Jul 11, 2023

A cruel, inhumane and unworkable Bill: The ‘Illegal Migration Bill’ is bad law. It is cruel, inhumane and entirely unworkable. It breaks numerous domestic and international laws. It undermines the universality of human rights in the UK, creating a dangerous precedent that particular groups can be stripped  of  their  rights.  It  has  been  roundly  condemned  by  cross-party  parliamentarians,  the UNHCR, the Council of Europe, numerous UN Special Rapporteurs, the governments of the devolved nations,  the  Children’s  Commissioner  for  England  and  Wales, faith  leaders, and countless civil society groups. The Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Joanna Cherry KC, said “Having carried out legislative scrutiny of the Bill it is overwhelmingly clear that it breaches a number of the UK’s international human rights obligations including the ECHR and risks breaching others.”¹

As   organisations   working   to   end   trafficking   and   modern   slavery,   we   unite   to   urge Parliamentarians to support Lords Amendment 5 on compliance with international obligations

A charter for exploitation, trafficking and modern slavery

The  Illegal  Migration  Bill  is  a  charter  for  exploitation,  trafficking  and  modern  slavery.  It  will effectively dismantle the UK’s systems of trafficking and modern slavery protection, denying protection to victims of crime and enabling perpetrators to act with impunity.

Thousands of survivors will be excluded from NRM protections and face removal

Thousands of victims and survivors of trafficking and modern slavery will be denied access to safety and support under the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) and face detention and removal. This is primarily because so many will fall within the Clause 2 definition. Many victims of trafficking come to the UK by irregular routes, under force, fraud or threat and the abuse of their vulnerability. More still will be disqualified due to a prison sentence served, even if this was for a minor offence or they were prosecuted despite the offence being connected to their trafficking experience. On the basis of the information available, we estimate that at least half of victims and survivors who accessed identification, support and protection under the NRM between January and March this year, would be denied this under the Bill². Instead of the support and protection they can currently receive, they will face detention, removal, or a life in limbo.

Article 4 ECHR and ECAT both prohibit slavery and trafficking and place positive obligations on the UK to protect victims of trafficking, to prevent their exploitation and to prosecute perpetrators. Article 4 ECHR is not a right from which the UK can derogate in times of emergency. States are obliged to set up a ‘spectrum of safeguards [which] must be adequate to ensure the practical and effective  protection  of  the  rights  of  victims  or  potential  victims  of  trafficking’⁴.   The  positive

‘protection’ duty has ‘two principal aims: to protect the victim of trafficking from further harm; and to facilitate his or her recovery⁵. ECAT sets out a series of minimum measures to ensure that victims and  survivors  have  the  assistance  and  support  needed to  recover from  this grave crime. This includes a recovery and reflection period as well as a range of support measures, including medical assistance, accommodation, financial support, and legal advice. This assistance and protection is not conditional on a person’s agreement to cooperate in any law enforcement efforts against the perpetrators or traffickers.

Compliance with international obligations is a fundamental requirement of any state seeking to uphold the rule of law. However, the UK Government has made a section 19(1)(b) HRA statement, stating that it cannot confirm if the Illegal Migration Bill is compatible with the ECHR. More

recently, the Council of Europe has adopted a resolution indicating that the IMB risks “breaching the UK’s international legal obligations and thus the rule of law⁶.”  The Illegal Migration Bill is in clear breach of ECAT. On 29 March 2023, the Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA), who are responsible for monitoring the implementation of ECAT, stressed that, ‘if adopted, the Bill would run contrary to the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Anti-trafficking Convention, to prevent human trafficking, and to identify and protect victims of trafficking, without discrimination⁷.

The UK signed up to the aforementioned international conventions freely, in recognition of its role in the international rules-based system and its responsibility to protect human rights. In supporting this Amendment, Parliament would be reaffirming this important, historic position.

It is important to note that simply reinstating section 3 HRA for the purpose of the Bill is not enough to mitigate the harms of clause 1. This is because, regardless of whether clause 1(5) is removed, the overriding express statutory purpose of removal in clause 1(1) would still apply, with the potential to result in widespread and severe violations of human rights and international law. Therefore, clause 1 must be removed in its entirety.