HL Deb 05 April 2004 vol 659 cc1652-64

(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—

  1. (a) to leave the United Kingdom:
  2. (b) to try legally to remain in the United Kingdom;
  3. (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 lengths of period—up to six months—from the point at which the victim becomes free. There are precedents from other states for periods of various length. I have avoided over-prescription, provided that the time allowed is adequate.

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 30-day reflection period capable of extension in special cases. It went much further by providing free subsistence costs and medical treatment, as well as free legal aid. In its amendment 14, it laid down that absence of documents or false papers should not prevent the granting of residence, and went on to insist the identity of victims of trafficking be protected by holding legal proceedings in camera. It provided for the accommodation needs of unaccompanied minors, co-operation and appeal rights.

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.

Lord Avebury

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who has raised this issue on a number of occasions—most recently on 23 March, when neither he nor any other noble Lords who took part managed to get any change out of the Minister.

The noble Lord asked about the protection of victims, and the Minister replied by referring him to the White Paper, which was published more than four years ago. We have moved on a bit since then: certainly, the Minister confirmed that when she said that we had signed up to the Palermo protocol, which was mentioned under another amendment. That imposes certain obligations on us, which may have been spelt out in more detail by the Council directive mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. The protocol requires that: Each State Party shall consider implementing measures to provide for the physical, psychological and social recovery of victims of trafficking in persons, including, in appropriate cases, in cooperation with non-governmental organizations, other relevant organizations and other elements of civil society, and, in particular, the provision of:

  1. (a) Appropriate housing;
  2. (b) Counselling and information, in particular as regards their legal rights, in a language that the victims of trafficking in persons can understand;
  3. (c) Medical, psychological and material assistance; and
  4. (d) Employment, educational and training opportunities …
Each State Party shall take into account, in applying the provisions of this article, the age, gender and special needs of victims of trafficking in persons, in particular the special needs of children, including appropriate housing, education and care". The Minister may disagree with me if she believes that I am wrong, but it must follow from that wording that, if these benefits are to be provided to the victims of trafficking, they must be allowed to remain in the United Kingdom for an appropriate period—especially for the time that it takes them to recover physically, psychologically and socially. In any case, Article 7 of the protocol requires us to consider adopting legislative or other appropriate measures that permit the victims of trafficking in persons to remain in the territory temporarily or permanently in appropriate cases. Clearly, one such case, although certainly not the only one, ought to be when the victim is prepared to assist the authorities by providing information that may lead to the trafficker's arrest or giving evidence at his trial.

If the Minister does not like the wording proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, are the Government undertaking any formal consideration of the legislative measures that may be required? That is the very least that they can do under the protocol. If they complied with the spirit of the protocol, they would also want to enter into consultations with the appropriate non-governmental organisations on the nature of the legislation required.

I support the amendment and hope that, in replying to the debate, the Government will say what steps they are taking to comply with the protocol as it affects the victims of traffic in general.

The Lord Bishop of Liverpool

I speak to this amendment in support of my noble friend Lord Hylton. I speak having dealt with these matters in the city of Liverpool and on Merseyside.

Liverpool, like Croydon, has particular experience of the needs of asylum seekers. The Churches and voluntary organisations such as Support for Asylum Seekers and Asylum Link Merseyside are working strenuously to care for asylum seekers on a day-to-day basis, helping those made destitute through our present system. We have formed views based on hundreds of cases of hardship. The amendment, as the Committee is fully aware, is not a consolation to traffickers, who need to be penalised severely, but an acknowledgement that asylum seekers when fleeing terror will, like any of us should we find ourselves drowning, reach for a life raft even when it is manned by a pirate.

The Government are aware that the Bill sends out signals. It is those signals that I am particularly aware of, and why I am speaking to the amendment. How we treat asylum seekers and especially the victims of traffickers, particularly those from Iraq, sends out contradictory messages. We went to war out of concern for the Iraqi people and now we are treating some asylum seekers from that country in an inhumane way. Some of them may end up as future leaders in their home country. Their experience of life in Britain is already undermining the reconstruction process in Iraq, for their family members left behind in that country know full well what is happening here and the harsh regime under which some of their family members live. Britain is under the spotlight on the international stage and we must get it right for long-term stability internationally.

Graffiti found on the wall of a tower block in Everton used for housing hundreds of asylum seekers says: I came to this country to live, but now I just want to die". We need to ensure a fair and humane system for dealing with the victims of traffickers so that we can set a good example to countries that are under reconstruction, an example where justice is well tempered with mercy.

7 p.m.

The Earl of Sandwich

I, too. support my noble friend's amendment, which raises the important issue of protection. It proposes a period of reflection and the possibility of co-operation in prosecutions. I declare an interest as a council member of Anti-Slavery International. I have also spoken to ECPAT UK and the Eaves Poppy Project. The noble Baroness may remember that I expressed surprise at Second Reading that the Bill did not contain more explicit references to protection. I argued that prevention and protection often go together and that more legislative attention could be given to the victims of trafficking, as has been said, in the light of experience in other countries. There is no need to wait for the European Union. My noble friend is right to press his too modest amendment.

I shall provide an example. The Poppy Project was set up to provide accommodation and support to women trafficked into prostitution. The charity is now finding, however, that more and more cases fall outside this fairly narrow definition. For example, women who are trafficked into domestic labour and suffer appalling violence and abuse at the hands of one person are not eligible for the refuges under the present rules. One woman who actually escaped from a private address after being raped and abused on a regular basis could not get support because she was not strictly working in prostitution. So the definition needs to be broadened.

I also briefly remind noble Lords of the problem of re-trafficking which is the subject of a recent Anti-Slavery International report. For example, women who are returned to a safe house in Albania, even under a three-month resettlement scheme, remain vulnerable to traffickers if for various reasons they cannot live with their own families, as is often the case. They need to be given skills or retraining of some kind which will give them independence, perhaps under a reciprocal arrangement between Albania, the United Kingdom and a country such as Canada.

I mention those ideas only in summary, but it is another area in which the Home Office should be interested because it will prevent re-trafficking. At this stage the noble Baroness will recognise that we are not tabling more amendments. We simply wish to reinforce the concern expressed and seek assurance that the Government will see the link with prevention and find statutory ways of extending the scope of its present support for safe houses and other forms of protection to trafficked persons, as already outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen

I support the amendment. On a number of occasions, my colleagues and I on European Union Sub-Committee F have looked at the issue of the trafficking of people. There is no doubt that it is a horrendous crime. The vulnerable and frightened people who are brought into this country undoubtedly suffer the traumas of their ordeals even when they have been lucky enough to be freed from their traffickers. Unfortunately, trafficking is increasing throughout the world. When I saw this amendment I recognised that people who are trafficked into this country desperately need support and help. The amendment brings forward positive proposals to help and it is worthy of consideration.

Lord Brennan

I, too, speak in favour of the amendment. Over the past few years many have taken part in debates on trafficking. Time has perhaps dulled our sensitivities. The word "trafficking" imports the incapacity of the trafficked to have control over their lives. In the title to Clause 4 the Bill speaks of trafficking for exploitation; in other words, exploiting the bodies of human beings for the pleasure or profit of others. I find it difficult to conceive of a much more despicable offence than that.

If our own nationals were the victims of trafficking we would consider a sentence of 14 years to be the appropriate maximum. We would surely have in place a system of care and support in the short term, once such people have been taken into protection, and a vision about their care in the longer term. Why should a child from another country, trafficked for exploitation, be regarded as any less worthy of such care?

I appreciate that the terms of the amendment may benefit from revision; I appreciate that what I have spoken of involves other ministries apart from the Home Office; but if the Government want to make an impact upon public opinion about the gravity with which they treat this offence, they should match it with the care and merciful consideration that they show to other victims of the offence.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for tabling the amendment. It is important that we consider the situation of a person who is trafficked who may also be the victim of that self-same crime of trafficking. The words of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, homed in on the difficulty related to the drafting of the amendment. It refers to trafficking without tying it down to the offence of trafficking in Clause 4. I accept that some people who are trafficked are content with that—they have not been trafficked for exploitation. I know full well that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is concentrating his mind and ours on the circumstances in which someone is exploited. The reason why I have not supported the amendment by adding my name—even if there were room—is that I do not believe that it covers all the circumstances that I suspect, as it happened quite rightly, that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, wanted to address.

One difficulty is that we do not know who are the trafficked people. We do not know who is in this country illegally. Before all the chaos of the past two weeks—I almost managed to avoid referring to it—the Home Secretary David Blunkett, on several occasions on the Floor of the House and to the media, has said that he does not know how many people are here illegally. Therefore, we are trying to assist a group of the population who are unknown to us. That is a severe problem for them because even if we can offer them the assistance that they need, we do not know how to get that help to them.

Another difficulty that I have with the amendment is that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said that the amendment is modest—I cannot remember his exact words. It refers to an "adequate period of time". I have great difficulty with that. The noble Lord seeks to put a duty on the Secretary of State to allow adequate time. "Adequate" can mean anything to anyone. Although I accept that the noble Lord was trying to be modest, I believe that he was being a little immodest in the drafting of the amendment.

It is important that the Minister responds in the way that she is invited to by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and puts on the record the steps that the Government will take now and in the future to give those who are trafficked for exploitation a chance to consider their position. That can happen only when their presence is detected. Sadly, it may go undetected until there is a tragedy as there was with the cockle pickers in the north-west, and nobody wishes anything of that nature to happen again.

When their presence is detected, in what circumstances are such persons able to remain in the United Kingdom? What about those who co-operate with the authorities regarding the prosecution of the traffickers? What is their quid pro quo both now and in the future? The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to the problems that can happen on witness protection programmes. He was absolutely right to do so. A short while ago, the Minister repeated a Statement here that was read in another place by the Home Secretary about the creation of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. As part of that Statement, the Government referred to the fact that they wanted to put together a co-ordinated national protection strategy for witnesses. That is something that we would all welcome. But it is right that we need to know what happens now and in the future to protect people who are trafficked illegally for exploitation, are discovered and then seek to do their best to bring those evil people—-the traffickers—to book.

Earl Russell

It is almost impossible to do anything to a trafficker without the evidence given by those who are trafficked. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, may be right that there are those who are voluntarily trafficked. But all that we can concern ourselves with as makers of secular law is giving opportunities to reach freedom for those who are involuntarily trafficked. That means giving them the courage to come forward, give evidence and tell their story.

In a number of very poor places—some in eastern Europe, some in Africa, some in other parts of the world—trafficking is often done, especially in the case of children, with the consent of the family, because it is the only way the family can get enough to eat. That obviously should not be the case, but this is neither the time nor the place to discuss the practices of the World Trade Organisation and how they ought to change.

What will particularly concern those trafficked is that they should not be sent home, sent back to the village which has sent them away to make money that the village has then not made or has made under false pretences. That can put those trafficked in grave danger. The reluctance of those trafficked to be sent home is the traffickers' real weapon of power. The only thing that can break that power is an absolutely clear declaration in British law of indemnity; that those who give evidence as the result of which a trafficker is convicted will not be sent home to their own country. They will be allowed to remain here, in safety, and continue to live a lawful life in ways that they themselves choose.

That is the only way that freedom can be given back. Without that, however many times you punish the trafficker, however many years you sentence him to, it will be just the occasional one in a million. At that level, punishment has to be awfully severe to be an effective deterrent. So you must make the trafficked safe, or nothing will come right.

7.15 p.m.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for the amendment. He can rest assured that the Government are determined to do all that they can to bring a halt to the abhorrent practice of trafficking people.

I will take up one of the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The noble Earl said that we would have to make the punishment quite severe in order to make the traffickers take any notice, in effect, of what we do. It is probably right that I indicate now that the Government have said that we are considering increasing the penalty for those employing illegal workers to send out a stronger message that such behaviour is both illegal and unacceptable. We propose to table an amendment on Report to do that. I will write to noble Lords with the full details of that amendment as soon as possible. I say to the noble Earl that we understand what is said about punishment; that is something which we will certainly seek to address.

What the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said about protection was equally important, and it found its echo in the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and my noble friends Lady Gibson and Lord Brennan. But the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, was right to highlight the difficulty with the amendment. It refers to "trafficking" and not "trafficking for exploitation", which is what the noble Lords in this debate addressed their remarks to.

The Government clearly set out their strategy for tackling the issue of trafficking in human beings in the White Paper Secure Borders, Safe Haven. We adopted a four-pronged approach founded on enforcement, prevention, protection for victims and international co-operation to combat human trafficking. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was right to say that those four things have to go together if we are to make an impact on this dreadful crime.

Since the White Paper was published in 2002, much has been achieved. We introduced trafficking offences in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and the Sexual Offences Act 2003; further offences are proposed in the Bill. In March 2000, a multi-agency government task force, Reflex, about which we have previously spoken, chaired by the National Crime Squad, was set up to deal with organised immigration crime, including trafficking. We have embarked on a number of projects overseas—through either the FCO or DfID, or through other agencies—that have sought to tackle trafficking at source. That very much deals with the prevention angle.

An essential part of the strategy—as the Committee will know, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, highlighted—is protection for the victims of trafficking. The noble Lord will be well aware that since 2002 the Home Office has been working in partnership with the voluntary sector to put in place provision for victims who have been trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation. In March of last year, a Home Office-funded pilot project was launched which provided safe accommodation and support for female victims who have been trafficked into prostitution, provided the victims are willing to come forward to, and actively assist, the authorities. I was delighted that the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, made reference to that project. The funding has been agreed for the Poppy project throughout the financial year 2004–05. We will use the period up to April 2005 to consider in detail the evaluation evidence and to take decisions on the type and extent of support needed in the future. But, to respond to the noble Lord's question, we have kept the criteria for entry under review. Changes have been made and may be made in the future to address some of the issues that have arisen; we are evaluating the project.

Earl Russell

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She mentioned—if I heard her right—female victims of prostitution. Would the Government consider extending that protection equally to male victims of prostitution? They both exist, and they are both entitled to liberty.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

Prostitution in whichever form is a matter of acute concern to the Government. We are currently reviewing our whole strategy in relation to prostitution generally. I can certainly say to the noble Earl that the prostitution of male and female victims is a matter of concern to the Government. I cannot tell the Committee precisely what if any projects relate specifically to male prostitution. If I have that information, I am more than happy to write to the noble Earl about it.

I can also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that all of those who claim to be a victim of trafficking should be cared for. However, I cannot agree that an extended period of reflection should be granted to all of them to decide what they wish to do next or that residence permits should be granted to those who agree to co-operate with the appropriate authorities. In making that response I am mindful of the comments in the report from the European Parliament—the noble Lord kindly provided us with an outline of it.

One of our first difficulties with this proposed new clause is related to determining when a person is "trafficked", a point highlighted also by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. For example, would a person who, with a view to getting to the United Kingdom, pays another person to facilitate his arrival here be "trafficked" in the same way as a person who is brought to the UK by another person with a view to exploiting him or her either sexually or otherwise? In the first scenario, the facilitator could be prosecuted under Section 25 of the 1971 Act, but in the second scenario it would seem to be more appropriate to charge with the offence in Clause 4 of the Bill or the relevant offence in the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

I have always taken it that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and other noble Lords who have spoken on this issue have been addressing the second category—those who are trafficked for exploitation.

Lord Hylton

If the noble Baroness will forgive me, I think I have in mind both categories and not simply the latter.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

Can I take it, then, that the noble Lord believes that someone who wishes to come to this country for gain and who pays a trafficker to get him to this country—after which he is free to go about his business in employment and to make a home, and is not under the direct control of the trafficker—should also be given a period of reflection? I had not understood that that is what the noble Lord intended.

Lord Hylton

The key point is that of leaving the control of the trafficker. That is what the European Parliament refers to and what others, I think, have had in mind.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

That is the point I am seeking to make. The noble Lord is thinking of a situation where someone is trafficked for exploitation or gain and kept within the control of the trafficker. I understood that that was the mischief that the noble Lord was particularly anxious to address. With respect, I agree with him. However, the definition of "trafficking" enables one to describe someone as having been trafficked even if they have paid willingly for that to be facilitated and they themselves have derived from it a direct benefit or advantage. That is the difficulty.

I have given the example of a person who pays another to facilitate his arrival here to be trafficked in the same way as a person who is brought to the United Kingdom. We think that there is a distinction between the two. Our point is that "trafficking" is a very vague term with no specific legal meaning as far as we can discern. In particular, we are aware that the definition of "trafficking" in Article 3 of the Trafficking Protocol to the UN Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime states that trafficking can take place regardless of whether the passenger consents. In that sense, it could refer to the example given by the noble Earl. Lord Russell, of someone who was trafficked almost as if they had no choice because the choice had been made by their families or by others in control. By the same token, however, it can also involve someone who genuinely consents and uses the trafficker simply as a means of getting here.

Article 3 of the Trafficking Protocol to the UN Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime makes that clear. If that were the case, the amendment would give benefits to the person cited in my first example. That seems unreasonable given that the "victim" in that scenario was likely to have wanted to get here in the first place and may even have paid for the service.

In addition to the absence of clarity on the definition of trafficking, there is currently a lack of hard data on the scale and extent of the problem and on the effects of measures designed to counter it, such as introducing reflection periods. We therefore believe that more evidence is required before measures such as those proposed by the noble Lord could realistically be considered. However, I want to reassure him that we also want to address the mischief that he wishes to address. There is no difference in our purpose, but there is a difference in how we can do it and when we will have the empirical data to make the sort of informed decision that we need to make.

With regard to the period of reflection, very real fears remain that such a process would be subject to abuse. Rather than providing a time for those who have genuinely been traumatised to recover and consider what steps to take next, it is feared that it will be seized upon by the unscrupulous to delay their removal from the United Kingdom and to make good their disappearance. In addition, large numbers of victims making false claims of having been trafficked would stretch support services to the extent that provision for genuine cases may suffer. That would not be in the interests of genuine victims.

That is not to say that we do not offer protection to those in genuine need; we do. There is existing provision within current United Kingdom immigration legislation far the exercise of discretion to hold removal action in abeyance in specific circumstances. It is also the case that all relevant information, including previous co-operation with the authorities and the likelihood that a person has put themselves or their family at risk from reprisals in their country of origin, is considered when assessing any application to enter or remain in the United Kingdom. Given this existing flexibility, we do not see the value in a blanket requirement on parties to introduce measures along the lines proposed.

So when I say that we approach this on a case-by-case basis, that is very important. No two of these cases are exactly the same. What we have to do to support one case we may not have to do in another. Issuing a residence permit to victims would hamper the Immigration Service's ability to take action against those who have entered the country illegally, even in cases where it has been shown that their application was fraudulent and the offer of co-operation was unfulfilled. The diversion of resources into investigating such wrongful or unsupported claims would have a significant impact on our ability to take action against traffickers.

The report from the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights of the European Parliament relates to the proposed EU directive seeking the issue of short-term residence permits for both the victims of trafficking and those who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration who co-operate with the authorities. In effect, it will benefit not only the woman who is kidnapped and brought here to work in the most brutal of circumstances—whom we believe none of us would hesitate to describe as a victim deserving of our help and assistance—but also someone who paid a lorry driver to hide him in the back of his wagon so that he might enter the United Kingdom and seek illegal employment, as long as that individual decides to provide evidence against those who helped him.

We do not believe that the latter could properly be described as a "victim" in quite the same way as the former. We think that the diversion of resources to help such cases would be an unwelcome development. It is for that very reason—and the potentially considerable number of cases to which it could apply—that the United Kingdom decided not to opt-in to that directive. I understand that the directive is undergoing some revision, and I can assure noble Lords that we will consider our position once a final draft is produced and adopted. We remain absolutely committed to combating and preventing all forms of human trafficking and to providing appropriate support to the victims of such abuse. But we do not think that we can adopt these particular proposals now.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised the issue of what guidance was given to staff in relation to trafficking. We have a trafficking toolkit that is available to all staff, especially immigration officers, to help them to identify victims of trafficking. The Committee will know that training is provided, but I cannot stand here and guarantee that absolutely every immigration officer to whom we have given proper training and the toolkit will use it appropriately on each and every occasion. I wish that I had the power to do so. All I can tell the Committee is that we will use our best endeavours to ensure that appropriate training and advice and the toolkit are made available for use. Whether immigration officers follow instruction seems very much to be a matter for themselves.

7.30 p.m.

Lord Hylton

I am extremely grateful to those noble Lords who were kind enough to add their names to my amendment. I also express my thanks to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate, which was helpful to me at least, for the degree of support and sympathy that I received from nearly all quarters. The wider ramifications of the question have been well brought out tonight. I am also grateful to the Minister for the spirit in which she gave her complicated and analytical response. She also brought out the great complexity of the subject matter. I am grateful to her for a number of the things that she said. I realise that my amendment is perhaps premature and that its wording is almost certainly inadequate. At this time of the night, given the probability of needing to come back to this at the next stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

In view of the hour, this would be an appropriate moment for the House to resume. I propose that the Committee resume no later than 8.35 p.m. I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.