available to protect the public from the most dangerous people. The recent high profile case of Shabbir Ahmed has highlighted a significant.
anomaly in the current law. In cases where the person's conduct is serious enough to justify the removal of their citizenship.
anomaly in the current law. In cases where the person's conduct is serious enough to justify the removal of their citizenship.
16:45
Tom Gordon
-
-
Tom Gordon
Section seven currently prevents us from deporting them. Yeah. Thank Minister for giving way once again. In my role sitting on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, we had a report about the accountability for war crimes. One of the things that was in that report was the fact that the UK government uses its powers to strip citizenship more than almost any other country in the world, and the way in which it's done has often been described as not particularly transparent. Would she again, could I press just a little bit further to go further on the reporting mechanisms that we would see as a result of this .
16:46
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Clause, and also existing government citizenship stripping? If we've taken the decision, this does not influence our decisions to deprive people of citizenship. That remains. It's simply about our ability to remove them. And that's the important loophole that we're trying to close to create consistency on that front. Safeguards put in place by government. New clause five ensure that legislation will not affect the vast majority of people protected by section seven. It will only be used to ensure that those individuals whose conduct places them .
16:47
16:47
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
And I beg to move you. The question is that New clause five be read a second time. Has any of that opinion say I? I contrary, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that clause five be added to the bill. As many of that opinion say, I. The contrary. No. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.
We now come to government. New .
We now come to government. New .
16:48
16:48
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I call the minister. Thank you very much. Section 33 of the UK Borders Act. 2007 sets out exceptions to the automatic deportation of foreign criminals. This technical amendment provides greater legal clarity in relation to the exception that may apply. Where a foreign criminal is also a confirmed victim of modern slavery. At the time, the UK Borders Act 2007 was enacted, there was not a detailed domestic legal. framework in place for the identification and protection of victims of modern slavery.
Since then, the government has introduced specific domestic modern slavery.
Since then, the government has introduced specific domestic modern slavery.
16:49
16:49
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Including the Modern Slavery Act. 2015 and the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. The ongoing work of the Immigration and Asylum Bill has highlighted the outdated reference to Iccat and provides an opportune moment to update the. legislation so that it refers to the relevant domestic modern slavery framework. So Amendment New Clause. 32 replaces the existing reference to the UK's. obligations under the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings, with a reference to the relevant domestic slavery.
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The UK has introduced specific modern slavery. legislation and these provisions will now provide the legal framework for identifying and protecting victims of modern slavery in the UK. The amendment aligns the deportation framework with existing domestic legislation on modern slavery provisions and provides greater legal clarity. The amendment is not expanding or altering the protections. It is simply clarifying and clearing up any. ambiguity on the face of the law. It simply places the exception to automatic.
deportation on a clearer domestic statutory footing, while ensuring the Secretary of State retains flexibility to grant temporary .
deportation on a clearer domestic statutory footing, while ensuring the Secretary of State retains flexibility to grant temporary .
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
Tom Gordon
-
-
Tom Gordon
The question is that clause 32 be read a second time. Blake Stevenson Thank you, Mr. Agnew. Clause 32. We rewrite the exception to automatic. deportation for foreign. criminals who are victims of trafficking. At present, section. 336 A of the UK Borders Act. 2007 applies automatic deportation where removal would breach our obligations under the Council of Europe Trafficking Convention. The new clause would replace that with a test based on leave under section. 65 of the. Nationality and Borders Act, including where the Home Secretary merely intends to grant such leave, even where she is under no duty to do so.
A criminal conviction should trigger automatic.
A criminal conviction should trigger automatic.
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
Tom Gordon
-
-
Tom Gordon
And it widens the discretion to use it. Nobody in this committee, I am sure, wants genuine, genuine victims of trafficking to be left unsupported. But the government itself, in clause 38, accepts that people who pose a threat to public order should be disqualified from protection. Why then keep the exception to automatic. deportation for people who have been convicted of crimes here? And why widen the cases where there is no duty to grant leave at all? So can I ask the minister a couple of questions? How many foreign criminals relied on the trafficking.
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Minister, I thank the honourable gentleman. Thank you. Temporary permission to stay is granted only in limited circumstances, for specific purposes and for time limited periods. Confirmed victims who are considered a risk to public order, who have made a modern slavery claim in bad faith will not usually be granted temporary permission to stay in the UK. In rare cases, the Secretary of State may decide that temporary permission to stay is to be granted to an. individual who has been convicted of a crime, for example, where their presence is necessary to support a law enforcement investigation or criminal proceedings.
The amendment ensures the Secretary of State retains its discretion. As befitting our earlier clauses, any grant of temporary permission to say, subject to the individual continuing to meet the relevant. requirements and lasts only for as long as it is necessary to achieve the purpose for which it is granted. On the specific numbers that he asks, I will undertake to write to the committee to respond to those. So I thank members for their interest in this government amendment. Amendment new clause 32 replaces the existing reference to the United Kingdom's obligations under the Council of Europe. Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings, with a reference to the relevant domestic modern slavery.
The amendment ensures the Secretary of State retains its discretion. As befitting our earlier clauses, any grant of temporary permission to say, subject to the individual continuing to meet the relevant. requirements and lasts only for as long as it is necessary to achieve the purpose for which it is granted. On the specific numbers that he asks, I will undertake to write to the committee to respond to those. So I thank members for their interest in this government amendment. Amendment new clause 32 replaces the existing reference to the United Kingdom's obligations under the Council of Europe. Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings, with a reference to the relevant domestic modern slavery.
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
New clause 33. I call the Minister. Thank you very much, Mr. Twigg. Government amendment clause 33 seeks to amend the Immigration and Asylum Act. 1999 to ensure the enforcement of orders made by the Immigration Services Commissioner under that act for penalties, refunds and compensation work effectively in Northern Ireland. Provisions regarding enforcement of unpaid monetary penalties, refunds of fees or payments of compensation in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland were part of the Immigration Services Commissioner. Measures in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025. Upon making preparations to commence the measures, however, it became apparent that the provisions are not compatible with the system in place in Northern Ireland.
Therefore, the government is taking steps to rectify the. situation so the enforcement regime can operate as intended. Government amendment Clause 33 ensures that any unpaid monetary penalty, refund of fees or payment of compensation imposed by the Immigration Services Commissioner on advisers providing poor or illegal immigration services or advice can be recovered in Northern Ireland as they can in England, Wales and Scotland. It also makes provision for penalties to be entered into the relevant registers in England and Wales and Northern Ireland. Procedures for recovery of debts differ in Scotland from those in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and in Scotland.
Statutory penalties need not be treated as an existing court.
Therefore, the government is taking steps to rectify the. situation so the enforcement regime can operate as intended. Government amendment Clause 33 ensures that any unpaid monetary penalty, refund of fees or payment of compensation imposed by the Immigration Services Commissioner on advisers providing poor or illegal immigration services or advice can be recovered in Northern Ireland as they can in England, Wales and Scotland. It also makes provision for penalties to be entered into the relevant registers in England and Wales and Northern Ireland. Procedures for recovery of debts differ in Scotland from those in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and in Scotland.
Statutory penalties need not be treated as an existing court.
16:50
16:50
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
In keeping with other types of statutory penalty in Scotland. The proposed drafting drafting allows for these penalties to be treated as an extract registered decree arbitral bearing a warrant for. execution for purposes of enforcement. This means that no application is needed to the court to enforce a debt or penalty, as it is treated as having been registered with the court and authority. Given the.
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
Tom Gordon
-
-
Tom Gordon
Is that new clause. 3333 be read a second time. Blake Stevenson. Thank you, Mr. Twigg. New clause 33 makes the Immigration Services Commissioner's penalties, refund orders and compensation orders. enforceable as court orders across the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland. These are technical. improvements and we support them. Rogue immigration advisers do real damage. They take money from vulnerable people and too often they coach claims designed not to establish the truth but to delay removal. The late claim lodged the night before a flight. The fresh claim built on a story that has changed. We would end immigration, legal aid and limit judicial review to cases where the Home Office has acted outside its powers, which would remove much of the market these advisers exploit.
In the.
In the.
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
But I look forward to questions from Minister. Thank you. I can take to. Right, Minister, those figures. I don't have them to hand at the moment, but I appreciate his interest in this amendment. Government amendment new clause 33 ensures that any unpaid monetary penalty, refund of fees or payment of compensation imposed by the Immigration Services. Commissioner on advisers for providing poor or illegal immigration advice or. services can be recovered in Northern Ireland as they can be in England, Wales and Scotland. It also makes provision for penalties to be entered into the relevant registers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
This amendment will ensure that the system relating to the Immigration .
This amendment will ensure that the system relating to the Immigration .
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I call the Minister. Thank you very much, Mr. Twigg. Amendment new clause. 34 makes a straightforward technical amendment to the UK Borders Act 2007. It adds the Immigration and Asylum Act. 2026 to the statutory list of enactments that comprise the Immigration Acts in the. 2007 act. References to the Immigration Act appear throughout the statute book, and are used in connection with a wide range of immigration powers, enforcement provisions and other immigration functions. It is therefore important that, once enacted, this act is included within that established statutory definition. The effect of the amendment is to ensure that references elsewhere in the legislation to approach the Immigration Acts will apply consistently to the provisions contained in this act, in the same way as they apply to other immigration legislation.
The amendment is a technical provision that ensures the legislation fits coherently within the wider immigration statute book, and that .
The amendment is a technical provision that ensures the legislation fits coherently within the wider immigration statute book, and that .
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Provision and we do not oppose it. Thank you. Mr.. I would like to say thank members for their. overwhelming interest and enthusiasm in this clause. As discussed, the straightforward amendment government New clause 34 adds The Immigration and Asylum Act. 2026 to the statutory list of enactments that comprise the Immigration Acts in the 2007 act. This will simply mean references elsewhere in legislation to the Immigration Acts will apply consistently to the provisions contained in this .
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50