Clause 113 - traffic in prostitution
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
5:45 pm
Mr Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow, Labour)
I beg to move amendment No. 259, in page 58, line 42, leave out from 'if' to 'in' in line 43 and insert
'he uses force, coercion, or deception, or abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability'.
The purpose of the amendment is to clarify the effects of the clause and ensure that it is effective. Anyone who has looked at trafficking in prostitution, not only in the UK but across the European Union, knows that it has grown on an alarming scale over the past few years. North London university carried out research on the issue for the Home Office a couple of years ago. A report by an NGO last year suggested that several hundred women and children are trafficked for prostitution every year in the UK alone.
In December last year, hon. Members were shown some disturbing examples of trafficking in prostitution, particularly near ports. In West Sussex, for example, social services have over the past few years identified 66 children—nearly all girls—who had been brought into the country and claimed asylum as unaccompanied minors. They had disappeared shortly after being taken into care by social services because of that claim. Traffickers had made contact with them. It is suspected in most cases that they were no longer in the UK but in other European countries, several almost certainly in Italy. Many west African women who end up in prostitution are brought through the UK to Italy. Quite a lot of the examples of the cases discovered in the UK involve women and children from eastern Europe. It is a nasty, and lucrative, business.
Everyone to whom I have spoken about the issue welcomes the fact that the Government are starting to do something about it. The provisions in the clause are interim ones, because many of the measures necessary
to deal with the problem would come under criminal justice rather than immigration and nationality legislation. When, in the not too distant future, we debate a new criminal justice Bill, I hope that this will be an important element of it.
The wording of the clause puzzles me. The UK is already signed up to the wording in the UN protocol for dealing with the trafficking of women and children. Some of the same words—''force'', ''coercion'', ''deception'', ''abuse of power'' and ''position of vulnerability''—are used in my amendment, and indeed in the EU framework decision on combating trafficking, which is due for formal adoption at a Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting within the next few weeks.
At the beginning of May, the Home Office wrote to Anti-Slavery International, pointing out that signing the UN protocol and negotiating the EU framework decision showed that the Government were committed to introducing legislation. In response to questions raised by Anti-Slavery International, the Home Office stated:
''Like you it is keen to ensure that the same definition of trafficking is used domestically and internationally.''
I therefore found it surprising when I saw the definition in the clause, which is not exactly the same. It could be argued that the effects will be the same, but that is to be established. The EU definition pinpoints the methods used: force, deception and preying on vulnerable people.
The amendment would also remove the phrase ''for purposes of gain''. The intention is to make it easier to prosecute: it would still be necessary to prove coercion and deception, but not additionally to demonstrate that the person had directly benefited financially.
I welcome the clause generally and tabled the amendment to satisfy myself that the clause will achieve what we want it to and that it fits in with the other definitions to which we are signing up in the UN protocol and EU framework decision. As I said, I remain puzzled about the different wording. I also want to ensure that people are prosecuted and to make it easier to progress the prosecutions.