Immigration Detention

David Burrowes Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

As one of the Members who applied for this debate, I welcome the cross-party call for action: the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), and SNP Members, too, were involved in securing the debate. Colleagues across the House are concerned about this issue. In this first substantive debate on it, they are calling for a comprehensive investigation, not least on the basis of the report recommendations.

Today is the fourth day in succession when the broad subject of immigration has been debated in the House. Sixty years ago, Winston Churchill complained to Ian Gilmour about immigration, saying:

“I think it is the most important subject facing this country, but I cannot get any of my Ministers to take any notice.”

Today and this week—thanks to the Backbench Business Committee, hon. Members and campaign groups such as Citizens UK, which have been out there across the country over months and years wanting immigration detention to get noticed—Ministers are not struggling to take notice of the issue.

The reality is, however, that immigration detention does not get sufficient attention. The more than 30,000 people held in 11 immigration removal centres last year were largely unnoticed—out of sight, and largely out of mind. These people were locked up without having any clear idea of when they would be released or removed. The issue occasionally gets headlines—on Channel 4 documentaries, for example. Last year, my constituent Yashika Bageerathi, aged 18 and in the middle of her A-level studies, gained public and parliamentary attention when she was separated from her family, detained and eventually deported. Yashika brought to the attention of all of us the individual humanity of the issue, which recent debates have also highlighted; she humanised the plight of thousands of detainees each year and reminded us of the issue that has run through previous debates about the refugee crisis, not least this week and in the past week or so, and will run through this one—our core value of human dignity.

We need to take serious action because many detainees do not know when they are going to be released. The following statistics were published in August: 430 people have been detained for more than six months; and 137 have been detained for more than a year. Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons found that in The Verne nearly 40 people had been detained for more than a year and one had been detained for more than five years. Souleymane, a former detainee, told the inquiry that

“in prison, you count your days down, but in detention you count your days up.”

As a criminal defence solicitor, I know that the first thing a prisoner will always ask me is, “When is the earliest date of release?” They will be able to get that answer, but most detainees in IRCs do not know the earliest or latest date of release. Let us not forget that most of those detained in IRCs have not been convicted of any crime. I say “IRC” because it is hard to say immigration removal centres, as for far too many the word “removal” is a misnomer. Half of all people who leave the centres are released back into the community rather than being removed.

There is also clear evidence to show that some detainees are treated worse than prisoners who have been convicted of very serious offences. In the past four years the High Court has on six occasions found against the Home Office for causing inhuman or degrading treatment to some of the most vulnerable of people—mentally disordered detainees in long-term detention. In the case of BA, the High Court described “callous indifference” and

“a deplorable failure…to recognise the nature and extent of BA’s illness”.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentioned that the Home Office has been found guilty on six occasions of inhuman and degrading treatment of people detained in our immigration centres. Is he aware of how often the Home Office has been found guilty of such offences in the rest of the criminal justice system? Would he be interested to hear the Minister give an answer on that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

That is a good question, and the Minister will have time to find that answer—I hope it will miraculously come to him. My experience is that although there have been challenges on articles 3 grounds, I have not heard of that many findings in recent years. Progress has been made, not least in dealing with mentally ill prisoners, although the situation is not ideal and there is certainly room for improvement.

As the hon. Member for Sheffield Central said, many of these vulnerable people have faced a history of torture, trauma and persecution, only then to find themselves further abused in detention. As we found when we visited the IRCs, there has been improvement in recent years. There has been a change of management and they are doing their best, within the physical structures they are operating in, to improve both conditions and staffing. I note that, and recognise that there has been a response to these judgments and that improvements have been made. What we found on our visits to the IRCs—the Minister has a lot of experience in the justice field, so he will know this, too—is that they are, in essence, prisons with some soft furnishings and some plants. They have now put in more plants and a few more soft furnishings, but structurally and fundamentally that is what we are talking about. We recognise that we do not have a blank piece of paper, but it cannot be right that so many immigrants are detained for so long in prison-like conditions for administrative reasons.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Is one difficulty facing detainees that because detention centres are in isolated positions they find it hard to get legal representation, as solicitors find it difficult to visit places such as Dungavel regularly?

[Mr Burrowes]

There is a contrast to be drawn with the position of prisoners, certainly those on remand, who have good access to legal representation and always have privileges in relation to visits. Their situation is not wholly comparable with that faced by detainees, particularly in terms of proximity. There is legal access, particularly for those who are in longer-term detention, but the point is well made. It is important to compare the rights of detainees with those of others, not least convicted prisoners.

We must be there for those who do not always make the headlines, such as the constituent whom I mentioned—people who may well be convicted detainees. As we remember Magna Carta and seek to ensure that everyone is equal before the law, we need to demonstrate that we are thinking carefully about people’s individual circumstances and the need for all of them to be treated with dignity, whatever their backgrounds.

What is the point of all this? The public may assume that the length of time spent in detention is linked to removal from the United Kingdom, but the opposite is the case. According to the statistics, the longer someone is detained, the less likely it is that his or her detention will end in removal. The Home Office may argue—and, indeed, the argument has been advanced—that the length of detention is linked to the legal processes, such as appeals, that are undertaken on behalf of detainees, and to difficulties related to identification. It is suggested that there may be difficulties with other countries when efforts are made to obtain the appropriate travel documents and ID. However, as the report states, a team leader from the prisons inspectorate told the inquiry that

“a quarter of the cases of prolonged detention that they looked at were a result of inefficient case-working.”

We need to drill down into that case working, and aim to improve it. The recommendations recognise the complexity of the issue. It is easy to make the headlines, and it is easy to adopt a position, but we need to look carefully at this, and one of the report’s key recommendations is for the establishment of a working group with an independent chair.

The Home Office—indeed, the Minister—told the inquiry that a key purpose of detention was to maintain effective immigration control, but evidence for that is lacking, especially when we make comparisons with other countries, which is what we sought to do during our inquiry. Some of us had an opportunity to visit Sweden, for instance. We found that there were many differences between countries when it came to the way in which immigration was dealt with.

Australia is not particularly known for its liberal immigration policy, but after it introduced case management-based alternatives to detention, the programme had a 93% compliance rate, and 60% of those who were eligible for deportation returned voluntarily. It is important not just to look at the issue of limitation of time in detention, but to look, positively and proactively, at the issue of case management. In Sweden, there was a 76% rate of voluntary return, as opposed to 46% in the United Kingdom.

We need to consider affordability, about which the Government are very concerned. At a cost of £164 million, immigration detention is not sustainable or affordable. According to independent research by Matrix Evidence, £76 million a year is wasted on the long-term detention of migrants who are subsequently released, and, between 2011 and 2013, £10 million was spent on compensation for unlawful detention. That is why, like the rest of the European Union, we are calling for a time limit.

We need to firm up the Home Office guidance which states that detention should be used sparingly, and for the shortest possible time. We need to ensure that that really does bite. We are therefore calling for a 28-day limit, which should be a genuine last resort rather than an administrative default position, to ensure that those who have no right to remain here are quickly removed.

I believe that the country can do this. We have done it as a Government. The coalition Government managed to remove as many instances of child detention as possible, and we should take the next step. Yes, we may have a debate about controlling our borders, but we should do more. Whether people come here by fair means or foul, we should treat them with dignity to ensure that we genuinely reform the system of immigration detention.

Finally, let me return to Churchill. He famously said in relation to prisoners, but we can say it in relation to immigrants,

“The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of”

—here I would say “immigrants”—

“is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilisation of any country.”

I believe we can meet that test.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Refugee Crisis in Europe

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I will say more about the number of refugees that I have already called for Britain to come forward and help. By deciding that we need to help, we are being very hard-headed. This is about our hearts and our heads, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, but both should be telling us that we need to respond to the scale of this crisis because it is not going away. Just because we cannot help everyone, we should not help no one. We should do our bit.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

In reality, though, it is not a case of helping no one, given our generous contribution as the second largest donor to Syrian refugees in terms of international aid. Where is the difference in terms of numbers? The Prime Minister has now rightly said that there should be more assistance for 20,000 Syrian refugees. The shadow Home Secretary has said 10,000, but the UNHCR has said that we need to get up to 30,000 by the end of 2016. Charities have said, “Let’s give hope to 10,000 Syrian refugees.” Where is the material difference? We are now on the same side in providing hope for at least the minimum number—in my view—of 20,000.

[Yvette Cooper]

If I may, I will come on to where I think the disagreement still lies, and happily give way to the hon. Gentleman again if he feels I have not answered his point. I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday, which was important. I welcome, too, the huge amount that is being done in aid, where Britain is playing a leading role. I applaud the work that this Government are doing to help and provide aid to those in the camps and to do more to start to help those from Syria.

Many of the troubled travellers no longer have any safe home to return to; they do need help and we should do our bit. There is a difference between immigration and asylum. We cannot let the troubled politics of immigration paralyse us and stop us doing our bit to help those who are fleeing conflict and persecution. Eleven million people in Syria have now been driven from their homes. In Palmyra and Mosul hundreds of men have been beheaded and their bodies hung from the roofs of ancient temples. Four million have fled the country altogether and most are living hand to mouth in neighbouring countries. Another 6 million have been displaced inside the country. Many of them, and many other refugees, are fleeing a new totalitarianism, and we should help those who flee to survive, just as we did against totalitarian regimes in the past.

We agree that Britain needs to do its bit to help. We agree that Britain should do most through support in the region with the aid to the camps, because it is far better to help people nearby to prevent dangerous journeys and to make it easier for them to return if things improve. As I have said, I applaud the Government’s leadership in supporting the camps and doing far more than other countries to provide aid at a time when food rations are running short and the UNHCR is desperate for more support. We agree that the Navy should be part of search and rescue, aiding those in peril on the sea. We agree that Europol and police forces should be driving action against the vile criminal gangs who prey on desperation and put a price tag on freedom—a price tag on breathing—and seek a profit on people’s lives.

We agree too that it is right for Britain to help orphaned and unaccompanied children from Syria if they will not be better off staying with family and friends. However, debates in the other place have raised concern about whether children who came from Syria, having no family back home and having made a life here, would be sent home when they reached the age of 18. That would be inhumane. I seek clarification from the Home Secretary and urge her to assure the House that unaccompanied children who come from Syria to Britain will not be sent back to the region when they turn 18.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. Swansea and other cities, including Birmingham and Sheffield, have already said that they are cities of sanctuary and will do their bit to help. I asked councils across the country whether they would help and within 24 hours, 40 councils confirmed that they would help and a further 20 have also done so. The Welsh Assembly Government have shown great leadership, saying that they will help, and the Scottish Government have also said they will help. They need support from the Government to do so, but they really want us to do our bit. Wales, Scotland and councils across the country are all saying that they will help, but only if we can work together.

[Mr Burrowes]

The right hon. Lady is right not to pluck figures from the air. There have been pledges to deliver just over 100,000 places and the UNHCR, which is the expert in the field, says that the figure should be up to 130,000 across countries by the end of 2016. Surely if we follow its approach and play our part in the delivery of 130,000 places by the end of 2016, that will provide a focus and we could ask the Home Secretary to provide details of how we can quickly reboot the vulnerable persons relocation scheme to assess those children and vulnerable people and get them here as quickly as possible.

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman is right: we should look at all the different ways in which we can play our part and work with the UN. At the same time, the EU is today asking for 160,000 people to be resettled throughout Europe. The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that the UN has called for people to be resettled from the camps themselves. We should be doing that and working together. My proposal was a suggestion of a way forward by asking councils, but there are other ways to do this. The point is that Parliament should make known our commitment and view that Britain can do more to help. That is what people across the country are telling us. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should be looking for ways to do more.

Water Cannon

David Burrowes Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for making that point. Indeed, I have had that conversation with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, who is a former Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, and he is conscious of that real difference, both for policing more generally and for the circumstances that the police there have to deal with. As the hon. and learned Gentleman points out, the use of water cannon in Northern Ireland is very much pre-planned.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

The Home Secretary talks about the public perception of legitimacy. Did she formally consult the public before making the decision? A poll shows that two thirds of Londoners support the use of water cannon in exceptional circumstances. In particular, has she consulted the victims of the 2011 riots, such as those in my borough of Enfield? They certainly admired the police’s restraint, but they also want them to have more tools in the box to be able to take exceptional action in a proportionate and reasonable manner.

Devolution and Growth across Britain

David Burrowes Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Lady will know that we have taken a number of measures over the last five years to strengthen finance and access to finance, particularly for small companies, through the funding for lending scheme and the investment in credit unions, by relaxing some of the rules around credit unions—something I know she has supported—and through the British Business Bank and the more than £1.8 billion that it has helped to provide to some 40,000 businesses. We will continue to work on these measures, because where she is right is that access to finance is key to continuing to see a fall in unemployment.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Sajid Javid]

I have to make some progress. A number of Members want to speak.

The Conservatives have always been the party of small business. Our greatest leader grew up in a grocer’s shop. I was raised by parents who juggled the demands of a family life with the stresses of managing a family business. We know first hand how important a successful small business sector is to a healthy, growing economy. We have seen for ourselves the unique struggles faced by sole traders and the owners of small companies, and we will continue to support the sector in every way we can. That is why we are setting up a small business conciliation service to help to resolve disputes between companies, especially over late payment. At the same time, we will improve the business rates system ahead of the 2017 revaluation, including through reform of the appeals system.

A thriving and growing economy must also be underpinned by democratic and fair industrial action. The trade union Bill will guarantee that strikes are the result of clear and positive recent decisions by union members. It will never be right to allow the actions of a few to hurt the hard-working majority. We will introduce a 50% voting threshold for union ballot turnouts. We will also require that, in the key health, education, fire and transport sectors, 40% of those entitled to vote must support strike action. If a union’s members genuinely support a call for strike action, we wholeheartedly support that right, but we will ensure that businesses and the wider public do not suffer widespread, costly disruption when there is no clear backing among members.

Our message could not be clearer: we are putting the interests of business first, second and third. We are dismantling bureaucracy and devolving powers to local leaders. This is how we will rebalance our economy and create opportunity in urban Britain and in rural Britain, in every part of our great nation.

Modern Slavery Bill

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

I am afraid that the right hon. Lady has misunderstood the amendment. The protections available to all victims of modern slavery who go through the national referral mechanism will be available to victims who have come here on an overseas domestic workers visa. That includes the discretionary right to stay for 12 months and one day if they are assisting the police with their inquiries. In addition, we are including in the Bill the provision for six months’ leave to stay and work irrespective of whether the person is assisting the police with their inquiries. That is a minimum of six months, in addition to the 12 months’ discretionary leave. It is in addition to the support that is available to all victims of slavery who go through the national referral mechanism.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

The good progress in the Lords reflects the comments that were made in the Bill Committee. Will the Minister say a little more about the guidance and tell us what is going to happen on the ground to ensure that enforcement action will not be taken against overseas domestic workers who are going through the national referral mechanism? Will the guidance have proper bite to ensure that no inappropriate action is taken and that victims are properly treated as victims?

[Karen Bradley]

My hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) were strong and assiduous members of the Committee that scrutinised the Bill as it went through the House of Commons, which is when we started debating this issue. My hon. Friend is right to mention the guidance, and I shall explain more about that in a moment. It is absolutely clear that all front-line professionals need to understand that the visa situation of an individual is irrelevant in these circumstances: if they are a victim of slavery, they are a victim of slavery, and they will need the support that is available. As I have said, the amendment will give additional support for victims who are on an overseas domestic workers visa, and I shall explain why that is appropriate.

Before I explain the additional protections, which seek to address the important concerns raised in the other place, I should explain to the House why I am deeply concerned that Lords amendment 72 will not protect victims, however well intentioned it might be. There is a real risk that it will achieve the opposite. I want to ensure that a provision to support overseas domestic workers who fall victim to modern slavery will help those vulnerable people get the help they need and allow law enforcement to take action to prevent their abusers from doing the same to another domestic worker. I do not believe that the Lords amendment would achieve either of those things. Members will have seen from my letter that those worries are shared by senior law enforcement officers working in this field.

I should remind the House that the overseas domestic workers visa allows visitors to the UK to bring their existing domestic staff with them when they visit the UK, for a maximum of six months. Separate arrangements apply for the small number of overseas domestic workers who work in diplomatic households. Around 15,000 of these visas are issued every year, and the data suggest that visits typically last for only about 15 days, so the vast majority of overseas domestic workers will be here for a very short time. To qualify for this short-term visa, there must be evidence of a long-term employment relationship between employer and employee.

Even before the Lords debate on Report, the Government announced that the safeguards would be strengthened. There will be a new standard contract, along with changes to the immigration rules to strengthen the guarantees that overseas domestic workers will be paid at least the national minimum wage, pilot programmes of interviews for applicants overseas and the provision of information cards at the border. Given the specific circumstances in which the visa is applicable, it is not possible to change employer during the short period that the workers are in the UK or to extend the visa as a route to settling permanently in the UK.

Lords amendment 72 would change that, allowing overseas domestic workers to change employer and stay in the UK indefinitely, potentially gaining settlement. The Government have listened carefully to the debates on this issue, and we are keen to take an evidence-based approach. As the House will know, the Government have announced an independent review of the overseas domestic workers visa, which is to report in July. The review will look specifically at the ability to change employer. It is being undertaken by James Ewins, a respected expert on modern slavery who served as a specialist legal adviser to the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee on the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Bradley]

On the numbers, I accept and do not dispute what Kalayaan is saying. What I am saying is that through this Bill we are offering the support Kalayaan says it believes overseas domestic workers do not get. I can work only on the basis of the figures it has produced about the number of people who have come to it looking for support; that is the only evidence I have on this at the moment. I have the other evidence about people who have gone through the NRM having been on an overseas domestic worker visa, and they are far smaller in number than those going through the NRM for domestic servitude who are UK or European economic area nationals, or who are here completely illegally. I can work only on the evidence I have, which is why I have asked James Ewing to look at the point.

The right hon. Lady makes the point about the courts, but they are not determining whether somebody is given a conclusive grounds decision within the NRM. She knows we have reviewed the NRM and introduced, as we will discuss later, an enabling power to put the NRM on to a statutory basis, as and when we have completed the pilots. But it will not be the courts deciding whether somebody gets a conclusive grounds decision; it will be the decision makers within the NRM—those specialists, led at the moment by the Salvation Army, who run the care contract. So this measure will not make any difference to courts decisions or decisions about discretionary leave, but, as she rightly says, this will be the only set of victims who will have something in statute over and above what is available in policy. She should welcome that.

[Mr Burrowes]

We are all united in wanting to ensure that victims have the confidence to come forward, knowing that they will be supported and not deported. But should we not all share the concern that amendment 72 contains a gap and a flaw, which is that the cycle of abuse could lead to those on domestic work visas changing employers and then not coming forward to the authorities? That issue has been taken up by, among others, the Organised Crime Command. We need to look at what we have before us. We can agree that there is a gap in Lords amendment 72, which needs sorting out.

[Karen Bradley]

My hon. Friend sums it up perfectly—I could not sum it up better. The problem we have with a system that just allows somebody to change employer is we are brushing the abuse under the carpet; we are not bringing it out into the light. That flies in the face of what we are trying to do through this Bill, which is find the victim.

--- Later in debate ---

In conclusion, it has been a great pleasure to work for the best part of a year on this important Bill, which has been improved hugely during its passage through Parliament. I reiterate my thanks to Members on both sides of the House for their work. I also thank the many charities and voluntary sector bodies that have worked on the issues involved. These groups work with victims in very difficult circumstances and have done a huge amount to use their front-line experience to inform the work of this House and to improve the Bill.

[Mr Burrowes]

This is an important Bill, which the whole House can be proud of. Throughout its passage there has rightly been robust scrutiny by the Joint Committee and the Bill Committee, of which I was proud to be a member, and by both sides of the House, but I believe that it is fit for its purpose of increasing prosecutions and supporting victims.

I welcome the Lords amendments, which in many respects reflect the work in the Bill Committee and in all parts of the House to try to ensure that we did the very best we could in the limited time available to make this a world-class Bill, as the Home Secretary sought. I thank her for her lead, and the Prime Minister, and in particular the Minister for her diligence and care in dealing with these matters.

I want to draw particular attention to these because they reflect the debates we had in the Bill Committee. In many ways, we go through this process and all end up in the place we want to be. In particular, the Bill now makes it explicit that one of the personal circumstances that may make someone vulnerable to slavery is the fact that they are a child. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have all wanted to make sure that child victims are central, that there are prosecutions when there are child victims, and that the Bill gives a proper tailored response. I therefore welcome this crucial amendment, which we have sought from the outset, and which I and others have campaigned for.

I do not accept that it is necessary for a specific child exploitation offence, however. I think the Bill can deal with prosecutions in relation to child victims, and the explicit reference to children in clause 1 now is particularly welcome.

I tabled an amendment and joined Members on both sides to ensure that exploitation measures had as wide an effect as possible, and that that was covered in clause 1. I drew attention in Committee, and others have done so since, to things such as begging or pick-pocketing and ensuring that such exploitation-type offences were covered by clause 1. It is important that such work and services now qualify as exploitation. The Government were previously concerned that the definition was going to be too wide, but in the Bill Committee we said from the outset that it was possible to use the definition set out in clause 3. Lo and behold, that is where we have got to, and the Lords and the Government have accepted that that is an appropriate addition.

We all wanted to be as clear as possible on the issue of consent, to make sure that this Bill was in step with our international obligations and case law. Also, we all wanted to make sure there was a specific understanding in the Bill that a victim’s consent to any of the alleged conduct does not preclude a finding that they have been held in slavery or were required to perform forced labour. We wanted to make sure that the wording did not have the perverse impact of ensuring that a child victim did not achieve the prosecutions they deserved, and now it is clear that a victim’s consent should not preclude any findings of their being held in slavery or forced labour.

Another area that has been mentioned is the independence of the anti-slavery commissioner. It is very welcome that the combined efforts of both Houses have led to a point where no one can be in any doubt about the independence of the commissioner, who has the word “independent” at the beginning of their title, as the Bill Committee was able to achieve. I pay tribute to those in the other place on both sides, and refer in particular—to be slightly partial—to Lord McColl of Dulwich, who played a key role alongside others in following up the hard work done by the Joint Committee and the Bill Committee. They all worked to ensure that there was the appropriate budget and staffing. Resources are necessary to make sure that this works and to make it clear—the Government amendments make this clear beyond doubt—not only that the child trafficking advocates are independent but that this is going to happen: yes, there is piloting, but this is going to happen. There is now a duty to ensure that these detailed regulations come to pass and that there is an appropriate sharing of information, and the public authorities must co-operate. All in all, this is a very welcome addition to a Bill that we can all be proud of. We can be proud of it because of the effect it will have on the ground, in making sure that there are prosecutions and that there is proper support for victims.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Serious Crime Bill [Lords]

David Burrowes Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The way in which the National Crime Agency operates involves a decision on how best to deal with any particular organised crime group that comes to its attention. The agency works with individual police forces as well as with the regional organised crime units to ensure that assets are being used as effectively as possible against the organised crime groups. I am not saying that a situation such as the one the right hon. Gentleman describes could never happen, or that different forces are never involved in investigating the same crime. However, before the NCA came into being, we set up an organised crime co-ordination centre to consider precisely that issue. We do not want anyone to slip through the net, but we also do not want police officers operating against an organised crime group to be put in danger because of the operations of another force. There might be more work to be done in this regard, but there is now a much greater ability to co-ordinate, particularly through the regional organised crime units.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

On the point about co-ordination, we must also remember the incentive scheme that encourages the many bodies involved to investigate and to confiscate the proceeds of crime. Has the Home Office reviewed that scheme yet to see whether it needs to be revised, as was suggested to the Public Accounts Committee last year? Given that the Home Office receives 50% of those assets, despite having no operational role in the process, does the Home Secretary envisage a change being made to that percentage?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. We are continually looking at that issue. Indeed, the Criminal Finances Board, under the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), has looked into it.

I want to talk about those parts of the Bill that will enable us better to access criminal assets, because that is an important part of what we do. As I said, organised criminals are primarily motivated by profit, and we need to be able to do all we can to strip them of their ill-gotten gains and send the message that crime does not pay. In part, this is about more effective enforcement, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has responsibility for dealing with modern slavery and organised crime, is currently overseeing the implementation of our plan to improve the recovery of criminal assets. We must also ensure that organised criminals are not able to exploit loopholes in our legislation to frustrate asset recovery and avoid the reach of the law, which brings me to the proposals in the Bill.

Part 1 of the Bill makes a number of significant changes to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. First, we are lowering the threshold for granting a restraint order—the means by which a defendant’s assets are frozen. It will now be easier to secure a restraint order immediately before effecting an arrest as the test for both will be aligned, thus removing the window of opportunity for a defendant to dissipate his or her assets. Secondly, we are halving the maximum amount of time that may be allowed by the court for payment once a confiscation order is made. That will mean that the victims of crime will receive recompense more quickly, and it will also further deprive criminals of the opportunity to live off or conceal their assets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

I commend this part of Bill, which I know has cross-party support, including from the Solicitor-General, the late Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East, who played an active part in its promotion, me and others. I welcome the updating of the Victorian language of the previous legislation and the extension to non-physical harm, but is this not an appropriate opportunity to go further and update the language on wilfulness? As I understand it, even after clause 65 is passed, the word “wilful” will remain in the legislation. Should we not take this opportunity to remove the word “wilful” and to make it clear that it should equate to recklessness? That already applies in case law and it should also apply in statute.

[Mrs May]

I believe that the proposals we have put forward are appropriate, but my hon. Friend makes a serious point, which I assume reflects some of his legal experience. I am willing to take that point away and have a further look at it, but I think the proposals in the Bill as we have set them out are sufficient to ensure that we are able to update the offence on the statute book and make sure it covers all types of harm to young people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in the debate, and I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), particularly those focusing on child protection. I shall also focus on part 5 of the Bill, and particularly on the amended child cruelty offence. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) paid proper tribute to all those involved in working in that area, and I echo that tribute. I also want to pay tribute to Action for Children, which has been campaigning for many years for reform of the law in order to better protect children from emotional neglect. Back in February 2013, alongside the late Paul Goggins—to whom it is appropriate to pay tribute in relation to this campaign—I tabled an amendment to the Children and Families Bill calling for a change to our archaic child neglect laws. Clause 65 of the Serious Crime Bill offers a more up-to-date application of the law on cruelty.

The media, the police and the courts have rightly focused on sexual and physical abuse, both historical and current, but it has already been pointed out that neglect and other non-contact forms of abuse are the most prevalent form of child maltreatment. According to evidence compiled by Action for Children and the NSPCC, this is the most disregarded area of child abuse.

This long campaign has been based on a critique of child cruelty laws that contain definitions that are both out of date and unhelpful. The Government are to be commended for recognising the problem after much consideration and following the recent review. The law enacted in 1933 was based on the Poor Law Amendment Act 1868, which was passed to criminalise the offence of child neglect following the case of a secret and aptly named sect known as the Peculiar People, who deliberately withheld medical treatment from gravely ill children on the ground of their faith. To our eyes, in 2015, the language of that law is indeed peculiar, and it is quite right that it is now being amended.

As has been said, the current statute does not allow us to recognise severe psychological and emotional abuse as a crime, but severe forms of emotional abuse can be just as damaging to a child’s development as physical abuse. I very much welcome clause 65, which extends the definition of ill-treatment to include non-physical harm. It also covers the important area of the wider circumstances where an infant is sadly suffocated as a result of sleeping next to someone who is under the influence of prohibited drugs. It is important that the law has been updated and extended in that area.

Clause 65 is needed for the sake of children such as Sarah. Action for Children told me that when Sarah was five years of age her mother locked her and her younger siblings inside the house or out of the house for most of the day. When they were not locked out they were imprisoned in their bedrooms. The authorities were alerted by neighbours, who often heard the children crying. The reports were that the children were defecating in their bedrooms and smearing excrement on windows—it was a cry for help. At the age of eight, Sarah was repeatedly teased about her dirty clothes. Understandably, she became isolated and seriously depressed. She was treated by her mother as a servant and required to look after her younger siblings. When at the age of 11 she was finally taken into foster care, her story came to light. That shows why the law needs to be changed and we need a Cinderella law—this, however, is no fairy story for Sarah or those like her up and down the country, who sadly often suffer in silence. They suffer and are affected by serious mental ill health, with some resorting to suicide. They rightly deserve a law that is fit for purpose, and now clause 65 gives such children legal protection from all forms of child abuse.

One big problem has not been as clearly dealt with as it could have been, and it relates to the investigation and prosecution of neglect cases. Neglect sits alongside other cruelty definitions which are “positive” in their nature: assault, ill-treatment, abandonment and exposure involve acts of action, whereas neglect involves acts of omission. That is why I intervened on the Home Secretary to ask for this Minister particularly to consider whether the progress on reforming the antiquated language of the 1933 Act is now reflected in clause 65. The definition of “ill-treats” including “whether physical or otherwise” quite properly covers non-physical neglect that prosecutors and police can probably appreciate. Reference has been made to the debate in the other place and the fact that guidance and training will be given in this regard. I welcome that, because it is important that everyone on the ground understands clearly what “neglect” means. The issue we face is that the word “wilful” remains. It applies in other areas of criminal statute, but it is of particular concern in this regard because “wilful” is attached to neglect. It is easier for juries, prosecutors and investigators to understand the term in relation to the “positive” acts of cruelty, but where acts of omission relating to neglect are seen as “wilful” it implies a deliberate intent. The other parts of this offence have now been updated, but the provisions on neglect have not been in relation to wilfulness. Even with clause 65, professionals and juries will still have to comprehend how a defendant can wilfully not do something. We do not want any lack of clarity. We want this made as clear as possible and we have a real opportunity to get this absolutely right and make it cast-iron, so I encourage the Minister to reflect on the matter during the further deliberation on the Bill.

The other point I made in an intervention was on the need properly to equate these arrangements with what happens in current case law, where it is very much established that wilfulness equates to recklessness. There must be a way of dealing with this in definitional terms to ensure that that is recognised in statute, given that we have an opportunity to update primary legislation to reflect the reality that “wilful” means reckless. Understanding whether or not someone has caused psychological harm to a child through a failure to act while in a reckless state of mind is easier for professionals to apply in practice. The bottom line is to see what is happening in practice. Cases such as Sarah’s have sadly happened all too often and this change would make it obvious to the professionals when they go into the house on the first occasion that they can say, “Yes, that is neglect.” They would not have to work around antiquated language to be able to deal with it. That is probably a matter to examine in greater detail in Committee.

I am pleased that the Bill recognises that for too long we have viewed the non-physical harm of children as being in some way less serious than physical harm, given that emotional abuse has such devastating, lifelong consequences for children’s mental health and well-being. It is good to see the Solicitor-General back in his place, because he has been involved in this campaign from an early stage. Clause 65 says loud and clear that the law will no longer neglect child neglect.

Let me now deal with part 1. Confiscation orders have been the subject of significant legislation in recent years, seeking to catch criminals and seize their criminal assets. As has been said, the aim is to ensure that their crimes do not pay. I welcome the lowering of the threshold test to “suspicion”, so that early action is taken on restraint orders. That will have a significant impact. We want to catch the criminals and seize their assets as soon as possible, and this is not all about legislation; clearly, it is also about enforcement, co-operation and building incentives across the many organisations involved. That is why the Public Accounts Committee—before I was a member of it— published its report on 21 March in response to the critical National Audit Office report, in which it examined two areas in particular. The first was the incentive scheme, where it wanted to ensure a revision of that scheme to align success measures and objectives set out in the criminal finances improvement plan with a linkage in respect of effort and reward. The existing scheme simply rewards bodies for the amount of money they collect. We have a situation where, as a rule, the Home Office receives 50% of confiscated assets, despite it having no operational role. If we are to look seriously at incentives and linking effort and reward, we need to examine whether that is a fair allocation, particularly in these challenging financial times. It is a challenge for the Home Office to do this itself, because it has an interest in the gains from that 50%. We should ensure that the money recovered goes to operations and to the specialist resources needed for us to catch more of these criminals.

I ask the Minister whether that arrangement is likely to change in any shape or form. The Government indicated to the PAC that they would revisit the asset recovery incentivisation scheme by the end of last year. I understand that the latest information is that the NAO is not aware that the Government have revised the incentives scheme. Will the Minister clarify the position? Will the Home Office ensure that all organisations provide their returns—I understand that these returns are not all complete—so that we can know exactly what is happening on providing a better linkage between effort and reward? Let me give one example in this regard.

Local authorities play an important part in the chain of trying to catch these criminals, using intelligence support on the ground. Very much at a local level, they are able to play a crucial role in money laundering investigations and ensure that the proceeds of crime are recovered. Among others, they have a good case for ensuring that they get a fair share of the proceeds cake, so that the money can go directly to resourcing this specialist investigation. I say that with an interest, because Enfield was referred to in the other place by Lord Harris of Haringey, and it uses the money, and has done since 2011, to fund a specific post. That post has helped in undertaking the first prosecution nationally for money laundering against an illegal poker den, where the defendant was sentenced to 15 months. In addition, financial evidence was able to be provided in this way against a trader who was convicted of operating a fraudulent HGV training school and sentenced to 44 months, following a month-long trial. Those are just some examples, among many, of the good work coming from that individual post which has been funded in this way. It is important that that early stage investigation by an accredited financial investigator can continue to be funded if Enfield gets its fair slice of the cake via a proper revision of the incentivisation scheme.

I welcome clause 10 and the increase in the maximum default sentences, which has the proper aim of preventing defendants from choosing to serve prison sentences rather than pay confiscation orders. I welcome the removal of early release provisions for the non-payment of confiscation orders of those who have gains of more than £10 million. I understand that that was also the recommendation of the Joint Committee on the draft Modern Slavery Bill. It is important to see the thrust of that continuing, to ensure that we catch the most heinous of criminals who are exploiting the most vulnerable and gaining so much.

I would be interested to know—this may well be explored further in Committee—why the Government have decided to remove early release provisions only for those with £10 million confiscation orders, and not for those with lower levels. I know that that matter was debated in the other place. An interesting judgment has to be made. Does such a decision represent value for money—the amount likely to be recovered from those with such orders—or do we need to consider the extra costs that would arise from the additional numbers in prison? There is also a general principle around removing early release, and the fact that it might also act as a deterrent.

I understand that 60% of orders for sums of up to £500,000 have been discharged, which is a relatively good rate. We still want to see more progress, and the increase in penalties from lowering the threshold might help to improve that percentage. The Government are particularly focused on the 18% with more than £1 million who have only been discharged. That rate needs to be improved.

The Government seem to think that they should focus particularly on those who have gains of more than £10 million. Those people will lose their early release, and so serve up to 14 years in prison. That will certainly have an impact. In the debate in the other place, there was a suggestion that more anecdotal evidence was available. I would like to see more evidence—more value-for-money evidence in particular. The public have a great disdain for early release provisions. The previous Government introduced automatic early release. The public failed to understand it, so, as part of our manifesto commitment to honest sentencing, we decided to move away from that. Minimum/maximum sentencing is a more honest and open way of proceeding with sentencing.

Interestingly, in this Bill there is an order-making power for minimum/maximum sentencing. It is an unprecedented move in relation to sentencing, but it has now been given an airing. I ask the Government to provide clarity on this. They should accept the principle of minimum/maximum sentencing as an honest way forward while still retaining early release, particularly where we still have early release provisions for those with orders of less than £10 million. The question my constituents might ask is whether it is right for there to be the option of early release for those serious criminals who have orders of £900 million-plus. Should they get early release if they have not paid back what they should for their crimes? It is a judgment call for the Government. They are holding the Opposition to account for their general commitment to scrap early release for all default sentences, and there is certainly a cost attached to such a policy.

I ask the Government to come back with further evidence so that we can judge why they have simply gone for those at the very high end. It is important that we come back to the basic principle—a principle that I applaud—which is to go away from what I think of as the dishonest sentencing of early release to a more appropriate minimum/maximum sentencing. The bottom line is that this Bill gives order-making powers to vary that. I understand why the Government want to proceed cautiously with the deterrent effect of removing early release for those with orders of £10 million and more and seeing how that works. I encourage the Government to go further with upper thresholds as well.

The other matter that the Government will be introducing by amendment relates to mobile phones and it appeared in our weekend papers. I welcome the fact that action has been taken in this regard. It has bedevilled prisons for many years. Some 7,000 known criminals in prisons in England and Wales are linked to the problem of illicit mobile phones. Blocking those phones has challenged successive Governments. This Government in particular have looked at how they can do it, but have found it difficult both technologically and economically. The physical detection of phones is challenging and costly. Allied to the new and cheaper technology to detect the use of phones will be court orders to blacklist prisons and young offenders institutions. That will cost the taxpayer £300,000 rather than the £300 million that it would have cost to go through a blocking exercise. This measure is really welcome and exceptionally good news in the fight against organised crime. It may conjure up images from “Porridge” or from the original version of “The Italian Job” of a somewhat benevolent Mr Big organising his crimes, but the reality is far removed from that. The technology is used for murders, drugs importation, slavery and exploitation and to prey on the most vulnerable. The measure is very welcome.

I welcome the Bill. It shows that the Government have not run out of steam and that they are not simply concerned with throwing out populist press releases. They are prioritising important legislation, protecting the vulnerable and prosecuting serious organised criminals who prey on the most vulnerable. It is indeed a serious crime Bill from a serious Government.

Criminal Law

David Burrowes Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. The Prime Minister was asked specifically about the EAW, not the 11 measures on the Order Paper, and he could not have been clearer: he said there would be a vote before the Rochester by-election. That he and the Home Secretary think they can rip up promises made to the House shows that they are not taking this Parliament seriously.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Is not this fine mess in many ways of Labour’s making, given that the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) gave away the opt-outs? To be clear, would Labour have used the opt-out for any of the 130 justice measures.

[Yvette Cooper]

Nice try. I will come to the issues that the Home Secretary has opted out of in a second, but the idea that the Home Secretary’s utter shambles today is the fault of the previous Labour Government is pushing the hon. Gentleman’s political argument to a ludicrous extreme.

The statistics are clear: the EAW helps us to deport foreign criminals and terrorists, and of the 1,057 people removed under an EAW last year, only 43 were UK nationals, and eight of those were connected to child sex offences. It is because the EAW and the other measures are so important that we should be having a vote on them now.

The Home Secretary has form. We saw it when she was asked about the net migration promise. No ifs no buts, the Prime Minister made a promise—a contract with the British people, he said—but she said it was no longer a promise but a comment. We saw it again today when she dismissed the Prime Minister’s promise to the House that there would be a vote on the EAW.

Frankly, the whole opt in, opt out process has been a con. It is an in/out hokey cokey back to where we started. On the measures to be opted out of, the Prime Minister promised the biggest transfer of power from Brussels back to Britain by opting out of more than 100 measures, but what powers in practice have been brought back? Britain will no longer be expected to have a good practice guide on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, but we will keep one anyway; Britain will not sign up to having a contact point for cross-border allegations of corruption, but the police and Border Force will still have one anyway; we will not sign up to receive a directory of specialist counter-terrorism officers, but we will get someone to send it to us on the side; we will not sign up to a whole series of accession measures that apply to other countries and did not cover us anyway; we were already opting out of the European judicial network, and we will carry on opting out of it; and we will not be involved in setting up contact points to deal with the other countries in pursuing those responsible for genocide, but we will—quietly—let Europol know whom they should ring.

Time and again, the Home Secretary claims to be repatriating huge numbers of powers, when in fact she is simply opting out of dozens of measures that either do not operate anymore or which cover areas where we plan to carry on regardless, whether we are in or out. So much for a repatriation of powers—it is a repatriation of other people’s phone numbers. She has taken back the Yellow Pages. Congratulations to her.

Modern Slavery Bill

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

My hon. Friend refers to the proposed amendment to the Companies Act. Does she accept that when Parliament put forward a human rights disclosure requirement, it was plainly the intention that it should also include supply chains?

[Karen Bradley]

My hon. Friend, who was such a committed member of the Public Bill Committee, makes an important point. The Government have already legislated to require companies to disclose in their annual reports under the Companies Act that they respect human rights throughout their business. We wanted to ensure that there was a further requirement on slavery, so we ensured that there was full transparency on slavery in supply chains in addition to the requirement that we have already included in the Companies Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Bradley]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her comments. She, too, was a member of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee—there is definitely great experience and knowledge of the issue in the Chamber today. Her work on the issue has been of great help to the Government. She is right that this is about the large businesses. When the Government discussed how best to secure this, it was the large businesses that were keen to see the level playing field, with everyone crossing the line together. She is absolutely right.

[Mr Burrowes]

The Minister is being very generous in giving way. This whole measure can be seen not as a burden for businesses, but as an empowering measure, because all responsible businesses will be able to see how they can root out and eradicate slavery. Is there a way in which we could move on in the timing of this measure and on enforcement by ensuring that everyone can see those businesses that are disclosing and complying, and by shaming those that are not? We could do that straight away on the website. Perhaps the anti-slavery commissioner could have their own portal to allow that to be communicated so that we could name and shame in an easy and accountable way.

[Karen Bradley]

My hon. Friend is right to say that this process does not need to wait for the legislation to come in. Businesses can start to make these disclosures now; there is nothing to stop them doing that. The point of the Bill is to make sure that there is a level playing field and that all are crossing the line together. He makes some very interesting suggestions that I will reflect on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Time is limited this afternoon, but I hope there will more discussion in the other place about extending the role of the independent anti-slavery commissioner to do exactly what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

In the Minister’s closing remarks, I want assurances that whatever is proposed will apply to all large companies; that the regulations will be detailed enough to allow comparability; and that there will be a clear enforcement mechanism so that consumers, investors and NGOs can see who has complied and know that they can trust the report they have read.

[Mr Burrowes]

It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate and, in particular, to support the principles in new clause 11. Some good points have also been made about new clause 5. As was evident on Second Reading, the House has coalesced around the principle of providing transparency of supply chains. It has taken a while to get there. I pay particular tribute to the Minister for the work she has done and the leadership she has shown in bringing together the Government in this way. That takes some doing.

The importance of the integrity of basic human rights in supply chains has not been recognised until now, unlike—shamefully, in some ways—the integrity of products in supply chains of hardwood, tobacco and pharma- ceuticals. Today represents a big and important step change in recognising the integrity of those human rights.

New clause 11 covers the principles of accountability and reporting, which are also addressed by new clause 5. We can deal with the qualms and queasiness surrounding burdens by saying that any responsible business will welcome new clause 11 as an empowering measure that can help them disclose any issues and root out slavery.

I accept the point made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). When I said that we should name and shame, I did not mean that this is about good guys and bad guys. This is about disclosure. We should take a rounded approach. There needs to be full, transparent disclosure all the way along the chain so that everyone can shine a light to see what is happening and then deal with it appropriately. By shining that light all the way down and up, the most responsible businesses will expose some things that they are not happy about. They will then be able to say, robustly and confidently, “We’ve done that.” We should ensure disclosure by naming those who are disclosing in a proper and full way, and shaming those who are not disclosing, which is an issue of concern.

Once this measure is on the statute book, compliance and enforcement must be effective. From a light-touch point of view, I agree that transparency and accountability can happen through individual company websites, but we need to go further and enable all concerned to access information centrally. That is why I suggested in an intervention that the independent anti-slavery commissioner should have a portal. The responsibility for maintaining it would not be the commissioner’s alone, but people would be able to look at that independent website and see the names of those companies that have complied with the manner, spirit and intention of the statutory guidance. That is important and I think it would help. Given the timing involved with this measure and the need to get the office of the anti-slavery commissioner up and running, it is important that we make progress, possibly through the Home Office website, ahead of any parliamentary processes, including secondary legislation, and give people the opportunity to show that they are very much on the side of full disclosure.

I must say that I have one or two concerns. I am concerned about whether new clause 11 may be unduly complex, particularly in relation to enforcement via civil enforcement injunctions. Are such injunctions to expose the fact that a company is not up to speed on disclosure, or are they to get to the root problem of exposing its supply chain? The provision may be unduly bureaucratic and costly, and it may well not serve the purpose that everyone wants.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Frank Field]

Could not other countries follow our lead by simply taking new clause 11 into their legislation?

[Mr Burrowes]

Other countries could do that, but they have different means of enforcement, which cannot be simply transferred. However, they could certainly take a lead by adopting much of what new clause 11 says.

[Sir Andrew Stunell]

My hon. Friend has done valiant work on this topic. I agree with him that the enforcement angle needs more attention, but does he not agree with me that new clause 11 takes us a huge step forward? We should congratulate the Government on that, and now invite them to take the next step and get the enforcement right.

[Mr Burrowes]

I do not want to understate my praise—this is a huge step forward—but we, as legislators, want to ensure that what we approve is really fit for purpose and has the necessary teeth. There are other elements that can be done without legislation: the issue of international corporate governance goes beyond legislation, and it can best be dealt with by sharing good practice internationally.

I will finish on a very positive note. Today, we can say that British law is no longer just concerned about the sustainability of the wood in our furniture, but is more concerned about the freedom and safety of the millions of men, women and children involved in making that furniture.

[Mr Frank Field]

I, too, want to pursue the theme just followed by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) in congratulating the Government, but drawing attention to just how important new clause 11 is. The Home Secretary made it very plain in her first article in The Sunday Times that she wanted a clause on supply chains in the Bill. I therefore congratulate her, her very able Minister and the person in No. 10 who changed his mind at this very late stage in the Bill’s passage. Heaven rejoices at the sinner who repents even at the eleventh hour, and some credit should go to the Prime Minister for changing his mind on this matter.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) has played a valiant role in spearheading our approach to the Bill and has borne all the heat of the day on it. However, I think we all accept, whatever efforts we have put in, that the legislation is the easy part of the process. The next part will be very hard—to get a genuinely mass consumer movement of people who do not buy goods if they are not kitemarked as being free of slavery.

As we draw stumps on this House’s proceedings on the Bill, it is important to commend it, as the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate has just done—it will not just be a good Bill, but a world leader when it leaves the other place—but the real work will be on enforcement and on convincing consumers that they have the vital job of not buying goods that are tainted by slavery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Before I call Mr David Burrowes, I must ask him to bear it in mind that we have one more speaker on this group of amendments. If he and Mr Durkan could each speak for about four minutes, that would give the Minister time to reply before 4 o’clock.

[Mr Burrowes]

I rise to commend my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), particularly for his new clause 20, which I support. Many have said that we need to follow the money, but we also need to recover it and ensure that it gets to the right places, not least law enforcement agencies. I am aware from previous discussions about proceeds of crime that it becomes a territorial issue, not least within the Government. It is important, and it is very much in the Minister’s and Department’s self-interest, to ensure that the money is recovered and that it goes where we want it to in law enforcement. So I very much commend the purpose of the new clause.

I will speak briefly to amendments 132, 133 and 134, continuing the debate we had in Committee about the importance of recognising and prosecuting exploitation, whether or not a person has been trafficked, and where the form of exploitation cannot be construed as slavery, servitude or forced labour. I will not go over old ground. I am grateful for the Minister’s letter following the debate, where she sought to reassure the Committee that such situations are covered by the definition of “forced labour” in European Court of Human Rights case law and the Court’s understanding of that as “all work or service.” My concern is that we should not just rely on European jurisprudence and we need to take the opportunity to have clarity in the Bill, not least for front-line officers, who are trying to use all the tools in the box. We will have the guidance that the Minister says is going to come, but we need greater clarity on the wider understanding of “exploitation”.

The Minister also provided reassurance by saying that situations of begging, benefit fraud and petty criminality can be covered by prosecution for other offences. I hear that, but I have concerns relating to those other offences, not least those involving assisting or encouraging another offence, for example, begging or theft. That would mean that to prosecute exploitation we would be relying on construing the victim not as a victim, but as an offender, aided or encouraged by their exploiter. We recognise that the victims are the victims, and we need to ensure that “exploitation” covers the entire range of modern day slavery. Further work can be done on that, perhaps in the other place. She also said that other penalties can be attracted, but I am not convinced that they are sufficient, given the nature of these offences. So I ask for further consideration of a wider construction of “exploitation”. We also need to ensure, as my proposal seeks to do, that that construction covers the nasty exploitation of children. We have the definition of exploitation in clauses 3(5) and 3(6) and this is about widening the construction in the way that the Minister and all of us want, particularly in relation to children.

Finally, I wish to flag up the issue of consent. That is a live issue, where work still needs to be done. We all agree on the law; the issue is whether it should be explicit in the Bill, avoiding the Minister’s concerns about it getting in the way of prosecution and about relying on evidence where consent is an issue, but making it clear that what we all say—

[Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)]

We have no time, but I just want to put on the record that I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Burrowes]

I thank the hon. Lady very much. I am sure we can find a way of putting in the Bill our understanding that consent is irrelevant here, particularly in relation to children. As for what is in case law, let us get a form of words in the Bill that ensures that we increase the prosecutions for slavery, particularly in relation to children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

The right hon. Gentleman was a Minister and may well have been involved in introducing in 2009 the criminalising of the purchase of sex from someone subjected to force. Evidence suggests that that has not been particularly effective. Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on that and on whether the evidence from it takes us any further?

[Mr Hanson]

As ever, having had a ministerial career in the last Government, I have form on these issues. In 2008-09, when I was the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough presented proposals in Committee that were similar to those that she has presented on this occasion, and the Government did not accept them. We look and we learn, and a new issue is now evolving. I think it fair to say that there is a greater involvement of criminal gangs in trafficking people for prostitution than there has ever been before.

The purpose of our new clause is simply to make the Secretary of State legally responsible for producing a review within six months. Six months from Royal Assent will mean something between the middle and the end of next year. The evidence enabling the next incoming Government to make judgments will already have been gathered, so that they—not me, and not the present Minister—can make those judgments on the basis of a full review.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

That was one survey where men who were asked, “Do you pay for sex, because you could be prosecuted for it?” naturally said no. The evidence has been challenged. The other part of the consensus concerns the argument that other Governments are now acting and following the Swedish model, but South Africa has rejected it, and Scotland rejected it because measures on kerb crawling were introduced. In France, the Senate has rejected that model on the basis that sex workers will be put at risk. There are even threats of legal action in Canada on the issue of the safety and security of sex workers.

The other consensus that has come from these organisations is that not only do such measures not work, they actually cause harm. We know that because we undertook research through the Home Office in 2005-06. What did it say? Sex workers themselves were saying, “It means that we never have time to check out the clients in advance. We are rushed and pushed to the margins of society as a result, which does us harm.”

There are alternatives. I do not recognise the view on the implementation of decriminalisation in New Zealand mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough, because all the research says that it is working. Who says that we should look at decriminalisation? It is the World Health Organisation, UN Women and UNAIDS. I circulated a letter from Nigel Richardson, who is not just a lawyer who represents sex workers but also acts as a judge. He says that we can tackle abuse and sexual exploitation with existing laws.

I appeal to the House not to rush to legislate on such a contested issue where there is such conflicting research, evidence and views. New clause 22 would provide a way through as it would enable us to undertake the necessary research, consult, bring forward proposals, and legislate if necessary. I want to include in that consultation the New Zealand model and full decriminalisation. I am not in favour of legalisation; I am in favour of full decriminalisation. On that basis we should listen to those with experience. I convened some meetings with the Safety First coalition to brief Members on what it had done. It invested money in the individuals—£7,000 a prostitute—and it got people out of prostitution by investing money, not by decriminalising them.

Rev. Andrew Dotchin was a founder member of the Safety First coalition. He states:

“I strongly oppose clauses on prostitution in the Modern Slavery Bill, which would make the purchase of sex illegal. Criminalising clients does not stop prostitution, nor does it stop the criminalisation of women. It drives prostitution further underground, making it more dangerous and stigmatising for women.”

I fully support his views.

[Mr Burrowes]

If I had longer I would list a huge number of women’s organisations, campaign groups and those dealing with the issue that the Bill is supposed to be addressing—human trafficking—that support dealing with demand for prostitution, as that is also a way of dealing with demand for modern slavery. We have dealt with demand in terms of the transparency of supply chains and have sought to deal with the demand for cheap goods that are linked to modern slavery. Similarly, we should deal with the demand linked to trafficking, which includes prostitution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

May I put on record my thanks to the Under-Secretary, who withstood and responded to robust challenge and scrutiny in Committee? We have a Bill that is fit for purpose and will no doubt be strengthened further as it goes through the rest of its parliamentary stages. I commend her for her passion and dedication.

The amendment that provides that the anti-slavery commissioner is independent is a welcome addition to the Bill. Will the fact that they are now explicitly independent under the Bill affect the selection process, which I understand has already started with the advertising of the position?

[Mrs May]

It was always the intention that the anti-slavery commissioner would be independent and that does not affect the selection process. A number of posts within the purview of Government are made by appointment. In my own area, for example, they are appointed by the Home Secretary. I assure my hon. Friend that those individuals remain fiercely independent in the work that they do. For example, I do not think that anybody has ever suggested that the appointment by the Home Secretary of the chief inspector of borders and immigration leads to him being anything other than extremely independent in his reports.

I want to mention one other aspect. I am clear that we must strengthen our law enforcement response. I have made tackling modern slavery a priority for the National Crime Agency and we are working with international law enforcement agencies to target organised criminal gangs. The UK is leading a group of international law enforcement chiefs, the Santa Marta group, which will strengthen and co-ordinate our response to modern slavery internationally. The members of the Santa Marta group will meet again in London in December.

As I have said, modern slavery is an appalling crime that crushes lives and strips people of their dignity. More than 200 years ago, this House passed historic legislation to make the slave trade illegal. Sadly, the fight against slavery is not at an end. This Bill will ensure that we can continue that fight against the slave drivers and traffickers, and release innocent people from slavery and servitude so that they can be returned to freedom. I commend this Bill to the House.

Modern Slavery Bill

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

A wide range of actions need to be taken if we are to deal with modern slavery, but the hon. Lady should not underestimate the power of the consumer in some of these matters. The consumer’s approach to fair trade, for example, has sent an important message to companies about how they deal with certain issues. The consumer can certainly play a part in addressing such things.

I have taken a number of interventions, and I will now turn to the specifics of the Bill. Part 1 addresses offences, sentences, reparation and maritime powers. Traffickers and slave drivers must know that their crimes will not be tolerated and that they will not get away with them. They must know that they will be caught and sent to prison for a very long time. The Bill provides law enforcement with the powers it needs to take robust action. First, the Bill consolidates existing slavery and human trafficking offences, which are currently held in three different Acts of Parliament. That will make it easier for prosecutors and the police to understand the available modern slavery offences when investigating such crimes.

We will have two clear and distinct offences: one for slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour; and one that covers all types of human trafficking. Those are focused offences that build on tried and tested concepts that the police and prosecutors understand. Part 1 of the Bill is not simply a consolidation, however; it contains specific action to improve existing offences by making it clearer that the slavery, servitude and forced labour offence can be effectively prosecuted where the victim is vulnerable, for example a child. Part 1 also includes wording based on international definitions of trafficking, such as the Palermo Protocol, thus ensuring that it reflects internationally defined best practice.

Punishments will now fit the crime. Offences committed in connection with modern slavery are some of the most serious that can be committed, so the Bill extends the maximum available sentence to life imprisonment. That will ensure that the worst perpetrators can receive the lengthy custodial sentences that they deserve. Tough sentences will also act as a powerful deterrent to others.

Criminals and organised groups who trade in human beings do so for profit, and we were reminded of that only last week, when the gang leader of a criminal outfit was jailed along with his accomplices for trafficking more than 100 women to London. While he lived a luxury lifestyle, the women who were lured here on false promises of employment were forced into prostitution, held against their will and subjected to horrific treatment. Wherever possible, we must ensure that the illicit gains made from trading in human misery are seized. Both the Modern Slavery Bill and the Serious Crime Bill will strengthen our powers to recover assets. The Modern Slavery Bill makes both slavery and trafficking offences criminal lifestyle offences for the purposes of criminal confiscation under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which means that convicted slavers and traffickers will be subjected to the toughest confiscation regime possible.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Will the Home Secretary assure me that, through reparation from the proceeds of such crime, there will be long-term support for the profound and enduring health consequences experienced by women subject to such exploitation, abuse and degradation?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend must be psychic. I was about to say that the treatment meted out to victims by traffickers and slave drivers is inhumane, degrading and often disturbing, and there can be no better use of the assets seized from a perpetrator than to provide reparation to their victims. Courts currently have the power to order convicted traffickers to pay compensation to their victims and can use money collected under a confiscation order to ensure that such compensation is paid in full. It is therefore unacceptable that in the past 11 years there have been only three such cases in which a criminal convicted of a principal offence of human trafficking has been ordered to pay compensation in that way. The Bill seeks to remedy that by creating a bespoke order for modern slavery offences so that, where a perpetrator has assets available, the court must consider making an order to provide reparation to the victim and give reasons if it does not do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), particularly given his early remarks about the preventive work that needs to take place not just through this Bill but beyond it. Once reporting mechanisms are in place, perhaps we will have an opportunity to return to the issue in the House. Once we have taken the golden opportunity we have now to get the law right and make it effective, we should ensure that we continue the drive to eradicate modern slavery in this country and across all shores.

Like the whole House, I welcome this landmark Bill. As has been said, it follows in the footsteps of William Wilberforce, Thomas Clarkson, Thomas Buxton, Hannah More and others. It is a pleasure to be part of a Government who are leading the way in this and I commend the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary for that.

It is also pertinent to recognise that this landmark Bill follows cases that have taken place over the years, not least one that occurred in my constituency. On 20 May 2011, four victims of trafficking won a landmark human rights case when the judge ruled that the Metropolitan Police Service had breached human rights by failing to investigate their claims that they had been subjected to domestic slavery. The girls were aged 15 and under and were illegally trafficked to Britain from Nigeria. The traffickers had brought the girls into the country between 1997 and 2002 and told their parents that they would simply be helping them with their studies. When they came to the United Kingdom, they were put to work looking after children of African families in north London and my constituency. Some of them were forbidden to say anything about what they were doing and were prevented from leaving their home, whereas others were spied on by their so-called guardians. They were physically and emotionally abused.

From 2004 onwards, those girls tried unsuccessfully to get support from Enfield social services and from police officers. One said:

“It took all the courage I had to walk into Southgate police station and Enfield Social Services to ask for help in 2004 but they sent me back to my abusers and...blamed me.”

The case finally received court attention and the landmark ruling on the failure to investigate led to their receiving £20,000 in compensation. That is also something that we need to address seriously.

In September 2007—this issue has been picked up by others, showing the wide-reaching concern in this regard—Judge Herbert considered the initial immigration decision to deport those children, against which a successful appeal was granted, and found breaches of articles 2, 3, 4 and 8 of the European convention. Even though that is an historical case, it is relevant as we need to ensure that, in enacting this Bill, we learn the lessons from the past. His judgment said:

“At present we deport far more victims of trafficking and abuse than we prosecute traffickers. In this climate victims will simply not come forward.”

It also said:

“The cycle of deception and abuse will continue and we as a society will fail those children and undermine our immigration system as a whole.”

He went on to say:

“There would appear to be many children that remain in slavery in London, and in abusive conditions who are simply unaccounted for by any agency voluntary or otherwise.”

That was in December 2007 and there was no investigation by the time of the final landmark judgment in December 2008. We need to hear those words clearly and ensure that we are not letting down those children. We must not fail them. Such cases continue in Enfield, in London and more widely in our constituencies. We need to provide for accountability, enforcement and protection of victims.

I recognise that progress has been made. Since 2009 there has been the national referral mechanism, which has gone a long way towards identifying and protecting victims. In that regard I particularly welcome clause 44, which contains the important duty to notify the National Crime Agency about suspected victims of slavery and human trafficking. We should look carefully at the interim reports to see what further progress is needed to ensure that what happened in Southgate in north London, and in other constituencies, cannot happen again.

Sadly, we do not need to rely on historical cases to appreciate the scale and depth of modern slavery, and the scale and depth of depravity. Last week, in the case to which the Home Secretary referred, Vishal Chaudhary was sentenced to 31 years for trafficking more than 100 women to Britain. The victims came from Hungary and had answered job advertisements online for administrative, cleaning and babysitting work. Women were picked up from Stansted airport and delivered to brothels in north London, including in the borough of Enfield in my constituency. They were forced to have sex with up to 20 men a day and were raped repeatedly for profit. There was a call centre operating from Hendon. Women were treated as no more than a commodity. They were used, abused, punished and discarded. The business generated hundreds of thousands of pounds and a luxury lifestyle which led, thankfully, to rightful conviction—31 years in prison for the perpetrator—and a compensation order.

People such as the perpetrator in that case are vermin and we must bear down on them. They live a life of luxury, whether in this country or abroad, and we need to hunt them down wherever they are. We can do that through financial and other means. That is why I particularly welcome the provision in the Bill to ensure that we do that and that the proceeds of crime go directly to the victims. That reparation needs to be real and long lasting in order to recognise the physical and psychological impact of such abuse, particularly on women, although there are male victims as well.

The health impact is profound and enduring. Most trafficked women—eight out of 10—have been physically assaulted. Victims have been kicked while pregnant, burned with cigarettes, had their heads slammed against the floor or the walls, hit with bats or other objects, dragged across rooms by their hair, punched in the face, and more besides. In addition, they have suffered sexual violence and threats to themselves and their family. It is hardly surprising that 70% of women who have been trafficked in that way have mental health problems that go on and on, beyond the reach of statutory and voluntary services. They have multiple psychological issues that affect them probably for life. We must ensure that reparation goes to the heart of these concerns—to health impacts that continue year in, year out. I pay tribute to the many charities engaged in working with those victims across our constituencies.

Clearly, there are individual stories behind the statistics, but it should be recognised that the number of children in the UK identified as having been trafficked for sexual abuse has more than doubled in the past year. With children as young as three being trafficked into the United Kingdom for sexual exploitation, it is obvious that we need to do more to drive out the traffickers and support victims.

I commend the Bill and the work that has been done, and will continue to be done, beyond legislation by organisations such as the Salvation Army, Stop the Traffik and Hope for Justice, which yesterday reminded me of its work in partnership with the police. Such partnership work has improved over the years and helps to bring about successful prosecutions, such as the case I mentioned. A recent case in which Hope for Justice was involved was that of a gang that was forcing men and women into labour. They hung those people in front of a crowd, treating human beings like pieces of meat and telling them that if they escaped, they would be killed. The gang had no regard for human life. The victims worked 20 hours a day, seven days a week, they were beaten, their food was withheld, and they lived with 15 or so people crammed into a room. We must do all we can for such victims.

That is why it is right that a key aim of the Bill is to increase successful prosecutions. More needs to happen in relation to modern slavery, but crucially we as legislators can ensure that the law is effective. Hope for Justice said that successful prosecutions, of which there have not been enough, will make it clear that modern slavery is not tolerated in this country. Law enforcement is a crucial tool through which police investigations and prosecutions can effectively prevent modern slavery. There is no better place for prevention than in the courtroom. Ensuring that that happens effectively enforces the law and, crucially, gives protection for the most vulnerable in its reach.

There is clear evidence of that internationally. I commend International Justice Mission for its work across many countries. It cites the example of the Philippines, where the partnership work between the police, prosecution authorities, local law enforcement agencies and local organisations in strengthening victim aftercare and representation, ensuring cases are properly heard, has led to a dramatic reduction of 79% in trafficking.

The United Kingdom can take a lead, as the Home Secretary said, in tackling modern slavery globally. That means cross-Government work involving the Department for International Development and building capacity in justice systems worldwide. When laws are enforced, it is clear across countries that trafficking is reduced. Increased commitment in the justice system leads to an increase in victim services, shelter, counselling and the wrap-around care that is needed. Effective prosecution must be part of that integrated plan to combat modern slavery.

As has been mentioned, preventive measures, the rescue of victims in which many charities are involved, the prosecution of perpetrators and the care of victims must all come together. The Bill does not seek to do that. It seeks to hold to account the perpetrators and to bring together the disparate laws to make prosecution effective. We will no doubt debate that in Committee.

I am not convinced of the need for a specific child trafficking offence. There is existing legislation that can be properly enforced. Although the Bill goes a stage further with revision, it recognises the relevance and the aggravating factor of age. We must ensure that there are no unintended consequences, as I know from my own experience—I declare an interest as a criminal defence solicitor. We need to avoid problems for both the defence and the prosecution. We should be razor sharp in ensuring that this is an effective piece of legislation.

We all talk about sending messages through the legislation that we pass. We must avoid the trap of this becoming a Christmas tree Bill that sends different messages to groups, non-governmental organisations and others. We must respect their lobbying and their concerns, but we must also be sure that the Bill gets the law effective and right, and that when cases come to court, the prosecutions can go through to protect the victims.

I welcome part 3 of the Bill on the anti-slavery commissioner and its focus on best practice in law enforcement, extending the remit to identification of victims and, crucially, co-operation and working closely with national and international partners. I shall wish to explore, perhaps in Committee, the value of greater independence and accountability. For example, ECPAT has said of the Finnish national rapporteur that

“Independence, autonomy and transparency are vital requirements for discharging the Rapporteur’s duties.”

Of the Dutch national rapporteur ECPAT again said:

“A precondition to the success of the role … has been its independence.”

Part 4 of the Bill is also very welcome. I congratulate the Joint Committee on its work, which has led to part 4. I welcome the introduction of child trafficking advocates and look forward to seeing the progress of the pilot led by Barnardo’s. I know that clause 41 is an enabling clause. I will be looking for a firmer commitment to the principle of child advocacy, which should not be contingent on the success of Barnardo’s. Members across the House wish to see that principle enshrined as a statutory principle. I will be looking at “may” becoming “shall” in clause 41. A guarantee of real, crucial independence of advocacy has been found to work well and to be best practice. We must break the cycle of repetitive victimisation, abuse and exploitation of children supposedly in the care of authorities.

I look forward to the enactment of the Bill next year —2015. It is an appropriate year, 800 years after the signing of the Magna Carta, as we celebrate the rule of law as a foundation of our democracy. We want to see the Bill ensure that the victims of modern slavery benefit from the rule of law. If the rule of law is effective, it protects citizens from being enslaved. That is a crucial principle at the heart of the Bill. Let us unite across the House in the remainder of the Parliament to ensure that the law is as effective as it possibly can be for victims. Let us also take heed of what is written in the Bible, which is what we want to follow—let us see the captive set free.

Yarl’s Wood Immigration Centre (Detainee Death)

David Burrowes Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I thank the right hon. Lady for the tone of her comments and the points she has made about this tragic incident. I certainly agree that it is important that we have a system that is firm but fair and treats those who are in our immigration removal centres in a humane and appropriate way. That is certainly the standard that I expect, and I know that that view is shared by the Home Secretary and all of us who have responsibility in this regard.

The right hon. Lady asked about the level of support provided to those at the centre. I have spoken to the centre director, John Tolland, about that. He has underlined the fact that there has been increased staffing, increased counselling is being provided, and additional pastor support has been arranged for those at the centre.

I am not in a position to comment on the specific points that the right hon. Lady raised, but I can assure her that they will have been heard by those with responsibility in the police and the inspectorate. Certainly, I would expect all issues to be thoroughly analysed and investigated appropriately, given the nature of this incident.

The right hon. Lady highlighted the issue of medical support and the overall regime at Yarl’s Wood. She will be aware that the chief inspector of prisons, Nick Hardwick, conducted an unannounced inspection of Yarl’s Wood, and it is worth highlighting his concluding remarks. He said:

“Yarl’s Wood has had a troubled past, punctuated by serious disturbances and controversy surrounding the detention of children. This inspection found that the improvements we have noted since the detention of children ended have continued. Nevertheless, despite the good progress made, improvement continues to be necessary.”

I entirely endorse that. There is a need for continued focus to ensure that we see further changes and improvements at Yarl’s Wood. That is something that I will continue to focus on.

On health service support, specific recommendations that were contained in the inspector’s report have been pursued and there has been further analysis of the health support required there. That has been sent to the NHS commissioners.

I reassure the House of the seriousness that we attach to the incident. We expect all issues to be properly investigated and pursued.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Given what we have heard about Yarl’s Wood today, how does it make sense for my constituent, Yashika Bageerathi, to have been detained there for nearly two weeks now, away from her traumatised mother and family? Her plight has been championed by the students at Oasis Academy Hadley school and by over 170,000 people in an online petition. They want her back to continue her studies and to complete her A-levels in May. Given that Home Office policy says specifically that someone who is three months away from sitting a major exam will not be removed, will the Minister order the release of Yashika today and allow common sense and compassion to prevail?

[James Brokenshire]

I know that my hon. Friend has raised concerns about this case and I commend him for his customary focus on supporting his constituents, which he has underlined again in respect of this individual case.

We consider every claim for asylum on its individual merits and this particular applicant was not considered to be in need of protection. The case has been considered carefully not simply by the Home Office but by the courts and tribunals, and has gone through the proper legal process. The decision has been upheld and supported by the courts. Given those circumstances and the extent and level of judicial and other scrutiny, the Home Secretary has indicated that she does not feel that it is appropriate to intervene. That remains our position.