| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
3 Feb 2009 : Column 176WH—continued
10.46 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Meg Hillier): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Olner. I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) about the role of the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) and his all-party group. I will rattle through because, as the hon. Member for Ashford rightly said, I have an awful lot of questions to answer. I am always keen to take interventions but, given the time, I will try to get through those questions if I can.
The hon. Member for Ashford dangled something in front of me about the French Minister’s recent comments. It is important to make it clear for the record what happened with our French counterpart. He did not say that Britain was not doing enough. He was visiting Calais to talk to residents there about immigration issues. He said that we, meaning France and Britain, need to do more. That is not the same as saying that Britain is not doing enough, but we know how good stories for journalists can emerge from such comments.
The French Minister was there to reassure Calais residents. He has since spoken to the Minister for Borders and Immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas), to make it clear that he was not criticising the UK. My hon. Friend will continue, as will the Home Secretary and I, to work with the French Government to ensure that we maintain controls at Calais.
The hon. Member for Ashford raised the issue of trafficking in general. I will touch on local strategies and local issues, which were raised by the hon. Member for Totnes. I was interested by the comments about children and how to identify them at the border. Clearly, biometrics help. We are already preparing one case for prosecution involving a child identified by the new biometric system for visas and foreign national identity cards. I am sure that that is one reason why the Conservative party will eventually come around to the idea that identity cards help on a range of issues, including this one.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes, who raised a number of important points. As it is his debate, I will do my best to focus on answering as many of those points as I can. I apologise in advance to any hon. Members whose questions I do not answer. I will write to them if I cannot reach their questions.
This is an opportunity for me to set out what work the Government have done on the issue. The implementation of the Council of Europe convention plays a crucial role in our overall strategy. Clearly, human trafficking is an important crime. It is important that we create an environment hostile to it in the UK, identify victims and take action as appropriate. We unveiled an action plan in March 2007, as hon. Members will be aware, and updated it in July last year. Ratification of the Council of Europe convention is the first of 85 specific actions laid out in the plan.
Hon. Members raised the issue of time scales and delay. We have to get 85 specific actions right. We have got to make it work. I am sure that hon. Members will
agree that making it work is what is important. I am impatient, as we all are, to ensure that proper action is taken. It is no good rushing headlong into something unless we make it work properly. We are making good progress. I thank hon. Members across the party divides for their support. We continue to bear down on traffickers and to offer help and support to their victims. The convention will help us in both those areas.
Last July, the Home Secretary announced the results of Operation Pentameter 2, the largest UK-wide police operation against trafficking for sexual exploitation. It succeeded in recovering 167 victims of trafficking and made 528 arrests.
Hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), raised the issue of scale. By its nature, that is difficult to quantify. We need to keep investigating and catching people. In response to the hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and for Ashford, who asked about the numbers of people convicted, I can say that so far 94 sex traffickers have been convicted. Although the headline figure on trafficking for illegal working is only four, many more have been convicted for related offences, including rape, kidnapping and facilitation.
I am keen to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell), to write to hon. Members with more detailed figures. It is important that we do not run away with the idea that no action is being taken on illegal working—action does not always come under that heading. It is important that we recognise there is more than one way to skin a cat. We have to get these bad people out of the system, and if we can do it by other and more effective means, that is fine by me. We do not need to dance on a pin head about which particular type of conviction we bring as long as these people are caught.
We have also established the UK Human Trafficking Centre, as hon. Members have mentioned. It is a multi-agency organisation, and that fact is worth stressing. Although it is a centre—the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked whether I agreed with the description of it as a single centre—it is important to recognise its multi-agency nature. It is a central point of co-ordination for intelligence, analysis and operational activities. In addition, it works closely with law enforcement agencies throughout the country, with the Government and with non-governmental organisations.
Mr. Dismore: There was a suggestion that we would be getting an annual report at the end of the financial year from the UK Human Trafficking Centre. Is that still going to happen?
Meg Hillier: That sounds like a sensible suggestion. I shall make sure that I clarify the position with the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth, and get him to write to my hon. Friend to confirm whether that is the case.
In addition, we have already invested £5.8 million in the POPPY project over the past six years to provide high-level specialist support for victims trafficked for sexual exploitation. That includes safe accommodation, advocacy and access to counselling, legal advice and interpreting services. This year we are giving £1.3 million to that project. I must slay the myth that the POPPY
project is London-focused. It is based in London, but much of its work, which we are funding, is to capacity build outside London. It started during Operation Pentameter 2 and continues. I was interested to hear the comments of the hon. Members for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) and for Totnes about how well, or otherwise, it is working in their areas. I will highlight the issue to the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), to ensure that the project is working as effectively as it should.
Mr. Steen: The Home Secretary has a letter from me detailing five NGOs that receive no money from the Government; the POPPY project gets it all. It should be more fairly distributed.
Meg Hillier: I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives an answer to his letter very soon. We are still considering the matter, but the POPPY project has been given Government money and work has been done to regionalise that. Not all NGOs want to be so closely associated with the Government that their core funding comes from the Government, so it is clearly a matter for discussion. We are still considering the matter and I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets a letter fairly soon.
As part of our efforts to ratify and implement the convention, we have made some significant decisions, including the granting to victims of the 45-day reflection period, but longer if necessary. I think it was the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington who asked how we would decide whether it should be longer. The answer is that it depends on individual circumstances, and that is why we need to rely on the expertise of the UK Human Trafficking Centre. I am happy to write to him with more detail on how such decisions would be made, or to get the UKHTC to do so. We also offer one-year temporary residence permits in certain circumstances. Both measures go further than the minimum standards outlined in the convention, which are for 30 days and six months. We have therefore already set the bar higher, and I hope that European colleagues will learn from that.
We are also setting up a national referral mechanism. It will be a nationwide system that will enable the proper and consistent identification of victims to ensure that they receive the necessary care and support. That applies to all victims of all ages—children as well as those over the age of 18. I hope that that addresses some of the points made by the hon. Member for Totnes about co-ordination and access for local forces and services. We will be making announcements in the near future about how that will work. We are working out the full details, but we will work collaboratively with all key external organisations, including non-governmental ones, whose expertise, as the hon. Gentleman said, has proved invaluable throughout, whether on the action plan, Pentameter or the convention.
We have made an announcement on the competent authority function. There has been some concern about having a single competent authority, but we are considering something that is multi-agency and we are working closely with other partners. It is important that we set off with a body that can do the job well and effectively, but, once things have been going for a while, we can always look at how it is working. If hon. Members have
issues and concerns, we will be keen to review the situation, and we will study the work of the all-party group and others. However, it is important that we start as we mean to go on, with an organisation that can do the job effectively, identify victims and provide support. Several organisations can refer to it. If the police find someone, they can work with a local non-governmental organisation, and that body can refer to the UK centre. It is important that we get that right.
The competent authority will be based at the Human Trafficking Centre, and that will be the key, central point of contact. The UK Border Agency is a separate but linked competent authority. The link with immigration is important, because trafficking is often raised during an asylum claim. It would be foolish to decouple the two issues. Immigration is not always an issue, but that is a sensible approach, and in my work on immigration, the issue often arises.
Tom Brake: On immigration, I asked whether there are circumstances in which the automatic deportation of a trafficking victim could take place if it were not in breach of our obligations under the convention. I hope that the Minister will clarify whether there are any circumstances in which that might happen.
Meg Hillier: We are applying the rules of the convention. It would not be our intention to deport anyone who was identified as a victim, but I can obtain further clarification, if necessary. I think it is clear, however, that if somebody is identified as a victim, we would not intend to deport them. Many victims choose to return voluntarily, and we have assisted voluntary packages to help those young women—they are mostly young women—to return to their families, which is actually where they want to go. It is important to differentiate between deportation and removal, and voluntary removal is often beneficial for the victim.
I shall try to rattle through the many questions that were raised.
Mr. Steen: While the Minister is looking though her papers—
Meg Hillier: I am afraid that I shall not give way, because I have only two minutes to answer several questions.
I cannot comment on the individual case that was mentioned, but I commend the work of Devon and Cornwall police and hope that the measures we are introducing mean that there will be easier routes in. Front-line police, UK Border Agency staff and all new staff in police forces are being given training that will raise awareness. Other training packages are in place, and I shall happily write to the hon. Gentleman with details about them.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of support for returning a victim home. I have mentioned the EU returns programme, and we are drafting amendments to extend voluntary return for EU trafficking victims as part of the immigration Bill that will be introduced after the Easter recess. I am sure that his all-party group will be keen to analyse that.
I have covered the fact that we provide a residence permit. The hon. Gentleman also discussed the proceeds of trafficking and the Pentameter 2 results. The policy is that 50 per cent. of asset recovery goes to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, and that is important for ensuring proactive enforcement. The CPS can, however, ask for a compensation order, so that the victim receives some money from the offender. We do cover some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised, if not all of them.
It is important that we recognise that the convention is part of an ongoing process. It is a continuous exercise. From 1 April, I will see two interesting deliveries: first, the next stage of the process and, secondly, the happy result, I hope, of my pregnancy. I hope also that I have reassured the hon. Member for Totnes, in particular, and other hon. Members that the Government are taking the necessary steps to tackle the issues that he has raised. We are not complacent about the issue, and nor should we be.
Garden Land Development
11 am
Andrew George (St. Ives) (LD): It is a great pleasure to have secured this important debate on garden land development, which has been hotly debated in the Commons for some time. I wish to go through a chronology of the kind of debates that we have had on this subject over recent years, and to raise some matters from my own constituency. I shall also draw on other issues, on which hon. Members may wish to reflect.
It is a great pity that the Conservatives do not seem to have put forward a Front-Bench spokesman because I am discussing matters that they, too, need to address—[Interruption.] The spokesman is arriving as I speak, perhaps having been persuaded to come by the note that I dropped into their Whips Office outlining the issues that I would be raising.
Garden land development is a hotly debated subject, which is partly because we know that the planning system is largely fuelled by greed rather than need. The system itself has to balance the various pressures that are on both planning committees and authorities. In particular, I am referring to the pressures on valuable—especially from a developer’s point of view—garden sites in exclusive parts of our towns and cities, and in smaller towns and villages. Clearly the pressure for such development, which concerns all parties, is something that local authorities are struggling to cope with.
Mr. Andrew Smith (Oxford, East) (Lab): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate and I hope to contribute later. Does he accept that it is not just the exclusive areas of towns and cities that are under pressure, but all sorts of areas, and that they deserve equal protection?
Andrew George: I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we are not just talking about exclusive areas. I was making the point that developers’ interests are acute in areas in which the potential inducements of greatly increased land values are particularly large.
Susan Kramer (Richmond Park) (LD): Just picking up on that point, does my hon. Friend agree that part of the attraction of garden development for many developers is that they can buy one house and then put in place nine properties—flats and so on—without having to provide any affordable housing? They thus choose such land over larger developments, which have to include affordable housing, which has a significant impact on all neighbourhoods.
Andrew George: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point that has been highlighted in many debates in the House. I am sure that the Minister will take it on board and comment on it later. If there is a wish to produce affordable housing on garden land developments, there is a problem, because such developments often fall below the quota level that a local authority requires to be able to insist that a proportion of the properties are made available for those needing affordable housing.
Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon) (Lab):
I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate, and I apologise that I will not be able to stay for the whole
debate. Does he agree that one of the real issues here is the fact that back gardens are effectively known as brownfield sites, which makes their development easy? In that regard, may I draw his attention to my private Member’s Bill, which will be considered on 8 May, entitled Land Use (Gardens Protections Etc) Bill, which would deal with that by zoning gardens as green, which is what they are?
Andrew George: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saving me from having to highlight his work. As I have indicated, this issue concerns people in all political parties and has been hotly debated for some time.
Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Ind): The hon. Gentleman is right to make the extremely good point that planning is driven by greed not need. Not only do developers not have to provide affordable housing in such circumstances, and not only do they often cram in blocks of flats without gardens or parking, which causes problems for neighbourhoods, but they do not have to make a contribution towards infrastructure around those sites, such as new roads. That is yet another attraction for them, and a reason why we should try to give special protection to such garden sites.
Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman is right, of course. Depending on the scale of the development, it can be difficult for local planning authorities to insist, through a section 106 agreement, that developers make a significant contribution to infrastructure. The Government have said that they have given local authorities the power to apply 106 agreement obligations to developers in such circumstances, but many local authorities have found it very difficult to address the real infrastructure implications of many such developments, especially when there is additional pressure on parking, amenity space and other things within town centres.
Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) (LD): By securing this debate, my hon. Friend has demonstrated once again how effectively he represents his constituency in this place. Does he recognise the difficulty faced by local councils that are forced—owing to the likelihood in many cases of losing on appeal—to permit small developments with no affordable housing, but at the same time are not allowed to provide large-scale affordable housing, even in mixed developments? Furthermore, housing associations cannot build the affordable housing that is desperately needed as a result of the Government’s failure to provide affordable housing over the past 10 years.
Andrew George: My hon. Friend raises a point that places this debate in the context of the need and desire—I share that desire with the Government—to meet affordable housing need. There is a significant difference between what is happening with garden land development, which largely—certainly in my part of the world—makes a nil, or if anything a miniscule, contribution to meeting the desperate need for affordable housing, and the kind of schemes required to meet that need. In areas such as mine, those schemes are extremely difficult to bring forward. There is an astronomical difference between house prices and earnings in such places, so particular skills and efforts are required, primarily on the part of public authorities, to meet the sort of affordable housing need that he rightly highlights.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |