Illegal Migration Bill

Lord McColl of Dulwich Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 12th June 2023 Lords Chamber

I ask my noble friend the Minister to see whether he can answer my questions and those of every other speaker. This clause is not a good clause. I was proud when the Government—my Government—passed the Modern Slavery Act and it was world leading. I do not particularly like that expression because it is sometimes overused, but it was world leading and was recognised wherever we went as that. If we are not careful, we shall absolutely destroy that reputation. We have a real chance and a responsibility to make sure that this Bill does not do the damage.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

My Lords, I was present at Second Reading but was prevented from taking part for medical reasons. I am very grateful to your Lordships’ House for originally giving me such support in putting forward the first anti-slavery, anti-trafficking Bill. It was a real tribute to this House to have the tremendous support that was given all around it.

I am pleased to be a cosignatory of my noble friend Lord Randall’s Amendment 86. I firmly believe that, if victims of modern slavery have been exploited in the UK, we have an obligation to assist them in recovering, with accessing the NRM and with all the other modern slavery protections that have been established for that purpose.

I record my support for Amendment 90 from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, which would reverse the presumption created in another place that individuals assisting the police do not need to be present in the UK to do so. We must not underestimate how much courage it takes for victims to provide evidence. A victim of forced labour described being in fear of her life if she exposed where her exploitation took place. Victims need support, and we should be a country that is willing to provide it if we are asking them to give evidence—many speakers have stressed this.

My Amendment 146 would prevent Clauses 21 to 28 being commenced until the Government have appointed an Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner and until there is robust scrutiny of the Bill from an independent person with the expertise required to understand the complexities and nuance associated with modern slavery. I of course also support Amendment 92B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alton.

The ground-breaking role of the Independent Anti-Slavery Commission was established under the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and it aims to encourage good practice in the prevention, investigation and prosecution of modern slavery offences, and in support for victims. Yet the role has been vacant for over 12 months. During that time, there have been significant changes to the modern slavery protections in the UK and to the debate about care for victims. The Bill should have been informed by the views of an Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner but, so far, it has not. I and other parliamentarians have tabled PQs, asking the Government when they intend to fill this vacancy. If the Government are committed to beating modern slavery, I contend that, as a bare minimum, we should abide by our own modern slavery legislation.

I hope that the Minister will provide an update on the current stage of the recruitment process. The mere appointment of a commissioner is not enough, although it would of course be welcome. Any new commissioner needs to be afforded sufficient time to review and analyse the Bill and, where appropriate, make recommendations. If we are truly striving for best practice in tackling modern slavery, I agree with Dame Sara when she said:

“There is a real need for that fearless, independent, expert voice, and that is missing”.


I urge your Lordships to support Amendments 86 and 146.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, it would be entirely appropriate to support virtually all of these amendments, which have my total support. But the message from Frank Field—the noble Lord, Lord Field—was right: however many amendments we pass—and I envisage some long nights on Report—nothing will significantly improve this shoddy, shabby and unworthy piece of legislation. Frankly, I am as ashamed that a Conservative Government are bringing forward this legislation as I am proud that Theresa May brought in the Modern Slavery Act in the year when we commemorated the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, symbolised by the Barons of Runnymede who look down on us today.

I am very conscious of the plea made on Thursday last week by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, when she urged the House not to go in for unnecessary repetition and so on. She was quite right to do that, but I do think we should have some proper answers from the Minister today. When is the impact assessment going to be ready? When is the anti-slavery commissioner going to be appointed? What plans are there to talk to that man or woman at the earliest possible date? If, in fact, in due course in response to that very fine report from the Joint Committee, just published, the answer is that that is going to be answered by the Government in August, when Parliament will have dealt with Report stage, that is nothing less than an absolute disgrace.

We want to have some definitive answers by the time this Bill goes to Report. It is a shoddy piece of legislation. It is not worthy of the British Parliament. It is not worthy of a Conservative Government and I will say little more about it other than I feel a shame that is in sharp contrast to the feelings I had in 2015 when Theresa May’s Bill became an Act of Parliament.

Public Order Bill

Lord McColl of Dulwich Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 98 in the name of Lord Farmer, and Amendments 88 and 90 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Hoey, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans.

Amendment 98 would correct one of the most egregious aspects of the addition of Clause 9, which was originally added to the Bill in the other place. Amendment 98 would review why this law change is needed. This policy was reviewed just four years ago, and the then Home Secretary’s conclusion was that

“national buffer zones would not be a proportionate response”.

Those who support this clause have not demonstrated what has changed since that review.

I looked through the Home Office review from 2018, and it is interesting to note how little evidence is provided there that these buffer zones are needed. The review also sets out why the policy is unworkable, stating:

“There have been several cases where particular buffer zones have been successfully challenged on the basis they disproportionately infringe on civil liberties and freedom of speech ... buffer zone legislation has not always delivered exactly what service providers and pro-choice activists had hoped for.”


At the very least, before any law change is taken forward, we should understand what is alleged to have changed and why current laws are not sufficient. At present, the proponents of Clause 9 have not met that threshold so I support Amendment 98, which seeks to address this.

I turn to Amendments 88 and 90, which would arguably take out the most pernicious aspects of Clause 9. Amendment 88 would stop the proposed buffer zone, including criminalising a person who “seeks to influence”. This wording is sinister, impossible to enforce and an assault on our most basic freedom of speech. The same is true of Amendment 90, which would remove from the clause the provision to criminalise a person who

“advises or persuades, attempts to advise or persuade, or otherwise expresses opinion”.

Noble Lords and colleagues from the other place who support this clause tell us that they do so to protect women from harassment and intimidating behaviour. I again place on record my declaration that any harassment or intimidation should be subject to the law; something should be done about it. The sentiment is both worthy and correct in terms of its intent but that is a wholly different intention from seeking to stop people expressing opinions or attempting to persuade. Free societies are built on expressing opinions and attempting to persuade. Some might say that this should not take place at an abortion clinic but the Home Office review I mentioned earlier

“pointed out that the Chief Executive of BPAS”—

the abortion provider—

“had stated that 15% of patients change their minds about having an abortion at the BPAS clinics.”

I think noble Lords from across the Chamber would argue that it is plainly a decision for those women about how to proceed in those circumstances, so to deny them advice and explicitly block the expressing of opinions would rob those women of making an informed choice.

I add my support to the other amendments tabled to this clause, namely Amendments 80 to 83, 86, 89, 92 and 94. I hope that the Minister will recognise that there is concern from across this House for the consequences of Clause 9 and that he will allow a pause to think about it in more detail, avoiding a rushed change to the law that will have profound consequences for both women and freedom of speech in this country.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

My Lords, I understand that the Minister has already concluded that freedoms will be curtailed by an over-emphasis on the problems surrounding abortion clinics. Before we embark on legislation, it is essential to have accurate information about what people are complaining about. Clearly, people attending abortion clinics should not be harassed or intimidated in any way. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, mentioned, there already exists sufficient legislation to ensure this, such as the Public Order Act 1986, which, as has already been mentioned, stipulates that it is an offence to display images or words that may cause “harassment, alarm or distress”. New legislation is required only if we are absolutely convinced that the current legislation is failing. We do not have sufficient evidence that this is the case.

As has been mentioned, a detailed review was conducted in 2018 on this issue. The Home Secretary at the time concluded that

“introducing national buffer zones would not be a proportionate response, considering the experiences of the majority of hospitals and clinics, and considering that the majority of activities are more passive in nature.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/9/18; col. 37WS.]

The review also found:

“The vast majority of the pro-life activities reported through the call for evidence do not meet the threshold of being classed as criminal.”

Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord McColl of Dulwich Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 26th April 2022 Lords Chamber

I support the amendments and I hope we will make the Commons think again.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 26B. This House has been united in agreeing that improvements are needed to Part 5 of the Bill. The human trafficking sector has made that very clear in briefings to your Lordships. I have kept my endeavours to the support for victims who have been through the national referral mechanism and, by the Government’s own processes, have been confirmed as victims of modern slavery—as people who, by definition, have been through exploitation and trauma.

I am grateful to the Government for their commitment that victims in England and Wales will receive 12 months of tailored support. I am nevertheless extremely disappointed that the Government did not cross the next hurdle for victims and place this commitment in statute.

Last week, the Minister in the other place said that the Government were “unshakeable” in their position on my amendment. It is with regret that I have decided not to insist again—but I shall continue to be unshakeable myself in bringing this matter before your Lordships and the Government. I hope that the Minister will tell us the timetable to produce the guidance to which the Government have committed for confirmed victims. If not, will she give me details today; and, if not, write to me and place a copy in the Library?

I want to put on the record that I am grateful to all those in this House and beyond who have supported me during the passage of the Bill and voted for victims of modern slavery, and I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Williams for all the help she has given me; I am most grateful.

Before I finish, I also want to raise several questions which fall within the scope of Amendments 53B and 53D. I understand the Government’s need to control immigration and, in my work on modern slavery, I am clearly opposed to organised crime. I understand why the Government have decided to seek a deterrent to those crossing the Channel, but I am extremely concerned that modern slavery victims who seek asylum are the subject of paragraph 14 of the Government’s memorandum of understanding with Rwanda.

We have spent months debating the care and identification of victims of trafficking, and it seems reasonable to assume that the UK is where that identification and care will occur. Please will the Minister set out the Government’s intention on identification and care of victims of modern slavery under the agreement with Rwanda, and in which country identification and care will occur?

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I have listened to a debate of extremely strong argument and extreme persuasion, but I think it is now time that we got on with the task of sending back provisions of this Bill to the other place for it to reconsider. It is very touching for me to stand up for a moment here, because it is the 50th anniversary—exactly, to the day—of my maiden speech in this House.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord McColl of Dulwich Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 4th April 2022 Lords Chamber

We will support Motion Q1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, which is an alternative to Clause 62, with its answer to what the threat is to public order and putting the response in the context of the trafficking convention. We have always supported the noble Lord, Lord McColl, in his valiant, persistent and right campaign regarding support for victims of modern slavery and trafficking, and we will do so again tonight. We support Motion S1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, narrowing the scope of the new clause on victims under the age of 18, responding to the reason that the amendment is not workable. I beg to move Motion N1.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

My Lords, I am speaking to Motion R1, which I will press to a vote because I am extremely disappointed that the progress made in this House on Part 5 has been undone in the other place. We must keep striving to ensure that victims of modern slavery are properly identified and supported. I am grateful for support across the House in passing my original Amendment 26. When Amendment 26 left this House, it would have provided 12 months’ statutory support to confirmed victims in England and Wales and leave to remain for those who needed it across the UK to access long-term support. In that moment, there was a glimmer of hope that victims would finally receive the vital support that evidence has shown they need. Needless to say, the hope that this support will be provided is growing increasingly faint and I am deeply disappointed that the Government have still not taken steps to put it on a statutory footing.

While it is my firm belief that support and leave to remain must go together, your Lordships will see that I have unpackaged my original amendment. I have tabled only one amendment in lieu, Amendment 26B, to provide 12 months’ statutory support to confirmed victims in England and Wales. This is not because issues of leave to remain are not important: quite the opposite. Leave to remain is critical for victims who need it to access support for their recovery. I have unpacked the two only to assist the Government in making good on their commitments to provide support. The Government are already halfway there through the assurance that we have heard reiterated multiple times in both Houses that confirmed victims in England and Wales will receive a minimum of 12 months’ support.

I have said it before; putting this in guidance is not enough. We must finish the job and put this in the Bill. The Government have said that guidance will provide flexibility. This misses the point entirely. The evidence provided by front-line workers on the need to provide at least 12 months’ support to all confirmed victims is falling on deaf ears. Of course support will rightfully be tailored to the individual, but the point stands that victims need a minimum of 12 months to begin to work through their trauma and come to terms with their exploitation.

If we support victims, they will be in a stronger position to support investigations. This will increase convictions of this heinous crime and send out a message to those criminals that they will not get away with this exploitation. The Government have continually said that leave to remain will be considered on a case-by-case basis. I am concerned that they are continuing to wriggle out of their promise to provide support in their arguments for not providing leave to remain.

That is why I have disentangled the two, to ensure that these excuses can no longer be made. Regrettably, in rejecting Amendment 26, the other place has reinstated original Clause 64, in which discretionary leave to remain criteria are narrower than the current guidance. This is truly a case of one step forward, two steps back. I would be grateful if the Minister could make a statement on the recent Court of Appeal ruling and how this will impact future decision-making on leave to remain to ensure that it is in line with the European trafficking convention. Can he also increase transparency by committing to publish statistics on leave to remain decisions for victims of modern slavery?

I will return to issues of leave to remain in the future but, for now, I urge your Lordships and those in the other place to hear what victims need on long-term support and to act accordingly to ensure they receive it by supporting Amendment 26B.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Motion N1. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for tabling Amendments 22B to 22F. I simply seek some assurances from the Minister on behalf of the British Dental Association, the Royal College of Nursing and the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium.

First, when the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, sought the opinion of the House on Report, she noted that

“we need to know more about the ethical response”.—[Official Report, 8/3/22; col. 1285.]

I and others raised concerns voiced by the BMA, the BDA and others that to use dental X-rays in particular where there is no clinical justification is unethical. Yet neither in Committee nor on Report did the Minister really address this concern. Can he please do so now and provide some reassurance to these bodies and to us?

Secondly, following on from what the Minister said, can he provide an assurance that the statutory guidance will continue to make it clear that there must be reason to doubt an age claim before any age assessment is made?

Thirdly, will the Government seek and publish the agreement of the relevant medical bodies before any scientific method is approved for use? I was partially reassured by the meeting the noble Baroness referred to with the interim chair of the Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee, but it is still important that formal agreement is sought from the relevant medical bodies. Can he confirm that the Minister accepts the interim committee’s recommendation that scientific advice should be used to decide whether a claimed age is possible rather than specify what that age is? Will the same principle apply to the holistic decision made in any age assessment?

With reference to the committee—this echoes what the noble Baroness said—in the Commons the Minister agreed to take away the call for it to include a practising dentist. Is the Minister in a position to give a commitment on that point today?

Finally, can the Minister provide some reassurance with regard to the insistence on the use of Home Office social workers? That has caused considerable concern among members of the consortium given their record hitherto, which has been found wanting by the courts. The lack of independence is even more worrying given Wendy Williams’s update on the Windrush Lessons Learned Review, which suggests that progress in reforming Home Office culture has some way to go. Her report says:

“I have seen limited evidence that a compassionate approach is being embedded consistently across the department”—


that is, the Home Office. Is it surprising that there is considerable suspicion of the lack of independence in what is proposed?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord McColl of Dulwich]

At end insert “and do propose Amendment 26B in lieu—

26B: Before Clause 64, insert the following new Clause—
“Confirmed victims in England and Wales: assistance and support
After section 50A of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 insert—
“50B Confirmed victims etc: assistance and support
(1) This section applies if a positive conclusive grounds decision is made in respect of a person.
(2) If the person has received support under section 50A, the Secretary of State must continue to secure tailored assistance and support for that person at the end of the recovery period for at least 12 months beginning on the day the recovery period ends.
(3) Any duty under this section ceases to apply in relation to a person in respect of whom a determination is made under section 62(1) of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (disqualification from protection).
(4) References in this section to “assistance and support”, a “conclusive grounds decision” and the “recovery period” have the same meaning as in section 50A.””

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

I beg to move Motion R1.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord McColl of Dulwich Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 8th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Bristol]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, to remove Clauses 57, 58 and 62 from the Bill, to which I have added my name. I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on her appointment and give thanks for all the work she does, even when we do not always entirely agree across these Benches.

As we have heard, Clauses 57 and 58 would make it appreciably more difficult for people to be recognised as victims of modern slavery and receive support. In Committee, the Minister responded to my concerns about these clauses by saying that, far from deterring victims, this will

“encourage genuine victims to come forward”.—[Official Report, 10/2/22; col. 1843.]

I query how that can be the case. More referrals are being made—I am grateful for the statistics from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker—but we know that is only a very small fraction of the likely number of victims to come forward and be identified. The Global Slavery Index 2018 estimated that there could be as many as 136,000 victims in the UK at the moment.

I therefore cannot fathom how raising the burden of evidence, making it harder to get a reasonable grounds decision, can possibly do anything other than further put people off, further delay the already lengthy backlog in making conclusive grounds decisions and end up excluding some genuine victims from support. Could the Minister say, after hearing some evidence earlier on, what evidence and planning suggest that these measures will make genuine victims more likely to come forward? Could he share that evidence with us? It seems markedly at odds with the evidence presented by the front-line agencies.

In his response in Committee, the Minister argued that these clauses were necessary to prevent misuse of the migration system. We have heard some suggestions of that already. Could Ministers share that evidence, as it again seems markedly at odds with the evidence presented to us by agencies? I find it a troubling approach, cutting across support for genuine victims. We already have a system that requires an assessment of potential victims. It is capable of identifying fraudulent or inappropriate claims, and I believe that it does so. Given this, it is not clear to me that the Government have produced an adequate rationale for this reform.

Finally and briefly on Clause 62, I have heard the Minister’s reassurances, but I remain unclear about and uncomfortable with what could or would be classified as acting in “bad faith”, and where the line is to be drawn on serious or minor criminality. I remain concerned that Clause 62 is a gift to those who force victims into illegal activity to entrap them. I have heard the Minister promise that future modern slavery legislation is a priority. As the Bishop with lead responsibility for combating modern slavery, I truly welcome this and look forward to engaging on that legislation when it arrives.

I am not entirely clear what this legislation will address. I echo a question from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in Committee: if future positive legislation is in the pipeline, why are we being asked to push through Part 5, as others are saying, as an add-on to the Bill, which otherwise focuses overwhelmingly on the asylum system? For all those reasons, I remain of the view that these clauses would best be removed from the Bill and that the Government would do better to return with a new Bill that focuses squarely on modern slavery.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

My Lords, the Ukraine crisis adds urgency to improve this legislation. Refugees fleeing Ukraine will create conditions ripe for exploitation by traffickers. In the coming months we should expect an increase in the number of victims of modern slavery in the United Kingdom. I will speak to Amendment 70, but I note the important issues raised by other amendments in the group to ensure that victims are not excluded from the support they need in the first place.

Amendment 70 would provide genuine victims with sufficient certainty to underpin their recovery, prevent their retrafficking and ensure that they have the security from which to engage with the police and prosecutors to bring the perpetrators to justice. These objectives alone would be reason enough to support Amendment 70, which has cross-party support—I thank the noble Lords, Lord Alton, Lord Paddick and Lord Coaker.

I make it clear that Amendment 70 would provide support and leave to remain only to individuals identified as genuine victims by the Government, through their own processes. These are not bad apples seeking to abuse modern slavery protection; they are confirmed victims—I cannot stress that enough. There are victims for whom the Government have recognised the need for ongoing support for at least 12 months. If, as the Minister said, the Government do not intend to wriggle out of this commitment, why have they not tabled their own amendment?

In Committee, the Minister responded with this extraordinary statement:

“We appreciate the push to put this into legislation at the earliest opportunity, but we do not agree that this Bill, with its focus on immigration is the most appropriate place to do so.”—[Official Report, 10/2/22; col. 1890.]


It was the Government who put modern slavery into an immigration Bill in the first place, and it is they who have already proposed adding a new section to the Modern Slavery Act, through Clause 63, providing statutory support during the national referral mechanism. Amendment 70 would complement Clause 63 and enhance the support provided to victims after the NRM by adding a second, new, section to the 2015 Act.

Statutory support for at least 12 months has been consistently recommended by organisations as essential for victims. Of course, support and leave to remain go hand in hand: victims who are not British nationals need leave to access that support. Victims also need leave to give them the security to engage with the police. The prosecution rate is unacceptable: prosecution figures are complicated, I agree, but, since 2015, only 88 offenders have been convicted for modern slavery as the principal offence. That tells enough of the story. Why is the prosecution rate so low? It is not the fault of the prosecutors; it is because the victims do not have the security to come forward. Many victims’ loved ones are threatened with death at the hands of the traffickers. The Government say that they want the Bill to increase prosecutions, and Amendment 70 will help them to do just that. I quote again the Zulu exhortation: “Vukuzenzele”—just get on and do it.

I intend to test the will of the House, and I ask your Lordships to vote for Amendment 70 to get on with it, to provide confirmed victims with the support and leave to remain needed to give both current and future victims hope for the future.

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, I will make a brief contribution to this debate—when I say “brief”, I mean it. I commend those who have already spoken for their powerful speeches, and I trust that they will be enough to convince the Government that they should in fact adopt these amendments.

I started my speech in Committee by saying:

“For victims of modern slavery, escaping from their exploitation is only the beginning of their journey towards recovery.”—[Official Report, 10/2/22; col. 1885.]


The noble Lord, Lord McColl, has known this for a long time and has consistently brought this message to your Lordships’ House. I of course will support Amendment 70 today, and I trust that it will be pushed to a vote.

The Northern Ireland Assembly has also been debating longer-term support for victims, and, just yesterday, it agreed that it should be available for up to 12 months, or longer, if needed. But that recognition makes the inclusion of leave to remain for victims who get that support acutely relevant to victims in Northern Ireland. If they do not have the ability to remain in the UK, the option of support is just illusionary. We are snatching away hope for recovery and a different type of future, free from exploitation.

We need the Government to be an enabler of recovery for victims across the UK and to provide, through temporary leave to remain, an environment where victims can co-operate with prosecutors. We need to be clear that the UK is a very hostile place for traffickers. Amendment 70 builds on the success of the modern slavery legislation across the United Kingdom jurisdictions and puts the needs of genuine victims on the statute book. The UK has prided itself on being at the forefront of providing for victims of modern slavery; let us continue that tradition by voting in favour of Amendment 70, which I commend to your Lordships’ House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord McColl of Dulwich]

70: Clause 64, leave out Clause 64 and insert—
“Conclusive grounds: support and leave to remain for victims of slavery or human trafficking
After section 50A of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 insert—“50B Confirmed victims etc: assistance, support and leave to remain(1) This section applies if a positive conclusive grounds decision is made in respect of a person.(2) This subsection applies if the person has received support under section 50A and in that case—(a) the Secretary of State must continue to secure tailored assistance and support for that person at the end of the recovery period if they are in need of that assistance and support in accordance with subsection (2)(b);(b) a person who receives a positive conclusive grounds decision must be considered in need of assistance and support under subsection (2)(a) for at least 12 months beginning on the day the recovery period ends;(c) a reference in this subsection to assistance and support has the same meaning as in section 50A(6).(3) If the person is not a British citizen—(a) the Secretary of State must give the person leave to remain in the United Kingdom if subsection (2) or (4) or (5) applies;(b) leave to remain provided under this subsection must be provided from the day on which the positive conclusive grounds decision is communicated to a person for either—(i) the amount of time support and assistance will be provided under either subsection (2) or one of the measures listed in subsection (4), or (ii) at least 12 months if the person meets one or more of the criteria in subsection (5).(4) This subsection applies if the person receives support and assistance under one of the following—(a) section 18(9) of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015,(b) section 9(3)(c) of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015, or(c) regulation 3(4)(c) of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 (Support for Victims) Regulations 2018 (S.S.I 2018/90).(5) This subsection applies if the person meets one or more of the following criteria—(a) leave is necessary due to the person’s circumstances, including but not restricted to—(i) the needs of that person for safety and protection from harm including protection from re-trafficking,(ii) the needs of that person for medical and psychological treatment;(b) the person is co-operating with a public authority in connection with an investigation or criminal proceedings;(c) the person is seeking compensation.(6) Where the person is receiving assistance from a support worker the recommendations of the support worker must be considered in assessing that person’s circumstances under subsection (5)(a).(7) The Secretary of State must provide for persons granted leave to remain in accordance with this section to have recourse to public funds for the duration of the period of leave.(8) The Secretary of State must allow a grant of leave to remain under subsection (3) to be extended subject to the requirements of subsection (10).(9) In determining whether to extend a grant of leave to remain under subsection (8), and the period of time for which such extended leave should be provided, the person’s individual circumstances must be considered, and whether that person—(a) is receiving on-going support and assistance under the measures set out in either subsection (2) or subsection (4), or(b) meets one or more of the criteria in subsection (5).(10) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person is a threat to public order—(a) the Secretary of State is not required to give the person leave under this section, and(b) if such leave has already been given to the person, it may be revoked.(11) The best interests of the child must be a primary consideration when making decisions under this section in respect of a child.(12) In this section—“positive conclusive grounds decision” means a decision made by a competent authority that a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking;“threat to public order” has the same meaning as in subsections (3) to (7) of section 62 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (identified potential victims etc: disqualification from protection).(13) This section is to be treated for the purposes of section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 as if it were provision made by that Act.””Member’s explanatory statement
This replacement clause would provide new statutory support for victims in England and Wales after a conclusive grounds decision for at least 12 months. It would also provide temporary leave to remain for all victims receiving support after a positive conclusive grounds decision and for victims meeting the requirements of Article 14 of the Trafficking Convention. It specifies decisions for children should be made on the basis of their best interests.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord McColl of Dulwich Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 5th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

My Lords, I will focus my remarks on Part 5. I have been advocating for the measures in Clauses 63 and 64 for some time now. For those, I commend the Government. However, they do not go far enough.

Clause 63 will put support for victims of modern slavery in England and Wales on a statutory basis while the person is being assessed through the national referral mechanism. I welcome this statutory support, which was not included in the Modern Slavery Act but has been provided for in Northern Ireland and Scotland since 2015. However, I am disappointed that the Bill is not currently providing long-term support for confirmed victims after the NRM.

On Report in another place, the Government gave a welcome assurance that confirmed victims would receive 12 months’ long-term support, with further details to be set out in guidance. This is encouraging, but support must be statutory to give victims the certainty they need to begin to rebuild their lives following exploitation. Lack of long-term support leaves victims at risk of homelessness, destitution and retrafficking. It impacts on the victim’s ability to work with the police and on bringing perpetrators to justice.

I will watch closely to see whether the Government table an amendment to make good their commitment. If not, I will press forward with amendments based on my Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill, so that the 12 months’ support is in the Bill. I hope the Minister will today be able to expand on the commitment, with more details on how they intend to provide support for 12 months, who will qualify, how it will be funded and future amendments.

Of course, for confirmed victims of modern slavery to access support services, they must have leave to remain in the UK; the two go hand in hand. While I welcome that Clause 64 will put current discretionary leave provisions on a statutory footing, the criteria are much narrower than the current guidance, which is extremely disappointing, with no guaranteed length of time. Yesterday the Guardian noted that only 7% of victims had been granted leave to remain. All confirmed victims should be given 12 months’ leave to remain to access the support that the Government committed to and to be able to support police investigations.

The Government say in their New Plan for Immigration that it is a priority to increase prosecutions for modern slavery and that:

“For some victims, certainty over their immigration status is a crucial enabler to their recovery and to assisting the police in prosecuting their exploiters.”


Clause 64 does not do enough to achieve that certainty and, in turn, the Government’s aim to break up trafficking gangs.

Modern slavery remains a high-profit, low-risk crime; we must change that. Some might argue that temporary leave to remain to access long-term support opens the door for abuse. I hope your Lordships will acknowledge that the eligible individuals will be people whom the Government themselves have confirmed as victims through the NRM—people who deserve our support for their recovery. With amendments to the Bill, we will be in a position to give confirmed victims of modern slavery a fresh start from exploitation.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord McColl of Dulwich Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part two & Committee stage
Monday 22nd November 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord McColl of Dulwich]

292F: After Clause 170, insert the following new Clause—
“Modern slavery through control of another's property
In Section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (Slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour) after subsection (1)(b) insert—“or(c) the person occupies or exercises some substantial control over another’s home in connection with the commission of another criminal offence and the person knows or ought to know that the other person—(i) has not given consent,(ii) is unable to give free and informed consent, or(iii) has withdrawn consent.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would make exploitation through exercise of control over another person’s property without their consent an offence under Section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

My Lords, over the six years since the Modern Slavery Act was passed, we have seen the criminals involved in modern slavery continuing to find new ways to exploit others for their own advantage. In particular, we have seen the rise in criminal exploitation of children and vulnerable adults in county lines drug dealing. Amendment 292F seeks to address the phenomenon of cuckooing, which is an example of criminal exploitation that has recently grown in prominence.

Cuckooing is the evocative name given to a situation whereby criminals take over a person’s home against their wishes and use the property to facilitate criminal activity. Most commonly, this occurs where drug dealers take over the victim’s home and use the premises to store, prepare and distribute drugs. Your Lordships may be unfamiliar with this issue, but just last month there was a national police week of action on county lines drug dealing during which the National Police Chiefs’ Council reported that 894 cuckooed properties were visited in just one week.

This is a crime affecting hundreds if not thousands of people. Victims of cuckooing are often quite vulnerable people, perhaps people with learning disabilities or mental or physical health challenges, survivors of abuse or people living with addiction. Their vulnerability is exploited by the criminals, who take advantage of them to control their home. None of us could accept that indignity, insecurity and wrongful intrusion into that most precious space, one’s home. That is what the victims endure.

It is important that the Government are tough on this area of crime. As David Cameron said in 2010, burglars

“leave their human rights at the door.”

An Englishman’s home is his castle, and if the law cannot protect him there, then who can?

Victims are targeted by criminal gangs and have their homes taken over for prolonged periods by sometimes dangerous people, putting them at significant risk of harm. One such victim was Anne. Anne had had a difficult upbringing and suffered many abusive relationships. After leaving an abusive marriage, she became a victim of cuckooing when she was given local authority housing in an area where there were many drug dealers. Due to alcohol and drugs, Anne’s physical and mental health deteriorated quickly. When the police entered her home they found a perpetrator, who was just 21 years old, lying on a sofa. He was in possession of drugs, weapons and some cash that the police found in the flat. Anne was in a very bad state but she saw the perpetrator as her protector who was keeping trouble out of the door, yet he himself punched and assaulted Anne, threatening her on multiple occasions. He told her to go to the streets to supply other dealers but she was not getting any money, just some drugs.

This is clearly a form of modern slavery. The victim’s home is taken over without their consent, and they are vulnerable and powerless to prevent it in the face of dangerous criminal gangs. Like Anne, victims are often physically and emotionally abused. Although police and prosecutors are aware of this phenomenon and determined to target the criminals, it seems that the law may not offer them adequate tools for the job. Cuckooing does not meet the definition of the human trafficking offence in Section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act because there is no travel involved. According to the CPS, however, neither does it fall within the definition of slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour under Section 1 of that Act unless the criminals demand labour or service from the victims in addition to occupying their home.

While it may be possible to prosecute these criminals for other offences, such as drug crimes, we cannot be satisfied with a situation that does not reflect the exploitation of a person at the heart of the offence. We must hold criminals to account for the harm done to victims of this exploitation and offer victims hope for a future free from this kind of control. There is a clear public interest in protecting the right of every person to their private and family life without having their home taken over against their will.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord McColl for introducing this amendment which seeks to provide for a bespoke criminal offence to tackle what is known, as he pointed out, by the evocative name of “cuckooing”. I assure noble Lords that this Government take all forms of exploitation seriously and we are determined to tackle it. I fully sympathise with the intentions behind this amendment, as we recognise that these unscrupulous exploiters often target the most vulnerable in our society to control their homes and, as my noble friend argued most powerfully, against their will to perpetrate a range of crime types. This practice is often associated with drug dealing, which is a feature of county lines offending, but also encompasses other forms of exploitation types such as sex work, which not only devastates the lives of the victim but impacts the local community in which they live.

While I support the sentiments behind this amendment, we remain to be persuaded that a new offence is needed. There are existing powers that can be and are being used to disrupt cuckooing, including the use of civil preventive orders, such as closure orders and criminal behaviour orders, breach of which is a criminal offence. As to the criminal law, there are offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 which may be charged, specifically those under Section 4 relating to the supply of controlled drugs and under Section 8 relating to the occupier of premises knowingly permitting the production or supply of drugs from their property. The offence of participating in the activities of an organised crime group in Section 45 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 may also be relevant. That said, this is an area of the criminal law which we continue to examine.

Moreover, I am sure my noble friend would agree that were there to be a new offence, Section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act is not the proper place for it. That section deals with offences where a person exercises control over another person to hold them in slavery or servitude, or requires them to perform forced or compulsory labour. The focus is on controlling another person and not their property or belongings. Having said all that, we recognise the seriousness of this phenomenon, and we will continue to look into it and support law enforcement partners in their efforts to tackle this malicious crime. In the light of this assurance, I hope my noble friend will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his reply and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for being so supportive. The problem is that this is falling between two stools, and I do not quite understand how the present law is going to be used to deal with this problem. I would like some explanation; perhaps the Minister could write to me explaining exactly how the present law can and should be used. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 292F withdrawn.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord McColl of Dulwich Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 17th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

My Lords, I have received requests to ask a short question from the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow. I call the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, to ask a short question for elucidation.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]]

The Minister has continued to suggest that it will take a long time to implement Part 3. Why would that be the case if the Government used the BBFC as the regulator, as everything is in order in that regard, save the need to formally redesignate it, which Section 17 of the Digital Economy Act defines as needing only 40 days?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I hope that my noble friend in her letter, and I in my contribution, explained the reasons why we think it would take so long, because it has been de-designated. As the noble Lord will know, work is already going on in relation to Ofcom in preparation for the online safety Bill which, for the reasons I have outlined, we think better addresses the concerns that he and other noble Lords have raised in this debate.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord McColl of Dulwich Excerpts

Report stage & Lords Hansard
Monday 8th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord McColl.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 7, 8, 9, 78 and 90, which I support. Naming babies and the unborn in the Bill should lead parents to get the help that they need at a crucial time; otherwise they are in danger of remaining invisible when it comes to public policy. In the lockdown, as has been said, the hidden harms experienced by those under two years were sadly extensive. It should be stated that the definition of children does not recognise the unborn as victims. The amendment to Clause 3 is necessary to have in the Bill that a victim of domestic abuse includes a child who experiences the effects of the abuse, including in utero exposure, as there is good evidence for this latter harm, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, mentioned. The amendment to Clause 7 is important to stipulate comprehensively the duties of the commissioner to avoid any doubt whatever. The new clause after Clause 72 is required to ensure provision for all expectant parents and parents of children under two years where those children are victims of domestic abuse.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, for leading on these amendments, with the aim of highlighting the impact of domestic abuse on babies, including exposure in utero, and to meet the needs of babies and parents in the first 1,001 days before babies reach the age of two. We know that domestic abuse often starts or escalates during or soon after pregnancy and that it is correlated with other risk factors for babies and their families. Domestic abuse during pregnancy is associated with poor obstetric outcomes and is a strong risk factor for ante-natal and post-natal depression. We now know that a mother’s emotional state can have a direct influence on foetal development. I remember being shocked the first time that I saw the brain scans of such children, only visible to us as researchers in the last 20 years. The ongoing stress of domestic abuse can disrupt babies’ neurodevelopment, which in turn can adversely affect behaviours and emotional outcomes.

My noble friend Lady Finlay has outlined the issues relating to alcohol and domestic abuse so ably that I will not repeat her arguments, but I declare my support for her analysis. Early intervention is crucial for babies born into such circumstances, to support and work with families to break traumatic development cycles. The Institute of Health Visiting is strongly supportive of these amendments, to safeguard against, prevent and address the traumatic impact of domestic abuse on babies.

My noble friend Lord Bird often reminds us that investment of the public pound early in any abused child’s development is a far better investment than significant input in later life. These amendments are designed to address what has been described as the “baby blind spot”. I urge the Minister to seriously consider these amendments and support their incorporation into the Bill. They are designed to safeguard the early development of all babies and to provide therapeutic intervention to empower parents who have experienced abuse themselves to break the cycles of domestic abuse, surely something that we would all support.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord McColl of Dulwich Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 10th February 2021 Lords Chamber

I very much hope that the Government will announce today that they will implement Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act as an interim measure, at least between now and when the online harms Bill is ready. If the Government are not willing to do that, I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, will bring her amendment back on Report. I hope it will be possible for the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, to find some accommodation between now and then.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of Amendment 177A, to which I have added my name. I very much echo what has been said about Clause 65 and the acknowledgment that sexual violence is an important part of domestic violence. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, I do not believe that it is sufficient to seek to deal with the consequences of rough sex after it has happened. It seems to me that any credible domestic abuse Bill must seek to prevent domestic violence, as well as dealing with its consequences. As the evidence marshalled for Amendment 65 made very plain, there is a connection between watching depictions of rough sex practices in pornography and the incidence of such practices.

In my judgment, one of the most important ways in which this matter was first drawn to the attention of Parliament was through the seminal 2018 Women and Equalities Committee report on sexual harassment. The report stated:

“We asked Dr Maddy Coy whether there is a link between men viewing pornography and the likelihood of them sexually harassing women and girls. Dr Coy told us: ‘There is a meta-analysis of research that shows that. It was pornography consumption associated with higher levels of attitudes that support violence, which includes things like acceptance of violence, rape myth acceptance and sexual harassment”.


Moreover, one of the report’s conclusions was that:

“There are examples of lawful behaviours which the Government recognises as harmful, such as smoking, which are addressed through public health campaigns and huge investment designed to reduce and prevent those harms. The Government should take a similar, evidence-based approach to addressing the harms of pornography.”


In their response, the Government stated:

“We have already begun work to identify whether links exist between consuming pornography and attitudes to women and girls, and harmful behaviours. Through qualitative research with frontline providers and a review of the existing evidence base, we aim to build our understanding of relationships between pornography use and harmful attitudes and behaviours.”


As noble Lords have noted, the fruit of that research has been a long time coming. Given its huge relevance to the debate on this Bill, I find the way that it has been released—for all the reasons expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton—deeply unfortunate.

The research consists of two papers in response to the Women and Equalities Committee’s sexual harassment report. One is the literature review and the other consists of interviews with front-line workers who are working with individuals who either have exhibited harmful sexual behaviours towards women or are at risk of doing so, aged 16 to over 60. The literature review makes some important statements regarding the content of the Bill. It states that

“pornography use has been associated with an increased likelihood of committing both verbal and physical acts of sexual aggression. With the correlation being significantly stronger for verbal rather than physical aggression, but both were evident. The use of violent pornography produced a stronger correlation.”

The report concludes that

“there is substantial evidence of an association between the use of pornography and harmful sexual attitudes and behaviours towards women.”

It is clear that a relationship exists, and that is especially true for the use of violent pornography.

The second report, based on interviews with front-line workers, states:

“The majority of Frontline workers spontaneously mentioned pornography as an influential factor for harmful sexual behaviours towards women and girls”,


and that:

“This was especially the case for participants working with younger audiences … The view that pornography played a role in their clients’ harmful attitudes and/or behaviours was undisputed.”


Front-line workers recognise that there are a variety of factors contributing to violent behaviours, in relation to which pornography was felt to be a key contributing factor for many clients.

The second report also states:

“Participants believed that increased ease of access to pornography, lots of which includes violence towards women, was problematic for many of their clients … there was a widespread belief in the need to address the role that pornography plays, as part of the approach to minimising harmful sexual behaviours towards women.”


The front-line workers also reported on harmful sexual attitudes and behaviours that they had observed, including physical aggression during sex such as choking, slapping and hair pulling—that is, rough sex. This research is hugely important. It raises major questions about pornography consumption in the round, quite apart from by children and young people.

If we return to the proposed recommendation of the Women and Equalities Committee’s report—namely, that the Government should consider approaching pornography, as they do smoking, from a public health perspective—it is now plain that the new research completely validates that approach. In recognising that, we must acknowledge that the imperative for that is greatly compounded by the fact that the public health risks arising from pornography consumption are not limited to violent behaviours.

There is also the completely separate additional public health argument about taking action because of the problems raised by pornography addiction, which are similar in many ways to those caused by gambling addiction. The Government recognise that while for many gambling is not linked to harm, for some it has a very destructive effect through gambling addiction. This creates what is in a very real sense a form of social environmental pollution, where government pressure the polluter to pay. The gambling industry is asked to make a significant financial contribution to try to help people suffering from gambling addiction.

Given the social carnage left in the wake of pornography addiction, the polluter in this case should also be required to pay, yet the polluter in this instance is not so compelled. This is particularly odd when one has regard to the fact that whereas gambling facilitates gambling addiction, where the gambler damages his life and that of his family around him, pornography not only leads to these problems through addiction but is implicated, as we have seen, in actions taken by some consumers of pornography where they inflict violent acts on other people. In this context, it seems that there is a strong case for tough legislation on online pornography generally.

However, what is incontrovertible is that any further delay in protecting under-18s from accessing this material on pornographic websites, including depictions of rough-sex practices that normalise in their eyes violence as part of sexual relationships, is absolutely indefensible. It amounts to a perverse investment in the lives of the next generation that will make them think that an important aspect of domestic violence that the Bill is seeking to combat—sexual violence—is normal and appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but I would point out that all the speakers in this group so far have spoken for considerably over 10 minutes. Noble Lords would appreciate brevity, so that they can all have an opportunity to take part.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]]

[Inaudible]—rough sex and domestic violence and implement Part 3 as quickly as possible.