On 12th June 2023, the House of Lords debated the Illegal Migration Bill in the fourth day of committee. During the debate, the Bishop of Durham spoke in support of the removal of clauses 22 to 24, and clause 27, from the bill, on the grounds that these clauses withdraw essential protections and support from victims of modern slavery:
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I rise to support the removal of Clauses 22 to 24 and 27, as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my right reverend friend the Bishop of Bristol. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, noted, many of the arguments are similar to those related to Clause 21, so we will not repeat them.
Clauses 22 to 24 carry through the logic of Clause 21 and remove protections and support from those who, crucially, have already been identified and assessed as having reasonable grounds to be considered a victim of trafficking or modern slavery. These victims are not self-identified or -assessed. They have to be referred by a first responder agency, such as the police, and assessed by the competent authority.
The insidious nature of applying these provisions retrospectively is that there are people now in safe houses who are receiving specialist support to rebuild their lives or to build a legal case against their abuser that might be used by law enforcement. To have those protections and support removed from them before a conclusive grounds decision can be reached on their case seems cruel. Someone who has potentially just escaped an abusive situation and has been assessed by a first responder and the Home Office as having a reasonable case and who is for the first time receiving support from a specialist agency could be told out of the blue that support is withdrawn and they are subject to detention and removal. To deter one group of people, we will wash our hands of a much larger group who did not arrive by boat or even necessarily of their own volition.
The long and short of these clauses is that to weed out an unknown and unproven level of abuse, and without any evidence that it will deter Channel crossings, we will be simply abandoning victims. We will be doing so in a thoroughly dramatic and cruel way by withdrawing support that has been offered. I cannot see this is justifiable, still less desirable, and I ask the Minister to consider the clauses in their entirety.
Extracts from the speeches that followed:
Lord Paddick (LD): My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said when he introduced this group of amendments, it is quite extraordinary to deny assistance and support to the victims of modern slavery, as provided by Section 50(1)(a) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said, it is cruel to do this.
Modern slavery is a devolved matter in relation to the support provided to victims, yet the Bill appears to undermine devolution in overruling the provision of support provided in Northern Ireland and Scotland. It was very interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, quite rightly highlighting the issues facing Northern Ireland, with its border with the European Union and the common travel area. It was even more interesting to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, about how this Bill potentially conflicts with EU directives that Northern Ireland is still subject to. It will be very interesting to hear the Minister’s answers on the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, in particular.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con, Home Office): I assure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham that anyone who has arrived illegally in the UK on or after 7 March and before commencement would in this period receive support as now.
Lord Coaker (Lab): Notwithstanding all of that—and obviously I will beg leave to withdraw the amendment—there is an issue, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham pointed out. Clause 22 specifically says that there is a duty to provide assistance and support to somebody who has received a positive reasonable grounds decision. If they have arrived irregularly, which in most circumstances they will have done, they will be denied assistance and support. In the face of the victims many of us have met, including me, that is just not credible. If you meet victims of forced labour and sexual exploitation, you see that the assistance and support they receive is essential. It is not just something helpful that is provided—it is absolutely essential. Under Clause 22, that is going to be stripped away from people who have arrived irregularly, including those who the Government themselves, under the rules they have set up, have determined to have a reasonable grounds decision while they wait to see if a conclusive grounds decision will be made. This is obviously something we will need to come back to but, with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Church of England in Parliament 
You must be logged in to post a comment.