| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord has shot my flocks. The Director of Public Prosecutions is not the person to advise immigration officers about Scots law. As the noble Lord said, a number of offences listed in the Bill would be offences under Scots law, so the Lord Advocate should probably be included. Has the Minister thought of that or not? I expect that the same applies for Northern Ireland.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hope that I can answer that question shortly. I may not have thought of it, but I am jolly sure that someone else will have. I share the belief of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that it is essential that those charged with arresting
suspects and pursuing prosecutions are properly trained and provided with the necessary skills to operate effectively.Only immigration officers who have undertaken a comprehensive training course, which includes training on the provisions of the PACE codes of practice, are allowed to exercise the powers of arrest contained in the Immigration Act 1971. Apropos my conversation with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on Clause 2, if a person is under consideration for a charge under that clause, he would be interviewed in accordance with PACE, so legal representation would be available for free in those circumstances. This is an opportunity for me to clarify that to the noble Lord. The noble Lord had an anxiety that does not need to remain.
In addition, immigration officers who are engaged in criminal investigation teams undertake a three-week training course in investigative skills. That course, which is provided by the IND College, includes an element on preparing cases and working with the Crown Prosecution Service and it teaches staff how to proceed with a case from the arrest to the appearance in court.
We are satisfied that that training is adequate and gives staff the necessary skills to mount successful prosecutions. In the circumstances, to place a legislative requirement on the DPP to provide training would be an unnecessary, additional burden. Therefore, I would urge the noble Baroness not to pursue that matter.
Nor are we persuaded that the provision of advice by the DPP should be restricted to those offences for which immigration officers have a power of arrest. It is a fact that many of those apprehended by the immigration crime teams have committed a number of crimes, including many for which an immigration officer has no power of arrest.
If the amendment were to be accepted, it would require the immigration officer either to submit cases on which the DPP has been able to advise only in part or to seek the assistance of another agency, such as the police. Neither of those options would aid good administration. In any event, Clause 6 as drafted obliges the Director of Public Prosecutions to give advice only to such an extent as he considers appropriate and it would be open to him to refuse to give advice were he to consider it inappropriate. For that reason too, I invite the noble Baroness not to pursue the matter. Advice will be given on a case-by-case basis. Advice is not binding, but given in good faith, and refusing it would have to be for a good reason.
As to training, I have already said that there is a three-week arrest course and then a three-week investigative skills course. Scotland and Northern Ireland do not come within the training at present. In Scotland, the training would be a devolved matter. I hope that I have answered all the questions raised in the debate.
Lord Avebury: I am sorry but the noble Baroness has not answered the question about the advice. We did
say that advice on the Scottish offences should be given by the Lord Advocate and on the Northern Ireland offences by the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. Is it appropriate that the DPP should give advice on Scottish and Northern Ireland offences?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We are not proposing that that should happen. I have already said that the training and advice that is at present provided is provided by the Scottish authorities in Scotland and by Northern Ireland separately. The issue of training and advice, I believe, comes under devolved issues. We are not proposing—as far as I am aware—to extend that training or advice either to our Northern Ireland or to our Scottish counterparts.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I do not think the noble Baroness has quite answered the question. The Bill finds it necessary to say that training for and advice to immigration officers on matters relating to this Bill have to be provided. That is done under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, which is not a piece of Scots legislation—evidently. Surely an equivalent provision relating to Scotland should be inserted. Just because somebody is saying that training of immigration officers goes on already, that does not specify in the way this part of the Bill does what should happen in relation to this Bill. Will the noble Baroness consider that point to make quite sure that the whole thing is all right? I am sure that the Scottish Executive would want Scotland to have the same protection in this way as England.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I shall ensure that this specific issue is considered. By the time this matter comes back on Report, I shall endeavour to have a definitive answer. In the interim, if I have an answer more quickly, I undertake to write to both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. I shall also ensure that a copy is made available to all noble Lords who have taken part in the Committee stage debate and I shall place a copy in the Library.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The noble Baroness's offer in that respect has made it possible for me now to be very brief. It is important that we try to ensure that all Scottish matters in particular, but also Northern Ireland matters—before I get into trouble with Northern Ireland—are covered too. We do not want there to be a lacuna.
These were very much probing amendments. I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said about the DPP not having the resources to carry out the training. Certainly, I am grateful for the information the noble Baroness has given about the training that is undertaken. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hylton moved Amendment No. 17:
- After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
TREATMENT OF TRAFFICKED PASSENGERS
(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to give passengers trafficked into the United Kingdom an adequate period of time to decide their future plans, in particular, to allow such persons to consider whether—
(a) to leave the United Kingdom;
(b) to try legally to remain in the United Kingdom;
(c) to participate in any prosecution under section 4 or for a related offence.
(2) The Secretary of State may grant residence or permissions to work to passengers trafficked into the United Kingdom who cooperate with the authorities, or give evidence in proceedings, in relation to a prosecution under section 4 or for a related offence."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is, first, to provide for a reflection period and, secondly, to allow the Secretary of State to benefit or reward trafficked people of any age who co-operate with the authorities here or give evidence against traffickers and their associates. These issues have previously been debated in your Lordships' House; for example, in a debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Alton and on the sexual offences legislation of 2003. At Second Reading the noble Baroness said that every application from a victim of trafficking will be treated on its individual merits. That sounds good, but I suggest it is not itself sufficient. I hope to persuade the noble Baroness to go further tonight.
We have to imagine the state in which those trafficked to this country find themselves once they are free. They will have been transported for hundreds—if not thousands—of miles. They have been the victims of force, coercion, fraud, deception, abuse of power or vulnerability. They seldom know anything about British law, justice or immigration rules. They may not even speak English. They are therefore liable to be completely disoriented. That will often be particularly true of those who have suffered rape or prostitution.
That is why they need a period of calm reflection, during which the situation here can be patiently explained. They need time to decide whether or not to return to their home country. There may be serious risks in so doing—both to themselves and to their families—because traffickers are part, usually, of organised crime and belong to mafias with very long arms.
Whether or not trafficked persons decide to return home in the short-term or later, they also need time to decide about giving evidence against their traffickers. This again is by no means risk-free, however good the witness protection may be. No one should be pressured into giving evidence if that is likely to result in serious harm to themselves or to their families. Some may well decide to give information or intelligence about trafficking operations without also appearing in court. The decisions I have mentioned are ones that can be taken only by the victim of trafficking. Both time and quiet thought are absolutely necessary, all the more so if the person is under 18.
I come now to the wording of my new clause and find myself quite surprised at my own moderation. In subsection (1), I have made it a duty on the Secretary of State to provide an adequate period of time for the three crucial decisions to be taken. This provides a high degree of flexibility, according to the nature of the individual case. It would be possible to specify various
As to subsection (2), I have not made it a duty to grant residence or permission to work. Instead, it is a permissive power which the Secretary of State has discretion to use or not to use. On both subsections, I could have taken a stronger line, but deliberately chose not to do so. I hope that the Minister appreciates my approach.
I have also discussed my clause with Home Office officials, who surmised that the Government might take the line that the new clause was unnecessary in a Bill that sets out to create new offences. They also indicated that my clause might open a new loophole for abuse. I should like to deal with both objections.
First, immigration and police officers need to know clearly, beyond any possible doubt, what they should do with a person who appears, prima facie, to have suffered trafficking. That is why it is so important to have a duty inscribed in the Bill. Secondly, the Secretary of State may already have a whole armoury of discretionary powers that he can use to reward people who have been co-operative or who bravely come forward to give evidence in criminal cases. His subordinate officers, however, may not always know that, and they would be helped by an obvious reference in the Bill itself. I am sure that the Committee will appreciate that the power to help people who co-operate or give evidence will quite often be the crucial factor for someone faced with a very difficult decision. This power should be known throughout the whole system.
As to the loophole theory, I suggest that in practice the number of cases will not be very large. Before the question of how to treat trafficked persons can arise, they must first have escaped or been rescued, perhaps by police or customs officers. Other states provide reflection periods and, no doubt, also have discretionary powers, but that does not seem to have attracted huge numbers of pseudo-victims to their shores.
In my effort to persuade the Minister to say much more than she did at the last stage, I should explain that my amendment has a certain probing quality to it. Can the Minister give me cast-iron assurances, for instance, that every official likely to meet victims of trafficking, will be given clear instructions on what to do? Can she say that all officials in a position to exercise discretion on behalf of the Secretary of State will know exactly how far they can go in eliciting co-operation and criminal evidence? Those issues of ways and means are of great importance because, in the nature of things, not every circular receives the most careful reading and, no doubt, much guidance goes straight into the waste-paper basket. Even if top officials are conscientious, does the correct message always get through to the case worker?
There is a further reason why the Minister should look favourably on my amendment—a reason she may not have known on 15 March. On 24 February, the European Parliament issued its report on the proposed Council directive relating to victims of trafficking—reference "Final: A5-0099/2004". That specifically provided for a
The Government should therefore be warned of the kind of directive that will in due course emerge. Surely it would be wise to put in place now as much victim protection as possible, in advance of the directive, rather than just wait and do little for the benefit of victims. Why not do it this year instead of being obliged to comply next year, or soon after? I therefore look forward to the Government's reply. I beg to move.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page