Human Trafficking

Debate between Lord Field of Birkenhead and Fiona Mactaggart

Thursday 20th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

I am pleased to take part in this debate, and particularly to follow the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who has outlined horrendous events. For the reasons he explained, I joined the all-party group and went with the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) —he is my hon. Friend for this afternoon—to the Backbench Business Committee to ask for this debate. It is incredible that we live in a country that has slavery. Indeed, the Government could take one small initiative and change the name of their working group to the “ministerial counter-slavery group”, so that we are very clear about what is going on here. It has been going on for decades.

Although I was shocked by the circumstances that have been described, I was also pretty shocked by the lightness of the sentences. When we think that two decades of some people’s lives have been taken away—there are several of them in several areas—to merely get a sentence of a decade or three or four years is pretty small beer for the wickedness committed. There are many wickednesses in this world. Of those that are human-made, this clearly must rank as one of the great ones. I find it puzzling that there is not much anger and interest in the country to counter this evil that stalks among us. What would Wilberforce have made of this if he had come back or been contacted in a séance? What would he make of his campaign and our behaviour that follows it?

Although I welcome and congratulate the Government on the landmark publication in October of the first annual report of what I would like to be called “the ministerial counter-slavery group,” which is a step forward, I do not want anyone to be complacent. I do not want to part company with my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough, but if we look at it, our record in Europe is pretty appalling. Most of us, including me, have a superior attitude to Europe, but we are many, many years behind our European partners. Belgium, for example, has published 15 reports, and we have published one; this is a priority of the coalition Government, and we have one report. That is not the only thing Belgium has done, because it has been quite active.

Although I thank the Backbench Business Committee, it is extraordinary that, for what is a Government priority, we had to go to the Committee to ask for a debate. If I were heading a Government and this was a priority, I would want to talk about it, report on it and gain as much support for it as I could. We should not get too complacent. One of the many things we might ask the Minister is: when are we next going to debate the topic on the Floor of the House in Government time?

Secondly, most European countries allocate parliamentary time to discuss and debate their reports and the recommendations made by their rapporteurs. Again, I emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart): there is all the difference in the world between a group of Ministers occasionally coming together to debate a topic of the day, and having a person with a small number of staff and the responsibility to drive the policy. We would know that that person is responsible and will be ridiculed—or perhaps even sacked—if they do not do what Parliament wishes them to do.

The report is a small beginning, and I hope, as both my hon. Friends the Members for Slough and for Wellingborough said, that we have clear timetables from the Government on how they will achieve certain priorities. As my hon. Friend said, it is true that we had to use parliamentary questions to find out how many times the group met. It is extraordinary that for what is a Government priority—we did not have to use the Freedom of Information Act—we had to use parliamentary questions. The Government saw the priority as so important that they made the group secret. Although there has been some improvement in attendance, the group’s function, other than sharing information with other Government Departments, seems pretty unclear.

However good, the group will now be under the Minister. I do not underestimate his abilities. In a sense, we have events on our side, because he is at the stage of his parliamentary career where he wishes to advance quickly: self-interest and the public good, when combined, can promote many changes, which we will support. Things are clearly going to change, but, however good he is—and, obviously and quite properly, he wishes to promote his own career—conflicts will occur between making trouble and advancing further up that greasy pole. The first thing for a Government with that priority is to give us a rapporteur with the smallest staff possible. I totally agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough on that point.

The report states that the Inter-Departmental Ministerial Group on Human Trafficking—I almost want to give up the will to live with such titles—fulfils a role equivalent to a national rapporteur. All of us who have spoken so far know that that is not true, and the Government ought to drop it. The UK is obliged to establish a rapporteur by the Council of Europe’s trafficking convention and by the incoming EU directive, although there is weasel room to change things. Dishonourably, the Government have taken that little get-out to present a ministerial group without a rapporteur. Just imagine what it would be like if there were a ministerial group working with and supporting a rapporteur, advancing their interests and backing them when they are in difficulties. Might that not begin to match the issue we face? There is slavery in this country. People are taken against their will either inside the country or outside it and made to work. Is there anything more shameful going on? What a move it would be if we had a ministerial group driven by the Minister—I do not doubt for a moment that such a group would be ably driven—and backed up by a national rapporteur.

My concern is that, unless we make that breakthrough, we will not make the progress that I hope the Minister will tell us he hopes to achieve. No other group in this country believes that it should act as judge and jury on its own case. It is important that the Government have an independent jury to consider what is going on, for the report goes into great detail on the number of initiatives introduced by the Government. That progress, of course, is to be cheered and welcomed by everyone with an interest, but little effort has been made to analyse the impact and effectiveness of those initiatives. Where in the report can we look at outcomes? What outcomes are being set by the interdepartmental ministerial group—when its members can find the time to turn up? Why should that be so? The answer is plainly obvious: there is naturally a conflict of interest between the Government retaining responsibility for both the design and implementation of anti-trafficking strategies, and the subsequent evaluation of their effectiveness.

An independent rapporteur is necessary to analyse Government policy robustly, to identify shortcomings and to suggest improvements. That is not an anti-Government move. I slightly disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Slough, because an independent rapporteur would give the Government a lot of powerful ammunition to spin, if their aim is to put over what they are achieving.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I was not suggesting that an independent rapporteur would be important as a powerful anti-Government move. My right hon. Friend is right that, where the Government have had successes, an independent rapporteur would strengthen the account of those successes, but it would also have the power of independence, meaning that those bits of the report that I cited, which spin legislation as working when there is no such evidence, would not have been part of the report. The report was damaged by such things existing within it.

[Mr Field]

I agree. I will develop that point, because the interdepartmental ministerial group lacks statutory powers to request information from all relevant Government authorities. I am sure the Minister will not have difficulties in getting such information, but he lacks the statutory authority to do so. That statutory power could be given to the rapporteur.

As a result, the interdepartmental ministerial group relies heavily on information from what is called the national referral mechanism, which is a data-gathering mechanism that can supply only a snapshot of the reality. It cannot give us a moving picture, as mentioned by the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire, which we would get in these reports if there were somebody the only point of whose existence, as far as paying the mortgage was concerned, was to report on this great evil.

Where can we look for best practice? In the Netherlands, the Dutch rapporteur is chaired by a former judge and in Finland by a former Member of Parliament and a member of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Both have a small team of staff who sit apart from the Government, the police and public authorities and actively work full time—unlike the ministerial group—at all levels and with all groups in the community. In contrast, the ministerial group only managed to gather information from one public agency, the UK Human Trafficking Centre. That is entirely at odds with what happens, as other hon. Members have said, in other European countries. In Portugal, for example, the Portuguese Observatory collects and manages information from a wide range of sources and sets benchmarks that we should follow. If we had greater and more accurate data, it would be easier to set those benchmarks.

A glaring failure of the Government’s report is the lack of accurate and meaningful data. I accept that the statistics in this area will always be difficult to collect, but the report is undermined by statistical inconsistencies. Let me illustrate. In 2010, the police’s Project Acumen found 2,600 female adult victims of trafficking. How is that consistent with the report’s predicted total figure of 2,000 for human trafficking victims in the UK, which is for 2011, just one year on? The figures do not add up, which again suggests that if one Minister in the ministerial group had had time to read the whole report, they might have actually spotted that.

The report offers a good overall view of activities undertaken by the Government, but it reveals little in terms of analysis of the problem or the impact of the work undertaken. The picture is clearly so much more complicated than can be provided in a snapshot. How can people be imprisoned in this way—for example, in mid-Bedfordshire or Gloucestershire—for such periods without anybody coming across it, without anybody noticing, and with nobody saying anything or raising the matter? Goodness, gracious me! What level of human sympathy do we have when that can occur?

More of these examples would come to light if we had a situational analysis and impact assessment of how we can more effectively combat trafficking. For example, the report lists the training that was delivered, but no information is provided about the impact of training on improvements in services, the numbers of victims identified, and so on. Similarly, in a number of places the report mentions different Departments or authorities being responsible for implementing elements of the policy. Where is all this brought together? However, it does not go into detail about how and whether these responsibilities are carried out, how they are assessed and what the concrete outcomes of the work undertaken were. We need to see an evaluation from each of the Departments and authorities of the implementation work that falls within their areas of responsibility, and for them to report to the Minister, and for the Minister to report to the House of Commons.

We need a much better analysis of what is happening within the various sectors where victims are exploited, including explanations of rises in particular nationalities, of geographic distribution and of flows and movement of the problem across the UK over time. Again, it would appear that the problem is static and that, somehow, we are dealing with a group of people who do not change their approach. People may say, “Why should they change their approach? They are doing so well with a single approach now.” But they will change if the Government get serious. Spotting and guessing the movements are crucial if we are going to save people from slavery. By “various sectors”, I mean areas into which victims are trafficked. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough cited companies whose products we use that are produced by slaves, including in legal sectors such as agriculture, construction, hospitality and care and domestic work, and illegal sectors such as the sex industry and drug production.

We are also provided with little detailed analysis of the methods of recruitment. How are people trapped in this way, and stripped and publicly humiliated in the way that we have heard? How can that go on for decades? In other countries, breakdowns of incidence of trafficking by region are available, as well as an overall view of police force activities, which courts have dealt with cases, what the outcomes of those cases were, and what the sentences were.

Why do I raise these questions? The answer is pretty obvious. Our lack of data is a key barrier to a more effective response. Much effort in combating human trafficking, or slavery, has focused more on anecdote and sensationalism than on analysis of the problems. We simply do not know to what extent industry in this country, or sections of industry, are dependent on slaves to be viable or what the profit margins of using slaves are for those firms and sectors of our economy. If we had such information, that would alert us to where slavery is operating in our country.

Human trafficking, which, as the Government acknowledge, is modern day slavery, today functions for the same purpose as slavery throughout history: to maximise profits by minimising or eliminating the cost of labour. But there are several key differences with modern slavery that make it more expansive and more insidious than ever before. Slaves today can be exploited in dozens of industries that are intrinsically woven into the global economy, as opposed to just domestic service and agriculture, as was the case when Wilberforce dealt with the issue. It is much more difficult now to locate where slavery is going on.

Of course, the costs today of acquiring a slave and the time taken to transport him or her from the point of acquisition to the point of exploitation are minuscule, compared with those of old world slavery. Victims of human trafficking—again, I would insist on the word “slaves”—are more accessible, expendable, exploitable and profitable than ever before. That is why this evil is so terrible, huge and growing.

Two centuries ago, the average slave could generate, we are told by the experts, a 15% to 20% annual return on the investment for his or her exploiters. It is of course vulgar to use such terms when describing victims, but it is not unhelpful, sometimes, to look at the economic power and force behind the problem. Today, the return is several hundred per cent. per year—not over the life of the slave, but per slave per year—and more than 900% per year for those who are trapped as slaves in the sex industry. This is perhaps the primary reason why there is such demand among exploiters to acquire more slaves through the practice of slave trading. There are more people in slavery today than in the entire 350-year history of the slave trade: more today than ever before, collectively. A snapshot is set against that collective total. A lack of detailed understanding of how and why slave-like exploitation functions in various sectors of the global economy is a primary barrier to a more effective response.

That brings me to the all-party group on human trafficking, and NGOs. Perhaps we also need to change the name of the all-party group, so that it is clearer and shorter. Since 2006, the activities of the all-party group, both inside and outside Parliament, have resulted not just in a significant raising of awareness about the extent of human trafficking in the UK, but also a number of concrete achievements. It influenced the previous Administration—our Labour Government—to join the 2005 Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking and persuaded the current Administration to sign the EU directive on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims. Were I Prime Minister, the thought that I might get the hon. Member for Wellingborough out to support me would have made me sign the directive without even reading what it was about. Were it not for the demands in February of the hon. Gentleman, the chairman of our group, no annual report would have been written, nor would his efforts have been debated. That is, however, only a snapshot of a few of the many important achievements of the group.

Disadvantaged Children

Debate between Lord Field of Birkenhead and Fiona Mactaggart

Thursday 20th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

When I was first elected to the House and we talked about educational achievement, the conversation was nearly always about A-levels and universities. One of the great things about the Government of whom I was pleased to be member was that we shifted the debate from educational achievement by young adults to one about educational achievement at the beginning of education—children learning to read, for example. What is wonderful about today’s debate is the focus on the very beginnings of education and children at the stage when they are learning to talk and listen. These basic skills are the building blocks of our personalities and future abilities to cope with the world.

[Mr Frank Field]

May I also draw attention to the fact that, not only has there been this wonderful change, but it must be the first Parliament in which more Members want to debate this than the horse racing levy? [Laughter.]

[Fiona Mactaggart]

The laughter following that remark shows that my right hon. Friend is supported in his view. It is a positive shift. My suspicion is that it reflects the greater participation of mothers in politics—but I will not push that point too far! We know that disadvantage starts earlier, well before school, and unfortunately gets worse during formal education. Despite the efforts of the previous Government, which I helped with, the gaps in achievement remain stubbornly wide, although we managed to narrow them in some respects. At five, 35% of children who qualify for free school meals achieve a good level of development, compared with 55% of children who do not qualify. The children on free school meals are more likely to be bullied, twice as likely to be permanently excluded, half as likely to get good GCSEs and, despite progress, less likely to go to university.

We need to make it clear that disadvantage is directly associated with poverty in education. There is a further disadvantage, however, to do with boys. The second lowest achieving group of pupils in schools are white British boys. They are exceeded only by Gypsies and Travellers. People have said that it might be because there are too few male teachers in primary schools. As someone who used to educate primary school teachers, I think it is partly because too few young men are interested in small children, and therefore have the skills and qualities that would make someone like me, interviewing students for teacher education courses, consider them capable of becoming good teachers. Perhaps it tells us something about how we bring up young men that they do not know enough about the lives of children.

Immigration

Debate between Lord Field of Birkenhead and Fiona Mactaggart

Thursday 18th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Field]

I am immensely grateful for that intervention. Although I intended to stress that point, I did not wish to labour it. I do not think that there is any disagreement between Members, who, while seeing the advantages of immigration, consider that the argument is essentially about numbers, but who do not wish to control those numbers in a way that would harm any economic recovery. If I ever manage to make progress, I shall say more about that.

I think that the electorate managed to convey to us during the three or so weeks of the general election campaign that their concern extended beyond that which had previously been expressed in the House. In their view, the numbers debate was about the growth of population. We see that all around us. According to the most recent data from the Government, 25% of all babies—50% in London—are now born to women who were not themselves born here. There are regular reports of overcrowding in maternity units. In a number of areas, there is real pressure on many primary schools. At a time when our waiting list for housing is growing, 40% of new households consist of immigrants.

As the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) just said, we must not shoot ourselves in the foot, or, even worse, in the head, by calling for further controls and restrictions that would result in an impairment of the necessary recovery on which many of our constituents depend. The Mayor of London is always the most interesting of political characters in the country, but in this context he has held a position, changed his position, and then changed it again. I hope that he will shortly change it for the fourth time, and take a more rounded view of the issue.

The statement issued by the Mayor for today’s debate has three misleading comments—I will not call them longitudinal inexactitudes. First, it is not true that the figure for the number of people coming here last year would suit the Government’s cap. The 2009 figure for net migration is 196,000. If that is a cap, it may be one that the Mayor of London wishes to wear, but it is not one that I would encourage the Government to wear.

Secondly, the Mayor said that if we restrict immigration, there is a danger that our gross national product will fall. That is based on years when the economy was thriving and growing at a record rate. It is impossible to interpret past data in that way when a huge number of our constituents are unemployed—not long-term unemployed but recently unemployed, and anxious to return to work. Any restriction in the numbers might well help them rather than impeding the growth of GDP.

Thirdly, it is wrong to say that 80% of students leave within five years. It is true that 80% are lost in the system within five years, but we have absolutely no idea whether they leave or not.

The Government recently asked the Migration Advisory Committee to report both on the cap and on how, in the longer term, they could best achieve their goal of reducing the net migration figure, which currently stands at hundreds of thousands, to tens of thousands. It is with pleasure that I record my gratitude—as, I am sure, will other speakers—to David Metcalf, whom I knew long before I came to the House of Commons, for the distinguished and intelligent way in which he has chaired the committee, and for his willingness to engage in debate. I know that he has appeared before the Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East, but his door is open to others who wish to talk to him about this issue.

The report published by the MAC just before we began our debate is helpful. David Metcalf says that the Government are proceeding in the right direction, and suggests that the reduction should be split—20% among those coming here to work and 80% among non-economic migrants. I think we should debate that. We might ask, for instance, whether we should increase the proportion of non-economic migrants within the cap. He did not say—because he did not have the authority to do so—how important it is to take the heat out of the debate. Perhaps we can move the debate on, by being more relaxed about people coming here to work while also being more concerned about that becoming a route which automatically leads to citizenship.

In the spirit of a constructive debate, may I suggest four ways in which the Government might seek to meet their coalition pledge to reduce net migration significantly? First, I do not see how the Government can make sense of this debate—on which they have, thank goodness, now embarked—unless they look at student numbers. To June this year, those numbers are up 26% on last year, at 362,000. When I make the plea for the Government to look at this area, I am not talking about what most of us would regard as universities. I am asking the Government to focus on what are clearly bogus colleges that have realised that they can sell courses by implying, “Entry to the UK, and from here you can disappear into the UK labour market.”

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of the people who enrol on those courses do so in the belief that they are signing up for a proper education? Does he agree that they are victims of exploitation by these colleges, rather than people trying to suborn our immigration system?

[Mr Field]

I would rephrase that slightly. My hon. Friend makes the absolutely valid point that large numbers of people who want to get on in their lives come here and believe the prospectuses of such colleges, but my worry is that increasingly the news has gone round the traps, so to speak, that such courses are one way in—a bogus route. That is deeply cruel to those who have paid to enrol because they wish to build a more constructive life for themselves by getting an education; I could not agree more about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Will my right hon. Friend support my campaign to ensure that education in the English language is available in the places from which spouses come? The current proposals are unfair, particularly on women on the Indian subcontinent who are unable to get access to good-quality English language teaching and are therefore doomed to fail the test.

[Mr Field]

I have never underestimated the entrepreneurial skills on the subcontinent, and I am disappointed to hear my hon. Friend report back in those terms. When I crossed swords on this matter with the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East, I thought that in no time English language schools would be established to ensure that people could speak English before arriving. It is very important that that rule is maintained, and I hope the Government will look at the point I have raised.