Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery

Debate between Andrew Selous and Peter Bone

Wednesday 29th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of human trafficking and modern slavery.

I am grateful to Mr Speaker for rescheduling this debate. Unfortunately, I had flu when it was first scheduled; I am not entirely sure I am over it, so I might croak my way through my speech. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts.

I thank the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines), for appearing today to respond to this important and timely debate, and I also thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), and the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), for being here. I thank my exceptionally talented senior parliamentary assistant, Isobelle Jackson, for the preparation of this speech; my parliamentary assistant, Jack Goodenough, for his assistance; and Tatiana Gren-Jardan, the head of the modern slavery unit at the Centre for Social Justice and at Justice and Care, who has helped me a lot with the research for this debate and over many years on the issue of human trafficking. I know that they will be watching this debate closely.

When I was first elected a Member of Parliament in 2005, I had a letter posted to my constituency office. It was anonymous, but the person who wrote it was a prostitute from Northampton. She was very concerned about what was happening to young women who were being brought into this country and forced into prostitution in Northamptonshire. That was the first time I had come across human trafficking, and from that moment on, I began to campaign on the issue. I have served as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on human trafficking, and I am the chairman of the parliamentary advisory group on modern slavery and the supply chain. Given that the House is considering a Bill that will affect provisions of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, this debate could not be more relevant. Having said that, its purpose is not to scrutinise the Illegal Migration Bill; it is about the crime of human trafficking.

In debates concerning small boat crossings or modern slavery laws, I often hear the terms “human trafficking” and “people smuggling” used interchangeably. In fact, each has a distinct meaning, and the language we use when describing these criminal activities matters. I sometimes throw things at the TV when I hear Ministers using the wrong terminology. Let us get this sorted out. According to the United Nations, migrant smuggling is

“the facilitation, for financial or other material gain, of irregular entry into a country where the migrant is not a national or resident.”

The people being smuggled have willingly paid smugglers—often large sums of money—to help them enter a chosen country. In so far as a country can be defined as a victim of crime, the victims of smuggling are the countries where the borders have been breached.

On the other hand, human trafficking is defined as

“the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of people through force, fraud or deception, with the aim of exploiting them for profit.”

Victims of human trafficking are individuals who are coerced into being exploited in the most horrendous conditions. They often arrive in the UK legally, with valid visas and passports. However, the largest group of people referred to the national referral mechanism are British nationals. Some 80% of the British nationals referred are children exploited for criminal, labour and sexual purposes in their own country, and one in five—3,337—of the potential victims found in the UK last year was a British child.

The national referral mechanism is the Government’s mechanism for supporting the victims of human trafficking. When I started to campaign on the issue of human trafficking, alongside Anthony Steen, the former Member for Totnes, human trafficking was not recognised as a crime in this country. It was not even recognised as happening. Anthony Steen has gone on to set up the Human Trafficking Foundation, which serves as a secretariat for the APPG. It was a pleasure to meet up with Anthony last week. He almost single-handedly brought the issue of human trafficking to the attention of this Parliament, and we are greatly indebted to him for that. He is an absolute star. Some of the things he used to get up to even I would blush at. He would somehow talk his way into a Romanian prison to speak to traffickers—just amazing.

During my time as chairman, the all-party parliamentary group on human trafficking and modern slavery travelled to Europe and further afield to understand and learn from existing frameworks relating to modern slavery. The group visited Europol so as to understand the international approach to identifying traffickers, and we met with the Dutch rapporteur, who was a former judge.

National rapporteurs are an initiative originating in the Council of Europe, under which Governments are encouraged to appoint an independent rapporteur to report on the Government’s actions against human trafficking. In the case of the Dutch rapporteur, once the office was established, it was recognised that she had helped the Government, because she did not just criticise; she promoted the good things that were being done.

When I started campaigning for a national rapporteur in this country, we had to overcome two problems. First, the name clearly sounded too French, so there was no way I could recommend that, but that was easy to fix. We changed the name to independent commissioner —job done. The second problem was much more difficult. It was to explain to the Home Office that it needed to do this. The Home Office resisted.

Initially, the Home Office created what it considered to be an equivalent to a rapporteur, an interdepartmental ministerial group. Sir Humphrey would have been proud. The group proved largely ineffective and met infrequently, normally with a large number of ministerial absences. Eventually, however, pressure from the APPG forced the Government to appoint an Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, and the Modern Slavery Act 2015 imposed a duty on the Home Secretary to make such an appointment. The first commissioner was Kevin Hyland. He was replaced by Dame Sara Thornton, who was appointed in May 2019. She left in April 2022. Since then, there has been no Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner. At the same time, suspected cases of human trafficking have hit an all-time high, and Parliament is scrutinising the Illegal Migration Bill, which clearly has implications for human trafficking.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech on important issues. I wonder whether I might lift his gaze to the global situation. The International Labour Organisation estimates that there are 50 million people in modern slavery, a large number of whom are in south and south-east Asia and involved in textiles, construction and fishing. Many of them will never leave, for example, the same brick kiln. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is incumbent on the UK Government to challenge Governments in the countries concerned to look at what is happening, and to challenge businesses here to ensure that goods produced in this way do not end up in UK supply chains? Does he agree that we all have a role to play in that important work?

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend raises an important factor, and there are more slaves in the world now than in Wilberforce’s day. That is an issue that Parliament is looking at in particular, so as to ensure that nobody in the supply chains for this Parliament is a slave. However, a year or so ago, we did find a product that was produced by slaves, so it is important that we use our soft power. If I were spending our overseas aid budget, that is where I would put a lot of the money, because there would be real benefit for everyone involved.

[Andrew Selous]

Does my hon. Friend agree that that story had a good ending? We went back to that business in Malaysia, and the conditions for the workers are now improved. We effected real-world change for the better, and we should count that as a positive result.

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we discover something in this House, as he says, we correct it. We do not just say, “We are not going to use that product.” We go back and improve the situation, which is entirely the right approach.

It is not good enough that we do not have an Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner. The only conclusion that people can draw is that the Home Office does not want independent scrutiny of human trafficking. I cannot see any other reason for it. In 2022, almost 17,000 potential victims of human trafficking were referred to the national referral mechanism—an increase of 33% on the previous year. Last year, the average number of days that a victim waited for a conclusive grounds decision was 543. That is an improvement on the previous year, when it was 560-odd days. In about 100 years’ time, we will probably get it down to an acceptable level. We are creating a huge backlog in the system and stretching the resources available to support survivors of human trafficking.

In last year’s Queen’s Speech, the Government promised a new modern slavery Bill. In addition, a new modern slavery strategy had been promised in spring 2021. That was in response to the 2019 independent review of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which suggested improvements. To date, neither the Bill nor the strategy has been forthcoming. The independent review had four main topics of focus, one of which was the safeguarding of child victims of modern slavery. That issue has long been a source of personal frustration to me.

As I have said, almost 80% of UK nationals referred to the NRM are children. The situation regarding the safeguarding of children who may have been trafficked is unique, in that the provision of care for trafficked adults is far better than that for trafficked children. Where else in Government do we look after adults better than children? I made that point during my Westminster Hall debate over 10 years ago. I recounted how in 2010 I went to a safe home in the Philippines, where there were children who had been trafficked and had experienced the worst kind of abuse—in the Philippines it was largely prostitution. They received specialist support and went to school. They were in a safe environment, and after a few years, they left a changed person. In fact, I had the great pleasure of attending a wedding of a former trafficked child who had gone through that process. There is no reason why this country could not offer the same standard of care. We should learn from best practice elsewhere, and could offer more specialist support and rehabilitation to trafficked children in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Selous and Peter Bone

Thursday 10th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

May I say in passing how wonderful it is when we have a question session in which the people who reply are succinct and to the point. Perhaps we should get Ministers here for a lesson in how it is done. Will the Second Church Estates Commissioner tell us more about the plans to let this House know what the Church of England is doing in regard to the celebrations?

[Andrew Selous]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that compliment. I repeat that there will be a national service of celebration at St Paul’s cathedral organised by the Church of England. That will probably be the focal point, but I know that there will be enormous celebrations in his constituency, in mine and, indeed, in every constituency across these islands, and I hope that the Church of England, churches and all faith groups will be at the heart of them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Selous and Peter Bone

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and of course we recently provided additional capacity at Peterborough prison in the form of a new house block. We have studied carefully what happened at Doncaster and Peterborough and will learn lessons from it. The Government are keen that the use of social impact bonds continues across government.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Bone]

What a prisons Minister we have! He is going to get rid of the Victorian prisons and open modern ones, and it just so happens that Wellingborough has a mothballed modern prison, so it is terrific news he is going to reopen it and get rid of the Victorian prison. I thank him on behalf of my constituents, and will he confirm he is going to do it?

[Andrew Selous]

I say to my extremely persistent hon. Friend that should there be any new news on Wellingborough I will make sure that he is the first to hear it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Selous and Peter Bone

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise these points. This can be done. Hollesley Bay recently had an outstanding Ofsted report, and where it leads, others can and need to follow. The combined PE, English and maths course taught in the PE department at Swaleside has been highly successful in getting hard-to-reach prisoners to engage in education. We need more initiatives like that. The Secretary of State has mentioned the Timpson academies. I would also mention the Halfords academy, the Clink restaurants, Census Data Group and many others that are doing outstanding work in the areas the hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Does the excellent prisons Minister agree that to stop reoffending we need to close Victorian prisons and open more modern prisons? In Wellingborough, a prison that was modern and successful has been temporarily closed. Has he any plans to reopen it?

[Andrew Selous]

My hon. Friend is ingenious, as always, in the way that he poses his question. He is right that we need a fit-for-purpose prison estate. As for Wellingborough prison, I am afraid I have nothing to add to the answers I have given him repeatedly in the past.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Selous and Peter Bone

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

I will write to the right hon. Gentleman with the exact figures. However, our benchmarking exercise has brought about a number of developments, not least the prisoner-facing roles that prison officers did not always have before. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that we have closed 14 prisons. The National Audit Office has complimented us on our management of the prison estate, and we continue to recruit more prison officers.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I understand that the Minister has created a reserve force of prison officers and three reserve prisons, one of which is Wellingborough. Will he say a little more about that exercise?

[Andrew Selous]

As my hon. Friend may know, when soldiers leave the Regular Army, we encourage some of them to join the Army reserves, and I suppose that this concept is similar to that. The prison officer reserve has about 100 members, which gives us flexibility. I cannot update my hon. Friend any further on what I have said in the past, but this is the right thing to do.

Defence Reform Bill

Debate between Andrew Selous and Peter Bone

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

Not at the moment.

As a former Territorial soldier, I extend that praise to the regular forces alongside whom I have had the pride to serve. There are wonderful people in both the regular and reserve forces of whom this Parliament can be justifiably proud. It is absolutely right, however, that the Government have agreed to new clause 1. Like many others, I pay huge tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) for tabling it. Indeed, I went to see the Secretary of State yesterday to lobby for new clause 1 and I am delighted to see that it has been accepted by the Government.

New clause 1 is important because, in spite of the praise we have heard for the reserve forces and specifically for the TA from Members on both sides of the House, all Territorials will say that a certain amount of antipathy exists between regular and reserve forces as they serve our country together. It is absolutely right that the new clause should put into law independent scrutiny and independent control over what is happening to our reserve forces and the reserve forces estate, as well as the progress in recruitment and so on.

The Government had to take very difficult decisions, and they decided to move towards a Regular Army of 82,000 and an Army Reserve, as we will soon call it, of 30,000, making a total Army strength of 112,000. Incidentally, we would still have the fourth largest defence budget in the world and a considerable list of new equipment to go with those armed forces.

The point that has been made, first and most clearly by the Chair of the Select Committee on Defence, is that the reductions in the regular forces have already been made and are in place and on track to happen. There is no proposal to increase the number of regular soldiers from any quarter of this House. A prescient intervention by the Secretary of State on the shadow Secretary of State led the shadow Secretary of State to say that the Labour party had no plans to increase the number of regular soldiers. The question before the House is therefore how to press on and ensure that the reserve recruiting plan works and is successful. That is at the heart of what we need to do this afternoon, and the question is what will best help and bring about that recruitment effort. I listened to the wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, who said that any legislative impact that would put a halt to the plans to increase the reserve forces would be a hammer blow to the morale of the TA. We need certainty, and for everyone in this House to get behind the plans and ensure that we can successfully increase the strength of the Army Reserve from 19,000 to the 30,000 that we want.

We must remember that as recently as 1990 we had 72,000 Territorial soldiers, so it is entirely possible for us to move up to 30,000. It is an increase of only 20 extra Army Reserve recruits by parliamentary constituency and is an entirely achievable objective. I believe that we can bring that about. We need employers’ help, and I am encouraged by the fact that companies such as Carillion, Barclays and BT are very much getting behind the measures to make sure that we get the reserves that we need.

We will have full parliamentary scrutiny of the process; of that there is no doubt. We do not need new clause 3 to have proper parliamentary scrutiny of it. That is what the House is providing this afternoon, and that is what happens every month at Defence questions. It is also the role of the Select Committee on Defence to make sure that we have proper scrutiny.

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend makes a point about scrutiny, but the only way to get a substantive vote on the issue by this House is to support new clause 3; that is the difference. Members can criticise the Government’s policy, but they cannot change it without a vote.

[Andrew Selous]

The point that I make to my hon. Friend is that Government Members have come to the conclusion that we want an Army of 112,000 people, made up of 82,000 regulars and 30,000 Reserves. There has been no proposal from any part of the House, including from Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, to change those figures. That is a decision that the House has taken. I have heard no serious challenge to that this afternoon, given the financial situation that the country finds itself in. The issue before the House is: how do we all get behind the plan and make sure that it works, giving it proper scrutiny, but fully backing and supporting it?

We have had proper scrutiny this afternoon from pretty much every Member who has spoken. Even the most enthusiastic advocate of the reserve forces in the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, was excoriating about the recruitment process run in recent months by the Regular Army to try to increase the Army Reserve. He is a shining example of someone giving proper parliamentary scrutiny to the process that we are considering because he wants it to work. He is doing that in a way that shows that he is committed to making the proposal a success, and that is the difference. That is why I am pleased that new clause 1 is being accepted by the Government, and why I think that it would be damaging, divisive and unnecessary to support new clause 3.

Human Trafficking

Debate between Andrew Selous and Peter Bone

Thursday 20th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Bone]

No. Mrs Bone is not mentioned either, which is an even greater sin.

I am sure that the Prime Minister recognises the great work done by the all-party group, which I want to speak more about. It was originally set up by the most knowledgeable and brilliant person in the fight against human trafficking—Anthony Steen, the former Member of Parliament for Totnes, who I think is following this debate closely. It is one of the largest all-party groups in Parliament, with more than 60 members from the Commons and the Lords, and representatives from every political party. This parliamentary group, which I am honoured to co-chair with Baroness Butler-Sloss, has put pressure on the Government to sign up to the EU directive, asked parliamentary questions to hold the Government to account on human trafficking and scrutinised the Inter-Departmental Ministerial Group on Human Trafficking to ensure that it meets regularly and delivers an annual report, which we are now happily debating.

The all-party group seeks to increase awareness of the evil of human trafficking, not only at home but across Europe. Through funding from the EU Commission, members of the all-party group have travelled to other countries’ Parliaments to create a European network to raise awareness of the national and transnational nature of human trafficking. Some European countries have been very good, but the French and the Germans say that there is no trafficking in their countries, which is completely absurd. We want to create a network of European groups or sub-committees that are similar to the all-party group—APGs are not recognised in other Parliaments—and we are working towards that.

The Anti-Slavery Day Act 2010 was skilfully taken through Parliament by Anthony Steen in the dying days of that Session. While we were all worrying about our seats, Anthony was busy railroading it through. As a result, anti-slavery day is celebrated on 18 October each year. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister, who held a reception at No. 10 Downing street, for his key interest and support in this area, which is a key priority of the coalition. I also thank Anthony Steen for his extraordinary work. If it had not been for him, that Act would not have happened and, more importantly, there would not be this level of awareness about human trafficking.

There is one action that I want the Minister seriously to consider. The Prime Minister has appointed ambassadors in many other fields; if he appointed Anthony Steen as one on this issue, he could be introduced with the authority of the Prime Minister when we visit overseas Parliaments. I welcome all that the Government and the Minister are doing, but I think that that would be one easy step to take.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s proposal. There is a recent precedent, in that the Prime Minister has appointed several trade envoys to different countries—from, I think, all parties—so the proposal would be similar to steps already taken by the Prime Minister.

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I agree with him. Such a step would be a clear indication to Parliament that the Government are taking human trafficking very seriously.