
Slavery victims cannot be ‘abandoned' over loophole concerns, says Theresa May
The Conservative peer made the impassioned point after concerns were raised by her own frontbench that her attempt to protect those who fall prey to trafficking could be exploited by 'bad actors'.
Baroness May of Maidenhead, who as home secretary introduced the Modern Slavery Act, was speaking as peers continued their detailed scrutiny of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which has already cleared the Commons.
Labour's flagship immigration reforms would introduce new offences and counter terror-style powers to tackle people smugglers bringing migrants across the English Channel.
People selling and handling boat parts suspected of being used in migrant Channel crossings could face up to 14 years in prison and the Government wants to make it an offence to endanger another life during sea crossings to the UK.
The total number of people crossing the Channel in small boats this year now stands at more than 21,000, a record for this point in the year.
But Lady May was concerned trafficking victims could end up falling foul of the law by committing an immigration offence under coercion and called for 'duress of slavery' to be made a legal defence.
She said: 'My concern is that in the attempt to smash the gangs, the Government may inadvertently catch up within the requirements of this Bill those who are acting not in order to make money or simply for themselves but because they have been forced to do so by their traffickers or slave drivers. They are acting under the duress of modern slavery.'
Lady May added: 'It may very well be that somebody who is being brought under duress of slavery, who is being trafficked into sexual exploitation, for example, may in effect be committing an immigration crime. I believe that they should have the ability to use the fact that it was under duress of slavery as a reasonable excuse for a defence.'
She told peers: 'If we are all agreed that people who have been enslaved should not be caught up by this Bill and be charged with these offences, then I urge the minister to accept that that needs to be specified on the face of the Bill.'
But former archbishop of York Lord Sentamu said: 'What about a member of one of these criminal gangs that are bringing people over? They could easily say as their defence, 'I was under duress when I did what I have done'. What would be the response to such a line of defence?'
Conservative shadow Home Office minister Lord Davies of Gower said: 'It is the duty of government to seek to protect those who are under duress of slavery.'
But he added: 'This amendment might risk creating a considerable loophole which could be easily exploited by bad actors. This is not to say that I do not support the intent behind the amendment.'
Responding, Lady May pointed out there was a mechanism in place for assessing if someone had genuinely been enslaved and trafficked into exploitation.
She said: 'That should, if the process works well, weed out criminal gang members who claim such modern slavery. That addresses the loophole point Lord Davies of Gower raised.'
She added: 'It is very tempting to say, as has been said to me by some colleagues, that all of this just creates loopholes.
'But I say to them that if we are genuinely concerned that slavery exists in our world today, in 2025, and that people are being brought into our country into slavery – that they are being trafficked by criminal gangs which make money out of their expectations, hopes and misery when they face exploitation and slavery – and if we feel that that is wrong, we should do something about it.
'We draw our legislation up carefully so that we do our best not to create loopholes.
'But we cannot simply say that we abandon those in slavery, or those who are being exploited, because we are worried about a loophole.'
Home Office minister Lord Hanson of Flint argued protections being sought by Lady May were already covered by the Modern Slavery Act.
A provision in the 2015 law 'provides a statutory defence against prosecution where an individual was compelled to commit an offence as a result of their exploitation', he said.
Other changes proposed by Lady May to the legislation included ensuring the confiscated belongings of potential slavery victims were safeguarded so they may later be used to prove their status.
She also called for a provision under which slavery victims coerced into acting as a guardian for children during sea crossings are not prosecuted for 'endangering another' as proposed by the Bill for people smugglers.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
Police hunt for teenager missing from Redcar for over a month
A 'vulnerable' 18-year-old woman has been missing for more than a month after she was last seen heading to a beach and some of her clothes were found there. Police in Cleveland are growing increasingly worried about Serren Bennett, who was last seen walking alone towards Redcar beach on the evening of Sunday 8 June. Detectives, who believe she stayed in the beach area, say her family members confirmed that clothing found at the beach was hers. 'She is vulnerable, and officers have growing concerns for her welfare,' Cleveland Police posted. The teenager was last seen in Guisborough, at around 7pm that evening, heading from De Brus Way towards Church Lane. Officers say they believe she headed towards the beach area near Majuba car park or South Gare. Superintendent Emily Harrison said: 'From CCTV, we can see that Serren headed towards the beach alone on the evening of Sunday 8 June. Clothing has been recovered from the beach which has been confirmed by family as belonging to Serren. 'We have no other missing people reported to us in this area. We have specialist officers supporting Serren's family and providing them with updates on police activity during this extremely difficult time. 'Our enquiries are now centred around the beach as we continue to do everything possible to locate Serren as quickly as we can.' Serren, who is described as 5'6' tall with brown hair and brown eyes, was wearing a black coat with fur on the hood, a black skirt, black tights and black shoes. Police are appealing for anyone who may have seen Serren at the beach to contact them urgently.


Daily Mail
32 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Bailey provokes Chancellor over pension fund plan - but he does have a point, says ALEX BRUMMER
Andrew Bailey and Rachel Reeves may be former Bank of England colleagues. But it does not mean they always sing from the same songsheet. The Governor has been uneasy for some time about Labour assuming powers to mandate pension funds to invest in riskier assets. The Pension Schemes Bill, introduced in the House of Commons this week, would give ministers 'backstop' capability. The Government would assume powers requiring trustees to plough up to 10 per cent of funds into infrastructure, private firms, start-ups and equities. Governor Bailey acknowledges the case for greater retirement fund investment in Britain but does not support compulsion. One doesn't have to be a free marketeer to recognise Bailey has a point. Reeves has been impressed by the way that the Australian and Canadian pension fund managers invest beyond domestic shares and infrastructure. They also co- invest in UK assets such as Heathrow. British pension funds are nowhere to be seen at a time when Labour is seeking to speed up and bolster investment in cleaner energy and transport projects. Taking reserve powers over the pension funds might, however, cut across the fiduciary duty which state trustees must invest safely and cautiously for pensioners and future retirees. There must also be a fear of what might happen should a less scrupulous government than that led by Keir Starmer were to grab the reins of power. A leftie or populist administration might seek to take assets into part-public ownership or only back projects favoured by trades unions or financial backers of the governing party. The Reeves-Bailey pensions dispute is nothing like the bitter, public assault on chairman Jay Powell and the independent Federal Reserve by Donald Trump in the US. He wants rid of Powell and to see borrowing costs slashed. Reeves too craves lower UK borrowing costs before growth heads over the horizon. One trusts the Chancellor is conscious enough of the sensitivity of Bank independence not to rock the boat. Drug therapy Whatever happened to the Government's life sciences strategy? Britain's pharmaceutical giants are caught in a regulatory pincer movement. On this side of the Atlantic, differences between science minister Patrick Vallance and the Treasury over rebates to the Government on drug sales is proving a block to better access by the UK's life science pioneers to innovation in the NHS. In the US, President Trump is threatening a 200 per cent tariff on imported medicines unless the pharma industry gets its act together. The White House argues that dependence on foreign drug supplies is a national security threat. Both AstraZeneca and GSK have substantial research and manufacturing capacity in America. But there is genuine concern that, as overseas-based and listed enterprises, they could be targeted. Despite the status of Britain's big pharma companies as R&D powerhouses, with an opportunity to make an enormous contribution to growth, they are failing to get the attention they should from the Government. There is a brief reference to a special status for UK pharma in Britain's outline trade deal with the US. But almost all the efforts of negotiators has been on the UK's steel industry and car makers. It is not surprising that Pascal Soriot, chief executive of AstraZeneca, is reported to have considered shifting Britain's most highly valued enterprise to the US. Drug firms were initially encouraged by NHS reforms to make greater use of digital tech to test new treatments and roll them out quickly in Britain. There is acute pain over the failure of the Government to recognise the critical role of the sector in fuelling productivity and growth. Comeback kid? New chairman Philip Jansen's work is cut out if he is to reverse the fortunes of UK marketing powerhouse WPP. Shares in the group plunged 18.8 per cent after the advertising group scythed its revenue and earnings projections. Maybe WPP creator Martin Sorrell could come to the rescue with a reverse takeover masterminded by his S4 Capital digital and AI-enabled agency.


The Independent
32 minutes ago
- The Independent
Government sees off backbench rebellion as welfare reforms clear Commons
A proposed benefit cut for future out-of-work claimants has cleared the Commons after Labour ministers saw off a backbench rebellion. The Universal Credit Bill cleared the Commons at third reading, after it received MPs' backing by 336 votes to 242, majority 94. 'If you can work, you should,' social security minister Sir Stephen Timms told MPs before they voted on the welfare reforms. 'If you need help into work, the Government should provide it, and those who can't work must be able to live with dignity. 'Those are the principles underpinning what we're doing.' Work and pensions ministers faced calls to walk away from their universal credit (UC) proposals at the 11th hour, after they shelved plans to reform the separate personal independence payment (Pip) benefit and vowed to only bring in changes following a review. 'When this Bill started its life, the Government was advocating for cuts to Pip claimants and UC health claimants now and in the future. They conceded that now wasn't right, and it was only the future,' Labour MP for Hartlepool Jonathan Brash said. 'Then they conceded it shouldn't be Pip claimants in the future, leaving only UC health claimants in the future. Does (Sir Stephen) understand the anxiety and confusion this has caused people in the disabled community, and would it not be better to pause and wait for the review and do it properly?' Sir Stephen replied: 'No, because reform is urgently needed. We were elected to deliver change and that is what we must do. 'And it's particularly scandalous that the system gives up on young people in such enormous numbers – nearly a million not in employment, education or training.' The minister said the Government wanted to 'get on and tackle the disability employment gap' and added the Bill 'addresses the severe work disincentives in universal credit, it protects those we don't ever expect to work from universal credit reassessment'. As part of the Bill, the basic universal credit standard allowance will rise at least in line with inflation until 2029/30. But the Government has proposed freezing the 'limited capability for work' (LCW) part of the benefit until 2030, which a group of 37 Labour rebels including Mr Brash opposed in a vote. The move was ultimately approved by 335 votes to 135, majority 200. New claimants who sign up for the 'limited capability for work and work-related activity' payment would receive a lower rate than existing claimants after April 2026, unless they meet a set of severe conditions criteria or are terminally ill, which the same rebels also opposed. Rachael Maskell, the Labour MP for York Central who was among them, had earlier said: 'No matter what spin, to pass the Bill tonight, this will leave such a stain on our great party, founded on values of equality and justice.' She warned that making changes to universal credit before a wider look at reform was putting 'the cart before the horse, the vote before the review', and branded the Government's decision-making an 'omnishambles'. Ms Maskell pressed her own amendment to a division, which she lost by 334 votes to 149, majority 185. It would have demanded that out-of-work benefit claimants with a 'fluctuating medical condition' who slip out of and then back into their eligibility criteria either side of the changes would receive their existing – not the lower – rate. Marie Tidball said that during the review of Pip, which Sir Stephen was tasked with leading, 'the voices of disabled people must be front and centre'. She proposed putting a series of legal conditions on the so-called Timms review, including that disabled people should be actively involved in the process. The Labour MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge did not move her amendment to a vote, on the basis Sir Stephen could offer 'further assurances that there will be sufficient link between the Timms review recommendations and subsequent legislation on Pip to ensure accountability and that the voices of disabled people are heard'. The minister said he could give her that assurance, and added that 'the outcome of the review will be central to the legislation that follows'. A total 47 Labour MPs voted against the Bill at third reading including Mr Brash, Ms Maskell, Mother of the House and Hackney North and Stoke Newington MP Diane Abbott, and former minister Dawn Butler. The Bill will undergo further scrutiny in the Lords at a later date.