Illegal Migration: Pull Factors

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I cannot give the noble Lord chapter and verse on all that detail in the half a minute that I have to answer his question, but I can say that 35,000 failed asylum seekers who came on small boats were removed last year, which is 13% more than in the 12 months previous, when his Government were in charge. There has been a 51% increase in the number of people who have been arrested and prosecuted on illegal working visits. We are taking action on these difficulties. Although he says that the figure is high now, and it is, it is nowhere near the 43,000 people a year who were coming in 2018. In 2016, only 400 people crossed the channel, and I think he knows who was in charge when that rise occurred.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, could my noble friend the Minister indicate whether the Government considered working in the social care sector as one of the pull factors for illegal migrants entering the UK when they decided in their White Paper to remove the social care sector from the list of occupations that can recruit migrant workers? Did they take into consideration the need for adequate staffing in the sector and the reported high number of vacancies?

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Bill, and the collaboration and working manner of my noble friend the Minister. The Bill is about improving the safety of the public, as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.

I am well aware, coming from Northern Ireland and having been a former public representative for a long period, of the impact that terrorism had on our local communities and people, and of how it robbed families of their loved ones, livelihoods, homes and businesses and placed many restrictions on their lives as a result of the ensuing security measures. Thankfully, political dialogue became the prime order of the day. It showed that terrorism had failed and that compromise and the Good Friday agreement succeeded. That is the issue that we have to address—the need for compromise and political development—but in many cases this new form of terrorism may not lend itself to political dialogue.

Although I support the Bill, I realise that there are some challenges, and I have some questions for my noble friend the Minister about its implementation. I am very much in favour of the concept of the protection of premises from terrorism, considering what happened in London in March 2017, when I was a Member in the other place and we were all in lockdown in the Chamber, what happened on London Bridge and what happened at the Manchester Arena in June 2017. In that regard, I pay tribute to Figen Murray and the Martyn’s Law campaign team, who have demonstrated such tenacity, fervour, diligence and determination in the face of tragedy and adversity.

However, I do not want any additional financial burdens to be placed on the owners of premises to protect their properties and restrict their civil liberties without a clear indication of adequate financial and other support measures being put in place. What assistance, including the provision of finance, will be provided to the owners of premises to ensure full protection from the ravages of terrorism? At the end of the day, there must be proportionate risk.

I have received representations from the Heritage Railway Association. In this, I am minded of my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who chairs the APPG for Heritage Rail; I know that similar representations have been made to that group. I have a heritage railway in my town of Downpatrick, and its members feel that the Bill’s provisions and its application to heritage railways are not realistic or proportionate to the risk. Many heritage railways are staffed by volunteers who operate on a part-time basis. I have also received representations from the insurance industry and from Martyn’s Law, which support this legislation and want it to move forward, but I would like my noble friend the Minister to favourably consider the position of heritage railways. The Heritage Railway Association believes that the legislation is premises-based, and its guiding principle is to require different levels of terrorism protection by reference to capacity in terms of the premises. For the purposes of the Bill, heritage railways and tramways are treated like hospitality and entertainment venues, including all parts of a railway line from end to end.

I understand that a Minister wrote a letter to the Heritage Railway Association, dated 23 December, stating that a railway line itself and passengers on a train are excluded from the Bill’s scope—I understand from his gesticulation that it was my noble friend the Minister on the Front Bench. I hope and believe that that exclusion may help to reduce the likely impact on some heritage railways, but I feel it needs to be clearly stated in the Bill. As it stands, the legislation would effectively place many heritage railways in the higher-capacity category, adding significant and costly compliance burdens. What assurances can my noble friend the Minister provide about this issue to assuage the fears of the volunteers in the heritage railway movement, and could they be placed in the Bill?

It is also felt that organisations including heritage, cultural and tourism attractions that rely on volunteers will face higher training costs or, if volunteers choose not to take on responsibilities required under the Bill, those organisations may be faced with the costs of engaging additional personnel to meet compliance requirements. What provision will be made for the training of volunteers and the owners of heritage and tourism premises? This factor was raised in a representation received today from the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health’s personnel.

The Heritage Railway Association feels that the Bill as drafted perhaps does not address the realities of dealing with those burdens. The threshold for eligibility is too low and that could make some businesses, particularly those in the tourism and cultural sector, unviable. Perhaps the Minister could advise whether effective consideration will now be given to their inclusion on the excluded list.

Coming from Northern Ireland, I suppose there is a fear about the provisions in the Bill extending there. I would like the Minister to clarify that. Why are the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive not included, since this issue was discussed by the Assembly commission? It has overall responsibility for the management of the Assembly and for the Parliament buildings at Stormont, so what is the issue there?

Do the provisions extend to tourism and heritage attractions? What additional assistance will be provided to the owners of premises? Will small premises be excluded, and what are the size thresholds for eligibility for businesses to comply with this legislation?

Finally, considering the political and febrile history of Northern Ireland, what discussions have taken place with the Northern Ireland Executive and the Justice Minister regarding the implications of this legislation? With the need for additional investment in police resources in Northern Ireland, what discussions have taken place with the chief constable regarding the implications and consequences of implementing the legislation, including capacity levels for enforcement?

In conclusion, I support the thrust of the Bill. I support it in its entirety because, undoubtedly, terrorism in any form is a divisive, cancerous menace in our society, and that is irrespective of where it comes from.

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Search, Seizure and Detention of Property: Code of Practice) (Northern Ireland) Order 2024

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

This debate relates to another statutory instrument that was debated in Committee on 11 November. I therefore will not go into too much detail on this instrument’s context but will briefly remind the Committee that it relates to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. This Act contained a wide range of reforms to reduce economic crime and increase transparency over corporate entities conducting business in the United Kingdom. This included reforms to enable targeted information sharing to tackle money laundering and remove reporting burdens on business. Additionally, the Act introduced new intelligence-gathering powers for law enforcement and reform of outdated criminal corporate liability laws.

The legislation also introduced reforms to keep pace with the use of emerging technologies to launder money and commit economic crime, including a new regime to tackle the use of criminal or terrorist crypto assets. The measure also introduced new search, seizure and detention powers when crypto assets are used illegally or for terrorist purposes. The legislation aims to remove criminal gains and disrupt the ability to use emerging technologies for illicit purposes.

I see a heavy Northern Ireland contingent here—it is like the old days, and I am very pleased to see colleagues here today. They will be particularly pleased to know that this debate relates to the order that came into force in Northern Ireland, as well as England and Wales. As of the end of October, across the United Kingdom as a whole the new powers have been exercised in over 90 cases.

I will not cover the content of the powers, as they were debated extensively by both Houses during the passage of the Bill, but will outline briefly the purpose of the instrument, which is to establish a code of practice. The code of practice being brought into operation by this statutory instrument is the search, seizure and detention of property code for Northern Ireland. Codes of practice determine and clarify the circumstances in which powers may be exercised to ensure that they are applied consistently and proportionately. This is vital, given the broad range of law enforcement agencies to which the powers can apply. The guidance on the exercise of the powers in the code in this order sets out clearly, I hope, the required powers to safeguard against improper use.

The search, seizure and detention code is made by the Home Secretary to guide the exercise of search and seizure powers in the context of criminal confiscation investigations for specified officers who operate in Northern Ireland. The order sets out the officers and the circumstances, and it gives strong guidance on reserved powers.

This draft instrument is required to complete the cycle that we started with the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. It will ensure that all the necessary legislation is in place and that law enforcement can operate the powers proportionately and in accordance with the aim of the legislation. I expect and hope to get some questions from colleagues across the Committee, but I hope that that is a reasonably clear outline of the order and its purpose. I commend the statutory instrument to the Committee.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my registered interest as a member of your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, in which we considered this SI in some detail. I welcome my noble friend to the Front Bench. We well recall him serving as a Minister in Northern Ireland; in fact, I succeeded him in the Department for Social Development and I remember the handover meeting very well. The following day, he went off to be a Minister of State here.

I welcome this statutory instrument. It is important that we move to a normal society in Northern Ireland, that the proceeds of crime are adequately addressed and that people refrain from crime in Northern Ireland, where we have the association of crime with paramilitarism. They are two scourges in our society that must be eliminated.

I have certain questions for my noble friend. While this is a reserved matter, the code is to be published by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland. When will it publish the code, and will it be by way of a statement in the Assembly? Maybe there has already been one. Is an assessment available of the success of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in Northern Ireland? I realise that will require a detailed answer, so I would be content if my noble friend could provide one in writing. I note that there is no impact assessment; can he indicate why? Will the police resourcing of the implementation of the code come out of the Northern Ireland block grant? There is a little difficulty there in that policing resources in Northern Ireland, in both funding and people power, are gravely overstretched.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, there is obviously a conspiracy here: the people running the Football Governance Bill have obviously decided to keep us all occupied here so that we are not dealing with them. Perhaps we should go into the Chamber later and see if we can make a contribution.

There are two sides to this: the devolved issue and the national issue. I want to explore the interface between the two and ask whether, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, mentioned, there is a resource implication. In other words, are any additional resources required? With crypto assets and so on, we are dealing with very sophisticated people who have access to complicated software and things like that. Are we capable of dealing with that as quickly as we can?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Earl for his support for the order, and I will return to his questions in due course. I am also grateful for the contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Empey, Lord Hay, Lord Browne, Lord Morrow and Lord McCrea, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. It feels like old times. I have not been a Minister in Northern Ireland since 2007. I had two fabulous years there, and it is good to see that scrutiny of government continues as it did when I was in Northern Ireland previously. It was good to hear the points that were raised.

I remind colleagues and noble Lords that the purpose of this order is to provide a code of practice to ensure that guidance is given, on a reserve basis, to officers who exercise the powers under the Act, in order to give proper accountability for the use of those powers by those officers. Colleagues and noble Lords will know that that includes scope on the search and seizure powers and limitations on the exercise of powers. It also provides for seeking senior officer approval and it gives reasonable grounds for suspicion, refusal of prior approval, limitation on the exercise of powers by immigration officers and a whole series of measures that are designed, in that code, to put a framework around the operation of the powers under the Act.

I will answer noble Lords’ points in a different order, but I hope we will cover them all. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, talked about the date of implementation and the discussion with the Northern Ireland Assembly, as well as the impact assessment and the impact of the Act. The Northern Ireland codes came into operation on 17 July 2024. Those codes have been published and are available. Northern Ireland ran a public consultation on its code and any citizen or organisation in Northern Ireland was able to comment upon this code. The codes in Northern Ireland have been approved by the Northern Ireland Assembly on a cross-party basis.

The noble Baroness mentioned the impact of the Act. From April 2014 to the end of October, 90 cases have been exercised with this new power. Those figures are for Northern Ireland, England and Wales. I am not able today to give her and others a breakdown of the particular usage in Northern Ireland, as opposed to England and Wales, but the powers have been used 90 times. Noting what the noble Earl and other colleagues said, I say that the purpose of this order is to ensure that we take action against people who wish to use cryptocurrency for illicit criminal purposes. The code we are discussing is about putting in place the framework so that the powers are not open to challenge, so that there is clarity about how they are used and so that, when they are used, individuals have the ability to challenge them—but there is a legal back-up to ensure that, when bad actors are doing bad things, they cannot wriggle out of those bad things by saying that those powers were used improperly. That is the purpose of this code. I hope that answers the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Browne, and others, but, if not, please feel free to intervene. Again, these powers were subject to wide discussion and consultation generally.

The noble Lord, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown, particularly raised what happens to the assets when seized. I am pleased to tell him that, when a court has been satisfied that the crypto assets are the proceeds of crime or are terrorist crypto assets, the asset holder—whoever that may be—will be permanently deprived of those assets. They will be sold and the proceeds will go into supporting the compensation of victims—that is an important aspect, to make sure that victims are at the heart of this—or they could be retained by the state and reinvested into tackling economic crime and countering terrorism downstream.

We want to stop the type of activity that is taking place. Seizing assets means that people are still trying to get some assets through. Hopefully, we can get to a position where this is a deterrent as well and stops people wishing to act with these assets. But, in the event that they do, that they are convicted and that there is an asset recovery regime in place, those assets will be used for the wider community at home.

A number of noble Lords asked about the impact assessment. We produced an impact assessment on the legislation, which was assessed and went through a number of routines—including on 11 November in this Room—and we finalised it very recently. I point out to the noble Earl and others that there is cross-party support for the legislation. It would have possibly gone through earlier had we not had the great event of the general election in July, which has propelled me from a quieter life back here. It also meant we had some delay in our cross-party discussions and agreements on the legislation.

We did not have a specific impact assessment on the powers in the code, but I hope they have been established in the way they have so that they can be operated and safeguarded. There was a consultation, which has come forward, although there was no impact assessment.

Another point noble Lords mentioned is the confiscation regime, which is largely for the Northern Ireland Assembly and devolved matters. I am repeating myself, but it is important to reflect on what we are discussing: the code is about how UK officials in immigration, Border Force or other named organisations in the code are held to account by a standard set by this House, the House of Commons and the UK Government on those devolved areas.

I think the points the noble Earl mentioned have been covered; if not, I am happy to reflect on Hansard in due course and any points that have been made by noble Lords and try to refer back to them. However, I think and hope there is a co-terminosity of agreement between us in this House, from His Majesty’s Official Opposition through to the Ulster Unionist Party, the Democratic Unionist Party and the SDLP in Northern Ireland.

We are trying to ensure that crypto assets under this legislation are deterred and, if they are found to be used for criminal activity, seized. There is a code of practice that monitors the use of officers for seizing those assets. If those assets are seized for criminal purposes, they are wound back into the community in a positive way. That sends a signal to both sides of the border in Northern Ireland in relation to the Administrations there that the use of crypto assets is not an acceptable way of financing criminal activity or terrorism.

I will check this outside of the Committee, but to answer the noble Lord, Lord Hay, there has not been any formal consultation with the Irish Government on these powers because they are for the Northern Ireland Assembly, under the joint leadership of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, the Justice Minister and the Home Office, under the leadership of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. However, I believe they are not areas that would cause concern as they are entirely matters for within the confines of the United Kingdom, with different responsibilities between the two different agencies.

With that, I hope the Committee can accept the order. If I missed any points, I will reflect on Hansard and write. If anybody wishes to intervene on any point I have not made, please do so now. I can see my noble friend Lady Ritchie ready to bungee jump into action, so I will let her intervene.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for his very detailed answers. Could he indicate whether any discussions have taken place with the Minister and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland? If not, will they take place on the implementation of the code and this SI?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As the Minister responsible for this order, I have not had any discussion with Naomi Long or the Department of Justice on these matters, but I hope it will give some confidence to my noble friend to know that it is my intention to meet our counterparts in Northern Ireland. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has, I believe, already met the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and I intend to do the same. I have a potential visit to Northern Ireland planned for the new year to discuss areas of mutual co-operation. I will make sure that this issue is raised as one of many items on the agenda of any future meeting in January. With that, I commend this order to the Committee.

Istanbul Convention: Article 59

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government have a very strong strategy for a mission against violence against women and girls. There are a number of points in that plan but one of its key elements is how we can raise education in schools, particularly for young males and against some role models that now appear on social media and elsewhere. It is an extremely important question that we are trying to evaluate and take forward shortly as part of the plan to halve violence against women and girls. I hope that the noble Baroness can then comment on it and help to support the Government in implementing it.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, will my noble friend take steps to talk to the Ministers for Justice in the devolved nations and regions—particularly Northern Ireland, where there have been growing levels of femicide? These have been particularly marked in the last few weeks, when a number of young ladies have been murdered and other women are now afraid to walk the streets. In that regard, will my noble friend talk to the appropriate Ministers in the devolved nations and regions about mitigation measures to safeguard women in the home and the wider environment?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It should be a fundamental right of women to walk the streets free of fear and free of potential abuse or violence of the seriousness of murder, which my noble friend mentioned. We are discussing very closely with the devolved Administrations how we can resolve the problem and meet the challenge that the Government have set of halving violence against women and girls. The Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls, Jess Phillips, will meet the Northern Ireland Ministers and, while respecting their devolved role, will encourage them to ensure that we tackle this issue on a joint basis.

EU Settlement Scheme

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Earl for bringing that question forward. The first duty of the Home Office is to keep our citizens safe and to make sure that those who have criminal activity are punished by being sent to prison or, in this case, potentially by deportation. It is very important that we reflect on that. A large portion of the 9% of refusals are individuals who have a record of criminal behaviour and therefore have been refused under the settled status scheme. We will monitor that ongoing situation, and I assure the noble Earl that criminality has no place within the EU settled status scheme.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

We have plenty of time. We will have the noble Baroness first and then the noble Lord.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, the previous Government issued EU settlement scheme status to people yet later denied that they had any rights under the withdrawal agreement. Will my noble friend the Minister provide an assurance today that the Government will ensure that everyone with status under the EU settlement scheme is a beneficiary of the withdrawal agreement?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I can give my noble friend that assurance with a firm yes.

Modern Slavery National Referral Mechanism: Waiting Times

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Of course, there are a lot of age-disputed cases in the system, so it is difficult to give the noble Lord a precise answer on that. There are decision-making pilots for children which are much quicker at making decisions. They are taken through a multi-agency structure of the local authority, health and police as a minimum. The safeguarding partners have a responsibility to obtain and present evidence at meetings where decisions are taken, so they are dealt with slightly differently.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, this morning in the High Court in Belfast, a judgment disapplied certain elements of the Illegal Migration Act as they contravened Article 2 of the Windsor Framework. What assessment does the Minister, who brought the legislation through this House, have of that judgment?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am afraid that is the first I have heard of it, so I have no opinion on it.

Rwanda: Asylum Arrangements Treaty

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister indicate whether the provisions in the new Rwanda treaty will adhere to the ECHR, which underpins our Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, as I say, I cannot comment on the specifics at the moment. However, I reiterate the Prime Minister’s commitment to stopping the boats and removing barriers if necessary. The detail and implications of doing so will be considered carefully; of course, that will take the GFA into account.

National Crime Agency: Fraud and Economic Crime

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Monday 11th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a good point, and I think he is aware of my opinions on this subject. Clearly, it is a difficult area for the entire economy—not just the agencies responsible for fighting crime but those who are involved in the online world where, of course, much of this crime takes place. I have referred to the large number of new officers being recruited; as far as I understand it, they are on track to be recruited according to the timescales that have been set out. I cannot really comment any more on the recruitment process itself, but I will certainly ask the question and come back to the noble Lord.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, what steps will the Government take to introduce a safer ageing strategy for older people to protect them against economic crime and fraud?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I just referred to the fraud strategy that was published in May this year, a sizeable part of which is about empowering people to avoid being defrauded in the first place. I recommend that the noble Baroness refers back to that; of course, I would be happy to discuss it further in future debates.

Electronic Travel Authorisation

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Monday 17th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

It is the intention of the policy to apply to those transferring in British airports. This makes Britain a more secure country.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, following the regret Motion debate on 23 May and subsequent amendments in Committee and at Report on the Illegal Migration Bill in respect of ETAs, what further discussions has the Minister had with his ministerial colleagues in the Home Office regarding further exemptions to ETA to ensure that the tourism industry in Northern Ireland is not further undermined as a result of such requirements?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question, and I can reassure her that work continues on the guidance discussed during the previous debate. The Government remain committed to the Good Friday agreement and ensuring there is no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. In line with our commitments under strand 2, the Government are committed to working with Tourism Ireland and Tourism Northern Ireland to ensure that the ETA requirement is communicated effectively through targeting messages and a variety of channels. That would include Tourism Ireland, as a crucial body established under the north/south provisions.

Illegal Migration Bill

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 12th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, all the amendments in this group are very serious contributions to improving the Bill, but I want briefly to add my support for Amendment 85C in particular. I cannot match the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in his acquaintance with ChatGPT, but his amendment, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy, who is not in her place, goes some way towards dealing with the difficulties of the astonishing assumption behind Schedule 1—that asylum seekers can safely be deposited in all these 57 countries. Quite apart from the observation by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, during our previous Committee sitting that they do not have asylum regimes in any case, to make Schedule 1 acceptable the Minister must accept this amendment.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I have tabled Amendments 97 and 98 in respect of Clauses 27 and 28. I commend the report, published yesterday, from Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights—a very fine document which says that this Bill will have “a disproportionate impact” on the victims of modern slavery. My noble friend Lord Coaker referred to the coalition Government of 2010-15, which took the initiative to introduce in Parliament and implement the Modern Slavery Act. This Bill drives a sword through it and completely lacerates it.

There is no doubt that the number of amendments that refer to modern slavery or human trafficking are testament to the Committee’s concern about the Government’s proposal. Again, I refer simply to my own Amendments 97 and 98. The Government frequently refer to victims of the “heinous crime” of modern slavery and, in March 2021, they commended themselves on how many victims had been referred to the national referral mechanism, stating that

“the UK has a strong reputation internationally in addressing modern slavery referrals; year on year there has been a rise in referrals from all frontline responders into the NRM”.

It is extremely concerning that, some two years later, we are talking about the same increase as a matter of abuse and the same victims as threats to public order. That is exactly the language that has been used by this Government. Lest there be any confusion, this language is being applied to individuals who have been the subject of exploitation through being either coerced or deceived. The language is being applied not to those who traffic and exploit people as commodities but to the victims of crime.

The UK has signed up to international obligations to identify and care for victims of modern slavery. One of those is the European convention against human trafficking—frequently referred to as ECAT. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, referred to this. ECAT requires the identification of victims so that they might benefit from the convention entitlements, including the provision of a recovery period when the person cannot be deported and can receive support and assistance. The Bill does not prevent the identification part of our obligations, but it makes identification meaningless for the most part.

Last year, under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, the Government determined that some victims should be excluded from a recovery period if they are a threat to public order. There is a case for excluding those convicted of serious criminality; indeed, ECAT recognises that under Article 13. But here is the key point: it has been applied on a person-by-person basis. This Bill, in the words of the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Dame Sara Thornton, introduces

“a massive extension of that public order disqualification to everybody”.

Yes, all victims of modern slavery within the scope of the Bill are being considered a threat to public order. I hope your Lordships will indulge me as I quote the Government’s justification for this extension. In the human rights memorandum, the Government say that they consider that a person who falls under the duty to remove is

“a threat to public order, arising from the exceptional circumstances relating to illegal entry into the UK, including the pressure placed on public services by the large number of illegal entrants and the loss of life caused by illegal and dangerous journeys”.

ECAT makes no differentiation between victims of modern slavery who are in the country illegally or legally. The convention knows that these individuals need safeguarding and protection, regardless of their immigration status.

Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights, which published its report yesterday, states that

“the Government’s position that the modern slavery clauses are ‘capable of being applied compatibly’ is untenable”.

My noble friend Lord Coaker already referred to this point. The report continues:

“The UK has clear positive duties under Article 4 ECHR (prohibition of slavery and forced labour) to protect victims or potential victims of slavery or human trafficking, as well as duties under ECAT—these provisions of the Bill are in direct conflict”


with the above-mentioned article and ECAT. The committee recommends that the clauses in the Bill dealing with modern slavery should be removed, a point I concur with. The Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe has said about the extension of the public order disqualification:

“Such a justification appears to me to be so broad and general that it increases the likelihood of an arbitrary application of the modern slavery protections”.


The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is due to debate a report on a number of human rights measures currently being debated in the UK, including the Bill. The provisional report was published on 25 May. In reviewing the Bill’s compatibility with ECAT, the report says:

“The fact that an individual was trafficked into the UK does not make that individual thereafter a threat to public order”,


a point that this House and the Government should take on board.

I was disappointed that, on day two in Committee, the Minister said that the Bill was compliant with ECAT because

“ECAT envisages that the recovery period should be withheld from potential victims of trafficking on grounds of public order”.—[Official Report, 5/6/23; cols. 1200-01.]

This is exactly the opposite of the position taken by GRETA, the body overseeing ECAT. In its submission to the Joint Select Committee on Human Rights inquiry into the Bill, it said that such an approach

“would be contrary to the purpose of Article 13”,

since Article 13(1) is

“intended to apply in very exceptional circumstances and cannot be used by States Parties to circumvent their obligation to provide access to the recovery and reflection period”.

My Amendments 97 and 98 urged the Government to rethink their interpretation of Article 13(3), which is, in my view and that of GRETA, contrary to the convention. I also urge the Government to be mindful of the recommendations in the Joint Committee on Human Rights report, just published; to heed its advice; and to indicate, in a realistic and humanitarian way, when they will respond to that report. The website states that the Government will respond in August, long after the Bill has been implemented into law. That is too late. We need a response at a very early opportunity—in fact, before we return for Report on the Bill.

I ask the same question as did my noble friend Lord Coaker: when will the impact assessments be made available to this House? Will it be done at a very early opportunity and before the completion of Committee on the Bill?

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, many Peers spoke at Second Reading about their concerns over the modern slavery amendments. They did so again on day two in Committee, in response to Amendment 19A and others tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and on day three, after the forensic speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on whether Clause 5 should stand part of the Bill.

The amendments in this group again raise those concerns, and I hope the Minister will recognise the concerns across the Committee. Before I speak to my Amendment 145, I put on the record my support for Amendment 86, of the noble Lord, Lord Randall. As I have already said in Committee, I am deeply concerned about the impact that the Bill will have on victims of modern slavery; this amendment would mitigate some concerns by ensuring that victims of modern slavery exploited in the UK will still be able to access the support that they need to recover. I hope the Minister will update the Committee on the ongoing discussions on this proposal that were promised on Report in the other place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I had in mind the sage words of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in the House last week. As the noble Lord will recall, the origins of Schedule 1 were canvassed at length by the Committee in the previous group. The countries listed in the schedule are an amalgam of previous pieces of legislation where the safety of those countries has been established in that legislation.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, earlier when referring to ECAT provisions in relation to the amendments I brought forward and the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the Minister seemed to say, and I would argue, that applying Article 13(3) of ECAT to a large group of people would go against the spirit and character of ECAT. I think it was never intended to apply to a group but to individuals and that the breadth of application coming from the Minister is a bit of stretch, so I ask him to consider that matter again and maybe come back on Report with an amendment similar to the ones that I proposed.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Obviously I hear what the noble Baroness says. Clearly the public order disqualification is capable of being applied in the way that the Government suggest it is here, and of course it is also a matter of individual application—but no doubt those in the department will read what the noble Baroness said. For all those reasons I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.