My Lords, I would like to be associated with the remarks from my noble friend Lady Cox concerning the potential gaps that people could fall through and her remarks and questions about the national referral mechanism and legal representation for those who are caught up in trafficking.
I particularly support Amendment 86J, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and Amendment 86M, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McColl. There is a link between these amendments because the noble Baroness quite rightly identifies those who may have been psychologically traumatised by their experiences. She rightly said that people could be extremely vulnerable and very badly damaged. Any of us who have met people who have been trafficked know that that must be true. If people have been concealed in a vehicle, smuggled into the country and exploited in the ways that have been described in speech after speech in Committee, these grotesque experiences will have maimed them psychologically. Hence it is important that there should be some psychological assessment and support for people who may be suffering from acute trauma and mental illness of one kind or another—something that is always neglected anyway in the National Health Service for our own citizens, let alone for people who have come through these kinds of experiences.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is right to say that people should be assessed psychologically during the investigation of the offence. That theme is picked up in Amendment 86M, in subsection (6)(c) of the proposed new clause, where the noble Lord, Lord McColl, would make provision,
“to assist victims in their physical, psychological and social recovery”—
a point returned to in subsection (10)(c) with,
“medical treatment, including psychological assistance”.
This is a recurring theme in these two amendments and I am surprised that provision is not being mandated anyway by the Bill and wonder whether it is not possible to do what the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have argued for. What do the Government intend to do to safeguard people who may be suffering from mental illness and who may have been traumatised through their experiences?
9.30 pm
I make one other observation, particularly about the list that we have been provided with by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, which, as he said, is rooted in the European Union directive and the convention. I was taken by the fact that, using his customary crystal ball, he was again predicting what the Minister might say in his reply. No doubt the Minister will end up being irritated if too many of us try to anticipate his reply, but he may well say that a list of this kind is something that would not normally be placed on the face of a Bill. However, I would contrast that with the debate that we had earlier on about Schedule 3. We had a long list; indeed, my noble and learned friend pointed out one or two of the things in that list that are unlikely to be involved in trafficking, but nevertheless they are there. I wonder, therefore, if it is not possible to accept the amendment in the way that it has been drafted, whether another schedule could be provided so that these things could be included. After all, we have heard quite rightly from the Government again and again throughout today’s debates, and indeed through all the proceedings on the Bill, that they want it to be victim oriented and they want to place victims at the heart of the legislation. If we were to have lists dealing with offences but not lists dealing with victims, that would be rather bizarre, so I hope that the Minister will be creative when he comes to reply.
I do not wish to put words in the Minister’s mouth but, as he was so generous on a whole series of earlier amendments in saying that the Government would go away and think further about them, I wonder whether there might be a way of incorporating some of the very admirable principles contained in Amendment 86M, including safe accommodation, medical treatment, counselling, information, access to education and to translation and interpretation services. That last is a sine qua non—surely it is a given that that would have to be provided. These are all admirable things, and we should find a way of saying that, in the normal course of things, that is what we would expect to be provided.