Clause
25
Facilitation:
arrival and
entry
3.15
pm
Damian
Green:
I beg to move amendment No. 124, in
clause 25, page 13, line 29, after
second ‘the’, insert
‘attempted’.
This
amendment continues our attempt to inject some more toughness into
areas of the Bill that we think need it. Its effect would be to amend
the
Immigration Act 1971—an Act from an era when Governments used to
pass one immigration Act per Parliament—to create an offence of
attempting illegal entry into the United Kingdom. It would
significantly toughen the measures on facilitation in this
clause. It is not a
matter of dispute across the Floor of the House that we wish to toughen
up the laws against those who deal in the human misery of trafficking
and the exploitation that it causes. I know that we shall consider
those under later clauses. The amendment seeks to extend the reach of
the law to those who try to help others to enter the UK illegally but
are unsuccessful. It is clearly a common feature of parts of the
criminal code that attempting a crime, as well as actually committing
it, constitutes a crime in itself. Given that we all agree on the
seriousness of the offences concerning people trafficking, we think
that it is worth while to make this addition to the Bill.
I suspect that we all know from
constituency cases—if not, we have all read about it—that
it is common for people who do not get into Britain the first time to
try again in later years. Around the world, Britain’s borders
have a reputation for being porous and it is thought to be relatively
easy to get into this country. That acts as encouragement. Any steps
that we can take in the Bill to create countervailing factors that will
discourage people from making multiple attempts to get into this
country are worth doing, not least because we all know that many of the
illegal people here—probably about three quarters, which is the
number we all work on, although the Minister can correct me—have
been trafficked. Therefore, there is a large criminal business behind
this sphere of activity. Anything that we can do—not only to
send signals but to take practical effects—to minimise that
would benefit not just us but many of the victims of people
trafficking.
At the
moment the traffickers will get away if the attempt is unsuccessful.
Clearly that is wrong and we should try to stop them. Indeed, in other
parts of the Bill the Government are taking welcome measures to reduce
the attractiveness of people trafficking, which is the fastest growing
global crime; it is up there with gun-running and drug-running, and is
growing faster than either of them. I support Government measures to
crack down, and here is one more thing that would be useful, another
tool in the armoury. Therefore, I hope that the Government will look
with some sympathy on the
amendment.
Joan
Ryan:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support over
facilitation and trafficking. I am conscious of the support that the
whole House affords on the proposed measures and of its concern about
such horrendous crimes. This clause and clauses 26 and 27, which we
will go on to debate, deal with facilitation of illegal migrants and
asylum seekers. The hon. Member for Ashford is right that three
quarters of illegal immigration is estimated to be facilitated by
organised crime gangs or by individuals seeking to profit from this
misery. This clause and clause 26 deal specifically with people
smuggling, which is the facilitation of illegal immigration for profit,
normally of individuals, who have sought the help of or have paid
facilitators to assist them to migrate. That is different from human
trafficking, which involves the
facilitation of illegal migrants, including those who have been coerced
or duped with the purpose of exploiting them, often as prostitutes or
cheap labour; we will have the opportunity to discuss that subject when
we debate clause 27. What both activities have in common is that
victims of this trade are seen merely as commodities. I need not remind
the Committee of such tragic and high-profile incidents as those of the
Morecambe bay cockle pickers or the group found in the refrigerated
lorry at Dover, because they have already been
mentioned.
The clause
aims to protect vulnerable people by strengthening existing
facilitation offences. Section 25A of the Immigration Act 1971 makes
knowingly and for gain assisting the arrival in the United Kingdom of
an asylum seeker an offence. Clause 25 will extend that offence to
ensure that all acts facilitating either the arrival in or entry to the
United Kingdom are covered by the offence. A person is said to have
arrived in the United Kingdom upon disembarkation. That is distinct
from his or her entry into the United Kingdom, which takes place at
border control. At some ports there can be a considerable distance
between. I am thinking that, after stepping off the plane at Heathrow,
it can be some time and distance before one gets to the point where one
meets the immigration officer and has one’s passport checked.
That physical and legal gap is exploited by facilitators, who use the
opportunity to carry out acts such as the destruction or disposal of
false passports. Even though such acts are often captured on CCTV or
witnessed by surveillance officers, they cannot currently be taken into
account as evidence of facilitation because they have occurred after a
person has disembarked or
arrived.
Front-line
staff at ports are very frustrated by the difficulty in securing
convictions against facilitators. Last year, 42 convictions were
secured by immigration officers, but they estimate that 30 per cent. of
those suspected of facilitating go unpunished because of that gap. I am
sure we all agree that it is right that we should empower immigration
officers to tackle this problem.
I can reassure the Committee
that, as a matter of policy, only immigration officers who are trained
in arrest and criminal investigation matters are able to take forward
prosecutions. They are also bound by the provisions of the Police and
Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the relevant codes of
practice.
I
appreciate the intention behind the amendment and we want to enhance
our ability to tackle people smuggling and reduce the harm that it
causes to victims and the wider public. We agree that we need to ensure
that acts of attempted facilitation are also punishable, as well as
those that are successful. However, that mischief is already addressed
by legislation and case law. Section 31(3) of the 1971 Act defines an
entrant as someone entering or seeking to enter the UK. That definition
has the effect of establishing that attempted entry is equivalent to
actual entry, for the purposes of dealing with the relevant
offence.
That
interpretation has been adopted by the courts and is demonstrated in
case law in this area. Furthermore, section 1(1) of the Criminal
Attempts Act 1981 provides that, in the majority of cases where an
offence is triable either way, it is an offence to
attempt to commit an offence. The facilitation offences fall into that
category. Therefore, as long as an individual undertakes actions that
would lead to the commission of an offence of facilitation, he or she
will be guilty of an offence of attempted facilitation. An individual convicted of
attempting to facilitate another’s arrival or entry into the UK
would face the same maximum penalty as if the facilitated arrival or
entry had been successful, that penalty being a fine and/or
imprisonment of a maximum of six months on summary conviction, or a
fine and/or imprisonment of 14 years on conviction on
indictment.
It is for
those reasons that the proposed amendment is unnecessary, but I very
much welcome the support of the hon. Member for Ashford for the
clause.
Damian
Green:
I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for her full
explanation, in light of which I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
25 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
26
Facilitation:
territorial
application
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part ofthe
Bill.
Damian
Green:
I rise not in any way to cast doubt on the clause,
which is one of the more important extra powers that the Government are
rightly taking in an attempt to stamp out people trafficking. I just
wonder whether the Under-Secretary could give some explanation of the
practicalities of applying these powers extraterritorially. Presumably,
she is seeking to hunt down and prosecute people who may never set foot
in this country. Although that is a laudable aim, I simply raise the
question of how practical it will be and how much effect it will have
on people who, as we have just been discussing, are some of the
world’s most serious and hardened criminals.
I should be grateful if, during
the debate on the clause, the Under-Secretary would give us some
flavour of what is going to change, what will happen and what new
activity will take place that will hopefully have the effect of hunting
down, prosecuting and convicting some of the world’s most
unpleasant criminals.
Joan
Ryan:
I have already set out for the Committee the
challenge that we face from those who seek to profit from the misery of
those seeking to migrate illegally. As we have heard, people smugglers
do not respect international boundaries or immigration laws and they
will seek to exploit any gaps and vulnerabilities. The clause seeks to
amend the existing facilitation offences to ensure that those who carry
out acts of facilitation, whether those acts are committed within or
outsidethe UK, can be prosecuted, irrespective of their
nationality.
Currently,
these offences cover only acts of facilitation committed within the
United Kingdom. Unless a perpetrator overseas is a British national or
a body incorporated in the UK, they are not encompassed within the
scope of the offences. We know that people
carry out acts of facilitation outside the UK, for example by planning a
route, making transportation arrangements, purchasing tickets and false
documents or assisting people in deceiving carriers at check-in. Many
are responsible for multiple attempts on the border, and it is simply
unacceptable that those who engage in such activity abroad can be held
accountable for their actions only if they are British nationals. That
is why we have acted to remedy that
unfairness. The purpose of the clause,
then, is to extend the scope of the offences by removing the existing
limitations on their extraterritorial applications so that they cover
acts of facilitation directed at the United Kingdom wherever in the
world they are committed and regardless of the nationality of the
perpetrator. That will ensure that immigration officers are fully able
to tackle individuals who exploit vulnerable people. Because of this
clause and clause 25, immigration officers estimate that successful
prosecutions against facilitators will increase by up to 50 per cent.
In addition, the extended territorial scope of the offence will act as
a significant deterrent to those who involve themselves in such
criminal
activity.
Damian
Green:
Will the Under-Secretary give
way?
Joan
Ryan:
To assist the hon. Gentleman, perhaps I can give him
a scenario so that he can see how we envisage the system
operating.
Damian
Green:
I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for giving
way. The prediction of a 50 per cent. increase in prosecutions is
heartening. Can she give us some sense of the scale of that—it
will be 50 per cent. more than how many? How many prosecutions can we
expect—tens, dozens,
hundreds?
Joan
Ryan:
As we discussed under the previous clause, there
were in fact 42 convictions last year, so that shows the scale of what
we are dealing with. We shall seek to increase that. As the hon.
Gentleman says, this is one of the fastest growing areas of global
organised crime, if not the fastest growing. We hope that the powers
that we are taking and the ability to so extend our reach will make a
big difference—a 50 per cent. increase in convictions. The
figure of 42 is for last year, and we want the level of convictions to
be much higher in
future.
I shall give
an example of how the new powers might help by giving the hon.
Gentleman a scenario. A Singaporean national seeks leave to enter the
United Kingdom as a business visitor. The immigration officer is not
satisfied with the stated reasons for the visit and thus decides to
interview the passenger further. At the same time, a female passenger
presents a Singaporean passport to another immigration officer and is
found to be an imposter. Evidence is obtained showing that the female
imposter and the male Singaporean national have arrived on the same
flight and hold consecutive tickets. Checks confirm that the passengers
have a joint booking and that the tickets were paid for using a credit
card in the name of the male Singaporean national. Airline staff in
Singapore confirm that the passengers checked in together and claimed
to be newly-weds. They were allocated adjoining seats and checked in
their luggage under the same name.
The Singaporean male did an act
to facilitate the arrival of the female imposter, but he could not
currently be charged with facilitation as all the above acts took place
abroad and he is not within our jurisdiction as a non-British national.
Under the new legislation, we would for the first time be able to take
account of those acts of facilitation in making a case against that
person. In the past we have only been able to do that in respect of
British nationals.
I
also draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the use of
extradition in relation to these measures. With that, I ask the
Committee to support the
clause.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 26
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
27
People
trafficking
3.30
pm
Damian
Green:
I beg to move amendment No. 98, in
clause 27, page 14, line 8, at
end add—
‘(5) In section
57(2)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42) for “6
months” substitute “51
weeks”.
(6) In section
59(2)(a) of that Act for “6 months” substitute “51
weeks”.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 99, in
clause 27, page 14, line 8, at
end add—
‘(5) Where a person
is guilty of an offence under sections 57 to 59 of the Sexual Offences
Act 2003 (c. 42) or section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment
of Claimants, etc.)Act 2004 (c. 19) the provisions of section
28 shall
apply.’.
No.
100, in
clause 28, page 14, line 16, at
end insert
‘or is guilty
of an offence under sections 57 to 59 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003
(c. 42) or section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of
Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 (c.
19).’.
Damian
Green:
The purpose of these amendments is to amend the
Sexual Offences Act 2003 to increase the penalties for some offences
relating to trafficking specifically for the purposes of sexual
exploitation. In our most recent debates we have discussed the extent
and the seriousness of all people trafficking. One of the particularly
unpleasant subsets of people trafficking is trafficking for the
purposes of sexual exploitation. What we seek to achieve with these
amendments is to send an even clearer signal than we are sending
atthe moment of how much we deplore this particular
trade.
We are pleased
on these Benches that the Government now agree with us. They have
signalled their intention to sign the European convention against
trafficking and I can only reiterate what I said in previous
debates—that signing the convention and increasing penalties for
this crime are an important step forward. They enable the House to send
a very clear signal that this type of crime needs to be hit hard now,
at the point when it is growing so much. Without this type of measure
and without both effective policing and stern sentencing it is likely
to grow.
It is one of
the inexorable side effects of increasing globalisation and of
people’s increasing ability to move about the globe, and in
particular to move from relatively poor countries to relatively rich
countries, that opportunities open up for criminals as well. One
opportunity that we know they are exploiting hugely is the ability to
traffic young women and girls for sexual purposes. One of the most
terrifying and vivid statistics I have seen is that five years ago 15
per cent. of prostitutes working in Britain were foreign-born; the
figure now is 85 per cent., so only 15 per cent. are British-born.
There has been a complete reversal in a very small number of years in
that particular unfortunate group. That shows the extent of the
increased criminality and why it is so important to act against
it.
Amendment No.
99 would subject all those found guilty of trafficking people for
sexual exploitation to the risk of automatic deportation. Amendment No.
100 is consequential and in effect puts the words of amendment No. 99
into clause 28. We are therefore seeking to increase the penalties for
people trafficking for this particular purpose.
The Committee
has already debated the appropriate length of sentence before a person
is eligible for automatic deportation. That is a very important debate
to be had about this Bill. What we are seeking to do with these
amendments is to add this peculiarly unpleasant offence to those
provisions. It seems to us that one of the most effective signals we
can send—because it is practical, not just sending a
signal—is that if a person has committed a serious immigration
offence, which this kind of trafficking certainly is, then it is
reasonable for this country to withdraw its hospitality from that
person and add them to the group of people who can be automatically
deported.
The purpose
of these amendments is simply to encourage the Government to move in a
direction that I know they want to move in anyway. It seeks to toughen
the Bill. It seeks to make these important provisions even more
rigorous and robust. I therefore commend them to the
Committee.
Joan
Ryan:
We made it clear in the IND report, “Fair,
effective, transparent and trusted: Rebuilding confidence in our
immigration system” that we are committed to working with
overseas partners to tackle the challenges of global migration, which
includes implementing measures to tackle cross-border crime. In that
regard, we have ratified two important United Nations protocols: the
protocol against the smuggling of migrants by land, sea and air, and
the protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons,
both of which came into force on 11 March 2006. In addition, our
intention to sign the Council of Europe convention on action against
trafficking in human beings, to which the hon. Member for Ashford
referred, was signalled by the Prime Minister on 22 January. It will
build on our strategy to combat human trafficking by providing minimum
standards of protection and victim support.
We have
always said that we are wholly sympathetic to the objectives behind the
Council of Europe convention, which will provide greater support for
all victims of trafficking and support the fight against organised
immigration crime. We did not want to sign the convention
until we had fully assessed the risk associated with the provisions and
how we might implement them safely while maintaining effective
immigration control. Signing the convention now means that its
implementation can be monitored under the UK action plan on human
trafficking, which we will publish in the next few months. We have already done good work
to develop an effective enforcement response to this horrendous crime.
Last year, we established the UK Human Trafficking Centre, which will
become a central point for the development of police expertise and
operational co-operation. We continue to support adult
victimsof human trafficking through an investment
of£2.4 million in the Poppy project. The scheme
provides safe shelter and support to assist in the recovery of adult
female victims who have been trafficked into the UK for sexual
exploitation.
As we have
already discussed, trafficking is almost always a form of organised
crime and should be dealt with using criminal powers to investigate and
prosecute offenders for trafficking and any other criminal activities
in which they engage. The 2003 Act introduced wide-ranging offences for
England, Wales and Northern Ireland, covering trafficking into, within
or out of the UK for sexual exploitation. A further, UK-wide, offence
of trafficking for exploitation, which includes trafficking for forced
labour and the removal of organs, was introduced by the Asylum and
Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. Those offences
carry a heavy maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment on conviction on
indictment.
In broad
terms, the existing trafficking provisions make it an offence to
facilitate arrival in, travel within and departure from the UK of a
person whom the facilitator intends to exploit or whom they believe to
be likely to be exploited. The offences currently cover acts of
facilitation that are committed within the UK and, where the
perpetrator is a British national, such acts that are committed outside
the UK. The clause will enhance the existing trafficking offences to
ensure that they cover acts committed after a person has disembarked
but before they have arrived in, or been granted entry to, the UK. That
will catch those traffickers who operate within the secure area of our
ports, as we discussed during our consideration of the facilitation
clauses. The clause will also extend the extraterritorial scope of
trafficking offences to cover acts of facilitation that are carried out
overseas, irrespective of the nationality of the perpetrator. The
clause applies the same extension of scope to trafficking as we have
agreed to apply to facilitation.
I should like to bring to the
attention of the Committee an amendment that we have tabled in respect
of the application of the provisions to Scotland. To the extent that
they relate to devolved matters, it is for the Scottish Executive and
the Scottish Parliament to decide what approach to take.
Following the introduction of
the Bill it was noticed that subsections (1) and (2), which amend the
Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.)Act 2004,
relate to devolved matters in so far as they apply to Scotland.
Subsections (3) and (4), which make similar amendments to trafficking
offences in the2003 Act, do not apply to Scotland as the
provisions of that Act do not extend to Scotland. The application of
subsections (1) and (2) to Scotland in the introduction
was an oversight and we will remedy it by tabling an amendment to limit
the extent of the provisions to England, Wales and Northern
Ireland.
Damian
Green:
I am just pondering on whether the Minister has
considered the alternative prospect of trying to persuade the Scottish
Executive to play ball this time and to go along with the
Government’s policy, which they so signally—and
embarrassingly for the Government—failed to do in the first part
of the
Bill.
Joan
Ryan:
It is important to emphasise to the hon. Gentleman
and to the Committee that the UK Government and the Scottish Executive
are united in their condemnation of those individuals who seek to
benefit from the exploitation of vulnerable persons by manipulative,
coercive and violent means. The Scottish Executive and the Home Office
worked together closely on the development of the UK action plan to
tackle human trafficking.
The Scottish Executive is
considering whether similar amendments could be made to the 2004 Act
offence as it applies in Scots law and to similar offences such as
section 22 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 and sections 9
and 12 of the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences
(Scotland) Act 2005. The hon. Gentleman will know that the forthcoming
elections in Scotland make it difficult to introduce appropriate
measures at this
time.
David
T.C. Davies:
Will the Under-Secretary tell us why the
forthcoming elections should have an impact on the ability of the
Scottish Government to introduce important measures? Does she think
that there will be a change in the people who make up the Scottish
Parliament after the
elections?
Joan
Ryan:
I am sure the hon. Gentleman has a grasp of the
concept of time, although we would not know it from his last
remark.
David
T.C. Davies:
I am afraid that one went over my head.
[Interruption.]
Joan
Ryan:
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman, speaking
from a sedentary position, was inviting me to speculate on what goes
over his head and what does not, but I do have a concept of time and
must move
on.
The
amendments relate to a very serious topic on which there is some
consensus, but we need to discuss the detail of the proposal. Amendment
No. 98 would increase the sentence available to the magistrates court
from six months to 12 months. The offences in sections 57 and 59 of the
2003 Act are triable either way and like all such offences will be
amended when custody plus commences to allow magistrates to impose
sentences of imprisonment up to 12 months.
It would be wholly
inappropriate for the Bill to purport to allow magistrates courts a
higher level of sentencing for these offences than is within their
jurisdiction, but I take note of the substance and the content of the
amendment. If magistrates courts hear cases that they think are too
serious to be punished adequately, they should commit them to the Crown
court, where the full maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment will be
available. That would be a way
forward. 3.45
pm
On
amendments Nos. 99 and 100, which refer to the automatic deportation of
prisoners convicted of trafficking offences, there will be three ways
in which a person can be deported on conviction of one of those
offences.If he is sentenced to a period of imprisonment
of12 months or more, the automatic deportation provisions will
apply. If the automatic provisions do not apply, he can still be
considered under existing deportation arrangements, either on conducive
grounds or as a result of a court recommendation for deportation.
Moreover, sections 57 and 58 of the 2003 Act are included in the
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Specification of
Particularly Serious Crimes) Order 2004, known as section 72. If a
foreign criminal is imprisoned for those offences, the automatic
deportation provisions will apply.
I hope that that gives the hon.
Member for Ashford sufficient reassurance on the important points that
arise from his amendment, and that he will feel able to withdraw
it.
Damian
Green:
I congratulate the Under-Secretary on two things.
The first is her entirely realistic assessment of the Labour
party’s chances in the forthcoming Scottish elections—she
hinted that the Government feel that they might be dealing with a
different flavour of Administration there.
Damian
Green:
Secondly, I congratulate her on
her full and fair explanation of the purpose behind the clause. I am
grateful for her remarks about the constructive nature of the
amendment, but I take her point and beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Damian
Green:
I beg to move amendment No. 101, in
clause 27, page 14, line 8, at
end add—
‘(5) In section 4
of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004
(c. 19) after subsection (5)
add—
“(6) If
there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person has been the
victim of trafficking in human beings, that person shall not be removed
from the UK until the process of identifying the person as a victim of
an offence has been
completed.
(7) If an
unaccompanied child is identified as a victim of trafficking, the
Secretary of State
shall—
(a) provide for
representation of the child by a legal guardian, organisation or
authority which shall act in the best interests of that
child;
(b) take the necessary
steps to establish the identity and nationality of the
child;
(c) make every effort to
locate the family of the child when the Secretary of State determines
that this is in the best interests of the
child.
(8) If an individual has
been identified as a victim of trafficking the Secretary of State shall
allow a recovery and reflection period of not less than 30 days. During
this period it shall not be possible to enforce any expulsion order
against that person. During this period, the Secretary of State shall
authorise the persons concerned to stay in the
UK.”’.
Damian
Green:
We have been discussing the Council of Europe
convention and the Under-Secretary will recognise chunks of it in the
amendment, which I hope she will treat as a probing amendment. We
simply seek to establish how soon we can sign up and ratify and
therefore, more importantly, how soon those who are suffering
trafficking into this country can look forward to the protections
afforded by the convention.
As I have said, we welcome the
fact that the Government have signalled their intention to sign up. If
the amendment were agreed, it would insert into the Bill key elements
of the convention. That would be a clear statement of intent. The fact
that this Bill is before the House at the moment should enable us to
enjoy the benefits of signing up to the convention more speedily than
might otherwise be the case, as it could be used as a vehicle through
which we can do so. Many other European countries have already signed
up. I hope that the Under-Secretary will regard the amendment as a
gentle and friendly push in a direction in which she wants to move
anyway. I shall be interested to know the Government’s proposed
time scale for moving from their very welcome declaration of intent to
sign up to the convention, to action.
Joan
Ryan:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his probing
amendments and for his approach on these matters. It would send
entirely the wrong message if we could not reach agreement on issues
such as this, and I am heartened that we are able to do so. I can tell
him that we seek to sign very shortly, but I cannot give him an exact
date. Of course, upon signing, we will be able to implement the
convention. He is right that his amendment provides for some key
measures from the convention, but we could probably implement those
sooner by signing the convention than by waiting for the Bill to be
enacted, although, of course, we can implement some of those measures
without legislation or the
convention.
To assist
the Committee, I shall provide some information about measures that we
have taken already and comment on the hon. Gentleman’s
amendments. On proposed new subsection (6) to section 4 of the Asylum
and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, we have
provided staff with guidance for identifying victims of trafficking at
the earliest possible stage. The Home Office has developed an online
tool kit aimed at practitioners to increase awareness of trafficking
and to provide training on identifying and handling potential victims.
That is being provided for all regional enforcement
officers.
On
reaching a decision to pursue repatriation of an individual,
consideration is given to our obligations under immigration laws and
the Human RightsAct 1998, including any risk that those
individuals face on return and humanitarian or other reasons for
allowing them to remain in the United Kingdom. On proposed subsection
(7) to section 4 of the 2004 Act, when the IND encounters children and
identifies child protection concerns, they are referred to local
authority children’s services, in line with the IND’s
existing procedures.
Any child aged 17 or less, in
the UK, who cannot be cared for by a parent or established care giver
must be accommodated by a local authority children’s services
department. Those departments are charged with the responsibility for
the care and well-being of children in
the UK, as set out in the 2004 Act, and reinforced by statutory guidance
subject to independent inspection. The support is mandatory, regardless
of immigration status, and is automatically given to any children
granted refugee or subsidiary status. To support the identification of
children in need, the immigration service has also provided specialist
training to about 600 operational members of staff in the United
Kingdom. The message that children arriving in the UK might be here as
a result of coercion or criminal activity, including trafficking, is
central. As we have always said, we are
wholly sympathetic to the objectives of the Council of Europe
convention, which will provide greater support for all victims of
trafficking and support the fight against organised immigration crime.
The convention will build on our strategy to combat human trafficking
by providing minimum standards of protection and victim support. As I
have outlined already, we have done some very good work to develop an
effective enforcement response and last year we established the UK
Human Trafficking
Centre.
The
convention provides the framework for victim provision to be enhanced
for victims of sexual exploitation and to be created for victims of
forced labour. That will also improve the effectiveness of our
enforcement strategy. The measures in the hon. Gentleman’s
amendment are extremely important. As he said, two of them are taken
from the convention, which we will sign and implement as soon as
possible. As I have said, however, we have already taken some
significant measures to afford protection and care to victims of
trafficking.
Damian
Green:
I am grateful for the Under-Secretary’s
explanation. As she said, there is absolutely no division between the
two sides of the House over this very important convention. I am
delighted to hear her say that the Government will proceed to action
very shortly—that is the phrase that she used. We await that
eagerly. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn
Clause
27 ordered to
stand part of the
Bill.
| 
