Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [HL]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness and to other Members of the Committee for seeking to ensure that the duty will apply to any work done by the UKBA to prevent trafficking of children. Such is the purpose of the two amendments here, as well as an amendment seeking to apply the duty to all children. On Amendment 112B, human trafficking, as the Committee agrees, is an appalling crime. Our overall aim is to make the United Kingdom a hostile environment for trafficking and to protect its victims. The United Kingdom therefore adopts a victim-centred approach to combating trafficking, including child trafficking. This is embodied in the UK Action Plan on Tackling Human Trafficking, updated in July 2008, which has a specific chapter on child trafficking and their care. The duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children applies to all children in the UK encountered by the UK Border Agency in the discharge of its functions, which includes the prevention of trafficking and enforcement activities. On December 17 2008, we ratified the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking. This sets out minimum standards of care for victims of trafficking. Within that, we are giving specific consideration to the needs of child victims. We are also compliant with other relevant international instruments, including the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children, and the EU framework decision on trafficking which sets out EU legislation on this issue and also has a focus on child victims and their welfare. While immigration considerations are important, trafficking is a much wider issue. Human trafficking is viewed primarily as a serious organised crime by international bodies such as the UN, by the UK Government and by law enforcement agencies such as the Serious Organised Crime Agency, for which combating organised immigration crime, including human trafficking, is their second-highest priority. It therefore includes, but is not limited to, immigration considerations. An amendment to include combating trafficking in the list of immigration functions of the Secretary of State is therefore not appropriate. However, it is also not needed. We already take a victim-centred approach to combating trafficking. I trust that the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw the amendment. The second amendment seeks to say that all children in the United Kingdom will be included in the duty. The amendment is unnecessary because the current definition already applies without any qualification or reservation to all persons under the age of 18. I should like to reassure Members of the Committee that we have no intention of treating children in the immigration system any differently from other children in the UK. Quite the opposite; we have said on numerous occasions that every child matters as much if they are subject to immigration control as if they are British citizens. To that end we have deliberately adopted the definition of children in the Children Act 2004 to achieve parity with the duty in Section 11 of that Act. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that Section 65(1) of the Children Act 2004 states that "child" means a person under the age of 18, and we have used the same definition. The duty proposed in the Bill is therefore already a general duty that applies to all children. The amendment is not needed for it to be fully effective. The third amendment covers a serious situation, but it is perhaps not the most appropriate means of preventing the wrong that is intended. Human trafficking is not limited to sexual exploitation, and the Government are committed to tackling it in all its forms. Section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004 criminalises the trafficking of people, including children, for non-sexual exploitation. Concerns that young people might not be sufficiently protected were raised at that time, and the Act strengthened. Section 4(4)(d) of that Act makes it an offence to arrange or facilitate the entry into the UK of a young or vulnerable person with the intention of requesting or inducing actions of benefit to another person, that a person with the advantage of age would most likely refuse. This involves the Peace Sandberg case that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, was referring to, which fits directly into that. This ensures we cover exploitation without curtailing legitimate activity. The amendment before us is unsatisfactory because it defines as exploited any child who is in a position of vulnerability. Therefore there is a risk, and it could easily be done this way within law, of criminalising legal activities, such as bringing children to the UK for altruistic purposes, to participate in competitions, cultural visits, choirs and so on. The Government understand the concerns behind the amendment. We have some sympathy with that, and have previously committed to keeping the legislation on human trafficking under review. We intend to look into this matter further and address any situations where exploitation takes place in a trafficking context, but is not covered by the offence, as part of our considerations of the forthcoming Bill to simplify and consolidate immigration legislation. We aim to publish this in draft before the end of this parliamentary Session. There will be an opportunity for consultation on particular issues. On this basis I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.