Conclusions and recommendations
Describing the problem
1. Trafficking
is a hidden crime: its victims cannot or dare not make themselves
known to the authorities (for fear of retaliation or because they
are or think themselves to be illegal immigrants) and, as we discuss
later, some do not even realise that they are victims. They are
concealed by physical isolation or language or cultural barriers,
and may be operating under false identities. It is therefore not
surprising—though it is frustrating—that no one was
able to give us even a rough estimate of the scale of trafficking
in the UK. (Paragraph 40)
2. Victim support
organisations have been calling for better data on the scale of
trafficking for years, and we had understood that production of
such data (from a variety of sources) was one of the main tasks
for which the UKHTC was established. Without reasonable estimates
of the scale of the problem, it is difficult to raise public awareness
and concern and to engage the variety of professionals who would
be able to play a part in identifying possible victims. It also
makes it impossible to gauge what support services are needed
for victims. (Paragraph 41)
3. We are pleased
that progress is finally being made in producing data, but are
disappointed it has not been faster. We look forward to seeing
the results of the Minister's three-pronged approach later this
year. (Paragraph 45)
4. Given the UKHTC's
apparent difficulty in making progress with data collection so
far, appointing a National Rapporteur has its attractions. However,
this would also add yet another organisation to the multitude
involved in analysing and combating trafficking. An alternative
would be to ensure that the UKHTC is properly resourced for the
work of data collection, which should be given a high priority
as it will form the basis of a proper assessment of the resources
needed to tackle human trafficking and support victims. (Paragraph
42)
Prevention
5. We
think it wrong that entry clearance officers are instructed to
issue Migrant Domestic Workers visas even when they know that
the employer intends to pay the worker less than the UK Minimum
Wage: this makes a mockery of the concept of a legal minimum wage.
(Paragraph 53)
6. Existing
employment law, the National Minimum Wage, regulations on rented
accommodation and so on should be sufficient to prevent the sorts
of abuses highlighted by the Gangmasters Licensing Authority and
UCATT—but only if they are enforced. It seems to us that,
outside the Gangmasters Licensing Authority's sectors, enforcement
is at best patchy and at worst non-existent.
(Paragraph 55)
7. Part
of the solution lies in increasing public awareness of trafficking
as a whole and of the different forms that it can take, including
into 'normal' jobs. More particularly, there is a need to train
a variety of public officials—health service workers, social
workers, building inspectors, health and safety inspectors and
others—about the various indicators of forced labour and
where to find help if they suspect someone has been trafficked.
(Paragraph 56)
8. Another
part of the solution is to look more closely at the sectors in
which victims are employed. This could be done either by expanding
the remit of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority or by giving
the relevant existing regulatory bodies equivalent licensing and
enforcement powers to that Authority. We suggest that the construction
industry should be the first focus and if, after two years, the
Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate has not succeeded in
reducing abuse, then the remit of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority
should be extended to cover construction.
(Paragraph 57)
9.
We note the Government's decision to continue with the Migrant
Domestic Worker visa regime, despite the introduction of the Points-based
System for those from outside the EEA applying to work in the
UK. However, the extension of the Migrant Domestic Worker visa
regime is only for two years. We consider it likely that migrant
domestic workers will need the special status afforded by the
current visa regime for much longer than two years.
(Paragraph 59)
10. Immigration
authorities should actually use the sanctions against employers
of unregistered workers as a disincentive to exploitation of such
workers, and when enforcement operations take place the officials
should be careful to look out for signs of trafficking. (Paragraph
61)
11. We
welcome Newquest's decision not to carry any further adverts for
'adult entertainment' in its newspaper and urge other local newspapers
to follow that lead and the Society of Editors to issue clear
guidelines that newspapers should not accept advertisements for
sex encounter establishments. (Paragraph 64)
12. We
do not intend to comment on the moral and practical arguments
about the desirability of de-criminalising or further criminalising
prostitution in the UK, as this was not part of our terms of reference
in undertaking this inquiry. We do, however, wish to draw to the
Government's attention the serious concerns expressed to us by
police officers about the practicability of enforcing the proposed
legislation. (Paragraph
67)
Identifying victims: the police
13. We
welcome the reappraisal of guidance to the CPS and ACPO on the
prosecution of children trafficked to commit criminal offences.
(Paragraph 71)
14. There
is a clear need for greater awareness training in police forces
so that officers realise that domestic workers, too, may be victims
of trafficking and are not merely possible illegal immigrants.
This training should cover signs such as deliberate confiscation
and retention of identity documents and reports by employers that
domestic workers have absconded from their homes
(Paragraph 75)
15. The
Human Trafficking unit of the Metropolitan Police serves a national
as well as a local role, in providing an example of best practice
that is regarded as a model by other police forces, by NGOs and
by foreign law enforcement bodies and multinational agencies such
as Europol. In principle, we agree that best practice must spread
out from specialist units to inform the work of every police officer
and PCSO in the UK if trafficking victims are to be identified
and rescued whenever and wherever they appear. However, we are
still a long way from that ideal, even within London: as our witnesses
acknowledged, the UK is just starting to tackle the problems of
trafficking for forced labour and for street crime. We are therefore
particularly disturbed by the police officers' assessment that
closing down the unit will make it more difficult to identify
trafficking victims. (Paragraph
85)
16. Furthermore,
we are concerned about the continuing tendency to view trafficking
as an immigration crime, coupling it with facilitation or people
smuggling, which is completely different. Not only does this increase
the risk that victims will be treated only as those whose immigration
status needs to be determined, it also poses the threat that those
whose immigration status is not in doubt—UK nationals or
those from the EEA, or migrant domestic workers with the correct
visas, for example—will be ignored altogether.
(Paragraph 86)
17. As
a result, we recommend that the Home Office continue to provide
funding at its original level for the specialist Human Trafficking
unit of the Metropolitan Police beyond 2010, until it can be proved
that sufficient expertise on identifying victims of trafficking
and dealing with the perpetrators has been spread through police
forces throughout the UK. (Paragraph 87)
18. We
note also that only two of the six police posts in the Paladin
Team are funded specifically for this purpose.
This team, also, is a national and international
exemplar, and we recommend it be fully funded so that it can continue
its vital work. (Paragraph 88)
Identifying victims: UKBA
19.
It is
imperative that the Government amend the 2004 Act to clarify the
status of very young victims. We note that the Borders, Citizenship
and Immigration Bill [Lords] now awaiting second reading in this
House presents a good opportunity to make such an amendment.
(Paragraph 93)
20. Time
after time in our inquiries into immigration and asylum matters
we are told that the UKBA's rules and processes are good but they
are not carried out properly. Our witnesses said that the UKBA
is trying to ensure that victims of trafficking are correctly
identified and then treated appropriately within the immigration
system, and we are sure that many UKBA officials are doing their
best. However, the evidence we have received is that there are
still major gaps in awareness and training within the agency.
These must be addressed by a greater emphasis on the excellent
guidance already available. (Paragraph 99)
21. We
were also disturbed to hear anecdotal evidence of a lack of awareness
about trafficking and its effect on victims among immigration
judges. It seems that there is a pressing need for training of
judges, too. (Paragraph
100)
22. We
are concerned that the Government's laudable aims of deterring
fraudulent applications for asylum and speeding up the decision
processes for genuine asylum-seekers may disadvantage the often
severely traumatised victims of trafficking. At the very least,
the Government must consider whether the existing exemptions from
Fast Track processes adequately protect people trafficked for
forced labour who—not least because of the lack of support
services for them—may well not present through recognised
expert bodies like the Poppy Project. Removing people from the
Fast Track does not mean that their cases would be examined less
rigorously; it just means that there would be more time
in which evidence of trafficking might be adduced. (Paragraph
106)
23. Since
we finished taking oral evidence for this inquiry, the UK has
ratified the Council of Europe Convention Against Human Trafficking.
It has announced the introduction of a 45 day reflection and recovery
period, and "the possibility" of a one-year residence
permit for victims. We welcome many aspects of this, but would
like the Government to confirm that clear instructions have been
issued to all immigration case workers that the reflection and
recovery period applies to all victims of human trafficking, not
just those forced into the sex trade, and that it is not dependent
on the victim's co-operation with law enforcement authorities.
We would also like clarification of whether the 45-day period
came into force immediately on ratification of the Convention
by the UK on 17 December 2008. (Paragraph
107)
24. We
remain concerned that, for some severely traumatised victims,
45 days may be too short a time for them to recover sufficiently
to make an informed decision about co-operating with the police—not
least because there are so few support and counselling services
available to victims. We recommend that provision exceptionally
be made for the reflection period to be extended for the most
severely traumatised, where this is recommended in reports from
psychiatrists experienced in dealing with such victims.
(Paragraph 108)
25. We
also ask the Government to clarify whether victims would be able
in any circumstances to obtain an extension of the one-year residence
permit. (Paragraph
110)
26. Voluntary
returns of victims should be encouraged; but it is both cruel
and pointless to return victims of trafficking to their home countries
if they are just going to be sent back to western Europe again
shortly afterwards. The UKBA must make more use of the intelligence
available from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department
for International Development and NGOs as to the real level of
support for reintegration of victims into their home country in
order to judge whether returning them is appropriate. We also
recommend that the Government make an assessment of the extent
of re-trafficking. (Paragraph 113)
27. We
understand why the fixed fee system for immigration cases was
introduced, and have no wish to encourage frivolous cases or vexatious
appeals. However, we do in part share immigration lawyers' concerns
that some law firms may be unwilling or unable to take the risk
of such potentially high-cost cases. We recommend the Government
to keep under review whether there is a decline in the willingness
of lawyers to represent those suspected of being victims of trafficking,
and, if so, to exempt such claimants from the fixed fee system,
subject to safeguards such as the need for their claim to be supported
by recognised experts like the Poppy Project.
(Paragraph 114)
28. The
Migrant Domestic Worker visa was introduced to deter abuse of
such workers. An essential part of the regime is that before a
visa is issued there should be screening to ensure that the worker
is travelling of (usually her) own free will and there are no
obvious signs of maltreatment. It is also vital that the worker
is given information about her employment rights in the UK. This
can be done only if the worker is interviewed by the post issuing
the visa, and interviewed separately from the employer. We wish
the posts named in Kalayaan's list as failing to follow the correct
procedures to give us an assurance that they will tighten up procedures
in future; and we want the UKBA to explain to us what they are
doing to ensure that all posts are aware of and apply these requirements
in future. (Paragraph 118)
29. Immigration
officers should look out for cases where adults are not holding
their own passports and should make inquiries, if necessary insisting
that the person not in possession of their passport be interviewed
separately. Even if there is no evidence of abuse, this would
enable Migrant Domestic Workers to be informed of their rights
at this point. (Paragraph
119)
Identification: other authorities
30. Local
authorities obviously are important in terms of their responsibilities
for services for children. They often know who the worst employers
are in their area, and
their officials may well come across victims in the course of
routine inspections. We applaud the imaginative action being taken
by a number of London Borough Councils, and the fact that they
appear to be conscious of the need to spread experience and best
practice. We are, however, disturbed that yet again the initiatives
seem confined to London—or, if they are not, the Local Government
Association appears unaware of them. There must be a much more
concerted effort to use local knowledge and the opportunities
provided by existing local activities to identify trafficking
victims. We ask the Government to inform us what it intends to
do to encourage the spread of best practice among local authorities.
(Paragraph 126)
31. CEOP
is concentrating on raising awareness about child trafficking
among those working in the health service and education. There
is clearly also scope for raising awareness of adult victims of
trafficking among health providers (Paragraph
127)
32. UCATT's
evidence on the changing profile of the construction industry
confirms us in our conclusion that the GLA model should be extended
to other sectors. (Paragraph 134)
National Referral Mechanism
33. We
hope that the UKHTC and UKBA have learned the lessons from 'Operation
Tolerance'. It is obvious that greater thought needs to be given
to the practicalities of identifying and assisting victims. As
ECPAT UK points out, much of the work of supplying accommodation
and support services needs to be done with local knowledge and
contacts, and we are concerned that the UKHTC and UKBA may not
have such knowledge and contacts. We would like the Government
to provide us with a clear account of how the competent authorities
intend to ensure that they are capable of fulfilling this role..
(Paragraph
138)
Protection
34. It
is clear that not all—possibly a minority—of recovered
victims are provided with safe accommodation. Even fewer appear
to be given psychological help or legal advice or, in the case
of those clearly entitled to work in the UK, assistance in obtaining
another job. What support there is appears to be concentrated
in London. We agree with our witnesses that there is an urgent
need for more accommodation and other support services, especially
outside London and for those trafficked into forced labour. However,
without a better estimate of the scale of trafficking in the UK,
it is difficult to determine what extra services are needed and
where. (Paragraph 144)
35. We
are alarmed by the accounts given by our witnesses and reinforced
by anecdotal evidence of traffickers training children to present
themselves as unaccompanied asylum seekers in order to be placed
in insecure care, often near the port of entry, which the trafficker
can persuade or coerce them to leave. In effect, traffickers may
be using the care home system for vulnerable children as holding
pens for their victims until they are ready to pick them up.
(Paragraph 151)
36. While
we do not advocate the, in effect, imprisonment of such children,
we were appalled by the ease with which they can leave accommodation.
We recognise that one element of the problem is that many have
not been identified as victims of trafficking, but we are of the
view that no unaccompanied asylum-seeking child should be placed
in such a vulnerable situation: all are by definition young, inexperienced,
in a strange country, many will be unable to speak English and
have little or no knowledge of local customs, and some will be
traumatised by the events that led them to flee their home country
or by their experiences during their journey to the UK or by both.
Moreover, even those identified as victims and given foster care
may be placed in unsupervised accommodation once they reach the
age of 15 or 16. (Paragraph 152)
37. ECPAT
UK told us that it had repeatedly asked the Government to look
into the issue of trafficking victims going missing from local
authority care, but a succession of Ministers had refused to treat
this group any differently from the other children who go missing
from care. While it is regrettable that any child should disappear
for a prolonged period or permanently from local authority care,
we think that the Government's response does not recognise the
peculiar vulnerability of trafficked children—even when
these children leave care homes apparently voluntarily, in reality
they are being deceived and exploited or are in fear of being
kidnapped. We recommend that the Government carry out a specific
nationwide study into the number of possible child trafficking
victims going missing from care and how this number could be reduced.
We intend to return to this subject ourselves in an evidence session
to be held later this year. (Paragraph
153)
38.
The existence of a specified person appointed by the local authority
to supervise the care of each child could lead to better co-ordination
and possibly the provision of extra services for those in need
of hard-to-access support. We therefore recommend that such a
system be established. However, we cannot see how in practice
guardians would reduce the likelihood that victims would abscond
or be kidnapped from local authority accommodation.
(Paragraph 154)
Prosecution
39. Investigating,
prosecuting and convicting perpetrators of all types of organised
crime are difficult—more so for a hidden crime with confused
and cowed victims like human trafficking. We therefore understand
the low rate of prosecutions for trafficking and we applaud the
determination of the police and the CPS to use every legitimate
means at their disposal to disrupt this trade and make it difficult
and unprofitable for the perpetrators.
(Paragraph 160)
40. However,
two disadvantages arise from the 'Al Capone' approach, one perceptual
and the other practical. The perceptual disadvantage is that the
comparatively low rate of prosecutions for trafficking as such
adds to the confusion about the incidence of trafficking in the
UK. This may lead some authorities to underestimate the severity
of the problem and therefore not to devote sufficient resources
to tackling it. The other disadvantage, pointed out to us by ATLeP,
is that perpetrators convicted of lesser offences than trafficking
(such as living on immoral earnings) receive comparatively short
sentences and sometimes are released from prison even before their
victims' immigration status has been determined, let alone before
the victim has had time safely to re-establish her/himself in
the UK or their home country. (Paragraph
161)
41. These
problems, plus inherent justice, lead us to question whether more
might be done to improve the chance of successfully prosecuting
for trafficking. Victims' willingness and ability to give evidence
is central to this. Three factors make it more likely that victims
will co-operate. It is essential to convince victims that they
will be protected adequately. It is vital to treat them as victims
and not as perpetrators of immigration crime. And we agree with
both police and NGOs that the provision of safe accommodation
for all victims would be a significant step in encouraging them
to act as witnesses. (Paragraph 162)
International co-operation
42. We
are disappointed that not all Member States are co-operating as
fully with Europol as they could. We urge our fellow Parliamentarians
in other countries to put pressure on their governments and law
enforcement bodies to provide Europol and, through Europol, other
countries with full and timely information, which will increase
the likelihood of successful operations against human traffickers.
In addition to the benefit of reciprocation, nationally-based
operations tend to catch only the last link in the chain, who
are often small-time criminals, and not the gang leaders.
(Paragraph 173)
43. Not
all EU Member States have taken practical measures to combat trafficking.
Simple adoption of good legislation, without any significant attempt
to enforce it, is not enough. The case studies dotted through
this Report show, among other things, that even those countries
that believe they do not have a problem with trafficking may well
be on a trafficking route. More likely, given the suspected scale
of trafficking into the EU, there is a problem and the national
authorities have not yet recognised it. Like the drugs trade,
human trafficking is archetypally a transnational crime, and a
clear example of where solidarity among Member States would reap
considerable benefits to all. (Paragraph
178)
44. Where
source and transit countries are willing to co-operate, there
is clearly a readiness on the part of government agencies and
NGOs both in the UK and elsewhere in Europe to help run information
campaigns, advise and train local police forces and other public
officials, and help by information sharing and with joint operations.
Where there is no intention by source and transit countries to
co-operate, diplomatic pressure is an option, not least pressure
from neighbouring countries which may be suffering as transit
routes and from an overspill of criminality. It is also not always
necessary to have the whole-hearted support of the government:
there may be more benefit from working through NGOs, as Europol
hinted to us. There also may be more that could be done
in the way of pooling information for general use, through Europol
and Interpol, by destination countries that have good relations
with the less co-operative source countries.
(Paragraph 186)
45. All
these solutions require the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and
the Department for International Development to keep the effort
to combat human trafficking as one of their priorities. In general,
our witnesses were complimentary about the work of these departments
in specific countries. There appears to be scope for extending
this work—such as that done in South-East Europe—to
more countries. (Paragraph 187)
46. We
recommend the UK Government to take the lead in ensuring that
at least once a year the source, transit and destination countries
meet together to discuss practical measures to improve the co-ordination
of efforts against trafficking, which should supplement the best
practice conferences for experts currently held by the EU. These
could perhaps be held under the aegis of an organisation not connected
to a particular country, such as the International Organisation
for Migration. We recommend that an early item on the agenda for
such a meeting should be how countries could co-operate
more closely with Europol. (Paragraph 188)
Effectiveness of UKHTC
47. UKHTC
has been in existence for only three years and, as many of our
witnesses commented, these are still early days to pass judgement
on its effectiveness. However, the UK Action Plan placed a huge
emphasis on UKHTC's role as a multi-agency body, the central repository
of all data on human trafficking, offering strategic and operational
support and a 24/7 support line for advice, including on the care
of victims. It is therefore disappointing that so many of our
witnesses suggested it was not really multi-agency, being dominated
by the police and UKBA; that it was not doing much work to produce
the badly-needed estimates of the scale of trafficking; that it
was not fully aware of the needs and rights of child victims;
and that recent operations and individual cases had shown a lack
of clarity in responsibilities and a failure to give useful advice
on the support available for suspected victims. UKHTC has, however,
worked hard on awareness-raising and training of the police and
immigration officials, has run the public 'Blue Blindfold' campaign,
has widened the focus to labour exploitation as well as sexual
exploitation and has successfully involved a number of NGOs in
training and in anti-trafficking operations. It is probably unrealistic
to expect too much of so young an organisation which, moreover,
has only about 30 staff. However, we recommend that the Government
and the leadership of UKHTC look carefully at the criticisms of
the organisation made by our witnesses to see whether UKHTC needs
to rebalance its efforts. We ask the Government to report progress
made to us by the end of March 2010.
(Paragraph 189)
| 
