Modern-day Slavery

Debate between Joan Ruddock and Fiona Mactaggart

Thursday 5th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered modern-day slavery.

It is an honour to be opening this debate on modern slavery. In the four and a half months since I was elected to co-chair the all-party group on human trafficking and modern-day slavery, real progress has been made, and I hope that in this debate we can persuade the Government to make further progress. It was a great honour to be elected co-chair in July with a record turnout of Members of both Houses. I wish to pay tribute to my predecessors as chair, especially Anthony Steen, the group’s founder, who went on to found the Human Trafficking Foundation, which has done so much to raise public awareness about this appalling crime. I genuinely regret that since the change of leadership my immediate predecessor, the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who could always be depended upon to bring this shocking abuse of human rights to public and parliamentary attention, has spoken less on this issue than previously, although I was glad that in October he raised the issue of what should be in the modern slavery Bill, because that is the main subject of my remarks today.

May I start by thanking the Government for agreeing to introduce a Bill? It is tempting, but it would be churlish, to make a party political speech where I document the Government’s initial resistance to ideas ranging from signing up to the EU directive to appointing a commissioner, only eventually to change their mind. Ministers deserve praise for realising that more needs to be done and that legislation is necessary, and for consenting to a process of pre-legislative scrutiny that gives us a prospect of a better Bill. But the big question is whether it will be good enough.

In dealing with this issue it is traditional to focus on three P’s: protection, prevention, prosecution. In the announcements so far, it is clear that the Government plan to put emphasis on a fourth P—punishment. I hope that the Minister can confirm today that he intends to make trafficking an aggravating factor in sentencing. Rape sentences, for example, should always be increased when that rape is a feature of a trafficking offence—where someone has been trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation.

If the Bill emphasises prosecute and punish, it needs also to do more to prevent and protect. I join those two together because there is no doubt that for most successful prosecutions the courts need victims to give evidence. They will do that only if they feel safe and are helped to deal with the traumas they face.

Although I pay tribute to the organisations that care for victims, there are deep flaws in the relationship between them and the Government. I was sent a message by a spokesman from one such body, which is under subcontract to the Salvation Army. He said:

“MoJ officials have directly, robustly and unequivocally told us that we are not to talk about current victim support arrangements in any way whatsoever with anyone. In addition we have been told that we are not to criticise, or talk about in any form, any part of the Government’s current anti-trafficking work or policies. The threat was implicit that to do so would lead to the loss of our contract. In view of this, there is no meaningful way in which I can engage in the proposed evidence giving or consultation exercise. I am”

unbelievably

“forbidden by the Government to speak to you on that matter. If Mr Field”—

I am very glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who joined me in asking for this debate, has been able to rearrange his diary to be in the Chamber today—

“can find a way to offer some form of immunity or indemnity against punitive action by the MoJ should we say something they don’t like then we would be delighted to participate. Otherwise I must decline the offer as I have no doubt that were I to present truthfully the evidence I wish to present the MoJ would remove the contract.”

In response to parliamentary questions, Ministers have reassured me that that would not happen, yet those reassurances have not been sufficient. The independently witnessed threat from officials has silenced not just this organisation but others too. I hope the Minister will agree today to write to all organisations that provide victim services under contract and ask them to share their learning with Government and Parliament without fear of retribution so that we can ensure that the real needs of victims are addressed in our Bill. lf those organisations were able to give evidence, they would tell us that six weeks of accommodation and support is just not long enough for most victims to be ready to disclose what has happened to them, to overcome trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder caused by years of exploitation and to be witnesses in criminal cases. Will the Bill empower organisations to give help for longer?

Better information is a prerequisite for more effective action. The Centre for Social Justice report “It happens here” states:

“There is no consistent grip on the numbers. Agencies are groping in the dark for a sense of scale. The figures used...reflect the small number of cases known about but are a pale reflection of the size of the problem.”

That is evidence. The National Referral Mechanism identified 1,186 victims last year and the UK Human Trafficking Centre 2,265. Four years ago, the Home Affairs Committee identified 4,000 victims. We just do not know the scale of the problem, which is why the all-party group is conducting an inquiry into data on trafficking.

For the past 12 months, MPs have regularly asked Justice Ministers for information about the location of victims. They have not been given any details, on the pretext that they might compromise the victim. There is no evidence to support that claim. Is the information available about where trafficking victims are found and how and if that information is available, why is it all staying so hidden?

In our inquiry into data on trafficking, it is evident that there are widespread concerns about the quality of information and the way in which it is shared to protect victims. As evidence from Bedfordshire police pointed out

“a dedicated role performed by an identifiable individual”—

such as a commissioner—

“will remove the stasis that has developed with the issue falling between many stools: responsibility currently sitting with the Immigration Minister sends out a confusing message to victims and the public alike.”

I congratulate the Government on planning to appoint a commissioner.

[Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend who is making a most important speech. I draw her attention to a case with which I am dealing of a woman who was trafficked here at the age of 13. She was put into prostitution at the age of 15, and taken to an abortion clinic when she was pregnant with twins. She then went underground because of her great fear. Now that she has come to the attention of the immigration authorities, they simply want to deport her, with no mercy and no consideration of her terrible plight and suffering.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Were we to have a commissioner, I hope that they would bring forward such cases and ensure that we show the kind of generosity that our country is capable of to people who have been treated in that vile way.

Other actions could be taken to prevent the growth of modern slavery. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) and I have pressed private Members’ Bills to prevent slavery in supply chains. Will action on that be in the Bill?

The work of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority has been significant in agriculture industries. Will the Minister expand its remit to other areas such as care, catering and construction where we know slavery occurs? Will he give it powers to impose civil penalties on companies that might have unwittingly allowed such practice in their supply chain, without having to go through the expensive and burdensome process of criminal prosecution?

In 2008, the Home Affairs Committee reached a unanimous conclusion on the matter. It said:

“To retain the migrant domestic worker visa and the protection it offers to workers is the single most important issue in preventing the forced labour and trafficking of such workers.”

Since it has been abolished, Kalyaan, the voluntary organisation which works with enslaved domestic workers, reports that more than four times as many such workers are now paid nothing at all.

Promises that changes in the visa would be accompanied by better prevention of exploitation overseas have not been fulfilled. Home Office responses to freedom of information requests show carelessness. They recorded negligible numbers of visas issued to nationals of India, and eight to nationals of the Philippines last year compared with 2,879 and 6,010 respectively in the previous year. In case anyone thinks that that is because the new system has brought to an end the visits of overseas domestic workers, let me point out that the equivalent number of visas issued to Qatari nationals is apparently 6,704 compared with two in the previous year. It is clear that even the most basic records are not being kept. If officers do not even know that the nationality of visa applicants is not the same as that of their employers, they are unlikely to have carefully considered the risk of their exploitation.

The Minister knows that there are significant problems in relation to children. At least one child a day is trafficked into Britain; most then go missing. Under the terms of the directive, they should have access, where appropriate, to a guardian. They need love and care. If they do not have access to a guardian, they need a best friend, and that is something the Scottish system appears to offer. Child victims cannot be expected to help the police if they are bewildered, unloved and confused. Others in this debate will outline how the Bill could better protect children, but I find it so sad that children are at risk of re-trafficking because the person who knows most about them and their families is their exploiter. Can we not make progress on giving dedicated support to those victims?

I was the instigator of the provision that became the offence in section 14 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009. I am disappointed by the reluctance of many police forces to prosecute men who pay for sex with a woman who is subject to force and exploitation. If men thought that they faced a criminal conviction in those circumstances, there is compelling evidence that they would be less likely to use trafficked prostitutes. They might even inform the police about women who are exploited in that way.

In that case and in the case of trafficking generally, we need to do more to investigate and prosecute. In their evidence to the all-party group inquiry, Kent police said that they thought a Bill could

“ensure that police forces are mandated to tackle human trafficking.”

Dealing with trafficking is not stated as a priority in the Home Office’s strategic policing requirement. Will the Minister make it a priority? As a hidden crime, it is less likely to cause local pressure and although we should celebrate those local groups that are building up the campaign, such as Croydon Community Against Trafficking and the groups in Bedfordshire and elsewhere, there is not the same public concern as there is about street crime or burglary, so we need national leadership. Only 11 convictions were recorded last year and that is why we need more than tougher punishment—we need better protection, detection and investigation.

I am glad, too, that the Government propose to take action to confiscate the proceeds of trafficking. I hope that today the Minister can confirm that funds obtained from those criminals will be used to compensate victims and perhaps to compensate police forces that have undertaken expensive investigations, too. After William Wilberforce succeeded in ending the transatlantic slave trade more than two centuries ago, the slave owners were compensated. Let us make this a truly modern Bill and compensate instead the victims of trafficking, sexual exploitation and modern-day slavery.

Violence against Women and Girls

Debate between Joan Ruddock and Fiona Mactaggart

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Mactaggart]

It is a real pity that that did not proceed. It is also a pity that the Government-initiated inquiry into sex and relationships education, which was launched in 2011, has yet to report. The Government have a lack of urgency and a lack of adequate commitment on this matter.

[Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that many people will say that this education is the responsibility of parents and families and that it should not be done in schools? Many of its opponents—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] We can hear some such opponents on the Government Benches. I would say to them—I hope that my hon. Friend agrees—that many families do not have the capacity to educate their children, and many families, unfortunately, have violent relationships within them, and that is not appropriate to the education of children.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

The responsibility of families does not get rid of the responsibility of the education service.

Sittings of the House

Debate between Joan Ruddock and Fiona Mactaggart

Wednesday 11th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dame Joan Ruddock]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady.

I now wish to discuss the Friday sittings. I have heard what the Chair of the Committee has said and I will be considering that as the debate goes on. It is very important that we discuss Fridays. The Friday proposal appears to be the most contentious, because we have heard dire warnings of reputational damage to MPs and the suggestion that MPs are going to be skiving off. Those of us who want to see private Members’ Bills moved from Friday to earlier in the week are not advocating a four-day week. On the contrary, all the evidence shows that MPs’ hours are already, as I have said, double those of a standard working week. MPs are rightly in their constituencies working for their constituents on a Friday.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are a number of Members who, like me, have constituency advice surgeries on Friday? As a result of those, I have not been able to participate in debates on private Members’ Bills where I would have wanted to contribute. Friday is the only day when I can make sure that I am there for my constituents, and I do not want to have to choose between legislation and my constituents. This House is getting more powerful and private Members’ Bills can make more difference, and I genuinely think it ought to be easier for Back Benchers to participate in private Members’ legislation. This change would make that possible.

[Dame Joan Ruddock]

I absolutely agree. As I was saying, our constituents want us to be in our constituencies working for them on a Friday. It is also where we want to be, and the record bears that out. On the 17 sitting Fridays in the 2010 to 2012 Session, recorded attendance varied from 19 to 134. Indeed, according to the records, some of the strongest advocates of a five-day Westminster week have never attended a Friday sitting—I have all the names.