Modern Slavery Bill
Lord Hylton Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hylton
As an amendment to Motion A, at end insert “but do propose Amendments 72D, 72E and 72F as amendments to Amendment 72A”.
(a) change their employer (but not work sector) while in the United Kingdom provided they notify the Secretary of State;(b) renew their domestic worker or diplomatic domestic worker visa, each such renewal being for a period not exceeding twelve months, as long as they remain in employment and are able to support themselves without recourse to public funds;(c) obtain a temporary visa permitting them to live in the United Kingdom for the purposes of seeking alternative employment as an overseas domestic worker where there is evidence that the worker has been a victim of modern slavery.”
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, I offer a big bouquet to the Minister. I pay tribute to his sincere desire to improve the situation for the victims, of whom we have seen far too many over recent years. He has truly shown a listening ear: he has met me and others on many occasions; he has given us the national referral mechanism for domestic workers as well as for trafficked people; he has given us the Ewins review; and now he comes with a government amendment approved by the other place. I am also grateful to the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, who has given me time on these issues.
Some might think that I should be content with the Government’s moves, but I shall try to show why I am not. I seek to protect the incoming domestic workers from the first day of their arrival here. What I am proposing is a real improvement on the Government’s amendment, because that amendment takes effect only once the worker has found the national referral mechanism, from which there is no right of appeal. To do so, the worker must first endure a period of abuse and exploitation, then escape, and then find the national referral mechanism.
The government amendment restricts the person to working in a private household, whereas mine will allow him or her to work as a domestic in a hotel or embassy. The Government may say—indeed, the Minister made this point—that the workers will initially be protected by written contracts and information cards to be given to both employer and employee. I argue that all these pieces of paper may be withheld by the employer, just as passports have frequently been withheld up to now. The worst employers are likely just to disregard both contract and card. If my amendment is accepted, employees will know that they have an immediate remedy, just like any other worker. Employers will also know this and will, I believe, modify the worst of their past behaviour.
The Government further argue that the average visitor who brings a tied worker with them stays for only about 15 days. If that is right, then many, or possibly most, incoming workers will simply not be affected by my amendment. They will not seek to change jobs for such a very short period. They will suffer, if they have to, and they will go back with their employer. On the other hand, many employers stay for much longer than 15 days. When they apply for extensions of stay, as they often do, they easily obtain them. Their workers will therefore benefit from this new freedom, which is similar to that enjoyed between 1998 and 2012. I suggest to your Lordships that it is of great importance not to allow the kafala system, which ties the employee to a single named employer, to exist here because it has led to abuse and exploitation in the Gulf and nearby countries where trades unions are seldom allowed. I understand that our Government have sought to get it amended and improved in that part of the world. It should not be allowed to creep in here by the back door, even if the majority of visiting employers behave decently.
At first glance, it may appear that the amendment I am proposing is similar to the one approved by this House on Report on 25 February. In fact, it has been considerably changed to meet points raised by the Government. The first three lines of my amendment have been clarified and now look forward without retrospection. I put in that variation in order to try to meet the Government. Paragraph (a) of the proposed new clause states that workers must notify the Secretary of State if they change employer. This meets the point that they must not just disappear into the general labour pool. They must not expose themselves to being trafficked from one employer to another. They must also not claim state benefits. However, that does not mean that they must find their way to the front door of the Home Office and knock there. Any police station, citizens advice bureau, law centre, specialist NGO, councillor or Member of Parliament will do for the purpose of notification.
Paragraph (b) provides that the visa renewal shall be for not more than 12 months. This gives enough time to secure a reasonable job and bring a case for unpaid wages or damages against the first employer. It also prevents the growth of a pool of people who may eventually qualify for residence here. Paragraph (c) contains the word “evidence”. This means that workers changing employer and seeking to remain temporarily in this country must submit themselves to the national referral mechanism. That will produce a finding on the case and, more importantly—the point already mentioned by the Minister—it should give access to essential support and advice for those who need it. Amendments 72E and 72F are consequential.
My amendment is a compromise, which takes account of all that has been said in both Houses and of discussions with the Minister. It has been carefully crafted, with the best professional advice. I ask the Government to accept it, even at this late hour, and I commend it to your Lordships. If Britain is a “moral community”, as Edmund Burke might have defined it, we cannot condone domestic slavery in our midst. To do so immediately reduces our influence in the world and undermines our soft power. I beg to move.
Lord Bates
“Ample” is an interesting word when we are on the eve of the Dissolution of Parliament. However, there is of course time to do this—that is not the argument. The argument that we and others have put forward is whether this is the amendment that we want. As worded, it will simply mean that lots of people who are already here in the country and are victims of abuse will not be eligible to be covered by its provisions, whereas our amendment is retrospective and covers people who are already here.
The amendment is also defective in that there is a suite of measures, which people in this House have fought long and hard to include in and make available to this victim-focused legislation, available through the national referral mechanism. It is critical that victims get that level of medical and financial support, which is available through the NRM; that is what it is there for and why it has been reviewed and reformed as part of the work that we have done here. Most crucially, the amendment is defective because a serious and considered piece of work is currently going through its process under the widely respected James Ewins. Our argument is that that should be allowed to take its course.
I hope that people attach some weight to what I am about to say. Those who are responsible for this—Shaun Sawyer is leading the charge for us at the national policing level and making sure that those who are guilty are prosecuted—warn that the amendment as worded has the real, inherent danger of, in the words of the right reverend Prelate, not separating the victim from the crime. That is a potential danger. We want to make sure that the victim is protected but we also want to make sure that the perpetrator of the crime does not then continue to abuse other employees who are there.
I sense that the House is filling up and has probably reached a point where it wants to reach a judgment on this. I sense that and accept it, but I would not want the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, or other noble Lords who might be considering their action, to think, first, that the Government have not wrestled with the issue and tried to find a way forward which works for victims. I would not want noble Lords to feel that this is a one-off chance: that if they miss this moment, they will never get the opportunity to act again. We can act again at any time—Immigration Rules can be changed at any time if they are laid before Parliament—and the report will come forward.
There is another reason—I shall finish on this. This is in no way to suggest that we ought to fit in with this timescale, but today is the UN-sponsored International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade. In my view, it is a highly appropriate day to ensure that this momentous piece of legislation, which has been shaped, reformed and improved so much by all parts of your Lordships’ House, goes for Royal Assent and lands on the statute book, to give protection to the victims who need it and to ensure that the perpetrators can practise their crime no more in this country.
Lord Hylton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his careful and comprehensive reply to this debate. I must also express my deep gratitude to those who have spoken to the amendment from all sides of the House, whether they attended to support it or to call it into question.
A great deal of reliance has been put on the forthcoming or already started review. I am sure that it will come up with good recommendations, but we have seen too many reviews lie far too long in the long grass to put a great deal of reliance on that. The view has also been expressed that we need more time for more information. We have had two Joint Committees, which have heard a great deal of evidence. We have had more evidence from a whole range of voluntary organisations. I suggest that the time is now to take a decision. Therefore, I wish to persist, just for today, and I beg leave to seek the opinion of the House.
Modern Slavery Bill
Lord Hylton Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
My Lords, I should like to add a few words in support of Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, who has made a convincing case today and on previous occasions for why measures about support and assistance, in accordance with our obligations under international treaties, should be put into statute. I agree with the noble Lord that it would give confidence to victims, improve access to support and establish a consistent quality of care for victims, wherever they might be or whatever their personal circumstances. I am particularly concerned that continuing with a policy-based approach will perpetuate the scope for failures in support provision identified by the NRM review, but highlighted by many NGOs and the Council of Europe GRETA report a long time before the NRM review took place.
Flexibility to respond to changing circumstances is important, but it must not come at the cost of meeting our international obligations and ensuring that all victims receive the support they are entitled to and at a proper standard. I welcome the inclusion of Clause 50 in the Bill and very much hope that, before too long, we will see the introduction of regulations that Clause 50 enables. As the noble Lord, Lord McColl, has said, during Report I was one of those who asked the Minister whether he would consider incorporating something into the regulations under Clause 50. Specifically, I asked if he might look at adding,
“key elements ensuring consistency in standards of care”.—[Official Report, 25/2/15; col. 1681.]
Amendment 2 would provide the necessary direction to ensure that the regulations promote that consistency. I am particularly interested to hear from the Minister why he does not believe it valuable to add such elements to Clause 50. If, as I suspect it might, the Minister’s answer points to the guidance in Clause 49, perhaps he could indicate why that clause similarly contains no details about the international reference points for the guidance or even that the guidance should cover the elements of providing support set out in Amendment 2—that is, the types of support, the manner and circumstances in which support is provided and provisions for monitoring support.
As the noble Lord, Lord McColl, noted, the requirements for the regulations about independent child trafficking advocates are far more specific about what needs to be covered, than either the reference to guidance in Clause 49 or the regulations in Clause 50.
I would also like to ask the Minister how the Government intend to ensure consistent standards in victim care provision without reference to them in the Bill. For example, can he give details of the minimum standards to which the care providers will be held, and the inspections referred to by him on Report? Will he also indicate whether—and, if so, where—those minimum standards of care have been published? At the end of this remarkable landmark Bill, I am still very disappointed that the Government have not introduced amendments on this matter. I very much look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, it is not just trafficked people who need physical, psychological and social support when they arrive here; the same is true of many asylum seekers who have experienced torture, rape and imprisonment as well as arduous journeys to get here. Many Members of both Houses have pointed this out on successive immigration and asylum Bills. However, I am not sure that the Home Office yet fully reflects these points in its day-to-day practice, particularly as regards women asylum applicants. I strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, the points made in this amendment seem to me of considerable importance. However, if the Minister could go back to his department and be reasonably certain that these aspects will be reflected in the regulations, it would not be necessary to test the opinion of the House.
Modern Slavery Bill
Lord Hylton Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hylton
“Protection from slavery for overseas domestic workers
All overseas domestic workers in the United Kingdom, including those working for staff of diplomatic missions, shall be entitled to—(a) change their employer (but not work sector) while in the United Kingdom;(b) renew their domestic worker or diplomatic domestic worker visa, each such renewal being for a period not exceeding twelve months, as long as they remain in employment and are able to support themselves without recourse to public funds;(c) a three month temporary visa permitting them to live in the United Kingdom for the purposes of seeking alternative employment as an overseas domestic worker where there is evidence that the worker has been a victim of modern slavery.”
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for the absence from this debate of my noble friend Lady Cox. She is overseas on one of her many expeditions. I thank those noble Lords who have put their names to the amendment, perhaps in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, with her expert knowledge of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, where, sadly, so much abuse of domestic workers has taken place. In moving the amendment, I thank the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Bates—for his constant efforts to be constructive. He has seen me and other noble Lords twice since Committee, and has sent me two letters, totalling 12 pages. I am also grateful for another letter, from Karen Bradley MP, a Minister in the Home Office.
The issue of domestic slavery may be new to Ministers but I have been working with it and on it with, I am sorry to say, only very partial success, since the early 1990s. The sad fact is that many people, mostly women, have suffered greatly during these long years. The Minister wrote that there would be an independent review, which is to report by the end of July. There may be a new Government by then, and we have no idea of their future plans for legislation or their willingness to change the Immigration Rules. Either course would take time and thus prolong workers’ suffering. We currently have a legislative opportunity, so let us grasp it.
The noble Lord also wrote about the new visa-linked contract and the cards to be given to both employer and worker. These may help slightly, perhaps most of all with the majority of decent employers. However, the caseworkers at the point of departure overseas have to be satisfied that the national minimum wage will be paid. How, in practice, can they do that when the employer is bound to say yes to their questions? The letter from the Minister also said that,
“an extensive package of support is available to trafficked Overseas Domestic Workers”.
This has not, I am sorry to say, proved very effective so far for other categories of people, such as those forced into prostitution. How will it protect domestics who are here legally but may be prisoners in their employers’ houses? Have any of them, I wonder, benefited from discretionary leave to remain?
There is a hoary old theory in the Home Office that allowing domestics to change employers would create a pull factor, enticing extra people to come here. I reply that they cannot come at all unless their employer brings them here. The Home Office may be thinking of domestics from the European Union, but they can come here anyway and register for work with all the employment agencies in London. Furthermore, our amendment specifies an extension of 12 months—it could perhaps be 15—so that the worker cannot stay indefinitely. Nothing in the amendment encourages extra immigration.
The amendment should be seen in the context of forced labour and gross abuses of tied workers worldwide, but perhaps especially in the Middle East. I am glad to know that the Government are ratifying the ILO protocol to the Forced Labour Convention. That makes it all the more disgraceful that they should tolerate a loophole which has allowed exploitation and abuse to take place here. Ministers have called for changes to the kafala system, which ties huge numbers of workers to their employers in the Gulf and Saudi Arabia. There migrants may require employers’ consent for an exit visa, even for a holiday. Human Rights Watch has documented widespread abuses in the Emirates, and conditions are similar in other parts of that region. The mentality that sees nothing wrong in exploiting workers and domestics then comes to England, in particular to London. Compensation cases, both here and in Ireland, have shown the scale of the wrongs, crying out for redress.
There can be no doubt that domestic workers tied to one employer and living on his premises are extremely vulnerable. They are almost all sending remittances to support children and families in their home countries, where, it is most important to know and understand, there is no welfare state. This therefore makes them reluctant to complain of hardships or to leave their employer, whether that is in the Middle East or here in Britain.
The key protection that is needed is access to our civil courts and to employment tribunals. This was available between 1998 and 2012. During that time, some 50 cases were brought, securing between £1 million and £2 million in compensation. That is roughly £30,000 per case. My noble friend Lady Cox showed on 10 December how conditions have got worse since 2012. The victims often cannot run away; or if they do, they become illegal immigrants. I conclude with a quotation from an unnamed Filipino domestic in London. She said:
“It’s worse than Saudi Arabia. They treat me like a prisoner. They never even give me a single pound. I’m starting work around 4.30 in the morning, until 1 o’clock in the morning”—
the following day—
“I’m sleeping only in the kitchen. I’m crying the whole time that I’m sleeping on the floor”.
The Government rejected the advice of two Joint Select Committees on this subject. They only defeated the relevant amendment in the other place by the casting vote of the committee chairman. They have since had time to think again and to digest not only the parliamentary problem in both Houses but also an ITV documentary and Radio 4 and other press coverage. I urge them to accept this amendment or to improve it for Third Reading. If they do not like that course, they have the option to change the Immigration Rules, as was done in 1988 and again in 2012. If they prefer the second option, we must have a cast-iron guarantee today that this will be done. This is a modest amendment, because it does not revoke the original concession, it just helps to prevent its worst consequences. In particular, it will prevent domestic workers who escape from going underground in complete illegality. I commend the amendment to your Lordships and beg to move.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for moving his amendment. I appreciate wholeheartedly his commitment to the cause over many years. I thank him for his courtesy in the way he has raised this matter with me. He has been very persistent on the issue—and rightly so because it is an area where we need to be absolutely convinced that we are on the right side of the argument.
However, given that this has been a wide-ranging debate, I think there is possibly a slight conflation of issues here: the overseas domestic worker visa and the treatment of people in domestic servitude who have been trafficked here from overseas. They are two distinct issues.
The overseas domestic worker visa was introduced by the previous Government in 1998 essentially to facilitate particular groups of people who travelled to the UK frequently, brought their own household staff and did not wish to hire people in the UK for short visits. The average length envisaged then was a matter of a couple of weeks and today 15 days is the average time for which someone comes in. It may assist the House to know that about 80% of the people who come under the overseas domestic worker visa scheme come from a very small number of countries in the Middle East: 4,894 from the United Arab Emirates; 3,996 from Saudi Arabia; 2,581 from Qatar; 1,005 from Kuwait; and 257 from Oman. A particular group uses the overseas domestic worker visa. It was never intended that the overseas domestic worker visa should somehow translate itself into a visa to work for someone else. It is tailored for a visitor.
The amendment before us would open the opportunity for the visa potentially to be used as another way in which workers can enter the UK, repeat their application indefinitely and after a period of five years have the right to remain. The overseas domestic worker visa is a particular issue which we are seeking to address. In 2012, we felt there was some evidence that the visa was being abused and that people were coming here with one employer and were being moved on to other employers and other areas. Therefore, we said that if you come in on that visa to work for that employer, you ought to stay with that employer.
I have set out what the overseas domestic worker visa is and how the discussion and debate is very different from the broader issues of trafficking which this legislation addresses. We are dealing with about 15,000 applications per year. When Kalayaan, which I, like others, respect, undertook its review over a period of two years, there were some 32,000 overseas domestic worker visa applications. Kalayaan took a sample of 120 which had been drawn to its attention. By most estimations, and, I think, by its own admission, that is a small sample.
So what is the appropriate action to take? Is it simply to revert to the previous visa regime or is it to take some interim steps? The notion that the Government are not doing anything in the light of the evidence is simply not the case. We have introduced a new template contract. The contract must stipulate the sleeping arrangements, the minimum wage, the holiday pay and that the employer cannot withhold an individual’s passport. The clearance officer must be satisfied under a test of credibility that the employer will pay the national minimum wage. The person will now be interviewed by an officer directly and individually so that, should it be the case that when they were previously granted an overseas domestic worker visa to come to the UK they were not treated in accordance with their contract, then that could be made known and of course the visa would not be granted. We have that safeguard in. We also have the information card which is going to be made available to people who come to the UK advising them where to go for help.
This is where we get to the crucial element, which is this. If someone is on an overseas domestic worker visa and they feel their treatment by their employer is something amounting to servitude or abuse, they are able to come themselves to an organisation like Kalayaan or the police or the national referral mechanism. The national referral mechanism will take that issue very seriously. It will offer them protection and advice as to what to do. They will be granted, if there are reasonable grounds when they enter the referral mechanism, a 45-day period of reflection. If it is proved, or there is a reasonable belief, that they have been abused by their employer, then they could be allowed to remain in the UK for a period of one year and one day to assist with the inquiries being undertaken by the police.
So where someone is in an abusive relationship, I would hate your Lordships to go away with the impression that such people should somehow sit there and suffer because they have no option but to do so. If they are on an overseas domestic worker visa or any other visa—or even here illegally within the UK—and they are being mistreated, that is not tolerated. That is the whole point of the Modern Slavery Bill and that is what the national referral mechanism is for—to offer them that help. Overseas domestic workers generally have the protection of UK employment law. Anyone who believes they are mistreated by their employers has access to a number of organisations who can help, including the police, ACAS, the pay and work rights helpline as well as the employment tribunals where the tribunal or the court has jurisdiction in their circumstances.
Although the overseas domestic worker visa is a scheme that is quite distinct from the general issues to which we are referring, we considered what would be the best way forward, given the concerns which had been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and others. We decided that the best route forward was not simply to say that we did not think that the evidence was sufficient—we are talking about the Kalayaan report which referred to a relatively small number of cases as a proportion of the total. We said that we needed to have better information, not just about the treatment of overseas domestic workers but about the visa scheme itself. In other words, is the visa scheme which was introduced in 1998 still fit for purpose? Is it something which should be retained? Should it actually be scrapped altogether if it is being abused in that way?
To do that, we need to have evidence. I have to say that this is another example of where the Government have tried to meet the genuine concerns which have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and many others, including my noble friend Lady Hanham. We have tried to address their concerns by saying that James Ewins—the highly respected legal adviser to the pre-legislative scrutiny committee who is from the Centre for Social Justice, which in many ways was the architect of the present Bill—should be given the time to undertake a review. He does not necessarily, as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, mentioned, need to undertake all the research again for himself. He can draw upon the considerable amount of data and information which is held by UK Visas and Immigration in the Home Office and we will co-operate fully with him. He can speak to the NGOs, he can look at the case studies being provided by different organisations and then, after a period of review and with his recommendations, that can be something which can then be acted upon.
The idea that somehow if we do not take action or include this amendment in the Bill today there is no option again for primary legislation to be brought forward is simply not true. The Immigration Rules can be changed at any time. In fact we are changing them tomorrow to reflect the changes to the overseas domestic worker arrangement which we have put in place—the new contracts, the requirement for an interview to take place and the testing and piloting of video links. Change can be done at any time. It does not need to wait for further primary legislation. It can be done, if that is what James Ewins decides needs to be done.
All the way through this process there has been some advantage—for example when discussing the provisions on the national referral mechanism—to be discussing the issues in the context of an exceptional review carried out by Jeremy Oppenheim. He was able to take a wide look at the issues and produce a considered report with a series of recommendations, which have been absolutely invaluable to us in making decisions on what amendments needed to be made. The Government have accepted all those recommendations which were made in that review. All we are saying in our response is to let us allow the same due process to continue. Let us allow James Ewins to get on and do his work—to undertake a thorough review, to consider all the arguments that have been presented and then to come forward with his recommendations.
That is really the argument between us. I know that there are many individual questions which were raised in the course of the debate, but essentially that is what it comes down to. It is a question of whether we seek to pre-empt with an amendment which does not deliver what many people have been arguing they actually want to see. It is whether we proceed with that amendment or whether we actually proceed in a more orderly way, recognising that we need to review the operation of this domestic workers visa arrangement and allow someone who is completely independent of government to undertake that review. It would come back by July—so it is not going to be in the long grass for ever—and then action can be taken in the next Parliament at any stage based on the recommendations which are made. I think, along with a number of other noble Lords, that that would be the more appropriate road to take. I ask the noble Lord to consider removing his amendment at this stage.
Lord Hylton
My Lords, I would like to thank most warmly all those who have taken part in this debate, which has been quite long and complex. As to the Government, I am sorry to say that we have heard really nothing new that was not already known in earlier stages of this Bill or in meetings that followed on from Committee.
The amendment is really a test of the Government’s intentions. Why should they take a massive effort to deal with trafficking—through prevention and risk orders and an anti-slavery commissioner—and supply chains and yet leave this loophole for abuse which has existed for so many years? What do the Government consider that the impact on the reputation of this country will be, following the comments on ITV and Radio 4 and in the press? Surely the knowledge that those abuses and exploitations continue to go on here cannot help our reputation in any way.
The Minister mentioned the Immigration Rules and some tiny changes which are about to be made. Why cannot the Government go the whole hog and, as I suggested earlier, put into the rules the equivalent of this amendment? However, he does not appear to be willing to do that. Further, the national referral mechanism was not designed to deal with this particular problem. Maybe it can be adapted, but that is not its main purpose. Therefore, in view of all those points, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Yarl’s Wood
Lord Hylton Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
Her Majesty’s inspectorate’s last visit was in June 2013. These are not planned visits; they are meant to be surprise visits to try to get an accurate picture of what is going on. They are meant to happen every two years, so we are expecting one fairly soon. Following the very serious allegations, some members of staff were suspended, and Bedfordshire Police is undertaking criminal investigations in that respect. The inspectorate returned to Yarl’s Wood to undertake 50 further interviews to make sure that its conclusion that it was a safe and respectful place could be upheld.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, I have visited Yarl’s Wood in recent years. Can the Minister confirm that no pregnant women are held there now? Will he agree that many detainees feel very cut off there and do not know when they will be released? Can he tell the House how many suicides or serious attempts at self-harm there have been in the past two years?
Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill
Lord Hylton Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tebbit (Con)
My Lords, I rise to say how much I agree with my noble friend Lord Howard. He is absolutely right, and I find myself becoming irritated today as I hear this dancing around pins on some of these amendments. What we have to remember are the rights of those who are at risk of being murdered. A number of noble Lords in this House have lost friends to terrorism. I have lost five friends in particular who were murdered by terrorists. Unlike the BBC I am not ashamed of calling them terrorists—that is what they were. Every time I go home, I look at my wife, who was almost savagely murdered by terrorists. I suffer not a little myself from the effects of terrorism. I get bored and irritated by those who do not seem to understand that the most important human right of all is the right not to be murdered.
I hope noble Lords will get on with it and get this Bill through as quickly and expeditiously as possible, and give the Government the powers with which to deal with those who wish to murder other people.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, we can all sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. I apologise for daring to intervene—
Lord Tebbit
I do not ask for sympathy. I ask for action to prevent other people being murdered by terrorists.
Lord Hylton
The noble Lord might recall that this Bill is being dealt with under fast-track provision. I support Amendment 11, which was spoken to by my noble and learned friend. Before 2011, banishment or internal exile—sending someone to Siberia—was unknown as a penalty or punishment in this country. I believe that most of the general public trust judges rather more than they do Secretaries of State.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
Perhaps the noble Lord will give way. I just feel that phrases like “sending to Siberia” do not help very much. When I was a Minister, I used to send people occasionally to Gloucester from London, but it is hardly in the same category, I would suggest.
Lord Hylton
Gloucester is rather nearer to London than 200 miles, which is a possible distance. Having said that, I reaffirm my support for the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, at the last stage I supported the noble and learned Lord. I had not thought it would be appropriate to come in at this stage because I had to deal with something else while remaining in the Chamber, so I was not able completely to concentrate on what he said. However, as one of those who, I suppose, must be regarded as having danced the most during the earliest part of this afternoon, I reaffirm my support. I trust the courts to take a proper attitude to the issues which come before them, which is what this amendment is about.
Asylum Seekers: Women
Lord Hylton Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hylton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to consult Asylum Aid about ways to improve protection and fairness for women asylum applicants and support provided for those who have suffered gender-based harm.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the UK has a proud history of offering protection to those who need it, male or female. Home Office officials regularly meet with Asylum Aid and recently discussed Asylum Aid’s Protection Gap campaign and other practical steps that can be taken to further improve the management of asylum claims from women.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the positive points in the noble Lord’s brief reply. Will the Government extend childcare to all women’s interviews, especially in London and Liverpool, where it is not available? Will they provide training on gender violence to interviewers and interpreters, as is already done for the police? Finally, will they explain to women applicants why choosing a woman interviewer or counsellor can be of benefit to them?
Lord Bates
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question and respect his long interest in this area and his work with female refugees. On his first point, we are very much open to reasonable suggestions as to how childcare could be improved. There are some practical difficulties on some of the sites, particularly in central London. As for having female interviewers, that is a very good step and we want to make progress on that. There is some practical difficulty over interpreters. I will get back to the noble Lord on his other points, if I may.
Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill
Lord Hylton Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Marquess of Lothian (Con)
My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend could help me because I have missed this somewhere else. When looking at the time factor here, what is the legal and international status of someone who has been subjected to a temporary exclusion order? Are they in fact stateless during that period?
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, I would like to support the words of my two noble friends who have recently spoken. We will otherwise be faced with a situation where each new outbreak of terrorism somewhere or other will lead to a cutting back and diminution of traditional, well known and respected civil liberties.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may start by seeking the leave of the Committee to speak. I did not speak at Second Reading because I was suffering from a kidney infection and therefore was not able to be in the Chamber for the whole day. I have given notice to my noble friend the Minister and he is content for me to speak in Committee. I hope that noble Lords will allow me the same leave.
I rise to support both Amendments 2 and 55 and the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Hannay. I do not intend to make a Second Reading speech at this stage. The issues in relation to the concerns about this legislation are well known. I accept that we are in incredibly difficult times at the moment, and the more so in the light of what has happened over the past few weeks. We have seen the situation change again in relation to ISIL this morning. These are indeed difficult and troubled times, and I therefore understand the need for the Government to respond in order to protect our citizens.
However, I would dispute the comments made earlier that we need to send out a strong message to terrorists that we are serious about this. The message to send out to terrorists is that we hold our civil and individual liberties incredibly strongly, we value them hugely and we will not put forward legislation that permanently takes away the very liberties that terrorists would like to take from us. Putting a sunset clause into the Bill sends out a clear message that these are difficult times and we are responding to them, but that we are not going to change the way we do things in the United Kingdom permanently by giving away those liberties which terrorists would like us to give away. I therefore support the need for a sunset clause.
Amendment 55 gives comfort to those of us who are concerned about how this legislation will play out. We can all accept that there will be many individual cases where these powers will be used in subsequent years but it will turn out to be the case that they have been used incorrectly. The fact is that we as a Parliament should be able to say that at a certain time, whatever colour of Government we have at that point, we will reconsider these matters in light of how the powers have been applied and in the light of how we find the world at that time. An indication that this is not a permanent change would give some comfort to those of us who are concerned about these powers.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I am not surprised that the Bill does not include any power for the judicial authority to order payment of compensation. As a matter of administrative law, the lawful exercise of an administrative power, provided it is carried out in good faith, will not normally lead to a right for the claimant to claim damages. One hopes it never happens, in this context or others, but if these powers were to be exercised in bad faith, or if there were some other form of misfeasance in public office, the individual concerned—the victim—would already have a right to claim compensation from the state. Amendment 35 is not necessary to cover cases of bad faith or misfeasance in public office. If it is intended to extend to other cases, I would not support it.
Lord Hylton
My Lords, when the noble Lord replies, will he deal with the specific issue of abortive travel costs—flights that have been booked and paid for—and accommodation, which probably means hotel rooms, because the journey cannot be continued?
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, this comes back to the earlier point about whether the various powers in the Bill are proportionate and effective. What is being done to minimise the risk that they are going to exacerbate problems with particular communities? It is not simply a question of whether the powers have been issued improperly. In that case, I hope that compensation would be paid. It is more about when the powers may have been exercised entirely properly but are wrong in the sense that there was a reasonable suspicion, a passport was seized, investigation over a few hours demonstrated that this was completely wrong and the journey was permitted.
Under those circumstances, the person concerned, who had absolutely no malign intent, will have a real sense of grievance which will be reflected among all their friends, relatives and entire community, and which might be disproportionate to what was achieved. That is not the wrong use of the power: it is just the use of the power under circumstances in which it turned out that the intelligence or suspicion was wrong. That would then have a consequence. I appreciate that this could open up a whole mare’s nest of other circumstances in which this issue might arise. However, I hope that the Government have given this some thought because it is the sort of issue which could provoke a sizeable backlash in terms of people’s consideration of how these powers are being used—powers which otherwise people in that community might feel are reasonable.
Baroness Warsi
I hesitate to rise but the discussion that took place was about the purpose of the temporary exclusion order. The clear sense that I got from the briefing and subsequent discussion with the Minister was that the whole purpose was to facilitate a controlled entry back into the United Kingdom, and a controlled entry back into a programme of potential deradicalisation and whatever that would involve, a move by the Government which I hugely support and welcome. I felt that if the whole purpose of this temporary exclusion order was not to keep people out of the country—as has been suggested in the press—but was about managing somebody’s return, to make sure that we protected the security of our citizens, then we are talking about an incredibly short period for which the person would find themselves outside the United Kingdom but a much longer period subject to conditions within the United Kingdom. If that is the case, I would be grateful if it was clarified at the Dispatch Box.
Lord Hylton
Before the Minister replies to that, can he include in his reply whether the Government have studied the experience of countries such as Denmark and Germany, which have working knowledge of how returns of such people can be satisfactorily dealt with?
Lord Bates
On the point just raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, we have been very mindful of the fact that we need to work, not in isolation but in partnership with other countries. The level of co-operation and working across Europe in particular with our European colleagues, not least because of the events in Paris, has increased dramatically. We want to learn what works best. To answer my noble friend’s point, these orders will not exclude somebody from the UK per se. Through them we are saying that if you have been abroad and we believe that there is evidence that you have been engaged in terrorist activities we are not simply going to allow you to drift in and out of this country with impunity. That would need to be managed and supervised. We want that to happen—it is the purpose of the temporary exclusion orders.
My noble friend Lady Ludford—it now seems like a little while ago—was the first to speak about this. She raised a point about the tests and the phrase “obviously flawed”. Here, we are seeking to introduce a permission-stage model and a statutory judicial review mechanism similar to those already in place for the TPIM and asset-freezing regimes, which will consider both the decision to impose the TEO in general terms and for the in-country elements. Having considered these suggestions, we tabled these amendments in line with the recommendation. It is, as was said, simply consistent with those other elements to which we are referring. I hope that that has been helpful.
Modern Slavery Bill
Lord Hylton Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I certainly will not press the amendment today, but I wonder which is the chicken and which is the egg here. Of course, there is a concern about skills in identifying possible victims, but because this is an issue, it seems to me that it is all the more important that a duty to do something—maybe not to notify the Secretary of State, but to do something—ought to apply.
This is an unprocessed thought from when my noble friend was speaking. She said, rightly, that anyone who is concerned can go to the police. As we are talking about public authorities—and the Government have a relationship with public authorities—should we be thinking about guidance to all public authorities? As a minimum, it would say, “You may not have the skills, but all public authorities should be aware of this and if you have a concern, go to the police—if you think that there is nothing else you can do, always go to the police”. I think there is some scope—maybe not on the face of the Bill—for a bit more thought to go into the way we are operating our response to these issues.
I think that the Box has had time to process the thought that I did not. What I am saying is that I would be uneasy about leaving it there, because we have all identified that there is a problem that needs getting to grips with.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, may I help the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee? Perhaps the words she is looking for are “reasonable suspicion” rather than 100% identification?
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I was taking words from the Bill; “reason to believe” is what triggers the duty.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, it happens here—it happens even in Scotland, as we have heard, that most civilised country.
A number of noble Lords have used words such as “unimaginable” but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, I can only too well imagine the card—and I share her concerns about the card itself—being slipped into the passport as it is handed over. Of course, the passport is then very often taken by the employer.
I do not want to repeat the very powerful speeches made by so many noble Lords. I was grateful to hear from a number of people, including, most strongly and emphatically, from the three workers themselves to whom the noble Baroness referred, and at the meeting that she organised with Virginia Mantouvalou, who has written a report. Clearly, it is far too long to read here, but one thing particularly struck me. She gives the history of the overseas domestic worker visa and the diplomatic visa. When the concession was originally introduced, it was from concern to enable workers who had been with a family overseas to come here. The comment was made that it was for “a humanitarian reason”—to look after the domestic workers—and look where we have got to.
At that meeting, Kate Roberts from Kalayaan explained how her organisation could no longer help workers who managed to find their way to it, which must be a tiny percentage, because the organisation has to explain the problem with the Immigration Rules. Indeed, it often cannot help because of threats from employers to workers about criminalisation.
A number of noble Lords have also said that we must remember the realities. Measures such as dealing more effectively at the port of entry are important, but they are not enough. One thing that occurs to me on that is that, at the border on exit, when there is suspicion that a girl is being taken abroad for a forced marriage—the border officials are trained to recognise this—there are arrangements whereby they can be taken aside to be interviewed. The noble Baroness is right to point to that. I do not see why it should not happen in the other direction. We need to think about the realities. What people seem to be able to do to get around formal systems is almost beyond our imagining, and it is the realities that we need to fix on.
Lord Hylton
My Lords, I happen to have been involved with this situation, which allows serious abuses of incoming domestic workers to happen, since the early 1990s. I have never known such universal support for the need for a reform as we have heard today. I leave it at that.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, the name of my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon is attached to this amendment. I certainly do not wish to speak at any length, because the arguments have already been made, but I shall reiterate one or two things. Under the tied visa system, introduced in the changes in 2012 to the Immigration Rules, overseas domestic workers who are being exploited no longer have the option of seeking other employment to get away from an employer who is exploiting them since they are tied to their employer for a non-renewable period of six months. Under the tied visa system, people who are being exploited are normally not willing to go to the relevant authorities because they fear that, if they leave their employer, the outcome will be that they will be deported as an immigration offender. If they are being paid anything at all—evidence suggests that more than 60% may not be—they will lose what may be a source of income being sent to support dependants in their own country.
One would have thought that the Government would have wanted to abolish the current tied visa system for overseas domestic workers, since tying migrant domestic workers to their employer institutionalises their abuse, as has been said already, and precludes acting decisively to protect victims of modern slavery. Of course, as also has already been said, it is unrealistic for such domestic workers to take any kind of legal action against an employer who potentially has trafficked them, exploited them and denied them their most basic rights while still living in the home of their employer.
The impact assessment that accompanied the 2012 changes stated that the ability of these workers—that is, overseas domestic workers—to change employer and access the UK labour market was,
“contrary to general Government policy on low skilled migration”.
However, the impact assessment also acknowledged the,
“vulnerability to abuse and exploitation”,
of these workers. I do not know whether the Government’s resistance to date to going down the road of this amendment is related, in the light of that comment in the 2012 impact assessment, to a view that it would lead to an increase in immigration. Perhaps the noble Baroness could say what, if any, increase in immigration the Government believe there would be if the amendment that we are debating is adopted. Reversing the 2012 changes for the overseas domestic worker visa would, at the very least, allow organisations and agencies to remove a worker from an abusive employment situation immediately. It also would enable the abuse to be reported to the police without fear that the victim would be deported as a result and that, in turn, would facilitate the prosecution of modern slavery offences, which, surely, is the purpose of the Bill we are now discussing. I hope that, in responding, the Minister will take account of what has been said far more eloquently than I can manage by so many of your Lordships in this Committee today.
Lord Hylton
While the Minister is on the point about the interdepartmental group, will it recognise—I hope that it will—that British consumers have shown that they are willing to pay a higher price for an ethical product as a result of the fair trade campaign and fair trade labelling? Secondly, if I were a purchaser, which I am not, I would steer very clear of bricks made in Pakistan or matches made in India, knowing that many of them are produced by either bonded labour or child labour.
Lord Bates
Those are very good points well made. My home town, Gateshead, is the proud home to Traidcraft, which does tremendous work in this area doing ethically sourced coffees and foods, which are often a particular problem, but I do not want to get into advertising around Christmastime otherwise I will get into a whole other set of problems. Ultimately the consumer has great power here, although perhaps they do not realise it. In the same way that they have the power to drive down prices and standards around the world, they also have the opportunity to drive them up through their purchasing patterns.
The interdepartmental ministerial group is one part of this but I want to talk about another important part: what the Government can do. The Government can do more by putting their own house in order. The Government are a huge procurer—I do not know whether that is the right term—and a major purchaser of goods and services. It is important that we do everything that we can to prevent modern slavery from infiltrating our public sector supply chains. Taxpayers’ money should not be allowed to drive demand for these heinous crimes. That is why we are already taking concerted action on this issue. Individual departments have already taken clear steps. For example, the NHS standard terms and conditions for suppliers have clear conditions on labour standards in the NHS supply chain, and it has developed a labour standards assurance system that encompasses issues on forced labour.
The interdepartmental ministerial group on modern slavery will help to encourage best practice across the Government and the devolved Administrations. Home Office standard terms and conditions already require compliance with the law, which will of course soon include ensuring that suppliers have complied with our transparency and supply chain measure. We are also strengthening the labour standards section within our annual corporate social responsibility assessment in order to seek specific assurances from the Home Office’s largest suppliers that they have policies in place to address the risk of modern slavery. In addition, we are currently seeking ways to go further and require specific assurances from suppliers about steps that they are taking to stamp out modern slavery, which is an approach that we hope to then roll out across central Government. As a result, we are already proactively going beyond the measures in the Bill to address this issue. This is a bit like what we are asking people to do: to make a public statement and then be held to account for it. I wanted to put that on the record and expect to be held to account for it, being careful not to tempt fate too much. It is right that that is where we start.
With that rather longer than expected introduction, aware that we have two further groups to come in this area of consideration and having put those points on the record, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, would accept that as a response on the Government’s position on his amendment and consider withdrawing it at this stage.
Modern Slavery Bill
Lord Hylton Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendments 72, 73 and 74 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. Her amendments rightly seek to ensure that the Bill has an international remit by providing that our diplomatic missions across the world have a duty to engage with foreign Governments and international NGOs on human trafficking and slavery, that the anti-slavery commissioner has a duty to receive those reports and learn from and act upon them, and that through the annual plan, Parliament can debate them. Having each embassy and high commission produce an annual report on government action to fight slavery and trafficking would mean that there will be more thorough research into slavery across the world. It will mean greater dialogue with a wide variety of world government officials, NGOs, journalists, academics and survivors. It will mean that the issue of slavery and trafficking will rise up the world’s political agenda.
Through these annual reports, the UK will be fulfilling an important global leadership role. Involving embassies and high commissions in preparing annual reports about trafficking and slavery in its areas of operation is not new. The US has been doing it for the past 14 years —since 2001 it has produced a Trafficking in Persons Report—and the UK should do the same. I ask the Minister why the UK cannot do the same. The more information we collate and share across the world, the better our national and international responses will be. Having official reports on an annual basis which set out the scale of the problem in each country, the forces that lead to the slavery, the conditions that need to change to fight the slavery and what works best to tackle the root causes of slavery, protect the victims and prevent it from happening in the first place, will lead to the global solutions we need to eradicate this global problem. There is much we can learn from around the world.
Although I welcome the notes in the Modern Slavery Strategy that modern slavery will be included in the country’s annual plan, those embassies target only a small number of countries. If we can increase embassy engagement throughout a wider group of countries we can learn much more. For example, a pilot project conducted in the Netherlands offers specialised assistance and shelter to male trafficking victims. There is also a partnership with the Government of Norway whereby caseworkers in the field are using mobile technologies in Uganda to collect information about the protection needs of young trafficked children. In Austria, youth public awareness campaigns about local trafficking are taking place through school exhibitions and the provision of resources for teachers.
In this way, the annual reports would play a key role in shaping the debate and have a positive contribution to our ongoing dialogue here in the UK. As well as being a valuable source of information, these reports would also prove very useful for NGOs and civil society. They would serve as an additional tool for advocacy and a benchmark for evaluation. They would allow NGOs and others to build stronger relationships with high-level policymakers across the world. The reports would also, I hope, allow us to hear more clearly the international voices of survivors. There is much that we can learn from survivors. They know better than anyone what Governments need to do to identify and protect those who are enslaved and to bring to justice those who are responsible.
Finally, one particular feature of the US Trafficking in Persons Report which I think we should replicate here is the annual recognition that it gives to individuals around the world who have devoted their lives to fighting human trafficking. This year, among others, they honour a former orphan from the Democratic Republic of the Congo who has spent his life providing support for vulnerable children; a leader of 75 front-line anti-trafficking workers in northern India; a director of a centre for victims in South Korea; and the first trafficked victim in Peru to face her traffickers in court. These are inspirational people working day in, day out to fight slavery and trafficking, deserving of international recognition but not wanting it. For them, having British embassies and, through them, the British Government take an active interest in their work, listen to their survivor stories and learn from their work, are recognition enough. We should give it to them. I therefore hope that the Government will support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, I have listened to the debate on this group of amendments, and I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and with a number of previous speakers. I do not know to what extent the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was consulted during the drafting of the Bill, but even at this stage I think it should be consulted.
I am glad that Clause 51 is in the Bill, but it must inevitably bring in an international dimension—and who else will deal with that dimension if not the commissioner?
It would be most helpful if the Minister could say that he will take away all these amendments and come back with appropriate government ones on Report. If such government amendments could be published at least a few days in advance of Report, that also would be very beneficial.
Lord Hylton
Following those congratulations, it appears to me that Amendment 85 is, on the face of it, desirable. Is it the Government’s intention that the provision will apply to overseas domestic workers in this country? If that is the case, how will such people get access to the benefit of this proposed new clause? In particular, how will they get access if they have already been deprived of their passport by their employer, if they are locked in by the employer or if they happen to be working seven days a week and perhaps 16 hours or more a day? These are very important and relevant questions, and I look forward to a response.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
They are indeed very important and relevant questions. We shall be coming on to this issue in a later group of amendments, so I suggest that we take up the debate on this topic with the later group of amendments that is related to these particular workers.
Baroness Cox
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 102B and 102C as probing amendments in order to return to the important issue of legal aid for victims of trafficking and slavery. Possibly these amendments might be more appropriately grouped with government Amendment 85, which has been widely welcomed and on which I would like to add my own congratulations.
These amendments have two aims, identified by the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, the Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group and the Refugee Children’s Consortium. The first is to clarify the Government’s reason for preventing the commissioner from examining individual cases; and the second is to highlight the concern that, unless legal aid is provided for trafficked and enslaved persons as soon as they are encountered, many will continue to fall through the cracks of provision of desperately needed help. There is currently a protection gap that should be filled by the full provision of legal aid for all trafficked and enslaved persons from the first point of contact with a lawyer.
The amendments highlight the situation that, as things stand, the anti-slavery commissioner will be prevented from investigating individual cases when Clause 44 comes into force. They provide that Clause 44 cannot come into force until such time as legal aid is expanded for victims of slavery and trafficking. That is not to say that Clause 44 should then do so. The powers of the commissioner can be brought into force without the restrictions that Clause 44 would impose. It would give the commissioner a power to investigate individual cases and to be able to respond appropriately, including responding to emergencies.
By making orders under Section 9 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, the Lord Chancellor can change which cases are eligible for legal aid. Orders under Section 9(2)(a) are orders to broaden the scope of legal aid. My amendment is not more precise than that. One reason for this is that the national referral mechanism is under review. We do not yet know exactly what the new system for victims of trafficking and slavery will look like. Indeed, the Home Office review of the national referral mechanism states:
“In the event that reasonable grounds determinations were to be phased out … Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 would need to be amended. This is done through the making of an Order under Section 9 of the Act …six months should be allowed for drafting this process”.
The other concern is the great need for more legal aid to be available at an earlier stage in the process. Victims of trafficking currently qualify for legal aid for their immigration cases if they have a decision that there are “reasonable grounds” to believe that they have been trafficked. Until the competent authority and the national referral mechanism have made a positive “reasonable grounds” decision, a person is not eligible for legal aid. If the competent authority subsequently reaches a negative decision at the final conclusive grounds stage, this renders them ineligible once more. I have been advised by the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association that the Government’s amendment on legal aid for victims of slavery is subject to the same limitations.
It is of great concern that legal aid is not available to those who are afraid to approach the national referral mechanism in the first place. According to the anti-trafficking and labour exploitation unit, a person who escapes from a trafficker or situation of exploitation and comes to them is likely to be destitute. The person is usually frightened and often illiterate and unable to speak English. In most cases that person has no immigration status, papers or passport. Traffickers keep control of the passports of their victims in many cases. Perversely, fear of immigration enforcement has therefore become a tool in the traffickers’ arsenal. Traffickers tell their victims that they are illegal and threaten to report them to the immigration authorities, which they say will arrest them, detain them and remove them from the jurisdiction. These are not idle threats; victims of trafficking are often disbelieved and detained.
Before turning to the authorities, including the statutory services such as police, who are first responders, victims of trafficking want to know what their options are. Will they be allowed to stay in the UK? Will they be safe? They have been in situations of powerlessness and subject to abuse. They are inherently very vulnerable, so victims of trafficking and slavery need advice about immigration. Without it, some opt to stay in situations of exploitation. It is a crime to give immigration advice if not authorised to do so, and for good reason—to protect people. Yet this means that NGOs providing shelter, which are first responders but not authorised to give immigration advice to the necessary level, cannot step into that breach left by the lack of legal aid.
If I may give one example to illustrate the dire predicament of such vulnerable people, Pranjali is an Indian national whom the excellent charity Kalayaan has assessed as having been trafficked. Pranjali is afraid to approach the national referral mechanism. She was subjected to appalling labour exploitation in the Middle East and here in the UK. She has tried to commit suicide multiple times and has visible scarring on her body. However, Pranjali is the sole provider for her family back in India. She became vulnerable to being exploited because her husband at home is disabled and needs money for his medical treatment. She entered on the tied, six-month domestic worker visa scheme last year but escaped from her employers, yet the Immigration Rules prevent her working for a different employer. She needs advice now as to whether she is likely to qualify for a residence permit as a victim of trafficking, which is her only option to regularise her status. She is weighing the risks of approaching the national referral mechanism, including the risks of being detained and removed, penniless, back to India—jeopardising her ability to provide for her husband’s medical treatment.
Victims of trafficking and slavery are thus in a Catch-22 situation. They will not receive help from a lawyer unless they get a positive decision but are far less likely to get a positive decision without a lawyer to assist them, both in making disclosures about what happened to them and in supporting those disclosures with evidence. The Home Office review of the national referral mechanism records that:
“Victims who escape and present themselves may not know where they have been held or the names of those holding them and the only evidence they have is the story of their experience. Research has shown that those who are severely traumatised have difficulty in providing a coherent story. These factors together can create a perception that decision-making is heavily (and wrongly) based on credibility whereas the decision-maker may feel constrained by the lack of evidence of a crime”.
Mistakes at this stage are difficult to rectify later and can adversely affect the rest of the case. It may be claimed that legal aid is available for everyone who claims asylum but not every victim of trafficking or slavery is a refugee.
In essence, my amendments seek to clarify the situation where a legal adviser encounters a person whom they determine needs legal advice on the immigration consequences of a referral to the national referral mechanism as a victim of trafficking or slavery. That person should surely be eligible for legal advice and for representation in their immigration matters whether or not a referral is ultimately made. Without such eligibility victims of trafficking and slavery, who are already inherently immensely vulnerable in so many ways, are also vulnerable to falling through the gaps of provisions that they so desperately need. I would be very grateful for any clarification or reassurance that the Minister is able to provide.
Lord Hylton
My Lords, Amendment 86M, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, is important in its own right and I am happy to support it. The amendment includes a period for reflection and recovery, which will be particularly helpful to overseas domestic workers who have been exploited or abused and who may have little or no English. I believe the amendment could be a ladder by which these overseas domestic workers in England, and particularly in London, could have access to legal aid and due process in civil cases as provided for by the Government’s Amendment 85, which was accepted earlier. In particular, if applications on behalf of aggrieved persons could be made by NGOs and law centres, the thing might be made to work and it would help those who particularly need it. For years we have seen bad and vicious employers enjoying a large measure of impunity. This must be ended. The amendment seems to agree with the Government’s stated wish to improve protection for victims.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, I would like to be associated with the remarks from my noble friend Lady Cox concerning the potential gaps that people could fall through and her remarks and questions about the national referral mechanism and legal representation for those who are caught up in trafficking.
I particularly support Amendment 86J, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and Amendment 86M, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McColl. There is a link between these amendments because the noble Baroness quite rightly identifies those who may have been psychologically traumatised by their experiences. She rightly said that people could be extremely vulnerable and very badly damaged. Any of us who have met people who have been trafficked know that that must be true. If people have been concealed in a vehicle, smuggled into the country and exploited in the ways that have been described in speech after speech in Committee, these grotesque experiences will have maimed them psychologically. Hence it is important that there should be some psychological assessment and support for people who may be suffering from acute trauma and mental illness of one kind or another—something that is always neglected anyway in the National Health Service for our own citizens, let alone for people who have come through these kinds of experiences.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is right to say that people should be assessed psychologically during the investigation of the offence. That theme is picked up in Amendment 86M, in subsection (6)(c) of the proposed new clause, where the noble Lord, Lord McColl, would make provision,
“to assist victims in their physical, psychological and social recovery”—
a point returned to in proposed new subsection (10)(c) with,
“medical treatment, including psychological assistance”.
This is a recurring theme in these two amendments and I am surprised that provision is not being mandated anyway by the Bill and wonder whether it is not possible to do what the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have argued for. What do the Government intend to do to safeguard people who may be suffering from mental illness and who may have been traumatised through their experiences?
Modern Slavery Bill
Lord Hylton Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment simply because it provides better access to justice. The contest between the balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt is well known to the lawyers in this House. As a non-lawyer, my understanding from what has been said and written is that victims of trafficking currently have only limited access to compensation. Without civil claims against those committing civil offences, they will not be compensated in line with the European trafficking convention; nor do they have claims to legal aid. On the other hand, as we have heard, the USA provides a civil remedy under the 2000 and 2003 federal Acts. We need to know why the Government cannot emulate what they are doing in the USA. In the background, there is the sad case of Mary Hounga, who came from Nigeria as a domestic worker. She suffered serious physical abuse but her claim was thrown out by the Court of Appeal on the grounds that she had no right to work in the UK. I know that the case has gone to appeal but it is just the kind of case that would be caught by this amendment.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, it seems that all three amendments in this group have the potential of being helpful to overseas domestic workers who, I am sorry to say, have been exploited and abused over a very long period of years in this country, with almost total impunity for the wrongdoers. On Monday, the Government helpfully said that they were looking to enhance protection for overseas domestic workers, but I have looked at Clauses 45 to 50 and I can find nothing helpful there. I have also looked at Clause 15, which deals with prevention orders, and there again the procedure has to be through the police. We know perfectly well that many domestic workers do not have access to the police—they cannot get to them. I hope that the Government are able to say something helpful about this group.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I agree in principle with what lies behind the amendments but I would like to take up what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, has said. I am no civil lawyer but I believe that these are what are called in civil law torts; that is to say, civil offences. There is at least a very real possibility that they are covered by existing civil law. If they are so covered, there is no need for these amendments. I am afraid that I have not done any research on it, as I have not put forward an amendment, but some research needs to be done as to what is already covered before we ask the Government to accept these amendments.