Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has made ending modern-day slavery one of his top priorities. Does the Home Secretary welcome, as I do, the fact that he will open the hidden slavery in UK constituencies exhibition in the House of Commons on 22 April?

[Mrs May]

I am pleased at the excellent news that the Prime Minister will open the exhibition, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work in chairing the all-party group on human trafficking and on bringing forward that exhibition. I am sure that it will remind us not just of the hidden trafficking that exists in UK constituencies as a result of cross-border trafficking but also—unfortunately—of the fact that trafficking takes place within the United Kingdom.

Alcohol: Minimum Unit Price

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Browne]

I fear the hon. Gentleman is confusing two separate issues—cost price and a minimum unit price. A minimum unit price of 45p, which is what the Government consulted on—in Scotland the proposed MUP is 50p, but we consulted on 45p—would price a typical 12.5% bottle of wine at about £4.20. Obviously, many bottles of wine currently retail at less than £4.20 but are not sold at a loss. That, I think, is the point of confusion for the hon. Gentleman. I have already said that selling alcohol below cost price is anti-competitive, but whether an artificial price floor should be put in by Government is precisely what we are considering in the consultation.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

May I thank the Minister for the way in which he has answered the urgent question? He has been exceptionally clear and he has been listening, like a great democrat. He is not in his Stalinist mode today. Does he agree that the last thing the people of Wellingborough want to see is alcohol prices artificially increased? Average families in my constituency are very concerned about a minimum price.

[Mr Browne]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his characteristic warm reception for Liberal Democrat Ministers. There are two strands to the case being made against minimum unit pricing, both of which clearly have some force. One is about charging people who may have low disposable income more than they would otherwise pay for alcohol, even when there is no evidence to suggest that all those people are drinking irresponsibly. The second is a wider liberal or perhaps libertarian argument about the role of the state and the right of the individual to make choices that he or she wishes to make, free from a more prescriptive view by Government. Both cases were made to us during the consultation and are part of our considerations.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] (Programme No. 2)

Peter Bone Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr Jeremy Browne)]

I beg to move,

That the Order of 14 January 2013 (Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] (Programme)) be varied as follows:

1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order shall be omitted.

2. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be concluded in two days.

3. Proceedings on Consideration shall be taken on each of those days as shown in the following Table and in the order so shown.

4. Each part of the proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in relation to it in the second column of the Table.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is trying get a balance on the scrutiny issue. Is the simple way of doing that not by trying to guess where the knives come but by simply not having a programme motion and letting this House debate things, as it should do, until it has scrutinised everything? That is what we used to say in opposition, so why are we not saying it in government?

[Mr Browne]

If we were to do that in this specific case, we would default to having the one day of debate that has been allowed for by this House; the Government are expanding the opportunities for the hon. Gentleman by introducing this programme motion to allow two days’ debate. On his more general point, I think it is fair to say that there is general agreement across the House that legislation that is not timetabled at all is not the collective will of the House, if I can put it that way.

[Mr Bone]

rose—

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

rose—

[Mr Browne]

I will give way in a moment. I do not want to get too far off the beaten track, but I think that under the previous Government and under this one there has been a presumption that scheduling business—with a few provisions made for financial legislation, for example—is a sensible way to conduct our deliberations in this House. This is not a debate about whether the procedures of the House have changed; it is about the programme motion for this Bill.

[Mr Bone]

We are seeing new Government policy here. This was never in the coalition agreement and, until now, it has not been the view of the coalition. The coalition wants to have a business of the House Committee, so that the Government would be taken completely out of these programme motions. Is this another Liberal Democrat U-turn?

[Mr Browne]

As the last bit of that intervention was so trite, I will give way to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) and then deal with both interventions together.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

If I may, Mr Speaker, I want to seek a few assurances from the Minister before I resume my seat.

I am particularly keen for the Minister to consider what assurances he can give the House that there will be a guaranteed debate on the Leveson amendments and new clauses and that there will be an opportunity for the House to vote on them.

I also seek clarification—perhaps the Leader of the House could assist on this point—about whether the second day of consideration will be confirmed for Monday 18 March—[Interruption.] I would be grateful if the Minister of State could listen to what I am saying, because these are important matters that affect whether we will support the motion. I have asked the Minister, as the Leader of the House is in the Chamber, whether he can confirm that the second day of our consideration will be next Monday, as announced last Thursday by the Leader of the House. We seek assurances that there will be an opportunity to debate and vote on Leveson or press regulation-related clauses tabled by the Government or by the Opposition. I want to hear from the Minister—the Leader of the House can help him—whether the debate will happen on 18 March.

The Minister said that he intends to table a supplementary programme motion and he has a duty to tell the House when he intends to do that. Between you and me, Mr Speaker—dare I say it—our amendment would deliver what the Government want on Monday. If it were pressed to a vote, it might do what the Government seek to do, but I am willing, as I am that sort of a guy, to give the Minister the chance to reflect. If he can assure me that the supplementary programme motion will be tabled within living experience, rather than at some future date of which we are as yet unsure, that would reassure me and my right hon. Friends that the Government’s intentions should be supported by the official Opposition.

[Mr Bone]

Let me clarify. Has the right hon. Gentleman moved the amendment and might he seek the leave of the House to withdraw it later?

[Mr Hanson]

That is indeed the situation. I hope I have made that clear, but if I have not, so be it.

I seek three things from the Minister: a guarantee that there will be a debate; a guarantee that there will be a vote; a guarantee that there will be a second day of debate; some indication of when that will be; whether it will be on a day other than that which was previously announced; and when the supplementary motion will be tabled. I reserve the right to withdraw my amendment, but I wanted to move it so that we could get some clarity from the Minister on the key issues about which the Opposition remain concerned and want assurances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

It is a great honour and privilege to follow the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who has put the case exceptionally well. I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes): it is not a problem for the House to sit late in the night if we are doing a proper job of scrutiny; and the idea that it is impossible to stop the House sitting late if there is no programme motion is wrong, because it is possible to bring in a guillotine. There has been a programming motion for every single Bill in this Parliament. The Library has confirmed to me that the present Government have guillotined more debates than were guillotined during the previous Parliament. So the idea that it is impossible to stop debate is unfounded—in fact, I was stopped in mid-flow the other day by a Whip moving a closure motion.

We will, of course, solve this problem entirely if we have an open and transparent business of the House committee. But at the moment what happens, behind closed doors, is that two sets of Whips decide whether they are happy with the amount of debate. If Members on the Back Benches do not happen to agree with either lot of Whips, bad luck you—you just do not get a chance to discuss the matter. I urge the Minister, who is a great democrat—or was, before he became a Minister—to try something different with the Bill. Let us abandon the programme motion, and the other programme motion, and see the self-discipline of the House. When we are talking about things as important as Leveson—although I am probably going to disagree in principle with the views of the hon. Member for Rhondda—we must have this debate. This is the mother of Parliaments and the debate should take place here.

We can spend hours and hours—[Interruption.] We can talk for hours about unimportant things, but when there are really important things to be discussed, the Executive—and, for that matter, the shadow Executive on occasion—get together to restrict debate. This is a great opportunity. I doubt very much whether the minority parties in the House have been involved in these discussions at all. Certainly, no one has asked anyone on the Back Benches what they think about the time allocated to the Bill.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Not me.

[Mr Bone]

Indeed. Let us just try. If I am wrong, Members can tell me so, but let the Government withdraw the original programme motion, let us have an open timetable on this, and see how we get on. If I am proved right, let us do that in the future, and let us bring the business of the House committee into being. Let us not go for this Stalinist central control.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the exclusion of minority parties. Does he agree that, even if a business of the House committee were set up, there would still be problems if there was not proper representation of the smaller parties on that committee?

[Mr Bone]

In relation to the matter before us, that would be very important, of course, but I envisaged that committee not to have any members from either the Executive or the shadow Executive, and to be made up of independently minded Back Benchers who would not necessarily toe the party line. So it will be Parliament deciding, and I am absolutely sure that there would be members from the minority parties. That is actually a coalition priority. They seem to have slipped on the timetable. We were supposed to have it by May this year, and it does not look quite as though that will happen.

To return to the detail of the programme motion, if the shadow Minister does not stick to his amendment, there is a danger that, if the Government do not do what they promise, the opportunity will be gone and lost, and we will not debate Leveson. I urge the shadow Minister to test the will of the House on this. But of course I am hoping that before that happens the Minister will pop up and say, “We don’t need the original programme motion; we will have unlimited debate on the issue.”

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Peter Bone Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You will recall that Wellingborough prison was closed without any notification to me, and that I learned about it through the media. I have just been contacted by my local press and learned that Wellingborough prison has been sold. I have received no notification whatever from the Ministry of Justice, and there is no written statement in the Library. Can you advise me of how I might get some more information about what seems a very unfortunate situation?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that the Chair has not been advised of such a sale, but his point is now on the record, and I am sure that since he has raised it, the Prisons Minister will get in touch with him to say whether it has been sold. I look to the Government Front Bench as I say that I presume that has been taken on board.

New Schedule 2

Proceeds of crime provisions: Northern Ireland

Part 1

Civil recovery provisions

Meaning of “relevant civil recovery provision”

1 For the purposes of this Part of this Schedule, each of the following is a “relevant civil recovery provision”—

(a) section 33(2), (3), (5) and (6);

(b) section 33(7) so far as it relates to amendments made by section 33(2), (3) and (5) and Part 2 of Schedule 17;

(c) each provision in Schedule 17;

(d) each amendment or repeal made by the provisions mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (c).

Relevant civil recovery provisions not to extend to Northern Ireland unless order made

2 (1) The relevant civil recovery provisions do not extend to Northern Ireland.

(2) But that is subject to paragraph 3.

Power to provide for relevant civil recovery provisions to extend to Northern Ireland

3 The Secretary of State may, by order, provide for one or more of the relevant civil recovery provisions to extend to Northern Ireland.

Relevant civil recovery provision extending to Northern Ireland

4 (1) The Secretary of State may, by order, make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of, or in connection with, a relevant civil recovery provision extending to Northern Ireland.

(2) An order under this paragraph may, in particular—

(a) provide for section 282A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to have effect in relation to orders made by the High Court in Northern Ireland;

(b) provide for an enforcement authority in relation to Northern Ireland to make requests for assistance under section 282B of that Act;

(c) provide for a receiver appointed under an order made by the High Court in Northern Ireland to make requests for assistance under section 282C of that Act;

(d) provide for the High Court in Northern Ireland or a receiver appointed by an order made by that court to make requests for assistance under section 282D of that Act;

(e) provide for an enforcement authority or trustee for civil recovery to make a request for assistance under section 282F of that Act where a recovery order has been made by the High Court in Northern Ireland;

(f) provide for section 316(8B) of that Act to have effect in relation to an enforcement authority in relation to Northern Ireland.

Relevant civil recovery provision not extending to Northern Ireland

5 The Secretary of State may, by order, make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of, or in connection with, a relevant civil recovery provision not extending to Northern Ireland.

Consent of Northern Ireland Assembly to transferred provision

6 (1) The Secretary of State may not make an order under this Part of this Schedule which makes transferred provision unless the Northern Ireland Assembly consents to the making of that provision.

(2) In this paragraph “transferred provision” means provision which, if it were contained in an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly—

(a) would be within the legislative competence of the Assembly, and

(b) would deal with a transferred matter without being ancillary to other provision (whether in the Act or previously enacted) which deals with an excepted or reserved matter.

(3) In sub-paragraph (2)—

“ancillary” has the meaning given in section 6(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998;

“excepted matter”, “reserved matter” and “transferred matter” have the meanings given by section 4(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Orders under this Part of this Schedule: particular provision

7 (1) The provision that may be made by an order under paragraph 3, 4 or 5 (whether by virtue of that paragraph or section 43(12)) includes—

(a) provision conferring, removing or otherwise modifying a function (whether or not exercisable in, or in relation to, Northern Ireland);

(b) provision amending, repealing, revoking or otherwise modifying any enactment (including an enactment contained in, or amended by, this Act).

(2) Such an order may provide for provision amending, repealing or otherwise modifying Chapter 2 or 4 of Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to have retrospective effect.

(3) The making of an order under any provision of this Part of this Schedule does not prevent—

(a) a further order from being made under that provision, or

(b) an order from being made under any other provision of this Part of this Schedule.

(4) An order under paragraph 3 or 4 may modify or reverse the effects of an order made under paragraph 5.

(5) Sub-paragraphs (1) to (4) do not limit the powers conferred by paragraphs 3, 4 and 5.

(6) In this paragraph—

“enactment” means any enactment, whenever passed or made, contained in—

(a) an Act of Parliament;

(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament;

(c) Northern Ireland legislation;

(d) a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales;

(e) an instrument made under any such Act, legislation or Measure;

(f) any other subordinate legislation (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978);

“function” means a function of any description, including a power or duty (whether conferred by an enactment or arising otherwise).

Part 2

Investigation provisions

Meaning of “relevant investigation provision”

8 For the purposes of this Part of this Schedule, each of the following is a “relevant investigation provision”—

(a) each provision in paragraphs 2 to 13, 25 to 27, 29 and 30 of Schedule 18 (including each amendment or repeal made by those provisions), and

(b) section 34 so far as it relates to each of those provisions.

Relevant investigation provisions not to extend to Northern Ireland unless order made

9 (1) The relevant investigation provisions do not extend to Northern Ireland.

(2) But that is subject to paragraph 10.

Power to provide for relevant investigation provisions to extend to Northern Ireland

10 The Secretary of State may, by order, provide for one or more of the relevant investigation provisions to extend to Northern Ireland.

Relevant investigation provision extending to Northern Ireland

11 The Secretary of State may, by order, make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of, or in connection with, a relevant investigation provision extending to Northern Ireland.

Relevant investigation provision not extending to Northern Ireland

12 The Secretary of State may, by order, make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of, or in connection with, a relevant investigation provision not extending to Northern Ireland.

Consent of Northern Ireland Assembly to transferred provision

13 (1) The Secretary of State may not make an order under this Part of this Schedule which makes transferred provision unless the Northern Ireland Assembly consents to the making of that provision.

(2) In this paragraph “transferred provision” means provision which, if it were contained in an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly—

(a) would be within the legislative competence of the Assembly, and

(b) would deal with a transferred matter without being ancillary to other provision (whether in the Act or previously enacted) which deals with an excepted matter or a reserved matter.

(3) In sub-paragraph (2)—

“ancillary” has the meaning given in section 6(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998;

“excepted matter”, “reserved matter” and “transferred matter” have the meanings given by section 4(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Orders under this Part of this Schedule: particular provision

14 (1) The provision that may be made by an order under paragraph 10, 11 or 12 (whether by virtue of that paragraph or section 43(12)) includes—

(a) provision conferring, removing or otherwise modifying a function (whether or not exercisable in, or in relation to, Northern Ireland);

(b) provision amending, repealing, revoking or otherwise modifying any enactment (including an enactment contained in, or amended by, this Act).

(2) The making of an order under any provision of this Part of this Schedule does not prevent—

(a) a further order from being made under that provision, or

(b) an order from being made under any other provision of this Part of this Schedule.

(3) An order under paragraph 10 or 11 may modify or reverse the effects of an order made under paragraph 12.

(4) Sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) do not limit the powers conferred by paragraphs 10, 11 and 12.

(5) In this paragraph—

“enactment” means any enactment, whenever passed or made, contained in—

(a) an Act of Parliament;

(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament;

(c) Northern Ireland legislation;

(d) a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales;

(e) an instrument made under any such Act, legislation or Measure;

(f) any other subordinate legislation (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978);

“function” means a function of any description, including a power or duty (whether conferred by an enactment or arising otherwise).’.—(Mr Jeremy Browne.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Justice and Security Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Following that excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd), I would like to add my support to his argument. The Government seem routinely to table programme motions of the sort they opposed when in opposition. They really do not need a programme motion. We are not exactly pressed for business at the moment. It seems to me that on the constitutional matter we are discussing, which is extremely important, and there are deep arguments about it on both sides, we should have unrestricted time to scrutinise it.

Police Integrity

Peter Bone Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The use of social media by police officers is one of the matters that HMIC considered when it was looking at integrity. Social media can be used extremely positively, and a number of forces are making active use of Twitter to get messages across to members of the public and interact with them. If Inspector Hillary is doing it in that way, I commend that officer. HMIC picked up some evidence of inappropriate use of Twitter, so it is important that forces make clear to officers what is and is not acceptable.

I have answered the question about resources several times: we will be discussing with forces and the IPCC what the appropriate level of resources is and what it is therefore right to transfer from individual police forces. I have to say to the Opposition that the concept is a simple one: work is being done in police forces that in future will be done in the IPCC, so it is appropriate to transfer resources.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

As the third north Northamptonshire MP in a row to be called, may I associate myself with the kind comments about our local force made by the previous two Members? I congratulate the Home Secretary on her statement, not least because she made it first to the House and not to the media.

I have found in my constituency surgeries that the thing that annoys people when they have a serious complaint about the police is not actually the investigation, but the fact that it is conducted by the home force—by Northamptonshire police. Will the Home Secretary assure the House that, in future, all serious cases will be investigated by people from outside the local force?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend has homed in precisely on the crucial change we are making. I too have looked at cases where people within a force investigated serious complaints against that force, and I think that that is not appropriate. The IPCC has not had the resources to do that job, but we will give it the resources it needs so that serious and sensitive allegations will be investigated by people from outside the force concerned.

Human Trafficking

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 20th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, the first we have ever had in Parliament on the Government report on human trafficking. I welcome the Minister for Immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), to this debate on the first annual report by the Inter-Departmental Ministerial Group on Human Trafficking. I also welcome him as chairman of the group, and I look forward to his input. The first thing he could do is to rename the group something catchier and easier to pronounce. It would also save a lot of trees if it were a shorter name to print.

I welcome the publication of the first annual report on human trafficking, promised by the Government as a fulfilment of the group’s role as the equivalent of a national rapporteur, as set out in the EU directive. As my colleagues may know, I am not always wholly supportive of the European Union, but on this occasion I think it was absolutely right that we opted in, and I think the pressure from the all-party parliamentary group against human trafficking helped the Government come to their sensible conclusion.

To pick up on something the Government have put into legislation as a result of the directive, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 now allows UK nationals who commit trafficking offences to be prosecuted even if those offences are not connected with the UK. That is a welcome change in the law, as is the power to prosecute traffickers for non-sexual trafficking offences for the first time.

Before moving on, I thank the Government for what they have done and for their commitment to fighting the evil crime of human trafficking. What I say in this debate will be constructive criticism; I will delve into the report and suggest areas where the Government could improve. My hon. Friend the Minister will not be surprised if I start with the rapporteur situation. I had a great deal of difficulty finding the relevant part of the report, but it is right at the end, in chapter 10, paragraph 19.

Under the EU directive, it is recommended that a national rapporteur report independently on the Government’s action against human trafficking and be the overarching body for collecting intelligence. In my view, setting up a national rapporteur could reduce the cost within Departments. An independent rapporteur might also be more approachable by non-governmental organisations that might be sceptical of a Government-led organisation, which would lead to greater data sharing and a better picture of the real number of trafficking victims.

Other European countries have appointed a national rapporteur. The rapporteur for the Netherlands is a former judge, and the Finnish rapporteur is a former Member of the Finnish Parliament. They do an excellent job in scrutinising their respective Governments’ action against human trafficking, as well as acting as a liaison with NGOs. The problem is that our Government have read the small print in the EU directive saying that countries can have an equivalent of the national rapporteur, which is what the interdepartmental ministerial group is.

The group did not start as a great success. In the first 18 months, it met twice, and two thirds of the Ministers gave their apologies. I know the Minister will say that that has been dealt with, the group has published its annual report and it is doing its best, but I still do not see how a group of Ministers can independently scrutinise what the Government are doing. That is also the view of the all-party parliamentary group. Of course, we will wait to see whether the interdepartmental ministerial group is successful, but we have a big question mark over that.

The Government have rightly given over a whole chapter, chapter 2, to data and a true picture of human trafficking. The report says, and the UK Human Trafficking Centre’s baseline assessment of the nature and scale of human trafficking in 2011 highlights, that the true number of trafficked victims is likely to be higher than the 2,077 reported in 2011. The figures recorded by the UK Human Trafficking Centre and the national referral mechanism are only for victims who have been rescued and have agreed to go into the system. That is a bone of contention, especially with the NGOs. I am grateful to all the NGOs that gave input into the research that went into my speech, and I particularly thank my researchers Adam Trundle, Jack Spriggs and Emma Wade for their efforts in putting it together.

Irrespective of how we come up with the number of victims, it is a number of victims. Let us suppose that the figure of 2,077 is the correct number of rescued victims in the UK last year. The NGOs would say that it is higher, but assuming that it is correct, does that represent 10% of the overall number of people trafficked? If so, more than 20,000 people were trafficked into this country last year. If the figure represents 5%, we can double that number. Whatever figure we use, trafficking is a huge problem. It is an evil crime, and we are not yet getting to the bottom of the scale of it. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) may wish to talk later about what was in effect a slave camp in his constituency that existed for almost 30 years without anybody noticing. I think the level of trafficking is a great deal higher than has been recorded, and we must work towards a solution.

I turn to the section I consider the most important. To be fair to the Government, they highlighted it in their initial strategy as one of the most important. In chapter 6, the Government recognise the vulnerability of child victims of human trafficking. However, the report says little about care arrangements for trafficked children. There is just one paragraph about it, 6.1.

Support and care for child victims of trafficking is one of the most important issues that need addressing in the UK. Under current legislation, child victims of trafficking are treated much like any other at-risk children and are under the primary control of local authorities, which often means they are placed in care homes with non-trafficked children, where security and staff observation are limited. Unfortunately, that has led on many occasions to the horrifying situation of a child who escaped trafficking being trafficked once more.

To put that in perspective, let us take a 15-year-old child who has been trafficked into this country and forced into prostitution. If we actually think about what prostitution is, anyone in prostitution who does not want to be there is suffering repeated rape day after day. Lo and behold, the police come and rescue her, and they do a really good job of it; the police are very good at rescuing victims. If all that happens is that she is put in a care home, and the traffickers know where she is, they can re-traffic her. That is a scandal. There has been some national publicity relating to internal trafficking, but the problem remains.

Many local authorities are not even aware of the dangers of human trafficking of children in care. They often report missing children as just missing, without investigating the possibility that they have been re-trafficked. Responsibility for children’s care locally falls on local authorities, but nationally it falls on the Department for Education. Instead of a clearly defined Department or authority in charge of trafficked children’s care and welfare, there is confusion over who is ultimately accountable.

For the first time in this country—I certainly cannot think of another example—the provision of care for trafficked adults is better than that for trafficked children. How we treat child victims of trafficking is the key issue the Government face in our fight against this great evil. A Government contract of nearly £2 million to the Salvation Army includes support and accommodation for adult victims of trafficking. The big society model of allowing the Salvation Army to allocate resources to local charities around the country leads to a system of care and protection that allows adult victims of trafficking to return home, or recover and live a worthwhile life in this country. There is no such independent, specialised provision for child victims of trafficking.

The welfare of children is the responsibility of local authorities, which often do not recognise that trafficking is an issue in their areas and often provide substandard care to trafficked children. As co-chairman of the all-party group on human trafficking, I issued a freedom of information request to all local authorities on the number of trafficked children in their care; very few were able to give me any numbers whatsoever. When I asked the few who took the matter seriously how many of those children then disappeared, the answer was that a staggering 80% to 90% went missing again. That is not good enough. I do not criticise the Government; they have recognised the problem and initiated a pilot scheme.

Barnardo’s currently leads the pilot scheme for children-centred, care-orientated safe homes. They are designed for child victims of trafficking only and provide them with the necessary support, which the local authority care system does not provide. Recently, nine child-centred non-governmental organisations, including Love146 and Barnardo’s, formed an alliance on care for trafficked and exploited children. The alliance recently made a bid to the Department for Education to deliver specialised residential care for child victims. If successful, it will be able quickly to set up five residential care homes. It is an excellent example of how Government funding can be used in conjunction with committed, child-focused NGOs that can set up and run safe homes for child victims.

We always think we are ahead of the game and on top of social care. In 2010, I went to see a safe home in the Philippines. Children who had been trafficked in the most horrible way came into the home traumatised, and left within two years. I attended the wedding of one of the trafficked children. We should be able to run that sort of project in this country, and not let these poor children be re-trafficked.

I strongly urge the Minister and the Government to expand the Barnardo’s pilot scheme into a national policy and seriously to consider adopting child safe homes as an alternative to local authority care for trafficked children. It will have cost implications for the Government—in that it will save them money. For example, local government pays £30,000 a year to look after a child in the normal system; but give just a part of that money to the NGOs and they would look after that child far better. The child could go into society, could go home, as a proper individual. It is the biggest single element of the problem.

I am sorry that my speech is running a little longer than I had hoped. I want to cover a couple more points. Chapter 5.50 of the report refers to the joint investigation teams. The Government rightly recognise the good job that JITs do. I recently attended a seminar hosted by the all-party group for global uncertainties. Detective Chief Inspector Nick Sumner, from the specialist and economic crime command at the Metropolitan Police, gave us a good insight into the law enforcement side of human trafficking. He mentioned the vital role that JITs play in combating trafficking at home and abroad, the results of which can be seen already, for example in Operation Golf in 2008. That joint operation between the Romanian and British police and prosecution services was a resounding success, with 87 people arrested for trafficking offences and 272 victims rescued.

Detective Sumner raised the issue that funding for JITs is not guaranteed in the future. I strongly recommend that this vital resource be well funded and supported, because the results of such bilateral operations seem to show that they are the most successful way to tackle and destroy these gangs. To get on top of human trafficking, we must destroy the gangs of serious criminals involved. Trafficking is the second most profitable organised crime, behind drugs. The advantage of it is that there is much less chance of being caught. We must protect the funding for JITs.

Chapter 6.57 mentions international development aid. The Government have only just started to realise the great advantage of such aid, and a little bit is happening. Overseas aid money could be usefully spent in source countries in two ways. First, it could be spent on prevention measures, which we would all welcome, such as paying NGOs to promote education, perhaps in schools and universities, warning of the dangers of trafficking. I saw such schemes in Moldova.

Secondly, we need the money to be given to NGOs, in Romania for example. There are trafficking victims in this country whom we are looking after at taxpayers’ expense—£30,000 or £40,000 a year—and who want to go home but cannot, because their families would be persecuted or, worse still, they would be re-trafficked if they went back to their village. Sending them home to safe houses—in Romania, for example—run by local NGOs with the support of our overseas aid money would be a good use of that money. I have discussed this with the Secretary of State for International Development and she seemed sympathetic. I wrote to her with suggestions.

I shall pass over the next point I was going to make and move on to my last couple of points. Chapter 4.28 covers victim prosecutions. It is a difficult issue and I understand the Government’s problem. The non-governmental organisations and I say that if someone, perhaps a young child, is trafficked to work in a cannabis factory in this country—a criminal activity—and that factory is raided and broken up by the police, the child working in the factory should not be prosecuted, because they were trafficked. They were not given an option; they were forced to perform the illegal activity. The Attorney-General has repeatedly given Government assurances that it is not Crown Prosecution Service policy to prosecute such people, but NGO after NGO has cases of people forced into illegal activity and then prosecuted.

I agree with the Government on one issue. The report states:

“A small number of trafficked victims may be prosecuted for offences they have committed as a consequence of their trafficking situation”.

The NGOs that I work with would throw up their hands in horror at that and say that it is wrong, but I understand that there is a moral dilemma. If someone is trafficked for sexual exploitation, they get into prostitution, though they may not want to, and move up the gang chain. They then become a recruiter of young girls, by moving back to their home country and trafficking girls, while knowing full well what the girls will have to go through. I agree that there is a case for prosecuting those people.

Finally, I turn to an omission that I hope was made in error. Nowhere in the report is there mention of the all-party group on human trafficking. It may be that the Prime Minister deliberately wanted my name removed from anything relating to Government; I quite understand that possibility.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

But not Mrs Bone’s.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Shuker]

My right hon. Friend makes a fantastic and insightful contribution, as ever. The pressures involved in highly evidence-based and research-based operations mean that there is an easy way out, and I do not mean that in a derogatory way. Police and crime commissioners can say, “I have lost 20% of my policing budget, and trafficking is not a priority on which I was elected.” What would make the most difference are clear statements by this and future Governments that tackling abuse of people who are caught up in modern-day slavery is an overriding concern.

[Mr Bone]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. He may not have noticed something that is deeply buried in Government policy. When the National Crime Agency comes into being, the UK Border Force will have the right to enforce a trafficking operation on a police area. If it believes that in Bedfordshire, for example, the police are not doing something that they should be doing, it has the power centrally, for the first time, to direct them.

[Gavin Shuker]

I accept that point, and it will be interesting to see in how many places that occurs, but equally, surely if we started highlighting the places where we believe trafficking is an issue, we would not be able to stop listing them. There is a real problem in every police area. I am talking about the relationship between on-street and off-street prostitution and trafficking, but the problem goes far beyond that. I am always happy to commend my parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), on the loveliness of his constituency. I occasionally journey there. It is a cliché to refer to leafy parts of Bedfordshire, but trafficking is an issue there.

It is not difficult to find the start of a trafficking trail. We could turn to the back pages of most free local newspapers and just by ringing a telephone number, start an intelligence operation that could result in serious charges, if taken all the way through. The issue is the resources available. Local police authorities, police and crime commissioners, the Home Office, ACPO and the CPS are saying, “We will do more on this issue if there is more leadership and if we believe it is a priority,” so let us work together to make it a priority.

The Government have already signed up to a number of commitments. In March 2011, they signed up to the European directive on trafficking, which states:

“Member States should establish and/or strengthen policies to prevent trafficking in human beings including measures to discourage the demand that fosters all forms of exploitation, and measures to reduce the risk of people falling victims to trafficking in human beings”.

The then Minister for Immigration, the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), said:

“Opting in would send a powerful message to traffickers that Britain is not a soft touch and that we remain world leaders in fighting this terrible crime”,

We have, quite rightly, opted in, but if the Government are not committed to legislation that tackles and reduces the demand for sexual exploitation, we will send exactly the opposite message: that Britain is a soft touch. We do not exist in a vacuum, but alongside nations—particularly on the continent of Europe—in which legislation has been used effectively to tackle the issues around sexual exploitation and trafficking. We have a duty to introduce measures that reduce both the demand that fosters all forms of exploitation and the risk of people becoming victims of trafficking in the first place.

It is currently illegal in the UK to have sex with a minor, to live off the earnings of women selling sex, and to solicit in a public place, but police practice still tends to focus on picking up women and girls who are soliciting, rather than on the men who use them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) talked about exploitation in legal and illegal markets, and about the sex trade being an illegal market; in some cases it is, but in many cases it is not, and that goes to the heart of the question of what we are doing to reduce the demand for human trafficking. Until we have enforceable legislation that protects the most vulnerable in our society, and transfers the burden of criminality to the perpetrators of sexual abuse and violence, we will struggle to say that we are doing all we can to tackle this atrocious affront to civil liberty and the dignity of persons. Too often, victims of trafficking and coercion are the ones facing fines and criminal records, while the perpetrators walk away scot-free.

[Gavin Shuker]

Let me jump ahead in my speech, because that is a salient point. I could mention a number of countries, but merely as examples of places where there are different legal settlements. They certainly do not represent my view of how we should tackle this issue, and I think we should work together and appreciate that there is a problem before we reach a conclusion; indeed, my all-party group will look at many of these issues next year in an inquiry into the legal settlement regarding prostitution.

There is significant evidence to suggest that domestic policies on prostitution have a direct effect on the flow of trafficking. A recent report, which surveyed 160 countries, showed that countries that legalise prostitution experience increased trafficking inflows on average. This is not, therefore, as straightforward as introducing one simple measure. Sweden amended its prostitution law in 1999 by criminalising the purchase of sex, on the basis that prostitution is always, by its very nature, exploitative, which is an interesting point. The prostitution market in Sweden has contracted, and reported instances of trafficking are far lower than in comparable, neighbouring countries. Sweden also has a different criminal justice system, in which it is possible to use wiretap intercept evidence in court, and there are clear examples of traffickers attempting to sell women into the country, particularly for the sex trade, but being told that it is too difficult and that they should choose other countries, because of the draconian measures in place to criminalise the purchase of sex by men. I will come to that in more detail in a moment.

In its strategy on prostitution and the exploitation of prostitution, the CPS recognises that there is a link between trafficking and prostitution. It says:

“The increase in human trafficking for sexual exploitation is also fuelling the market for prostitution in the UK, although this is largely confined to off street and residential premises such as brothels, massage parlours, saunas and in residential flats. This is a lucrative business and is often linked with other organised criminal activity such as immigration crime, violence, drug abuse and money laundering. Women may be vulnerable to exploitation because of their immigration status, economic situation or, more often, because they are subjected to abuse, coercion and violence…there is evidence now that trafficked women are also working on the street.”

On the basis of anecdotal evidence, I also believe that to be the case.

The IDMG report recognises that trafficking does not merely involve crossing borders. In 2011, the Serious Organised Crime Agency recorded that 99 UK citizens were trafficked within the UK, although many of us believe the number is higher. Some 52 UK citizens were trafficked for sexual exploitation, and 80% of them were identified as female children. Even more alarmingly, SOCA reported that some potential victims, especially those subjected to criminal exploitation, continue to be incorrectly identified as suspects.

ACPO’s 2010 study of sexual exploitation in England and Wales—Project Acumen—estimated that 96% of women involved in prostitution in London were migrants. Home Office figures tell us that women involved in street prostitution are 12 times more likely to be murdered than other women, and murders of prostitutes constitute the largest single group of unsolved murders. Another Home Office report estimates that more than half the women involved in prostitution have been raped and/or seriously sexually assaulted, and that at least three quarters of women involved in prostitution have been physically assaulted. Some service providers believe those figures to be underestimates.

One fundamental barrier to protecting those at risk of trafficking for sexual exploitation remains the ambiguous definition of exploitation and coercion. Many victims of sexual exploitation do not consider themselves to be exploited, as a consequence of cultural values, work ethics and levels of remuneration in their home country. However, we must be clear as a country about what we believe exploitation to be, and we must be consistent in applying that understanding. Some people may not be identified as potential victims of trafficking by those who encounter them. We therefore need to reassess the working definitions of exploitation and coercion—problems that lead to intolerable numbers of vulnerable people entering the UK sex industry, often unable to exit.

Current legislation focuses on selling sex or soliciting in a public place, contributing to an “out of sight, out of mind” attitude to sex work. In light of increased awareness of the significant links between prostitution, child sexual exploitation and human trafficking, it is imperative that we put resources into prevention and the protection of those involved in the sex industry, as well as into increased exit pathways and support. To return to my original point, such measures must be backed by appropriate legislation and clear political leadership, to make it clear that accepting abuse and violence towards marginalised persons is unacceptable under any circumstances, and that such practices will be punished through enforceable laws.

There are frightening statistics about sex workers experiencing violence, rape, drug and alcohol misuse, coercion, exploitation and cycles of abuse. How can we reconcile the Government’s commitment to reducing violence against women, protecting children at risk of sexual exploitation and combating trafficking with the tolerance and acceptance of men purchasing sexual services, primarily from vulnerable women, children and men?

To be frank, we cannot protect an individual’s so-called right to sell sexual services at the expense of those trapped in horrendous cycles of abuse. Notions of individual choice and consent cannot be dismissed, but they must be examined in the context of increased vulnerability to coercion and the imbalances of power that, by their very nature, exist in this industry.

There are the simple rules of supply and demand: the supply of commercial sexual services is met predominantly by marginalised women and girls or other vulnerable persons, and the demand is driven by men who take advantage of these marginalised persons. In almost every case, prostitution is the result of the absence of choice—a survival strategy and not an empowered choice. The UN rapporteur on trafficking says:

“It is rare that one finds a case in which the path to prostitution and/or a person’s experiences within prostitution do not involve, at the very least, an abuse of power and/or an abuse of vulnerability. Power and vulnerability in this context must be understood to include power disparities based on gender, race, ethnicity, and poverty. Put simply, the road to prostitution...is rarely one marked by empowerment or adequate options.”

There is significant evidence to suggest that domestic policies on prostitution have a direct effect on the flow of trafficking. I spoke, in response to comments by the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire, about those countries that tackle the matter differently, with a different legal settlement. Sweden, of course, amended its law in 2009, but at the other end of the scale, the Netherlands, which in 2000 lifted the ban on brothels, has experienced a significant rise in the incidence of trafficking, forced prostitution, serious organised crime and money laundering. The mayor of Amsterdam, Job Cohen, was forced to admit that, five years after the lifting of the brothel ban, the aims of the law—to reduce and regulate the prostitution market—had failed, and measures to tackle the spike that had emerged in trafficking would have to be implemented.

[Mr Bone]

That is the really important issue. I do not know the answer to this. The hon. Gentleman is right about the Netherlands, where one would think that it would be easy to identify trafficked women, because things are open and above board, although with the lover-boy syndrome, they do not even recognise that they are victims of trafficking. Yet in Sweden, where there is a ban, the evidence is that activity is driven underground and the treatment of those who are trafficked is even worse. I struggle; I do not think that there is a particularly easy answer.

[Gavin Shuker]

The hon. Gentleman is right about one thing, which is that there is no obvious and easy answer—that is why we debate these things. However, I disagree with his interpretation of the data on Sweden. I would cite the example of New Zealand, where recent studies have considered the effect of legalisation and openness without measures to criminalise purchase. There was an increase in the number of people who felt able to come forward as victims of trafficking; but that was easily overwhelmed by the massive increase in the scale of the industry, which drew in many more trafficked women. Any review of prostitution law has to consider all those factors. However, it is laughable to claim that the current legal settlement is successful, and helps women to exit—I appreciate that it is not only women who are affected, but in this context I will talk about women involved in prostitution—or that it helps to achieve the aims and ambitions of Parliament and the Government, and our commitments to international parties in relation to trafficking. From the evidence of the document, I do not believe that there is enough focus on the issue, given the scale of its contribution to the inflow of human traffic. Any review should examine the subject in detail. Perhaps that is an issue that we can pick up outside the Chamber; I appreciate that time is moving on.

Tackling the roots of increased vulnerability through action against poverty and economic coercion is key, but a commitment to reducing the demand for sexual exploitation will go a long way towards tackling the supply, through trafficking, for forced prostitution. By recognising the links between trafficking and prostitution through robust legislation to tackle demand for all forms of sexual exploitation, the UK could send out a strong statement that we are not open for business, to discourage both the supply and demand for that horrendous affront to human dignity. This afternoon we have had an opportunity to discuss one of the most important issues that Parliament can discuss, and I hope that it will lead to Government action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is an excellent vice-chairman of the all-party group, and he is making a powerful point about the rapporteur. As he rightly says, many of these people do not have any immigration problems anyway, because they are EU citizens. However, the great example from the Netherlands to the Government, who have not grasped this point, is that a rapporteur is hugely to a Government’s benefit. The rapporteur is able to prove what the Government are doing independently, and the Netherlands has found it to be so good that it now has two more rapporteurs in different fields.

[Michael Connarty]

That is very true. The hon. Gentleman and I met the rapporteur from the Netherlands at a meeting; interestingly, he had been given the additional responsibility of protection of children from abuse; that relates to another Council of Europe convention—the convention on the protection of children against sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. That role has been extended, so that it is much wider. One of the great criticisms of the way in which we deal with human trafficking is that we do not deal well with children. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

I want to quote some other organisations, because when it comes to this subject, I am probably a bit too subjective at times; that can happen when a person decides to immerse themselves in an organisation such as the all-party group, or to work alongside someone like Anthony Steen, who has been doing this work for such a long time. When he was on the European Scrutiny Committee, we would go off with the Committee and stay on extra days, wherever we were, to connect with people who were dealing with the countries of origin and transit. That is why, with support from ECPAT UK—End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and the Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes—he has got a project going, called Parliamentarians against Human Trafficking. That is an EU-wide, EU-funded organisation that aims to build these networks in every area. However, it is possible to become somewhat frustrated, and to see things a little bit too emotionally.

The Cambridge Centre for Applied Research in Human Trafficking has produced a review of the rapporteur for trafficking. It talks about the Finnish, the Dutch and the observatory in Portugal, which we have been to, and we had discussions there. It also talks about the UK, and what it says is not flattering. It argues that it should follow Finland and the Netherlands in appointing a designated national rapporteur on trafficking in human beings. It discusses the independence of the role from Government, with the ability to call the Government to account. I know that the Minister has a promising career. He has a style that will probably take him far, but he is not yet powerful enough to hold his own Government to account, because that is not what happens in junior Ministers’ careers. If they try to hold their Government to account, they find that they are soon on the Back Benches. It is a very nice place, the Back Benches—I have been here for 20 years—and, in fact, it is probably more effective than toadying up to any Minister. It is the death knell of their career if a junior Minister thinks that he can hold the Government to account, but a rapporteur can do that, which is why we must have one.

The review discusses

“A place where the widest possible information can be gleaned on the numbers considered to be trafficked”.

That is the point that we found in the Netherlands. We are talking about being surrounded by non-governmental organisations that clearly believe in the purposefulness of the rapporteur and their ability to make a difference to the issues to which people in NGOs give their lives, even though they probably do not have a great incentive in terms of money or career. That means people from faith groups, non-faith groups, civic society and elsewhere. It comes down to it being a post

“which clearly defends human rights and acts as an independent monitoring party regardless of party or governmental vicissitudes of attention.”

That is a wonderful idea that we should grasp, and that the Minister should take away from the debate. The report is welcome—no one would doubt that—and it is good that it has been produced, but it shows the inadequacies, rather than the adequacies, of what the Government are doing, and it highlights the problems that we should be dealing with but are not.

I must say a little about domestic slavery, because the report says that one of the rising figures is that for trafficking for domestic slavery or domestic service. Every organisation that I have spoken to outside Parliament has been not just critical but condemnatory of the Government for withdrawing the domestic servants visa, which was brought in after a lot of pressure and discussion, and late in the life of the previous Government, because it was clear that people were being kept as slaves. There were reports of people living on the scraps from the table. They were being fed after the dogs. That was in some of the big, palatial houses in west London, where people from the diplomatic and business communities live.

I have been reading a book put together by Baroness Caroline Cox and Dr John Marks called “This Immoral Trade”. It talks about the 27 million men, women and children in the world who are in slavery. Some in Sudan and Burma are enslaved after a war and are sold on, or traded, to people who willingly hold them and sell them back to their communities. It turns out, when we read the book, that many of those women and men in Burma and Sudan are held in Arab communities. In fact, disturbingly, arguments are made in present-day Islamic law that slavery is all right, is acceptable. That is in sura 16:71 and sura 30:28 of the Koran. Sura 4:3, sura 23:6, sura 33:50-52 and sura 70:30 recognise concubinage, whereby slaves can be held by a master and used as concubines—for sexual favours. The Koran bans the sale of those people for prostitution, but they can be used as concubines. We would think that all these things must be ancient history, because there was also support for slavery in the Old Testament in the Christian Bible, but in fact Sheikh Saleh Al-Fawzam has written a religious textbook in the 21st century that is used in Saudi schools that says:

“Slavery is…part of Islam…Slavery is part of jihad”.

The book goes on to say that he argued against the idea that slavery had ever been abolished, and said that those who espoused that view were

“ignorant, not scholars…Whoever says such things is an infidel.”

In the far reaches of the world, slavery is still associated with capture because of war. Clearly, we can do little about that unless we can have a dialogue with people who believe that they can justify slavery. The question of domestic servants—why are people kept in such terrible conditions in the homes of people from those countries who come here as diplomats and business people?—may be too close to that debate for us to talk about comfortably, because saying anything against someone’s beliefs is somehow taken as a form of racism, but it is not. There are human rights that run through everything—that challenge the ethics of any organisation.

The domestic servants visa recognised that. It said that people who were being treated like that should be able to leave a bad master and transfer to another employer. Kalayaan, the organisation that such people could go to, was well known to the police in London. To take that away from people, the Government argue, will expose those who come in as domestic servants and are illegal; it will make them easier to see. It is funny that the hon. Member for Wellingborough agrees with that; I thought that he made a very good point when he said that in Sweden, when people are told that they cannot sell their body for sex, the practice goes underground. If we say to people, “You can’t leave a bad master because you don’t have a visa,” that does not mean that people are not brought in. It does not mean that people are not kept in captivity and treated as domestic slaves. It just means that they have no right to leave a bad master. It is important that the Government examine that. I am surprised that there was not a hue and cry about it among the faith groups—perhaps they did not know that it existed—and among people of ethics and principle. What worries me is that the all-party group did not have a debate and come to a conclusion on that. I therefore feel that we are complicit, as an organisation, in not calling for Members of this Parliament to debate the issue and make their voices heard. I hope that at some time in the future we will.

The treatment of children is criticised by everyone who reads this report, because 67% of children who are found to have been trafficked and are put into care run away. They vanish—no one seems to know where they go—and they end up being re-trafficked, and back among groups that re-abuse or reuse them. There are cases of 14-year-olds who are trafficked, caught thieving, put into care and run away. They are found working as “farmers” in houses that are being used for growing cannabis, and are criminalised for being caught taking part in a cannabis-growing organisation. There is no question that at the age of 14, 12 or even earlier—whenever it started—these people decided to have the life of a criminal.

As has been said, some people get involved in prostitution at a very early age. One of our colleagues came back from India recently. He came along to one of our forum meetings—brought by the chair of the all-party group, the hon. Member for Wellingborough—and he said that, in India, children were being kidnapped or taken from their parents on the promise of a better life and brought to cities to have sex with men who thought that if they had sex with a virgin, they would have a cure for HIV. The vast majority of those children were of primary school age, and some were under school age—under five years old—when they were kidnapped. There are things going on in the world, but that does not mean that they are not going on in our communities and within the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate, Mr Havard, and I congratulate all the hon. Members who have spoken, especially the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), both on his opening speech and on all his work on the issue. It has been a privilege to listen to all colleagues’ speeches.

Human trafficking is despicable. It denies our common humanity. It strips its victims of their human dignity, threatens their safety and well-being and denies their human rights. The fact that it continues in civilised society shames every one of us. I welcome the focus that the work of the all-party parliamentary group has given to the issue, and I am pleased that we are debating the first report of the Inter-Departmental Ministerial Group on Human Trafficking.

The debate can send a powerful signal from Parliament that we abhor and absolutely condemn the practice. I endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) called it: it is modern-day slavery. We cannot live with such a state of affairs. Listening to some of the speeches in this debate, particularly those made by him and by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker), I felt how little we have progressed as a society; those speeches could have been given in the House 150 years ago, and similar speeches probably were.

We have discussed many aspects of the problem and the different purposes for which people are trafficked: forced labour, domestic servitude or sexual exploitation. We have talked about who is trafficked: children, women and men, often desperate to make a better life for themselves. Sometimes, they arrive in this country with no idea that they face the fate of being forced into servitude.

We have talked about the global dimension of trafficking, but I endorse right hon. and hon. Members’ comments that whatever the source country, although it is right that we consider actions to help prevent trafficking from those source countries, the problem also lies significantly in this country. We could hear no more powerful description of the challenge that we face at home than the truly shocking experience described by the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous).

I want to repeat some of the points made in the debate that I hope the Minister and the interdepartmental ministerial group will address as they pursue their work. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) highlighted, there is a tension between enforcement and protection. There is also particular concern about the fate of trafficked children. Where the authorities become aware of such a situation, the overriding consideration must be to protect the child’s best interests and welfare. No one disputes that, but too often we fail in practice.

Children suffer from a wall of general disbelief that can face those who seek to report their experience. The pervading culture of scepticism takes a particularly pernicious form when a young person is not even believed to be a child. Although there are no statutory guidelines, the UK Border Agency’s policy is that where there is doubt about a young person’s age, they are to be given the benefit of that doubt, presumed to be a minor and entitled to the special protections that we afford to those who are under age. However, that does not always happen in practice.

I invite the Minister to comment on what steps are being taken to reinforce the message to all decision makers and enforcement agencies, including the UK Border Agency and the police. I point out that those agencies are not necessarily always the best equipped to make decisions about the best interests and welfare of children. It is of concern that there is no mandatory training for those who deal with trafficked children. Will he comment on that? As colleagues have highlighted, we too often fail trafficked children, particularly when they come into our care system, where much more effort is necessary to address their special needs.

The culture of disbelief and responses that are often more about enforcement than protection are felt by more people than just children. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South said, they are also felt by those who have been sexually exploited.

[Mr Bone]

The hon. Lady is making some important points. Does she not agree that it is strange that a child from an EU country who comes into this country would actually want the Border Agency to recognise them as an adult, because they would be better looked after than a child?

[Kate Green]

It is clearly a terrible irony that we are incapable of looking after children and meeting their needs properly. It is of particular concern that when children are identified as children and enter the state care system their needs are so inadequately met. I hope that the Minister will discuss that, because it is a genuine concern for right hon. and hon. Members.

My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South discussed those trafficked for sexual exploitation. Some of his points were also highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who has done powerful work in the field. The debate about how best to protect those engaged in sex work through criminal law is a live one, and there are undoubtedly differences of view about criminalisation. It is important that we learn lessons from international experience, including experiences on our own doorstep, in Scotland. Will the Minister tell us whether the UK Government are considering the criminal law on sex work, particularly its application to trafficked sex workers?

The Minister will also be aware of the Home Office-funded national “ugly mugs” programme, which encourages sex workers to share reports of violent perpetrators. I would welcome his assurance this afternoon that the very modest funding for the programme will continue. I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Slough on the shockingly low number of prosecutions and the lenient sentences that result when a prosecution and conviction ensue. I invite the Minister to comment on whether victims’ concerns, which make them hesitant even to report their experiences, can be traced back to that. If they feel that the law will treat them as criminals, rather than victims, and they hear about the lenient sentences and low number of prosecutions when stories are told, they will be unlikely to report their own experiences.

We discussed those trafficked into the labour market—both the formal and the grey labour markets. There are examples of good practice, which we have not talked about. Companies signed up, including during the Olympics, to the tourism child protection code of practice and to take action on corporate supply chains as a mechanism for enforcement, which has been touched on. Those steps are welcome, but I hope that the Minister will say what more the Government will do to encourage more businesses to follow suit.

My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk promoted a Bill to legislate along the lines of the Californian approach. Given the Government’s lack of enthusiasm for regulation, I fear that the Minister will be reluctant to adopt such legislation. He must surely accept that, if Government intervention is to be avoided, business needs to take rigorous and more determined action. There is clearly a role for the Government in promoting that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

I accept that, but I felt slightly beaten up about the question whether the interdepartmental ministerial group was effective. I was also worried by the almost unanimously positive comments from Opposition Members about me and my future career—it is never good when Opposition Members over-praise Ministers; I always think that does us great harm—but I will take them in the spirit in which I am sure they were intended.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead raised the question of data and of really understanding this issue, which is something I have raised internally. The cases referred through the national referral mechanism are only the tip of the iceberg. Globally, reports suggest that many millions of people are affected in the trade. One task that I have given my officials is to crunch those numbers and to understand the true picture, including how that plays out across the country.

As some Members have said—my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire made the point powerfully—and as the NGOs that I have met have echoed, the problem is not just in inner cities or parts of the country where people think this sort of thing goes on. On anti-slavery day, I met several people from what some might call leafy parts of the country, such as Surrey, who had seen this activity happening. They felt that, as my hon. Friend said, it is important to get people to think about the issue, to understand that it might be going on in their street or round the corner, and to be alert to what they should look for.

On data and understanding the problem, it is important to get the public to understand that there is an issue—picking up the point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty): telling a constituent why it matters to them, and making them understand that—and to focus on it. That, in turn, picks up the point made by the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) about pressures on police forces and constabularies. People must understand that this is a big problem and that there are interconnections, in that people involved in trafficking are also involved in wider organised crime. This big economic problem generates lots of money that is then used for other criminal activities. It is not a small problem located in one place; it is very wide and police forces ought to take it seriously.

I will not go through this issue at length, but it is worth saying on police and crime commissioners—I take the point made by the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) that they have been in existence for not quite a month—that the Government are making sure they are aware of their national responsibilities as well as their purely local ones. In other words, they must be aware of the types of crime with a national or international dimension that will impact on them, so that, in setting priorities, they understand that their police forces must think about such matters.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough mentioned the National Crime Agency. It will have within it the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, the Human Trafficking Centre and the Border Policing Command. It will be a repository of good intelligence gathering and an analysis operation. It will have its own operational police and law enforcement officers but, as my hon. Friend said, it will also have the ability, if necessary, to task police forces for particular operations. Clearly, it will be much better if it engages such police forces by debating and explaining the issue and getting them on board voluntarily, but it also has a tasking power that may ultimately be important, certainly in getting people to pay attention, as my hon. Friend rightly said.

My hon. Friend and other Members raised the issue of the protection of children, which the Government take very seriously. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) spoke about training in the UK Border Force and the UK Border Agency. On meeting front-line Border Force officers who are at the primary checkpoints as people come into the country, and the staff of the UKBA, I have been struck by how aware they are of the child protection issue and the need to be alert to it, of all the signs of children travelling with people who are not their parents, and of what we need to put in place to protect those children. I am not saying we are perfect—we can always do better—but I have been pleasantly surprised by that. Before doing this job, I was not really aware of how much training and expertise is available at the border for those officers as people enter the country. As I have said, I am sure we can do more, but we are very focused on that area.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough also raised the issue of how we look after adult victims of trafficking. We have the contract with the Salvation Army to look after adult victims because there was no existing process for looking after them. There is an established mechanism for child protection that, as my hon. Friend said, is delivered through local government. I absolutely heard what he said about its effectiveness. There have recently been several cases in which—if we are in any doubt—we can see that trafficked children are not always well looked after by local government. I listened carefully to the examples he gave of projects that are under way to find a better approach. I do not want to prejudge their outcomes, but I assure him that I and other members of the ministerial group will consider those results closely to see whether there is a better way. He specifically referred to the Barnado’s pilot project for safe homes for children, and that and various other pilots will provide us with evidence about what works best, and we will be guided by what the evidence shows is effective.

Another thing worth saying is that the failures there have been will drive change in how we deliver care for children generally. Not only have trafficked children not been as well protected in the care sector as they might have been, but many UK-based children who have not been trafficked end up not being well looked after. We will need to see what various reports suggest the Government should do instead before we respond. The protection of children is one of the most important things—my hon. Friend said it was the single most important thing—and that feeling was generally shared by the Members who have spoken.

My hon. Friend also flagged up that the report did not specifically mention the all-party group on human trafficking or the Human Trafficking Foundation. I assure him that, if so, that very much falls into the cock-up and not the conspiracy camp. There was certainly no deliberate intention not to mention them, and he was right to put on the record what he said about the Human Trafficking Foundation, which I have already echoed. He was too modest to mention, although others did, the excellent work of the all-party parliamentary group—that is not a catchy description either. It is important and helpful to get together people from across Parliament not only to take evidence, but to visit other countries and see what goes on. In a previous debate, my hon. Friend invited me to attend a meeting of the all-party group and if he wishes me to do so at an appropriate time, I would be delighted to attend, both to listen and to talk.

The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk mentioned child guardians, which we have not introduced because there are existing mechanisms. However, I have signed off funding for the Refugee Council and the Children’s Society, which he mentioned, to undertake a joint independent scoping review of the practical care arrangements for trafficked children in care. That will look at the experience of trafficked children and practitioners to find examples of how people have been treated in the care system, and will report by the end of spring 2013. When we commissioned the report, we wanted something that told us about the experience of real children who have been through the system rather than a piece of desk research. We will look very carefully at the evidence to see whether it leads us to change policy in this area.

There are trafficked victims who end up undertaking criminal activity. We want to protect them and ensure that they are not turned into criminals. Let me be clear: if the circumstances of the arrest, or the evidence referred to by a prosecutor, suggest that someone may have been trafficked, the guidance is clear, as was I think acknowledged. In such a case, prosecutors should obtain further information, and work with the police to get more evidence. Where there is evidence that a suspect has been under duress, the prosecutor should not proceed. That is clear in theory, but I understand the concerns of Members about the extent to which that theoretical plan is carried through in practice.

[Mr Bone]

If non-governmental organisations provide me with specific cases of people being prosecuted when they should not have been, will the Minister undertake to look into them?

[Mr Harper]

Yes, I will. My hon. Friend the Solicitor-General, who sits on the interdepartmental ministerial group, is obviously responsible for prosecution policy. If my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough gives me some specific examples of that policy perhaps having not been followed, of course I will look at them and, where appropriate, discuss them with the Solicitor-General to see whether we need to take further steps.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

I am very grateful to you, Mr Havard, for allowing me to sum up what I think has been one of the most interesting debates that I have attended. It has benefited greatly from the fact that the speeches have been thoughtful, constructive and in no way party political. I thank all the Members who have spoken for that; of course, they are all members of the all-party group on human trafficking.

I also thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), for her comments, which I thought were useful, constructive and expressed in the right spirit.

Briefly, I want to thank the Members who spoke, starting with the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). I thank her for getting off her sick bed, coming in and powerfully making her point, partly in relation to the rapporteur and partly in relation to domestic visas. I will make a quick comment on domestic visas. I say to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), who is one of the deputy chairs of the all-party group, that a debate on that subject would be a very good debate that we should press for. The Backbench Business Committee method is something that the all-party group should look to use in the new year. That would allow us to debate all the issues and to highlight the different opinions on domestic visas.

What I recognised from the debate was the fact that, although there was no collusion, everybody from the Back Benches acknowledged the need for an independent rapporteur. We will come back to that issue again, especially if we feel that the Inter-Departmental Ministerial Group on Human Trafficking does not do its job. If the Minister does not change the group’s name, that will be good enough reason for anyone to think that we need a rapporteur.

I thank all Members for speaking. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) told an extraordinary story, and he put it most powerfully. Anyone listening to that story realises that such events can happen anywhere.

The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who unusually made a prepared written speech for this debate—

[Mr Frank Field]

Never before.

[Mr Bone]

Indeed; it is unique. The right hon. Gentleman’s speech was really powerful, but everyone who spoke did so exceptionally well. I am very grateful to everyone who attended today and to the Backbench Business Committee.

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

Thank you very much, Mr Bone. It is my duty now to bring this debate to an end. Cyfarchion y tymor i chi—season’s greetings to you all—and if we survive the Mayan new year tomorrow, we will resume in 2013.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I certainly recognise the serious nature of the crimes the hon. Gentleman highlights and am sure that he will welcome a number of the joint operations with the Serious Organised Crime Agency—in a recent case, 30 Lithuanians were freed as a consequence. I hope that he will also welcome the work of colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills who have recently put out for public consultation legislation on the human rights reporting requirements of quoted companies, which we believe will go a long way towards addressing the concerns highlighted in his Bill.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

In human trafficking, far more people are exploited for labour than for sex, and the Minister is right to concentrate on organised gangs. Will he expand a little on how the Government will target organised gangs?

[James Brokenshire]

I know that my hon. Friend has a long-standing commitment to and interest in this important issue. I highlight the creation of the new National Crime Agency with an attached border command, which will harness greater intelligence. The national human trafficking centre will form part of that and will, we believe, really strengthen the approach in combating that appalling crime.

Abu Qatada

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right: Abu Qatada had taken his appeal through all levels of the courts here in the UK, and at every level it had been found that he could be deported. It was the appeal to the European Court that prevented his deportation, and although today’s decision is one of a British court, it has been taken against the background of a very high barrier to deportation that has now been set by the European Court.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I have listened to an hour of excuses for why we cannot deport this man. The Home Secretary wants to deport him; the shadow Home Secretary wants to deport him; the Supreme Court says he can be deported; the British people say he should be deported: just deport him, and worry about the consequences afterwards. Does the Home Secretary agree?

[Mrs May]

I think we have had this conversation before, or a very similar one, and I repeat what I have always said: it is my intention to do everything in the Government’s power to deport Abu Qatada within the rule of law. It is important that Ministers standing at this Dispatch Box commit themselves to operating within the rule of law.

European Justice and Home Affairs Powers

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

What a star we have in the Home Secretary—terrorists are sent home, powers are brought back from Europe and Parliament is given a year’s notice on something. What more can she do? Will she consider the views of the all-party group on human trafficking, which recognises that most of the successful operations against traffickers have been bilateral and not undertaken through the European regulation? Will she bear that in mind?

[Mrs May]

I shall certainly bear that in mind, particularly given my hon. Friend’s work against human trafficking. It would be wrong to assume that there is only one way of doing things—we can co-operate in a variety of ways to ensure that we get the best results in the national interest.