Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140-158)
MR VERNON
COAKER MP, DEPUTY
CHIEF CONSTABLE
GRAHAME MAXWELL,
MR DAVID
BOLT AND
MR DAVID
WILSON
26 JUNE 2006
Q140 Dr Harris: I think Baroness
Stern is going to ask you about those two things you mentioned,
but other than residency permits and cooling-off reflection periods
is there anything else that is outstanding that you feel is preventing
you from signing this Convention?
Mr Coaker: That is what we are
looking at at the present time; we are trying to see what impact
the whole range of the Convention has with respect to our laws
and the way it works in our country, and we will make a decision
on that in due course. We have heard what everyone has said through
the consultation documents, what their views and comments are;
and, as I say, we will make a judgment on that at the appropriate
time.
Q141 Baroness Stern: In your evidence
you have argued that some measures in the Convention such as the
reflection period and the residence permits in particular could
serve to encourage people to come here illegally—what you
call a "pull factor". We would be really grateful if
you could give us any concrete evidence that they would act as
a pull factor, because it is put to us that one is unlikely to
be trafficked, with everything that goes with it, just to eventually
come to the UK. You will know that the Convention makes clear
that states are not required to grant reflection periods if they
think that the victim status is being claimed improperly. Can
you say anything concrete about that?
Mr Wilson: I would agree with
your analysis of that. It would not be amiss of me to say that
we are wholly sympathetic to the objectives behind the Convention,
and we are determined that we should have very tough controls
against trafficking. However, we cannot ignore the lessons of
the past. History tells us that wherever we have introduced a
new category of leave, or more favourable treatment, there will
be those who seek to abuse it and use it in a dishonest way. I
think it is not the point that the victims would increase; it
is more a case that there would be others claiming to be victims.
We are not simply talking about children or women trafficked for
prostitution; we are also looking at the Convention as a whole,
which includes the illegal labour market. That is where our major
concerns are. If we have to focus our resources on false claims,
that might well impact upon our ability to deal with and give
benefit to people who we genuinely want to assist. Although we
have not reached a conclusion yet, we do have concerns in this
area.
Q142 Baroness Stern: So the concrete
evidence is that these sorts of things have happened in the past.
Mr Wilson: We cannot ignore the
fact that where there is a new leave to enter, a new piece of
legislation or a new piece of policy that gives more favourable
treatment to people there will be criminal gangs that will seek
to use that in a dishonest way. They will be able to recruit—not
victims, but intending illegal migrants with the promise of more
favourable treatment with this. That is where our concerns are;
it is not in anything to do with the proper treatment and the
humane treatment of the genuine victims of trafficking.
Mr Coaker: The only point I was
going to make is that of course these are exactly the sorts of
discussions that are taking place. What is the evidence to say
this would act as a pull factor; what are other countries telling
us; what is the experience in other places? That is all the evidence
that is being evaluated and all of the facts that we are looking
at. When we have evaluated that, we will come to our decision.
The sorts of questions that you are quite legitimately asking
are the very sorts of questions that are being asked in the debate
that is taking place in government to make a decision as to whether
we sign or not.
Q143 Baroness Stern: Can I perhaps
bore you by talking about Italy again! Obviously, Italy is not
Paradise, but certainly there was a lot to learn that was extremely
positive. You will know, I am sure, that in Italy those victims
of trafficking willing to co-operate with the authorities get
residence permits. At every meeting, we asked everybody we met
if there was any evidence that because they got residence permits
it increased the amount of illegal immigration. None of the people
we met, including the Ministry of the Interior, were able to say
that there was any evidence at all that it was a pull factor.
They told us that there was a lot of evidence that by granting
victims residence permits and gaining their confidence, they were
more willing to give evidence against traffickers; and trafficking
had been greatly reduced from certain source countries such as
Albania as a result of that. Have you got any comments?
Mr Coaker: The only comment I
would make is the comment I made just before, that clearly when
the Committee does its report, Chairman, and the comments you
have just made at will be things that we will need to look at
and take into account when determining this. If that is the evidence
from Italy, if that is what the Committee was told on its visit,
then we need to look at that and make a decision about whether
that would apply in our circumstances and in our country. We will
make a decision accordingly. That is what we will do; we will
take into account all of these bits and pieces of evidence and
come to a decision.
Q144 Chairman: I have to say I think
the Home Office is absolutely obsessed with this pull factor.
Whenever we try to get into this it all seems to be something
with no substance behind it other than a fear of the unknown.
I find it incredibly difficult to believe that a woman would come
deliberately to the UK, enslaved into prostitution, simply to
try to get some form of residence in the UK. It beggars belief
to think that that is likely to happen.
Mr Coaker: Again, the only comment
I would make is that that may well be the case with respect to
trafficking for sexual exploitation, but of course the Council
of Europe Convention covers labour exploitation as well. We need
to look at all the aspects of trafficking.
Q145 Chairman: So you think that
people are deliberately going to enslave themselves solely for
the purpose of getting an ELR?
Mr Coaker: No. I think that what
we need to look at is—
Q146 Chairman: Well, it is for labour
or children—
Mr Coaker: What we need to look
at is whether there is the possibility of people abusing the system.
Q147 Baroness Stern: Thank you very
much, Chairman, for reinforcing what I was saying there. I want
to now ask you a question about giving protection. We currently
give protection to those who are willing to co-operate with the
authorities, and that is part of the eligibility criteria for
the Poppy Project; that is protection of a victim. You said a
lot earlier about victims which was very good to hear. Protection
is only given to a victim if they are going to co-operate with
the authorities; it is conditional. Do you think that is potentially
a breach of ECHR and other human rights instruments?
Mr Coaker: For the first four
weeks that somebody is accepted on to the Poppy Project, they
are not required to co-operate with police. They can be on that.
It is unconditional for the first four weeks, so that aspect of
it is a good thing. As I say, we believe that the policies that
we pursue are compatible with our human rights obligations. We
try to put the safety of victims first. We do have a victim-centred
approach; but alongside that we also have the desire to ensure
that people co-operate with the police to bring traffickers to
justice. These matters are always a balance, and we feel that
the way we proceed is compatible with our responsibilities under
human rights legislation.
Q148 Baroness Stern: But it is right
that they will only get protection if they have given co-operation.
Mr Coaker: No, not for the first
four weeks on the Poppy Project. Then there is the possibility
and the flexibility for the Immigration Service to make determinations
with respect to victims on a case-by-case basis. There is flexibility
to do that in certain cases they will.
Q149 Baroness Stern: Have we got
information on cases?
Mr Coaker: I have not got the
exact figure. It is a point that has arisen in the Committee a
lot. It is an area of developing work, an area of work that we
know that there is a lot more research needs to be done. We are
doing some of it and we are going to do more, because at the end
of the day the whole point for all of us is to bring an end to
this whole—
Q150 Baroness Stern: You must know!
Deputy Chief Constable Maxwell:
The Poppy Project is full, as a result of Pentameter. There are
other victim care-providers other than Poppy. Some of them have
no conditions whatsoever and are totally unconditional. There
are social services, quite clearly, which is unconditional. There
is social services provision by the Salvation Army, which is totally
unconditional and just requires a referral from the police service.
Q151 Chairman: How many places on
the Poppy Project in London?
Deputy Chief Constable Maxwell:
It is 25.
Q152 Chairman: In Rome they are nearly
20 NGOs each providing facilities of that sort of order.
Mr Coaker: It is an area we are
looking to extend. The Poppy Project we regard as good practice.
We have an outreach service, which is about developing work across
the country. We are developing schemes with local authorities
and the voluntary sector. Again, it is an area of work we want
to develop and improve and increase.
Q153 Dr Harris: We have rescued in
this country 83 women. In Italy it is 9,000, all of whom have
been checked to check they are not fakes. That is more than 100
times more. The other point that was reinforced to us—and
a couple of us went out with the outreach teams who explained
to the women on the street that there was this option, not even
of having to co-operate, with humanitarian protection. We were
told that it was because of this that traffickers no longer tortured
women or were violent towards them or otherwise intimidated women,
because they knew they had this option of humanitarian protection.
So even if the market is still being supplied—and they accepted
it was—and it is a big market there—though we are
not sure whether it is bigger than here—there was just less
torture, less rape, we were told by the victims themselves and
the trafficked women and the outreach workers. Is that something
you think you should bear in mind, compared to this worry that
in history there has been abuse by people of a new category of
ELR?
Mr Coaker: Evan, we have heard
from different members of the Committee about work that is going
on in Italy. I have said, and the Deputy Chief Constable and others
have said, that clearly we need to look at that. We have not made
any decisions about the Council of Europe Convention. We are looking
at all of the evidence; and indeed some of the points that have
been made here will inform that process of decision-making, including
the point you have just made.
Q154 Dr Harris: You understand the
concern expressed by the Chairman, because you described victims
of trafficking earlier as immigration offenders. If that is the
mindset that victims are offenders, even if it is just a descriptor,
then that is a real problem because there is no way that they
are going to come forward or co-operate when they are picked up,
which is the only way we get them in this country, if there is
that mindset. Do you accept that there is a culture issue?
Mr Coaker: I do not think we described
all women who were picked up as immigration offenders. We try
to have a victim-centred approach. We know that we have a lot
more to do. We know there is development of services that are
needed, but alongside that we know that in certain situations
the Immigration Service is involved. We do have a victim-centred
approach. As I say, we do not treat all people who come into contact
with the police or whoever, as a result of trafficking operations,
as immigration offenders.
Q155 Dr Harris: Some lawyers have
told us that there is a good argument that victims of trafficking
have a particular status and an argument to be recognised as refugees
under the 1951 Convention and relevant UK legislation. In making
initial determinations of refugee status, are immigration officers
taking, or told to take into account the fact that claimants might
have been trafficked into the UK and therefore have that particular
strengthening potentially of their case to be recognised as refugees?
Mr Wilson: Yes, they are told
that in terms of their responsibilities to recognise the human
rights of the applicants. But we must reiterate that every application
is dealt with on its individual merits, and that applies to anyone
claiming, regardless of the basis. You will know the terms of
the '51 Convention and how people can qualify for refugee status
under that Convention. It may well be that a person is recognised
as a refugee under that Convention, but if the claimant does not
meet the criteria there is consideration given to whether there
are humanitarian or discretionary reasons which will allow some
form of leave to enter.
Q156 Lord Plant of Highfield: I want
to ask you a couple of questions about repatriation or deportation.
Some of the points you have made in response to Mary and Evan
contain the answers implicitly, but I would quite like you to
spell them out a little bit more. You say that you make decisions
about deportation and repatriation on the basis of merits of individual
cases. At the same time you said in your evidence that the UK
Immigration Service considers the UK's obligations under the ECHR
in taking decisions to repatriate. The first question is, can
you give us specific examples of human rights principles you take
into consideration when making a decision, albeit on the merits
of an individual case; and, secondly, some NGOs have argued that
if victims of trafficking are repatriated to their country of
origin, that process may raise issues under Article 3 of ECHR.
Do you agree with that and are there other articles of ECHR that
you think are engaged by the process of deportation?
Mr Wilson: Most people are not
deported and not subject to the deportation procedure any longer.
That is reserved now for serious criminals Illegal immigrants,
overstayers, people who are found working in breach of their conditions
are administratively removed, which is a more straightforward
process. Whatever the nature of the claim and whatever the nature
of the removal, the person's human rights are taken into consideration
at the time of the application; and if they are not raised at
the time of the application for some reason—even at the
steps of the aircraft—if a person raises human rights applications,
they will be considered as part of the process. That relates to
the Human Rights Act, and Articles 3 and 8, which explicitly require
us to look at that. I am sure you are aware of what is in those
Articles. Immigration officers—or IND staff—are explicitly
required to look at those in order to consider the claim.
Mr Coaker: We would not return
somebody at risk of torture or degrading or inhumane treatment;
that would be contrary to our obligations under ECHR. We do not
try to do that; we try to honour our obligations to people in
relation to freedom from torture, rights to family life—all
the rights we know are expressed—and we try to take those
into account when we are making decisions about somebody in this
country who is receiving either asylum or seeking leave to remain
for whatever reason.
Q157 Lord Plant of Highfield: Do
you consider that in relation to the role of the government and,
as it were, the public bodies in the country to which you are
going to repatriate; or do you also pay attention to the possibility
of more informal kinds of pressure, coercion, exploitation, in
communities? If someone is over here because they are from a very
disadvantaged and exploited kind of community in another country,
do you pay attention to that, as opposed to just what the government
might do to a returned trafficked person?
Mr Wilson: Yes, we do take all
of that into account. The country profile or the situation in
the person's country is always taken into account. If it is such
that we cannot remove a person to that country, then that does
not happen. We work very closely with organisations such as The
International Organisation for Migration that help us in the repatriation
process, in the voluntary return process, so there are people
on the ground to assist that process.
Q158 Chairman: Thank you for your
evidence, Minister, and the other witnesses. It is an appalling
thought that over two hundred years after Wilberforce thought
he had abolished slavery, not only in Britain but throughout the
Empire, that here, 200 years later, in the 21st century we see
the most appalling forms of slavery in terms of sexual exploitation
and prostitution, of children being enslaved to look after the
growing of cannabis and of people effectively being enslaved into
debt bondage through working for a pittance. You have answered
our questions very frankly and explained how little we know and
where you are trying to go. I have to say that I have yet to be
convinced we have a genuine victim-focus towards what we are trying
to do. Somehow we still see some of these people as perpetrators
rather than the true victims that they are. Having seen what happens
in Italy—and I know we have harped on about that somewhat
today—the sympathetic approach there is working through
NGOs without police involvement at the beginning and over time
gaining the trust of the victims—truly getting their trust
and getting them ultimately to co-operate either directly through
court procedures or by providing information. It takes time, money
and effort and a very softly, softly approach to achieve that
objective, which they have been able to do. Above all, it takes
resources. The Italians said to us that it is a very expensive
thing that they are trying to do, but I think those resources
are something that we cannot afford not to spend if we are going
to achieve what we thought we had achieved two hundred years ago.
Mr Coaker: Thank you, Chairman,
and the Committee for the questions. We all have a common aim.
We look forward to receiving your report and learning from that.
Thank you very much.
| 
