Andrew Gilbert: Ratify convention against human trafficking

Andrew is a Solicitor, Senior Lecturer in Law, Huntingdonshire District Councillor, and member of the CSJ's Writers' Forum.

> Policy Summary

Ratify and implement the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings.

> Policy Explanation

Almost two hundred years since the enactment of the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act 1807, the United Kingdom is faced with the challenge of how to tackle a modern manifestation of slavery. Trafficking in human beings is now a global problem, affecting almost every nation, and touching the lives of millions of adults and children. While a Home Office report from 2000 estimated that between 142 and 1420 women were victims of sex trafficking each year, the inherently covert nature of human trafficking makes it difficult to obtain accurate data concerning the scale of the problem.

The knowledge base concerning child trafficking in the UK is even less substantial and reliable. The exact extent of trafficking activity, both globally and in the UK, is simply unknown. What is clear, however, is that urgent and effective action is required to stem the tide of this most dehumanising crime.

Trafficking is essentially the movement of human beings by means of threat, force or deception for the purpose of exploitation. It can be distinguished from people smuggling in that smuggling is usually limited to delivering a person to the country they wish to enter, at which point the relationship between the smuggler and the smuggled comes to an end and the illegal migrant is left to their own devices. By contrast the will of trafficking victims remains subjugated to the trafficker throughout the period of exploitation.

Human trafficking has only been a discrete offence in English law since the enactment of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The relevant provisions of that Act have now been replaced by sections 57, 58 and 59 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which deal respectively with trafficking into, trafficking within, and trafficking out of the UK for the purpose of sexual exploitation. Trafficking for purposes other than sexual exploitation (e.g. domestic labour) is caught by the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. All offences carry a maximum prison sentence of 14 years. 

The Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings was finalised on 16 May 2005 and is a comprehensive treaty focussing on three main purposes: to prevent and combat trafficking; to protect the human rights of victims; and to promote international cooperation on action against the crime. To date 32 member states have signed the Convention and two have gone on to ratify it (Moldova and Romania). In many respects the UK is already acting in ways consistent with the Convention (notably in its concerted law-enforcement efforts), but it is in the area of the treatment of victims that it appears most to be falling short.

Current policy appears unclear and there is evidence that some victims have been deported within days of being rescued, with the consequent danger that they may be quickly retrafficked upon their return home. Under the Convention victims are entitled to a temporary residence permit and to a 'reflection period' of at least 30 days. The reflection period is designed to enable the victim 'to recover and escape the influence of traffickers and/or to take an informed decision on cooperating [in giving evidence against their traffickers] with the competent authorities'.

The government is currently refusing to sign the Convention because of concerns that it will create a 'pull factor', encouraging illegal immigrants to present themselves as trafficking victims in order to obtain preferable treatment. This is in spite of the fact that such concerns have not been an insurmountable problem to the numerous countries that have already signed up to it, including some with more porous borders than our own such as Germany and the Netherlands.

There have been widespread calls for the UK to ratify the Convention by various NGOs such as Anti-Slavery International and Amnesty International as well as by a cross-party group of MPs and peers in a letter to The Times on 27 June 2006. It is submitted that the Conservative party should commit itself to ratifying and implementing the Convention and, after considering compelling evidence from UK NGOs working with victims suggesting that a much longer reflection period is needed, going still further by promising even more generous, yet appropriate, measures of victim support.    

> Policy Risks

Risks

• The policy would need to be presented clearly as an human rights and criminal justice issue and not muddled with the current government's immigration debacle. There is a danger that the (probably) spurious 'pull factor' argument could carry significant and unjustifiable weight in the current climate.
• There is a danger that we are seen to be signing up to 'yet another European convention'. The stock of the European Convention on Human Rights is currently relatively low in the public's perception and without proper explanation of the trafficking Convention the public may have little appetite for signing up.

Opportunities

• To demonstrate a coordinated anti-trafficking approach from both criminal justice and human rights perspectives.
• To be seen to be following good practice in the eyes of the international community and taking a global lead against a global problem.
• To send an unequivocal statement to traffickers that the UK is off-limits to their activities, and to victims that if they are rescued in the UK they will treated compassionately and given appropriate support.

> Questions for ConservativeHome Readers

• The Convention sets out recommended minimums. Should the UK go further in its support of trafficking victims? (The average stay of trafficking victims with the Poppy Project (a London-based trafficking victim support service) is around 8 months.)
• If it transpires that ratification does serve as a 'pull factor', how can the procedures for dealing with purported trafficking victims be sufficiently robust to identify bogus victims whilst at the same time protecting those who have genuinely been caught up in trafficking?
• Should we look to provide the various rights afforded under the Convention through purely domestic measures rather than resorting to ratifying the Convention?

> Costs

The costs are not known at this stage. Clearly costs would be incurred as a result of mounting ongoing counter-trafficking operations as well as providing support services to rescued trafficking victims. By way of illustration, the Poppy Project has received a Home Office contribution of £2.4 million over 2 years to fund its work with up to 25 victims at any one time. There is scope for costs to be met (at least in part) from the recovery of traffickers' criminal assets.

 

Comments

[Adrian Owens]

Good to see 100policies back.

I agree with all the points Andrew makes, except I'm unsure of the need to sign the European convention. This risks muddling our message, when we are sceptical of other European conventions.

Better to deal with the scandal of human trafficking ourselves and lead others by example. After all, Wilberforce and Britain took a lead 200 years ago.

[Amber Rudd]

I am so pleased to see this issue raised. I have been discussing with a friend at Amnesty how to raise Conservative support and awareness and am keen to help to lobby to get it signed.

30 other countries have signed it and we continue to leave these vicitims of trafficing unprotected while the Government refuses to sign.

I'm going to take it further with Amnesty and will let you know how I get on.

[Angelo Basu]

Would it not be possible just to amend UK law to give victims the additional protection that the Convention stipulates (or indeed more if justified)? If so, there seems to be little benefit in making it look as if we are merely implementing an international agreement rather than independently deciding that something needs to be done by us.

[Mark Wadsworth]

Glad to see 100 Policies back.

This sort of proposal sounds fine in principle but is it not already covered by existing UK laws?

[RKO]

An excellent idea. I am surprised and disappointed we haven't already signed up.

For anyone interested in the subject of human trafficking I recommend Lukas Moodysson's excellent film "Lilya 4 Ever" with the delightful Oksana Akinshina. Be warned though, it's very gritty and not for the emotionally faint-hearted.

[Jack Bains]

Good to see the 100 policies back - but I hope that we are not going to settle for safe policy proposals. Lets see some real meaty ideas put forward.

Yes to this one though.

[Andrew Gilbert]

Thank you to everyone who has commented so far. I thought it might be helpful to respond to some of the points raised.

Angelo Basu asked if we can simply amend UK law to give victims equivalent protections to those prescribed in the convention. The answer is that there is nothing to stop the UK doing so. It needs to be borne in mind though that the convention deals with more than just victims' rights. It also covers measures to prevent trafficking and reduce demand, stipulations regarding substantive anti-trafficking law (the UK has already complied with this), investigation of trafficking crimes etc. There are also other provisions where the UK is leading the way in Europe, e.g. we recently set up the UK Human Trafficking Centre (ukhtc.org) which is the first of its kind in Europe.

Most of the convention's provision are too broad to be translated directly into domestic legislation but it does provide a sort of 'off the shelf' raft of anti-trafficking measures. Even if we did ratify we would still need some Westminster legislation to implement it and/or changes in official circulars etc. It makes a lot of sense to sign and implement it (and I believe it is possible to do so and ensure that we minimise the effects of any potential immigration 'pull factor'), but what should most concern us I suggest is that the UK is actually coming down hard on traffickers and providing appropriate support for victims whether that is under a convention or not.

Mark Wadsworth asked if these matters are already covered by existing UK laws. The short answer is no. We have law creating the criminal offences of trafficking for sexual exploitation (2003 Act) and trafficking for other purposes (2004 Act). Those Acts simply detail the criminal offences. There is no other primary or secondary legislation dealing with human trafficking and the status of victims etc. (Unless the victim is in the UK illegally, in which case they might be dealt with under general immigration law. There are currently no special provisions for trafficking victims in immigration law.)

By the way, if you are keen enough to want to have a look at the convention for yourself then you can find it at:

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/197.htm

[The Commonwealthsman]

Ratification of the Convention would demonstrate our continuing national committment to the twin causes of liberty and social justice which have defined our people for so long.

As Simon Schama has said, if Britain is to have a distinctive future in the modern age, “It had better keep faith with the best traditions in its long history, a history that tied together social justice with bloody-minded liberty." If this is true then ratification of the treaty is an imperative.

[Amber Rudd]

I had a substantial conversation with Amnesty about the Government's obstinate reluctance to sign this. They are unclear why they are holding out, having got them to agree that "backdoor immigration" was not a good reason and nor was their alternative "special project" route a viable alternative. There is a view that they could be literally holding out so that they can announce agreeing to it in March next year, which is the 200th anniversary of Wilberforce's successful abolitionist campaign. A very cynical ploy if true. The UK remains the number one European country for trafficking. We need to lobby hard to get the Government to focus on this and do it now.

[Andrew Gilbert]

Amber, thank you for your last post. I agree that we need to continue to lobby hard regarding this matter. I had not previously heard the theory about the 200th anniversary announcement - if true, cynical indeed. In the meantime there is a great opportunity to fill the government's silence with a clear commitment from the Conservative party that trafficking victims should/will be accorded protection in UK law at least equivalent to the Convention standards.