Nationality and Borders Bill

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 8th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bone]

I can give the House an update: birth has not yet occurred and she is watching today’s proceedings. I wish her very well with the new baby.

Let me go back to the national referral mechanism. One thing that people misunderstand about new clause 47 is that they think it refers to when people go into the NRN, but it does not. It would apply for people who have “conclusive grounds”—people the Government agree are real victims of human trafficking. The difference between me and the Government is about what happens next. We have always looked after victims of human trafficking—it has been a really sensible process, with overall control given to the Salvation Army and then distributed through all the different charities and voluntary and religious groups that help to look after victims. But I want there not to be any victims in the first place. I want these evil gangs stopped. By the way, this is organised crime: they are ruthless and horrible and they do not care about people. They are quite happy to murder people. If we can shut them down, we will not have the victims, which is why the prosecution of these gangs is so important.

When we have discussed the failure to secure prosecutions in the past, it was argued, “Well, we prosecute on lesser offences so that we get convictions,” but these people are put away for only a small amount of time. We want to nail the people at the top and put them away for a very long time, to make it a dangerous thing to be involved in. If it is dangerous and they are likely to get caught and put away for a long time, they will not carry out this evil trade and will try something else.

The difference between me and the Government in respect of leave to remain, which is the crux of new clause 47, is that I think it should be given as a right to people who are confirmed as victims of trafficking if their immigration status is irregular. I say that for two reasons: first, they are much more likely to help to prosecute the evil gangs if they know that their immigration status is secure for a year; and secondly, if we do it not that way but on a piecemeal basis, there is a possibility, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green referred, that the lawyers will go to the court and say, “The only reason why this person is saying that is because it is the only way she could have got leave to remain,” whereas if it is a right, they cannot use that argument at all.

I will listen with great interest to what the Minister says in response to the debate. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green pushes new clause 47 to a Division, I will indeed support it. I know that the Minister and the Government share my desire to get these evil gangs; we just have a little difference on this point. Why doesn’t the Minister accept the new clause and perhaps add a sunset clause in the other place? Put two years on it, and if in two years nobody extra is prosecuted, we were clearly wrong. But if a lot more people are prosecuted, as I believe they would be, the Government could renew the sunset clause.

Everybody is trying to do the right thing here; we are just discussing the best way forward. I go back to the start and say well done to Anthony Steen and to all the Governments who have moved forward and made our country the best place to prosecute modern-day slavery. But we can do better, and we can and must do better with children. New clause 47 would help us to prosecute more evil gangs, so I very much support it and hope that the Government will accept at least its principle.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

Numerous constituents have written to me with their concerns about the Bill. They fear that it will harm refugees and victims of trafficking and slavery and that it undermines our international commitment to human rights and the right to asylum. I share their concerns.

The Children’s Society has said that it is

“concerned that the provisions of the bill will have a significant impact on all child victims of trafficking”.

Notably, the charity has expressed support for Labour’s new clause 6, which would exempt victims of modern slavery, exploitation or trafficking from many of the provisions in part 5 of the Bill if they were under 18 when they became a victim. Statistics show that 3,140 potential victims of modern slavery were referred to the Home Office in the second quarter of 2021—the second highest number of referrals since the national referral mechanism began in 2009—and 43% of them claimed exploitation as children.

Serious concerns have also been raised about, and many Members have referred to, the proposals in the Bill to allow the Secretary of State to serve trafficking information notices on potential victims of modern slavery and expect a response within a fixed timescale. Dame Sara Thornton, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, has said that

“will make it harder to identify those who have been exploited… Traumatised victims cannot disclose their suffering to order—it takes time to build trust and confidence.”

That is absolutely right.

The Government’s own statutory guidance on modern slavery states:

“Victims’ early accounts may be affected by the impact of trauma. This can result in delayed disclosure, difficulty recalling facts, or symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.”

Why do the provisions in the Bill run contrary to the evidence in the Government’s own guidance? This point relates to amendments 5, 6 and 7, which were tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and have cross-party support. I also support my right hon. Friend’s incredibly important new clause 3, which would create an offence for arranging or facilitating the travel of another person with a view to that person being sexually exploited in the UK.

We debate the Bill less than two weeks after the tragic loss of 27 lives in the English channel, yet the Government are intent on pushing ahead with their cruel pushbacks plan, despite Border Force officials saying privately that it is dangerous and unworkable, and despite the Joint Committee on Human Rights having said that pushbacks would

“create a situation where state actors were actively placing individuals in situations that would increase the risk”

On behalf of my constituent, who has more than 10 years’ experience in maritime rescue, I ask the Minister how the Government expect Her Majesty’s Coastguard to operate in a situation that it deems to be search and rescue but that the Home Office considers to be a pushback situation? He wants to know who will have the veto authority in such situations?

As Families Together has pointed out:

“No one chooses to cross the channel…unless they have no other option.”

Amnesty International has said that the Bill

“will cost not save lives. It will enable and empower ruthless criminal gangs not break them. It closes safe routes and opens none. It will harm women and girls along with the men seeking asylum, to whom Ministers appear to take such exception”.

I urge members from all parties to vote against the Bill on Third Reading.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am grateful for the opportunity to make a few remarks about the amendments and new clause tabled in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends and others. I put on the record my support for the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), by the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), by the official Opposition, by the Scottish National party, and by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I think you can take it from that selection, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the view of many of us here is that part 5 of the Bill requires some fairly urgent and radical surgery. In general terms, that is something to be regretted.

The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) was absolutely right to remind us of the history in relation to human trafficking in this House. He mentioned Anthony Steen, who ploughed a lonely furrow in the early days but was dogged in pursuit of that. I fear that it may not always be what he is remembered for, but ultimately he did a great deal of good in relation to this matter.

I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who, as Home Secretary, drove this with an unquestionable commitment—I saw that for myself in government. The fact that we now find the salami slicer starting to work and that, piece by piece, the provisions and protections that we have brought into operation to protect the victims of modern slavery are being taken away is, I think, a matter of regret.

I do not often tell tales from outside the Chamber, but I went up in the lift in Portcullis House with the right hon. Member for Maidenhead yesterday—I hope that she will not mind me referencing this—and apropos the House’s consideration of the Bill yesterday, she asked what sort of a debate it had been. I replied, “Suffice it to say that I don’t think anybody would refer to it as being the House at its best.” It is to be welcomed that the temperature of debate today is perhaps a bit more measured. It also illustrates that, on a matter such as this, if one looks around the Chamber and sees the range of interests that have brought forward amendments, it is very easy still to build a consensus around this. The fact that the Government show no inclination or enthusiasm for building or maintaining that consensus is a matter of deep regret.

The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) referred to the credibility provisions. He is absolutely right. The idea that legislation should interfere with the assessment of something around credibility is fundamentally obnoxious. If any right hon. and hon. Members have ever spent any time in the Appeal Court, they will have seen advocates being pulled up occasionally for trying to reopen questions of credibility. The Appeal Court always says, “We are not interested. That was heard by the judge at first instance, and he or she alone can be the judge of these matters.” Trying to set out parameters around credibility in the way that is sought here is dangerous to say the very least.

I will touch on the matters that stand in my name. Amendment 3 seeks to leave out clause 62. The hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire made an excellent dissection of the effect of clause 62. He said that it was the wrong measure in the wrong place, and he is absolutely right. What we have brought here is more of a scalpel to the Bill, to remove the clause completely. It does sit with other measures in clause 5 in restricting the protections that are available to victims of modern slavery. In our view, this breaks our obligations to support the victims of human trafficking and undermines the fight against slavery and human trafficking. It will make victims less likely to come forward and to co-operate with law enforcement. Ultimately, the effect of it will be to strengthen the hand of the slavers.

Clause 62 works to exclude potential victims of slavery or human trafficking from protections on the grounds that they are a threat to public order or have claimed to be a victim in bad faith. I can put the concerns about this clause no better than Dame Sara Thornton, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, who, in a letter to the Home Secretary, warned:

“I have grave concerns about this clause because it casts a wide net with the potential to prevent a considerable number of potential victims of modern slavery from being able to access the recovery and reflection period granted through the NRM. Without such support prosecution witnesses will be unable to provide witness evidence and this will severely limit our ability to convict perpetrators and dismantle organised crime groups.”

Those are the concerns of the Government’s own Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner. We have to wonder why we have people in such positions if their advice is to be disregarded in this way.

In promoting new clause 43 and amendments 130 and 131, I fully declare that I am something of a cipher for the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association—a declaration I make with absolutely no shame or embarrassment. ILPA has a long and distinguished record in this area and it comprises people whose views should be listened to.