Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association (ILPA)
A. INTRODUCTION
1. ILPA is a professional association with
around 1,000 members, who are barristers, solicitors and advocates
practising in all aspects of immigration, asylum and nationality
law. Academics, non-government organisations and others working
in this field are also members. ILPA exists to promote and improve
the giving of advice on immigration and asylum, through training,
disseminating information and providing evidence-based research
and opinion. ILPA is represented on numerous government and other
stakeholder groups including the NGO/Stakeholder Consultative
Group on Human Trafficking and the Child Trafficking Advisory
Group and has provided evidence to many parliamentary committees
and in the course of debates on legislation on the subject of
trafficking. This year, among other activities, ILPA representatives
have been panellists at the workshop on Trafficking convened by
the OSCE and the TUC and also observers at the Commonwealth Parliamentary
Association conference on trafficking.
2. These submissions are endorsed by the
Anti-Trafficking Legal Project (ATLEP), which has given written[208]
and oral evidence to the Committee for this enquiry.
3. ILPA submitted written evidence[209]
to the enquiry on 7 February 2008. Given the very short timescale
for responses, ILPA's response was of necessity brief. We find
ourselves in a similar position with this call for further evidence.
We have, therefore, sought in this short response to:
— highlight some very recent developments;
— provide a brief update on the matters
on which our original submission focused; and
— list ILPA submissions and briefings
published during the year of relevance to the enquiry.
B. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
B. (i) Damages in tort against traffickers
4. AT and others v Dulghieru [2009]
EWHC 229 (QB) is the first known example of litigation on behalf
of the victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation directly
against their traffickers in the UK. The claim based upon the
torts arising from the unlawful conspiracy of the defendants to
sexually enslave the claimants (four young women nationals of
Moldova). Both defendants had been convicted of offences connected
with the trafficking of individuals into the UK for the purposes
of prostitution. The Honourable Mr. Justice Treacy accepted that
the claimants were entitled not only to general damages but also
to aggravated damages and accepted that the starting point for
the assessment should not be the levels set out by the Criminal
Injuries Compensation Authority for such conduct. The judge made
a total award of £611,000 (allocated between the claimants
by reference to the lengths of their ordeal and also the extent
of identified ongoing post-traumatic stress).
B. (ii) The Definition of Trafficking
in UK law under scrutiny
5. Evidence has mounted during the past
year that the definition of trafficking in UK law (Asylum and
Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004) is inadequate
because it fails to ensure the prosecution and conviction of those
who traffic babies and very small children.
6. At Report stage in the House of Lords
on the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act
the Baroness of Anelay of St. Johns, the Conservative Party's
front bench spokeswoman, raised the risk of a lacuna and was supported
by many other peers. She said:
"I have tabled this probing amendment in
response to a concern raised by the Refugee Children's Consortium
in its Second Reading briefing... The Government's new paragraph
4(4)(d), which has not yet been debated, improves the clause,
which still appears to allow some people who traffic children
and families to escape prosecution. I am sure that no one would
wish that. It is contrary to the consortium's wishes, certainly
to my wishes, and—the consortium believes—the wishes
of the Government.... The references to "request or inducement"
in subsection (4)(d), and the attempt to produce an exhaustive
list of positions of vulnerability, still appear to the consortium
not to cover all forms of exploitation that involve an abuse of
power or of a position of vulnerability. That is the wording adopted
in the United Nations Palermo Protocol on trafficking."[210]
7. The Baroness Scotland of Asthal, responding
for the government, stated:
"...I say to the noble Baroness, I hope
by way of reassurance, that we think that mischief is caught by
subsection (4)(d). In saying that, let me make it clear that the
Government are absolutely committed to tackling human trafficking
in all its forms. The noble Baroness is absolutely right to say
that we are at one in that purpose|This is the sort of scenario
at which the amendment is aimed, and we agree that the offences
should cover this situation. However, we do not consider that
an amendment is necessary to achieve this. ...Let me make it clear
that a child will not have to know that they are being requested
or induced to do something for an offence to be committed....We
think that there is not, therefore, a lacuna, which needs to be
addressed or filled by this amendment.... We believe that these
activities would and should be caught. I am very conscious of
the Pepper v Hart basis on which I say that... If we thought
there was a lacuna, we would want it plugged. The draftsmen and
others believe that the mischief which noble Lords have highlighted
is covered."[211]
8. Fulsome as the reassurance was, it did
not satisfy those concerned, and the Baroness Anelay, with the
same chorus of support, returned to the matter at Third Reading
in the Lords. She said:
The concern can be simply stated. Is Clause 4
sufficiently broad to cover all cases involving children? | Does
it cover situations where the child may not be conscious of what
is happening to them? ...I have always accepted that the Government
do not intend that there should be any lacuna. We have been working
as one on this matter. However, it appeared that the gap was as
follows. Children may not be subject to treatment amounting to
slavery or forced labour. They could therefore not satisfy the
definition of exploitation in Clause 4(4)(a). Children may not
be trafficked for their organs; thus they may not satisfy the
definition in subsection 4(b). As for subsection 4(c), the threat
of violence may not be made to the child: the parent may be told
that the child will be harmed. The parent may be asked to agree
that the child become involved in an activity, and no one may
ask the child anything at all. Thus it would appear that those
who traffick in children may escape prosecution under this scheme...Following
our debates on Report on 18 May, I understand that the Government
have had further discussions behind the scenes with the Refugee
Children's Consortium. I understand that the Minister may now
be in a position to put on record the Government's further statement
on their understanding of the term "inducement" in the
context of this clause. If the Minister is able to do so and can
demonstrate that the clause makes it clear that children do not
need to be conscious of what is happening to them, then I anticipate
that I shall most certainly, and with great pleasure, be able
to withdraw this amendment."[212]
9. The Lord Rooker responded for the government:
"We are satisfied that the ordinary meaning
of the word "inducement" is such that a person may be
induced to do something notwithstanding his not being fully aware
of what he is being induced to do. We therefore consider that
subsection (4)(d) as drafted can apply in cases involving very
young children, who may not be fully aware of the situation, of
their actions, and of what it is they are being encouraged to
do. ...We are satisfied that the ordinary meaning of the word
`inducement' is such that a person may be induced to do something,
notwithstanding the fact that that person is not fully aware of
what it is he is being induced to do."[213]
10. The Peace Sandberg case demonstrates
that the Baroness Scotland and the Lord Rooker were wrong and
the Refugee Children's Consortium was right. On 16 May 2008 Peace
Sandberg was jailed for 26 months at Isleworth Crown Court after
being found guilty of facilitating illegal entry into the UK.
The illegal entry in question was that of a baby believed to have
been purchased in Nigeria, allegedly so that Ms Sandberg could
claim to qualify for priority housing in the UK. Ms Sandberg was
not prosecuted for trafficking because, it was concluded, that
the section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants,
etc.) Act 2004 was inadequate to capture the trafficking of babies
and very small children, eg for benefit fraud. The CPS achieved
a conviction but had to do so with one hand tied behind their
backs. The government's intention is clear, but amendment to the
primary legislation is required to address it.
11. ILPA brought the matter to the attention
of the Bill team working on the Draft (partial) Immigration and
Citizenship Bill in July 2008. ILPA urged that the lacuna be addressed
in the Bill. That Bill has now been superseded by the Borders,
Immigration and Citizenship Bill. There are now two bills: the
Policing and Crime Bill and the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration
Bill in which the matter could be addressed. This does seem to
be more than ample an opportunity to correct these errors in this
parliamentary session and the matter has been raised in debates
on both bills.[214]
12. It was also suggested at the February
2009 workshop hosted by the OSCE and the TUC which brought together,
inter alia, representatives of the UK Human Trafficking
Centre, the UK Border Agency, the Home Office, the Crown Prosecution
Service that the definition of trafficking creates difficulties
for bringing a prosecution in practice in that the way the elements
of the offence have been broken up in subsections 4(1) to (3)
of Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc.) Act makes
it necessary to prove the requisite intention at the requisite
stage of the trafficking process (eg necessary to prove the intention
of the trafficker at the time when the trafficker brought the
person to the UK).
B. (iii) Confusion in the UK's implementation
of the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking
in human beings
13. It has now been decided that cases of
trafficking of UK nationals and EEA nationals will be dealt with
by the UK Human Trafficking Centre, while other cases will be
dealt with in the UK Border Agency. This is the latest development
in a long line of confusion created by the way in which the UK
has dealt with the notion of a "competent authority"
and looks set to cause real problems in practice.
14. The term "competent authority"
is widely used in international law and indeed in other parts
of UK law to describe the State—and make reference to the
arm of State with responsibility for a particular area. "Competent"
is a reference to powers, rather than skills. Thus the Council
of Europe Convention envisages that all organs of the State will
incorporate protection of those who have been trafficked into
their duties and responsibilities. The OSCE concept of a "National
Referral Mechanism"[215]
is about co-ordinating those various efforts. But what this concept
has become in the UK plans for implementation of the Convention
is the notion of a centralised decision-making body who will sort
those whom there are reasonable grounds to believe have been trafficked
from those whom there are not, for all purposes.
15. The difficulties this creates are very
clearly illustrated by the case of children. Trafficking of children
is one form of abuse of children. Child protection teams should
be skilled to identify and respond to cases of trafficking—this
is a specialist area but sits firmly within the framework of their
responsibilities toward children at risk of harm. Under UK child
protection law these teams have responsibilities to identify and
to protect children at risk of trafficking. But under the proposed
model for implementation of the Convention these teams will be
obliged to refer the case to the UK Border Agency or the UK Human
Trafficking Centre to determine whether there are reasonable grounds
for believing the child to have been trafficked. Those with most
information about the case, and most expertise in general child
protection, will be referring the case to those with less. Whatever
the decision of those UK Border Agency or the UK Human Trafficking
Centre, the child protection teams will, under UK law, retain
all their own responsibilities toward these children. If they
think the child has been trafficked, they must act accordingly—a
negative decision from the UK Border Agency or the UK Human Trafficking
Centre cannot release them from their obligations under UK child
protection law. So what purpose is the second decision serving
at all?
16. The case of children is stark, but the
same comment can be made for the whole concept of a central "competent
authority". The police are not going to cease their efforts
to prosecute a trafficker just because the "competent authority"
says that the person has been trafficked—or vice versa.
17. Having a central decision that will
have implications for a person's support and for other aspects
of their subsequent treatment, including immigration decisions
on residence permits, raises questions of procedural fairness.
We have repeatedly raised questions of procedural and substantive
fairness in the procedures for determining whether or not a person
has been trafficked. What assistance will a person get to make
their case? What opportunity will they have to be heard? What
opportunity will they have to challenge the decisions of the "competent
authority"? What records will be kept of the decision, and
how will these be made available for use in subsequent criminal
proceedings or, where relevant, the immigration decision?
18. What we have seen are model referral
forms that appear to overlap with, but not to fit with, those
used by the UK Border Agency in screening interviews. We have
seen nothing on how a person will challenge a decision that there
are not reasonable grounds for believing that they have been trafficked
unless this is wrapped up in the substantive decision on the immigration
application or asylum claim. If the latter is the case it is unclear
how the timescales for UK Border Agency decision-making will mesh
with the timescales for making a decision on the question of whether
there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person has been
trafficked to give access to the reflection period. This cannot
be done within standard procedures for challenging a UK Border
Agency decision on an immigration case before the Asylum and Immigration
Tribunal because there is no right of appeal to the Asylum and
Immigration Tribunal against a decision that there are not reasonable
grounds for believing that one has been trafficked. Thus it would
appear that the only possible challenge will be by way of judicial
review. How will records of the decision made on whether there
are reasonable grounds for believing that a person has been trafficked
be made available, including to that person and to representatives?
19. We refer the Committee to the recent
House of Commons debate in Westminster Hall on human trafficking
where a summary of the questions being raised was provided by
Anthony Steen MP, Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on
Trafficking in Women and Children:
"...article 10 [of the Council of Europe
Convention] deals with the identification of victims. [It.. ]
suggests that international good practice is that there is no
lead department—a single competent authority—and that
decision making should be devolved across a range of authorities
at a regional and local level, so that it is closest to the location
of the victim| Support services could then be agreed, co-ordinated
and provided quickly. For children, that would be through local
authority children's services.
...the Government propose to make the UK Human
Trafficking Centre in Sheffield the single competent authority,
with decisions made by UK Border Agency staff inside the UK Human
Trafficking Centre. There is now a groundswell of opinion from
nearly every non-governmental agency that that is precisely the
wrong way to proceed....decisions will not be transparent | There
will be no appeals process, so nobody will know what is going
on... all local authorities, the police, the UK Border Agency
and the UK Human Trafficking Centre should all be competent authorities.
...If the UK Human Trafficking Centre is the sole competent authority,
there will also be operational problems...."[216]
20. What we have seen of the proposals for
referrals to the `competent authority' has shown little awareness
of questions of consent, including informed consent, or of confidentiality.
Nor has it shown awareness of the extent to which referring NGOs
could find themselves giving immigration advice, a criminal offence
under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 unless the NGO is regulated
by the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner. The Office
of the Immigration Services Commissioner had not been consulted.
21. At the February 2009 workshop hosted
by the OSCE and the TUC it was indicated that it is proposed to
grant one year Discretionary Leave to Remain in the United Kingdom
to people who have been trafficked if they are co-operating with
the police or if their personal circumstances are such that a
grant of leave would be appropriate. The question was raised whether
it will be possible to lodge an appeal against a decision to grant
one year Discretionary Leave to Remain. The current statutory
framework would mean that there is no right of appeal for a person
granted one year Discretionary Leave to Remain, including from
a refusal of asylum and a refusal to provide protection under
Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Under section
82 of the Nationality, Immigration & Asylum Act 2002 ("2002
Act") there is a right of appeal only if the decision would
leave a person with no leave; there is no right of appeal from
a grant of leave to remain. There is an exception: a right of
appeal from a refusal of an asylum claim arises if an applicant
is granted more than one year's leave to remain. This is set out
at section 83 of the 2002 Act, which provides:
"83(1) This section applies where a
person has made an asylum claim and—
(a) his claim has been rejected by the
Secretary of State, but
(b) he has been granted leave to enter
or remain in the United Kingdom for a period exceeding one year
(or for periods exceeding one year in aggregate).
(2) The person may appeal [to the Tribunal]
against the rejection of his asylum claim."
One possible solution is to grant victims of
trafficking Discretionary Leave to Remain for one year and one
day, which would mean that they would be afforded a right of appeal.
22. ILPA and others have brought all these
matters to the attention of the UK Border Agency.
23. Article 15 of the Council of Europe
Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, which
states:
"1. Each Party shall ensure that victims
have access, as from their first contact with the competent authorities,
to information on relevant judicial and administrative proceedings
in a language which they can understand.
2. Each Party shall provide, in its internal
law, for the right to legal assistance and to free legal aid for
victims under the conditions provided by its internal law."
24. Just a short time before the deadline
for implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Action
against Trafficking in Human Beings we have seen nothing on how
the UK intends to comply with its obligations under Article 15.
Nor have we seen anything on how the timescales for determining
that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person has
been trafficked will mesh with the decision-making process in
immigration and asylum applications.
25. There continues to be no provision in
for guardians for unaccompanied children as is required by the
Council of Europe Convention.
C. UPDATE ON
MATTERS RAISED
IN OUR
7 FEBRUARY 2008 SUBMISSION
C. (i) Access to legal advice and representation
26. The problems highlighted in our February
2008 submission continue. It is getting harder for people who
have been trafficked to find a legal aid lawyer to take their
case. The only change that may assist is that in cases of particular
prisons the Legal Services Commission has been prepared to waive
the three-hour cap on travel.
27. The Legal Services Commission has consulted
on its proposals for a new bid round for legal aid contracts.[217]
These contracts would run from 2010. The proposals would continue
the fixed fee regime with the attendant problems for people who
have been trafficked highlighted in our initial submission to
this enquiry. They risk introducing new difficulties for people
who have been trafficked and who seek, an indeed need, legal advice
and representation with their bias against complex cases and against
small specialist firms undertaking those cases.
28. The Legal Services Commission's proposals
for a database of those in receipt of legal aid[218]
also raises concerns about the protection of confidential information
about people who have been trafficked.
29. The problems with the fixed fee regime
risk being exacerbated because of the government's proposal that
where a person is not a British citizen nor an EEA national, the
decision as to whether there are reasonable grounds for believing
that they have been trafficked will be dealt with by the UK Border
Agency. The case will proceed alongside the asylum, human rights
or other immigration case (for example renewal of a visa as a
migrant domestic worker or other worker). No legal aid impact
assessment has been carried out of the implications of these proposals.
There has been no consideration of the question of challenges
to the decision of the `competent authority'. There has been no
consideration of the need to adjust the fixed fee in these cases
to take account of the extra work that will be involved in dealing
with the question of whether there are reasonable grounds for
believing that a person has been trafficked within the timescales
required by the decision-making process. The Legal Services Commission
had not been consulted. ILPA has brought this matter to the attention
of the Legal Services Commission and the UK Border Agency.
C. (ii) Cases of trafficking in the Detained
Fast-Track
30. The situation continues to be as described
in our February 2008 submission to the enquiry, whereby a case
proceeding through the accelerated procedures of the Detained
Fast-Track will not be delayed to permit the UK Human Trafficking
Centre or the Poppy Project to undertake an assessment despite
efforts to persuade the Agency to improve its procedures. Procedures
still do not parallel those operated when the Medical Foundation
for the Care of Victims of Torture agrees to see a person detained
in the fast track procedures. ILPA has expressed concerns at the
inadequacy of guidance on trafficking for those "screening"
applicants to decide who will go into the Detained Fast-Track.[219]
31. The proposal that the UK Border Agency
determines who has been trafficked in cases of people who are
not British citizens nor EEA nationals (described above) risks
having particular ramifications in the Detained Fast-Track. Where
this is being considered, will the case be taken out of the Detained
Fast-Track? Will the case be delayed while it is determined whether
there are a reasonable grounds for believing that a person has
been trafficked? If so, will the person be released?
32. The Asylum Process Instruction Victims
of Trafficking, dated 16 June 2008 has been published.[220]
C. (iii) Age disputes
33. In our original submission ILPA said
that special attempts to protect trafficked children will only
benefit those children if they are recognised as children and
disputes over age are a huge barrier to such recognition'. We
referred to ILPA's 2007 Report When is a child not a child?
Age disputes and the process of age assessment.
34. In October 2008, the inadequacy of current
age assessment processes was acknowledged by the UN Committee
on the Rights of the Child in its Concluding Observations of October
2008 on the UK's report under the Convention.[221]
The Committee recommended that the UK:
"(e) Give the benefit of the doubt in
age-disputed cases of unaccompanied minors seeking asylum, and
seek experts' guidance on how to determine age".
32. The Committee on the Rights of the Child
hit upon the most important matter in opening its recommendation
with "give the benefit of the doubt". ILPA members continue
to see cases where all the evidence is compatible with a child
being a child, as they say they are, but evidence other than the
testimony of the child is also compatible with their being over
18. These are being treated as age disputes.
33. The Government's age assessment working
group met for the last time in August 2008. To date we are aware
neither of the outcome of the Working Group nor the Government's
plans in this area. One subject deliberated by the working group
was the question of X-rays as a tool for assessing age. There
has still been no final pronouncement on the topic. Meanwhile
the main developments in approaches to the resolution of age disputes
have come through the courts.
C. (iv) People who have been trafficked—interface
between the immigration and criminal justice systems
34. The latest Crown Prosecution Service
Guidance on people who have been trafficked was published on 1
October 2008.[222]
35. People who have been trafficked continue
to be prosecuted for immigration (for example, document) offences.
In R v O [2008] EWCA Crim 2835, O, who had been trafficked
into the UK for the purposes of sexual exploitation and escaped
from the trafficker, had obtained a Spanish ID card and was apprehended
at Dover fleeing to France. Although age was disputed she was
charged and prosecuted as an adult (there being no finding as
to her true age). She was advised to plead guilty to an offence
of possessing an identity document which related to someone else
with intent to use it to establish facts about herself, contrary
to section 25(1)(c) of the Identity Cards Act 2006. Notwithstanding
detailed information about her experience of trafficking being
available pre-trial and the possibility of a defence of duress
under the two Crown Prosecution Service trafficking-related Protocols,
she was sentenced to eight months imprisonment.
36. An out of time appeal was brought against
her conviction and sentence. Laws LJ, giving lead judgment in
the Court of Appeal, allowed O's appeal against her conviction
and sentence. He referred to the disturbing facts of the case
and, with a view to providing guidance, expressed the Court's
desire that such events as occurred in O's case would not be repeated.
The Court of Appeal recognised the clear intention of the UK Government,
in signing the Council of Europe Convention on Action against
Trafficking in Human Beings, to protect the rights of victims
of trafficking in the UK and that these obligations require that
both prosecutors and defence lawyers are "to make proper
enquiries" in criminal prosecutions involving individuals
who may have been trafficked.
37. ILPA continues to see cases of minors
exploited eg in cannabis factories who have been prosecuted.
C. (v) Sanctions on workers and employers
38. ILPA has repeatedly raised the question
of people who have been trafficked, in particular those trafficked
for domestic servitude, in its representations on changes to the
managed migration system, the subject of another enquiry by the
Home Affairs Committee. These featured in prayers against the
Statements of Changes in Immigration Rules HC 321 and HC 1113
in both the House of Commons[223]
and the House of Lords.[224]
39. HC 321 made provision for mandatory
re-entry bans, and for mandatory refusals of applications where
deception had been used. ILPA brought to the attention of the
Joint Committee on Human Rights[225]
the problems this would create for people who had been trafficked.
The Minister, Liam Byrne MP, questioned by the Committee indicating
that he would look again at the situation of people who had been
trafficked.[226]
On 13 May 2008 the Minister announced that there would be a "carve-out"
for victims of trafficking to be put into effect on ratification
of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking
in Human Beings. IPA will be monitoring implementation of this.
In the meantime this form part of the Entry Clearance guidance:
a person accepted to have been trafficked will not be subject
to a re-entry ban.[227]
40. ILPA was disappointed that in the debate
on HC 1113[228]
the latter the Minister of State, Phil Woolas MP, indicated that
he did not see the new rules on sponsor licensing as an opportunity
to provide protection for workers against exploitation. However,
he did indicate that he would give special consideration to the
situation of migrant domestic workers, and indeed extended the
transitional arrangements for migrant domestic workers in diplomatic
households to May 2010.
D. A SELECTION
OF RELEVANT
ILPA SUBMISSIONS AND
MATERIALS SINCE
7 FEBRUARY 2008
41. These are listed in chronological order
and are all available on the Submissions and briefings pages of
ILPA's website: www.ilpa.org.uk.
— ILPA response to the Consultation
on draft Detained Fast Track and Detained Non-suspensive Appeals
- Intake Selection (Asylum Intake Unit instruction), February
2008.
— ILPA submission on changes to the
General Grounds for Refusal in the Immigration Rules to be introduced
by Statement of Changes in the Immigration Rules HC 321, February
2008.
— ILPA letter to Lord Adonis re. Debate
on Guardianship for Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children during
Report Stage of the Children and Young Persons Bill on 17 March
2008, April 2008.
— ILPA response to the UK Border Agency
consultation on a Code of Practice for Keeping Children safe from
harm, April 2008.
— ILPA briefing on changes to the General
Grounds for Refusal in the Immigration Rules to be introduced
by Statement of Changes in the Immigration Rules HC 321, May 2008.
— ILPA response to the UK Border Agency
Consultation on Compulsory Identity Cards for Foreign Nationals,
May 2008.
— Trafficking and National Referral
Mechanisms: ILPA paper following the UK Border Agency workshop
on Monday 12 May 2008, May 2008.
— ILPA response to the Legal Services
Commission consultation Delivery Transformation: Managing legal
aid cases in partnership. July 2008.
— ILPA Memorandum of Evidence to Home
Affairs Committee Draft (Partial) Immigration and Citizenship
Bill July 2008.
— ILPA Memorandum to the Joint Committee
on Human Rights on the Draft (Partial) Immigration and Citizenship
Bill September 2008.
— Request to both Houses of Parliament
to pray against the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules
HC 1113 November 2008.
— ILPA comments on the Detained Fast
Track and Detained Non-suspensive Appeals - Intake Selection (Asylum
Intake Unit instruction) as published (December 2008).
— ILPA response to the Legal Services
Commission consultation on legal aid contracts from 2010, January
2009.
— ILPA's Briefing on baby trafficking
for the House of Lords second reading of the Borders, Citizenship
and Immigration Bill February 2009.
— ILPA submission to the Joint Committee
on Human Rights Enquiry into Children's Rights, February 2008.
March 2009
208 Available at www.ein.org.uk/resources/ATLeP_Submission_to_the_Home_Affairs_Committee.doc Back
209
Available on www.ilpa.org.uk
in the section on submissions. Back
210
Hansard HL Report 6 April 2004, col 1642ff. Back
211
Hansard HL Report 6 April 2004 col 1645ff. Back
212
Hansard HL Report 6 July 2004 cols 669-670. Back
213
Hansard HL Report 6 July 2004 cols 671ff. Back
214
See the second reading in the House of Lords on 11 February
2008 and in particular the comment of the Minister, Admiral the
Lord West of Spithead, "During the passage of the Asylum
and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 the criminalisation
of trafficking for non-sexual exploitation, including of children,
was discussed and legislated for. I believe that this is an area
where we can have even more focus; it is very important. We have
tried very hard, but there are still things that can be done,
and that will merit further discussion in Committee." Hansard
HL Report 11 February 2009 Col 1212. Back
215
See http://www.osce.org/odihr/19054.html Back
216
Hansard HC Report 3 February 2009 Cols 158-159WH. Back
217
See list of ILPA responses at part D below. Back
218
In the 2008 consultation Delivery Transformation, see list of
ILPA responses at part D below. Back
219
See the documents listed at part D below. Back
220
See www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/asylumprocessguidance/specialcases/guidance/victimsoftrafficking.pdf?view=Binary Back
221
Committee On The Rights Of The Child Forty-Ninth Session, Consideration
Of Reports Submitted By States Parties Under Article 44 Of The
Convention, Concluding Observations, United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland,CRC/C/GBR/CO/4, October 2008 at www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/docs/AdvanceVersions/CRC.C.GBR.CO.4.pdf
paragraph 71(1)(c). Back
222
Crown Prosecution Service, Human Trafficking and Smuggling, http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/human_trafficking_and_smuggling/ Back
223
13 May 2008, see www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080513/debtext/80513-0028.htm#0805147000002 Back
224
17 March 2008, see www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/80317-0013.htm#0803183000002 Back
225
See list of documents below at part D. Back
226
See HC 357-i, 19 February 2008, Q16, at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200708/jtselect/jtrights/uc357-i/uc35702.htm Back
227
Chapter 26. See http://www.ukvisas.gov.uk/en/ecg/chapter26/#point%20four Back
228
Fifth Delegated Committee on legislation, 15 January 2009, see
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmgeneral/deleg5/090114/90114s01.htm Back
| 
