Human Trafficking

Lord McColl of Dulwich Excerpts

Thursday 14th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McColl of Dulwich]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, on securing this debate. As has been mentioned, the Home Office is reluctant to opt in to the proposed European directive because it says that it will make very little difference to the way that the UK tackles the problem. The Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group published a paper in June 2010 suggesting that anti-trafficking practice in the United Kingdom is not compliant with key concepts relating to the rule of law itself and, specifically, relating to the principle—identified by the late Lord Bingham—that the question of legal right and liability should ordinarily be resolved by application of the law and not exercised on discretion. This principle seems to be routinely violated in the national referral mechanism, which the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has already mentioned. It is regrettable that in numerous cases the authorities concluded that as the person concerned agreed to come to work in the UK, they could not have been trafficked. However, agreement is often obtained from trafficked persons by means of coercion, threats or deceit, and for this reason, according to the convention, the issue of whether the victim consented is to be treated as irrelevant.

It is perhaps helpful to consider individual cases so that one can be clear about the difficulties of fighting trafficking. I draw your Lordships’ attention to the case of a girl of 13, in Africa, who was trafficked and brought to London, where she was locked in a basement and suffered repeated rape as a child prostitute. After six years of this hell she was considered too old for the clients and so her trafficker released her and provided her with false documents. When she tried to leave the country using those documents she was arrested, convicted and served a 10-month prison sentence. All of us would agree that this is not justice, but, of course, the key question is how we educate and train the relevant organisations so that people on the front line recognise when the person they are dealing with may have been trafficked and respond appropriately. I believe that this is best achieved by opting in. I have received advice from interested parties who believe that, contrary to the Home Office’s view, the proposed directive contains greater protection for the victim of trafficking than is afforded under existing law.

If, as the Home Office believes, the proposed directive merely does what the present law requires, there can be no harm in agreeing to it. If, on the other hand, our present law provides less protection, that is a very good reason for opting in. An example of extra protection is Article 7, which proposes the possibility of not prosecuting a victim who has committed an offence as a direct consequence of being subject to trafficking. Of course, the victim would still have to prove that he or she had been trafficked. This would improve the present system under which the trafficked victim can be subjected to the further trauma and stigma of a criminal trial, albeit that the penalty or punishment may take into account the circumstances. It would be much better by far that no trial should take place if the trafficked person can prove that she or he is trafficked.

In summary, the proposed directive would build on rather than replicate existing legislation. It is quite clear that the number of criminal proceedings and the number of victims who are assisted remain very low compared with the enormity of the problem of human trafficking. The directive will streamline law enforcement efforts in cross-border cases and may well reduce costs. Provisions that decriminalise victims are urgently required, especially as many victims in the UK continue to be criminalised for offences committed while being deceived or coerced, yet the traffickers often evade criminal responsibility. We must protect victims before, during and after criminal proceedings, especially the children. This is essential to increase prosecution rates and prevent secondary victimisation through this process. The appointment of a rapporteur or independent body should ensure that shortfalls in the system are properly identified.

Trafficking is a cross-border activity often masterminded by sophisticated criminals. If one can agree a unified system of law to fight this evil trade, it will facilitate co-operation between the relevant enforcement agencies in the countries involved. The proposed directive affords us a chance to agree a unified system and we should take it. The directive would result in a very important change in our law so that rather than putting vulnerable trafficked people through the further trauma of prosecution, such people are treated as victims and neither prosecuted nor awarded penalties.

The unpleasant truth is that human trafficking in England is a big problem and a lucrative trade, as others have mentioned. The proposed directive would improve the rights of victims and ensure a co-ordinated approach with our European partners. We should not turn our backs on this opportunity. There has been some good news in that Professor Trevor Beedham, of the Worshipful Society of Apothecaries, has established a diploma to instruct those involved in this whole business on how they should deal with the victims. That is a welcome development.