My Lords, I am pleased to introduce Amendment 86M in my name, that of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I am grateful for the input of the charities involved in its development, including CARE, ECPAT and the Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group.
The amendment deals with what is, for me, a foundational aspect of any modern slavery Bill worthy of that name, yet it is not adequately provided for in the current draft. The Bill will be the foundation of legislation for all action on modern-day slavery for decades to come. As such, it must have the victims at its heart and make proper provision for them. I welcome the addition of Part 5 following the recommendations of the pre-legislative scrutiny by the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, of which I was privileged to be a member. However, I feel that Clause 48, which provides a mechanism for guidance on identifying and supporting victims, does not go anywhere like far enough to ensure that the Bill is victim-focused.
I thank the Minister for his comments in his letter sent to Peers following Second Reading, sharing the concern that we provide victims with the services that they need. I am pleased to know that the Government are considering the recommendations of the review of the national referral mechanism and hope that this will lead to a significant improvement in the identification of victims and the provision of support services. However, I do not share the view implied in the Minister’s letter that legislating for the NRM will make the system inflexible, nor do I believe that legislation is a distraction from the process of improvement.
In my opinion, Amendment 86M provides a much needed statutory foundation for operational and structural improvements, in response to the critique of victim identification and support in the review. The flexibility of guidance can be useful in responding to changing circumstances, but guidance is not the place to establish fundamental principles. It is my view that the fundamental principles for identifying victims and providing them with support and assistance should be laid out in legislation. Amendment 86M lays out these core principles. The clause relates broadly to two issues: first, the processes around identifying victims; and secondly, supporting victims—how long we should support them and with what types of services.
Let me first turn to the matter of identifying victims. Amendment 86M addresses the fundamental principle that the formal process for identifying victims and conferring on them a certain status that makes them eligible for services and support needs to be transparent through proposed new subsections (1) to (4). During our scrutiny of the draft Bill, the Joint Committee heard evidence from many NGOs that, because the
national referral mechanism is established only in policy and guidance, there is a lack of transparency about decision-making. Anti-Slavery International described this as leading to,
“arbitrariness of application and access for victims”.
The 2013 report from the Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group, Hidden in Plain Sight, indicates that existing guidance relating to processes under the NRM does not seem to be consistently followed, which gives me great cause for concern over the Government’s proposal that guidance under Clause 48 will be sufficient to ensure the correct operation of the NRM process.
I welcome the review of the NRM that has been undertaken and I am pleased that the Modern Slavery Strategy states that the Government are giving serious consideration to its recommendations for a radical restructuring of the process. However, I believe that any such restructured process should ultimately be established in regulations. This was also the view of the Joint Committee, which said that the Home Secretary should set out the process for identification by order. This approach will provide the flexibility which the Minister mentioned in his letter, but equally allows for greater transparency in the process than exists at present.
Amendment 86M requires the Home Secretary to establish the identification process in regulations and to seek the input of an Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner on the guidance about the identification of victims. One key aspect of this transparency is the process for which Amendment 86M specifically provides. It is the creation of an internal and external appeals process. The current NRM process has no such formal mechanisms for review. Where individuals wish to challenge a negative decision, they must either make an informal request for reconsideration or seek judicial review. The informal process, relying as it does simply on the discretion of an official, is in no way transparent and provides no sense of security for victims when they enter the system. On the other hand, judicial review is extremely formal and costly and does not review the substantive merits of the person’s case. A formal built-in appeals process, with the possibility of a second-tier external review, is needed to provide appropriate transparency and accountability. This is why I have proposed new subsection (1)(c). I was rather disappointed with the response of the NRM review to this point. I am not convinced that its proposals for regional multidisciplinary panels will reduce the need for challenge, nor that the review’s suggestion—that another panel chair could offer a second pair of eyes when a review is requested—will be adequate to provide the transparency that is so important. I hope the Government will support my proposal for a more formal process set out in regulations.
I was also disappointed to read that the NRM review reported that the submissions from many NGOs showed overwhelming support for the preservation of the national referral mechanism solely for victims of trafficking. I am sorry, but I disagree. I recognise that international reporting structures and data comparisons mean we need the clarity of specific statistics on victims of trafficking, but we must ensure that there is a clear mechanism for the identification of victims of
slavery who have not been trafficked. Without such a mechanism, we are left, once more, with the problems of transparency which I am seeking to address through Amendment 86M. As it stands, Clause 48 applies to victims of the offences under both Clauses 1 and 2, and this is right. Amendment 86M also applies to victims of slavery and trafficking offences and would require a formal mechanism for identification to be established in regulations.
Having set out the requirements for identification, I turn to proposed new subsection (5). This sets out how long the assistance must be provided for under the reflection and recovery period. There are two questions for your Lordships. First, how long should it be and, secondly, should we set this time period in statute? Those of your Lordships who have studied the European convention will know that our international obligation is to provide a so-called recovery and reflection period of at least 30 days. Such a period shall be sufficient for the person concerned to recover. The UK already has a recovery and reflection period of 45 days, so we are ahead of the minimum. However, I have heard NGOs say, time and again, that even 45 days is not long enough for a victim to properly reflect and recover and that 90 days would be far more appropriate. This is what I am proposing in Amendment 86M. Indeed, the NRM review says:
“Many to whom we spoke thought that victims ‘are failed’ at the end of the 45 day period”.
This is a very sobering assessment of how we are treating victims. Studies show that, during the first three months, a high proportion of victims of human trafficking display symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and that longer reflection periods can greatly improve chances of providing substantial assistance to victims of trafficking. That is why I am supporting a 90-day reflection and recovery period.
9 pm
The question of the length of the reflection and recovery period was raised at Second Reading. I was encouraged that the Minister said that he will be looking at the length of the reflection and recovery period and I hope he will study the evidence that I have mentioned. However, I am concerned that he is waiting for input from the child trafficking advocates trials as it is likely that there will be different issues for adults and children.
Your Lordships may feel that this recovery and reflection period could be governed by guidance but I have been minded to include it in this amendment because GRETA, the Council of Europe’s group of experts, in its 2012 report on UK compliance with the European convention against human trafficking recommended that the right to a recovery and reflection period should be enshrined in law.
In their response to the report, the Government clearly stated that they did not agree that enshrining the reflection and recovery period specifically in UK law was necessary. We completely disagree. We need to demonstrate more clearly this “victim-focused approach” that the Home Office modern slavery strategy speaks of and make clear that the needs of victims are central to this Bill. By doing so, we will give more victims
confidence to come forward and ensure that more of them receive the assistance so vital to their recovery. That will also give them confidence to give testimony against the perpetrators of these horrific crimes. It is with that intention that I have included a requirement to ensure that assistance and support should continue after criminal proceedings take place, as this too is a traumatic experience for victims. It also meets the requirement of Article 11 of the European directive that assistance and support is provided,
“before, during and for an appropriate period of time after the conclusion of criminal proceedings”.
Proposed new subsections (6) to (9) in Amendment 86M would set in statute the principles on which assistance should be given. Proposed new subsection (10) would set out the detail of what “assistance and support” should be provided for victims as a minimum. I should make clear that I have derived these principles and details of assistance from Articles 11 and 14 of the EU directive and Article 12 of the convention; that is, I am setting out what our international obligations already require us to do to support victims of trafficking.
I know that the Minister will tell me that all these services are being provided because we are under international obligations, but my experience on the committee makes me less convinced that this is the case. It seems to me that we need to be a lot more robust on what and how we are providing services. I have already mentioned the GRETA report and I will do so again. The provision of proper assistance and support for victims of trafficking was one of the key recommendations of the GRETA report into UK compliance with the European convention. GRETA said that the UK should,
“ensure that all potential and actual victims of trafficking are provided with adequate support and assistance from their identification through to their recovery”.
Amendment 86M would provide that support and assistance for victims of trafficking and slavery. By putting the obligations in the directive and the convention in statute, your Lordships’ House would be guaranteeing that assistance and support would be provided. Moreover, we will be guaranteeing that the full range of assistance mandated by the international conventions will be available to every victim.
At the moment, the only obligation on this Government and any future Government is that the Home Secretary must issue guidance about the arrangements for providing support. There is no mention in the clause of a duty to provide assistance. Neither is there any requirement that the guidance should cover the types of assistance to be provided or the minimum standards to be met. A statement of the types of support and assistance that I am including in Amendment 86M was recommended by the evidence review chaired by Frank Field MP, which was commissioned by the Home Secretary prior to the publication of the draft Bill. The review stated:
“We believe the Bill should go further and detail the protections, entitlements and support that victims are entitled to. This should lead to a more consistent support regime for victims around the country, which in turn should give victims the confidence that their needs will be met”.
Minimum standards are required to ensure a decent level of service. The issue of consistency in the provision of assistance mentioned in the evidence review is
extremely important. At present, there are no official minimum standards or independent auditing processes for organisations that provide support and assistance to victims. This was a point raised only last month in the NRM review.
The standard of care currently available to victims has been described as a postcode lottery. This cannot be acceptable. It will not surprise your Lordships that another of the GRETA report recommendations was that the UK,
“should adopt clear support service minimum standards for victims of trafficking and the provision of adequate funding to maintain them”.
Minimum standards for care provision were also recommended by the Centre for Social Justice in its report It Happens Here, published in 2013, and by the Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group in 2010, and reiterated in its 2013 report. The same message is coming across loud and clear.
We must take action to ensure that all victims can access the support that they are entitled to as a result of our treaty commitments. Amendment 86M would ensure that support and assistance would be available to victims of both trafficking and slavery through subsection (10) of the proposed new clause, on the basis of an assessment of their needs; and that it would meet minimum standards set out by order of the Secretary of State through proposed new subsection (6)(d). Clause 48 as it stands does none of these things.
In conclusion, we are priding ourselves that this Bill is at the forefront of dealing with modern slavery and I am indeed very pleased to see all the progress that has been made in this area. However, in terms of defining what support we should provide for victims, we are not at the forefront: we are behind the curve. The Bill introduced in Northern Ireland by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow—which has its Final Stage debate tomorrow—has a statutory statement of support and assistance that will be made available to adult victims. I sincerely hope that this House will ensure that we do not remain behind the curve and that we support Amendment 86M.