Modern Slavery Bill

Baroness Howarth of Breckland Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)]

My Lords, I simply want to ask a question relating to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me; I will be brief and then I will not need to intervene again.

Following the very useful meeting that the Minister called with Barnardo’s, he subsequently wrote to us explaining that local authorities had, in fact, taken proper action. This again raised a concern that I would like to put on record and for the Minister to speak to regarding the line of accountability between the local authority and the independent advocate. At the meeting, he made it clear that ultimate responsibility for the oversight and care of the child remained with the local authority, and that the independent advocate was, if you like, a help in terms of that. Something clearly went seriously wrong with communication but not with action, and the Minister subsequently told us that. My only question is to ask him to put on record that the respective roles of the independent advocate and the social worker are absolutely clear. Otherwise, we will have subsequent confusion. I was reassured at the meeting. I am no longer reassured about this and remain doubtful about the way in which this will work. I apologise but that was the only point I wanted to make.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I wish to speak to my Amendment 59A in this group. First, however, I would like to commend the noble Lord, Lord McColl, for his perseverance in bringing this issue before the House over so many years. I hope your Lordships would agree that his work and that of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, have been recognised in the amendments to Clause 48 that we are discussing today.

In Committee, I said that I was disappointed that the Government would not “be bolder” in their statements of the principles that would underpin the role of the advocates. I am glad to see that today they have gone some way towards meeting my concerns. At Second Reading, I said that we needed,

“a proper definition of child trafficking advocates”.—[Official Report, 17/11/14; col. 307.]

Again, I am glad to see that the Government have put forward some helpful clarifications in the series of amendments tabled by the Minister. In particular, I welcome the addition of the word “independent” in eight of his amendments.

However, as was said about the anti-slavery commissioner, adding the word “independent” does not mean that the role really is independent. I am grateful that the Government have recognised the strength of the argument in the case of the commissioner and amended the Bill to ensure that there really is independence with budgets and staff. I feel the same way about the use of the word “independent” in relation to child trafficking advocates.

Clause 48(2) currently says that the Secretary of State,

“must have regard to the principle that, so far as practicable, a child should be represented and supported by someone who is independent of any person who will be responsible for making decisions about the child”.

I know that the Minister said in Committee:

“Our provision sets out key principles in the Bill, such as that the advocate must be independent”.

He also said that,

“we are very clear that these advocates need to be independent in order to support and protect the child effectively”.—[Official Report, 8/12/14; cols. 1683-84]

The noble Lord said that the principle of independence was set out in subsection (2), so it was therefore unnecessary to include the word “independent” in the title of the clause or the title of the role.

I welcome the Minister’s change of heart on the use of the word “independent”, but there are so many new references to “independent” included in this clause that Clause 48(2) remains unamended. I am left perplexed about what “independence” might actually look like if it was only to be “so far as practicable”. It is for that reason that I tabled Amendment 59A, which would amend Clause 48(2) and clarify what “independent” means in this subsection, thereby removing the uncertainty that the words “so far as practicable” engender.

The need for an independent person was recognised in the 2013 report, Still at Risk, produced by the Children’s Society and the Refugee Council. That report recommended that,

“a system of protection needs to be developed which includes an independent trusted adult appointed to a separated child as soon as they come to an authority’s attention”.

The handbook on child trafficking advocates published last year by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights has independence and impartiality as one of its six fundamental principles, saying that advocates must,

“be in a position to make independent and impartial decisions, assessments, actions and representations guided by the best interests of the child”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I am very pleased to speak in support of Amendment 78, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Swansea and Lord Morrow.

In Committee, I highlighted the concerns raised by the Council of Europe’s group of experts and quoted in detail from their recommendations 26 and 27 that the UK,

“should make further efforts to ensure that all potential and actual victims of trafficking are provided with adequate support and assistance from their identification through to their recovery”.

I quoted from the Joint Committee on the draft Bill about the lack of consistency in the support being provided to victims of human trafficking. I said then:

“If this Bill contained details of the minimum levels victims should be receiving under our international obligations, it would strengthen the likelihood that all victims would receive that level of assistance”.—[Official Report, 8/12/14; col. 1693.]

I continue to have concerns that provision of support will be patchy and may not reach the standards expected by international treaties if the Bill does not make a specific guarantee that support of particular types will be available to victims, and create a statutory framework to govern how that support is provided.

I understand that an organisation that provides support to victims told the evidence review in the run-up to the draft Bill:

“In order to ensure that victims of human trafficking are confident that the UK will provide adequate protections it is vital that protections, entitlements and support are clearly defined in legislation and are not afforded through a ‘policy’ approach that can be subject to different interpretations .... Clear, legally defined obligations towards supporting potential victims of trafficking will improve confidence in the state to provide protection for them, further encourage cooperation and lead to the successful prosecution of perpetrators”.

I agree, and am disappointed that the amendments tabled by the Minister do not address this issue at all, especially as the Government’s own NRM review revealed that the current provision of support falls short of what we might expect and of the UK’s obligations in international treaties. For example, as the NRM review noted, the use of asylum support accommodation for victims of trafficking who are also making an asylum claim raises concerns with regard to victims’ safety and protection. This has been mentioned by other noble Lords. The report concludes that asylum support accommodation,

“may be suitable for some, but not all. Shared rooms or mixed gender accommodation are not suitable for those who are highly traumatised or who have been victims of sexual exploitation for example”.

Article 11.5 of the EU anti-trafficking directive requires that victims should be provided with “appropriate and safe accommodation”, as does Article 12 of the European convention, which specifically requires countries to take due account of the victim’s “safety and protection needs”. The evidence from the NRM review about the use of asylum seeker accommodation calls into question how well those international obligations are being met. Amendment 78 contains the requirements for appropriate and safe accommodation and for support to be provided with due regard for the victim’s need for safety and protection. Putting these requirements into law would prevent the placement of a vulnerable victim in unsuitable accommodation.

The review also “noted with concern” that there is no formal audit or inspection of services provided. I am glad to see this addressed specifically in Amendment 78, through proposed new subsection (1B)(g) and through the creation of minimum standards in proposed new subsection (1B)(d). The noble Lord, Lord McColl, referred to this. The absence of official minimum standards and independent auditing processes for support services means there is no way to ensure consistency in the type and quality of the assistance provided to victims. Victims of human trafficking are all different: they have experienced different types of exploitation, and their national and cultural backgrounds are different. Men and women can respond differently to the trauma that they have been through. Different needs will mean that different forms and methods of support will be appropriate.

I agree with the recommendation of the NRM review, which states:

“Support should be provided based on an assessment of the individual needs of the victim”.

But, as the Centre for Social Justice report on modern slavery, It Happens Here, notes:

“Whilst a variety of approaches is to be welcomed there is a need for consistency across all organisations which are providing support”.

The report goes on to recommend the establishment of minimum standards, echoing an earlier recommendation from the Council of Europe group of experts report, which I quoted earlier. The Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group has also made this recommendation on more than one occasion.

We must ensure that all victims receive the care that they are entitled to and that they are cared for in a safe and appropriate manner. Amendment 78 provides a foundation to do that. I commend it to the Minister. If he is unable to support it today, perhaps he may reflect on how key elements ensuring consistency in standards of care might be incorporated into the regulations that he proposes in Amendment 82.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, I want to speak briefly on what might appear to be a rather discordant note. I support the government amendments for the following reasons. I have great sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, which has been supported. However, when the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, raised the issue about child exploitation, we talked about the spectrum of people with needs.

In local authorities there are individuals with as high a level of need as some trafficked individuals—and I am not saying that trafficked individuals do not need a specialist service. I work with some of the relevant organisations, and a specialist service is needed. There are numerous sexually exploited young people who the local authority is attempting to support—the Children Act 1989 was as special as this legislation is—but because of cuts in local authority spending, children’s services are unable to provide the level of service needed, particularly in mental health support services, hostels for runaways and a whole range of services that we would expect to be given to asylum seekers. It is therefore difficult to set a standard for one group of individuals and say that we are not going to meet it for others.

I would be delighted if the Minister were able to say, “We are going to set this standard, and it should be for all individuals who have these needs”. However, under the 1989 Act, children who are described as being in need—there are thousands on local authority books—are simply not receiving those services. I wanted to inject that into the debate because someone has to speak for the local authorities, which are continually derided as not providing services appropriately. I speak as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, but that is neither here nor there. I simply hear from social workers and people in communities who are attempting to deliver services but against all odds. If there are specialist advocates who can give a high-quality service, such as guardians ad litem—I was eight years in CAFCASS, and I know all about the services such specialists are able to give—we need to look to enabling local authority social workers to give such services to every child in need.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, we dealt in the previous group of amendments with the distinction, or lack of it, between “reason to believe” and “reasonable grounds to believe”, and to which the noble Lord, Lord McColl, referred. Here, just as on that issue, the guidance will be important in making clear the position. That is because the first few days are so critical, as the noble Lord and others have said.

Guidance will also be important as regards our international obligations, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, referred. Looking at Amendment 78, I have been wondering whether it is necessary to detail what are already obligations, or whether one should have simply the general umbrella description, so that we are not stuck on any particular points. It might be necessary because we are, we hope, making quite a step change. It might also be necessary because having them spelt out in primary legislation will be an easier route to a remedy through the courts; but I raise the point because, if the amendment is not accepted, the guidance will be important in that regard.