This article provides a commentary on growing awareness of human trafficking to and within the United Kingdom and government responses to it

Craig, Gary

Social Inclusion

English

Name not available

Human trafficking and the UK modern slavery bill

Cogitatio Press (E-Journals)

 Social Inclusion, 2015, Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages 136-139 136 
Social Inclusion (ISSN: 2183-2803) 
2015, Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages 136-139 
Doi: 10.17645/si.v3i1.202 
 
Commentary 
Human Trafficking and the UK Modern Slavery Bill 
Gary Craig 1,2 
1 Durham University, County Durham DH1, UK; E-Mail: Gary.craig@durham.ac.uk 
2 Wilberforce Institute for the Study of Slavery and Emancipation, Yorkshire HU6 7RX, University of Hull, UK;  
E-Mail: g.craig@hull.ac.uk 
Submitted: 10 December 2014 | Accepted: 19 December 2014 | Published: 23 February 2015 
Abstract 
This article provides a commentary on growing awareness of human trafficking to and within the United Kingdom and 
government responses to it. 
Keywords 
forced labour; modern slavery; trafficking 
Issue 
This commentary is part of the special issue “Perspectives on Human Trafficking and Modern Forms of Slavery”, edited 
by Siddharth Kara (Harvard Kennedy School of Government, USA). 
© 2015 by the author; licensee Cogitatio (Lisbon, Portugal). This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribu-
tion 4.0 International License (CC BY). 
 
Two hundred years after William Wilberforce led the 
UK parliamentary campaign to abolish the Transatlantic 
Slave Trade,1 British parliamentarians have woken up 
to the fact that slavery still existed, not just, as many 
thought, on the other side of the world in exploitative 
or poorly regulated labour markets, or in autocratic 
dictatorships, but on their own doorstep. Disbelief in 
the existence of modern slavery, in all its forms, was 
widely shared: as Archbishop Desmond Tutu, no stranger 
to exploitation, put it in 1999, “Slavery…I didn’t know 
about all these forms that existed. I think it’s largely 
because we aren’t expecting it. It is hidden. Generally 
people would not believe that it is possible under 
modern conditions. They would say ‘No I think you are 
making it all up’, because it’s just too incredible” (Tutu, 
1999, as cited in Craig, 2007). 
The British government was thus initially reluctant 
                                                          
1 It is probably worth noting that, in line with many other 
claims made by the UK government to be world-leading, the 
claim that this was an innovative initiative is not true. Denmark 
had abolished the slave trade in its colonies in the late 18th 
century, several decades before the UK. The UK Act was how-
ever significant because the UK had industrialised the slave 
trade, making it larger, more efficient and more profitable—for 
a while—than it otherwise might have been. 
to endorse all aspects of what has come to be known 
as the Palermo Protocol, the legal instrument estab-
lished by the United Nations in 2000 to “prevent, sup-
press and punish trafficking in persons, especially 
women and children” (Palermo Protocol, 2000), sup-
plementing the United Nations Convention against 
Transnational Organised Crime, and followed in 2005 
by the Council of Europe Convention on Trafficking in 
Human Beings. Questions in the UK parliament re-
vealed considerable ignorance of the scope and scale 
of trafficking; estimates of those involved were very 
vague and, as it later turned out, hopelessly under-
counted the actual numbers involved. 
As evidence grew (supported by growing awareness 
of the related issue of forced labour—for example, the 
death of 23 Chinese cockle pickers working for a crimi-
nal gangmaster, who drowned off the English coast in 
2004—and more general labour exploitation), the UK 
began to move on the issue establishing, in 2007, a 
new organisation, the UK Human Trafficking Centre 
(UKHTC), staffed largely by serving police officers, to 
monitor and collect data, and report to government on 
the extent of human trafficking. By 2013, the scale of 
human trafficking emerged more clearly. The UKHTC, 
now part of the umbrella National Crime Agency, re-
 Social Inclusion, 2015, Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages 136-139 137 
ceived almost 3000 referrals that year, from so-called 
First Responders,2 of alleged trafficking victims to its 
National Referral Mechanism (NRM), the official “entry 
point” for victims seeking “rescue” and rehabilitation. 
By then, it also became clear that human trafficking, 
whether for sexual or labour exploitation, was the tip 
of a much larger modern slavery iceberg. The Joseph 
Rowntree Foundation, a charitable foundation spon-
soring research into poverty and disadvantage pub-
lished a report in 2007 into the scope of modern slav-
ery in the UK (Craig, Wilkinson, Gaus, Mcquade, & 
Skrivankova, 2007), following this with a large research 
programme into forced labour (see Joseph Rowntree 
Foundation (n.d.), for example, Geddes, Craig, & Scott 
(2013)). By 2014, it had become clear that both the 
scale of modern slavery was much larger than had 
been presumed, and that its scope was also much wid-
er than had been understood, with new forms of slav-
ery practice becoming much more common within the 
UK. These included the imprisonment of young (often 
Vietnamese) men by Chinese gangs to manage canna-
bis “farms”, the severe physical and sometimes sexual 
exploitation of domestic workers by wealthy business-
men/women and diplomats, forced begging and theft 
by young children trafficked or smuggled into the UK 
for this purpose and the suggestion, although as yet un-
substantiated, that some people had been trafficked in-
to the UK for the purposes of organ harvesting.3  
The growing clamour around issues of modern 
slavery, focused initially on the issue of trafficking for 
sexual purposes in particular, where a number of 
prominent NGOs had been active in lobbying govern-
ment, alongside growing pressure from groups of MPs, 
finally led to the government agreeing to publish a 
draft Modern Slavery Bill, which appeared in December 
2013. This Bill (HoC, 2013) was very weak and led to 
substantial criticism from virtually every side, notwith-
standing the claim by government that it was intended 
to be world-leading in the fight against modern slavery. 
The draft Bill went through an unusual process before 
reappearing in a final form before Parliament in June 
2014, being subject to examination by a Joint Select 
Committee4 and by a separate All-Party Group of MPs, 
each of which was highly critical of much in the Bill and 
much that should have been but wasn’t. The Bill was 
                                                          
2 First Responders are a range of organisations which have the 
responsibility for referring alleged victims of trafficking into the 
NRM: these include immigration authorities, local council chil-
dren’s services departments, police forces, some Non-
governmental organisations and other criminal justice agencies 
3 Organs such as livers and kidneys are removed under com-
pulsion or duress of some kind (for example to settle cases of 
debt bondage), often in dangerous contexts, for sale to 
wealthy people requiring transplants. 
4 Specifically-nominated group of representatives from both 
the Commons (the Lower House) and the Lords (the Upper 
House) 
also subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny (a more tech-
nical legalistic process) and examined by other inter-
ests within Parliament (such as the Joint Committee on 
Human Rights) for any implications for their own work. 
At the same time, many individuals, organisations, 
NGOs, researchers and others, took the opportunity to 
promote their own critiques. By the time the govern-
ment’s final Bill was published, it had thus been very 
thoroughly scrutinised, the government’s claim that it 
was world-leading looking fragile indeed.5 
Before a Bill becomes an Act of parliament, it pass-
es through a series of processes: in a nutshell, these in-
volve detailed debate in a special Bill Committee, in 
which existing clauses are fought over and new ones 
(possibly) added (Committee stage); an amended Bill is 
then presented to the Commons (Report stage) when 
the whole House has the chance to debate it, clause by 
clause; passage then to the House of Lords where a 
very detailed and possibly elongated debate takes 
place through a similar process; and return to the 
House of Commons in an amended form when final 
debates take place and, normally, the government has 
its way, in the process often nullifying many changes 
which the Lords have made. Given that the govern-
ment intends the Bill to be enacted by the end of Par-
liament, this requires it to pass through all its stages 
essentially by Easter 2015.6 
Despite growing awareness of the much wider 
scope of modern slavery, most of the Bill remains fo-
cused on the issue of human trafficking. Much of the 
early work of the Commons Committee debating the 
Bill focused on establishing the precise wording needed 
to encompass all the possible offences which might be 
involved, and how children in particular might be pro-
tected by its provisions.7 One key argument has been 
                                                          
5 There has been considerable debate as to why, in the last 
year of a five year parliament, the Home Secretary Theresa 
May, should bother to promote a Bill of this kind which was un-
likely to be a large votewinner. Most explanations have come 
to rest around the view that, if the General Election is unkind 
to the Conservative Party and the current leader David Camer-
on is obliged to resign the leadership, it would not harm May’s 
ambitions to be party leader if she were associated with legis-
lation which would distance her from the epithet of “nasty par-
ty” often attached to the Conservatives. Her behaviour during 
the passage of the Bill suggests that she personally has had 
some difficulty in maintaining that distance. 
6 By the time of reading this, we shall know whether this was 
the case and in what form the Bill finally reached the statute 
book. Much concern regarding this timetable is centered on 
the Lords where it is feared that everyone will have a view—
perhaps at great length—and that time will be so pressured by 
the point at which the Bill goes back to the Commons, that se-
rious issues may be lost or not debated. 
7 This is important as the UK judiciary remains largely very ill-
informed about the nature of modern slavery and has often ei-
ther failed to recognise the seriousness of offences or regarded 
victims of trafficking or forced labour as criminals. The gov-
 Social Inclusion, 2015, Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages 136-139 138 
about what form the precise protection for children 
might take with one suggested scheme, involving chil-
dren being provided by the state with Advocates, to 
defend the best interests of the child, being piloted by 
an NGO.8 Whilst the issue of trafficking remains very 
central to the Bill, this has essentially focused almost 
entirely on trafficking for sexual exploitation of adults 
and children (those defined by the UK to be under 18).  
The issue of trafficking for labour exploitation, and 
of forced labour (which can occur whether or not traf-
ficking is involved) is receiving far less attention. Alt-
hough forced labour was made a freestanding criminal 
offence in 2009,9 thus technically detaching it from the 
issue of trafficking, the number of cases brought before 
the courts remains very low and in one notable case, 
Operation Ruby, what was a clear-cut and very well-
prepared case of forced labour was thrown out by the 
judiciary who had, it seemed, a very limited under-
standing of how forced labour worked, the judge argu-
ing that if people were free to move around, they could 
not be regarded as being enslaved: this completely 
failed to understand the nature of psychological or 
emotional compulsion. At the time of writing, one im-
portant victory appears to have been won with the 
government finally agreeing to include a clause requir-
ing companies to take some responsibility for exploring 
whether slavery might be found in their supply 
chains.10 Contrarily, the Committee however has failed 
to respond to demands to protect domestic workers. 
                                                                                           
ernment is now committed to recognising victims as just that. 
8 This is one of several initiatives the government has taken 
whilst the Bill is still being debated. Another is to create a 
Modern Slavery Unit within the Home Office; yet another to 
move departmental responsibility for the Gangmasters’ Licens-
ing Authority, which scrutinises businesses for evidence of 
forced labour, from the agricultural department (DEFRA) to the 
Home Office; a fourth to review the NRM in light of the scath-
ing critique developed by many organisations (see the reports 
produced by the Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group, n.d.); and a 
fifth, to advertise publicly for the post of Anti-Slavery Commis-
sioner. This role, essentially that of a national rapporteur, was 
recommended by the Council of Europe to be an independent 
one but, although the Bill alludes to an Independent Commis-
sioner, it is far from clear that the Commissioner can work free 
from government interference and, for example, report direct 
to Parliament. To advertise the post whilst the issue has yet to 
be debated in Parliament smacks of a government determined 
to get its own way. The pilot project is being undertaken by 
Barnados, a leading UK children’s charity (n.d.). 
9 In a clause in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (TSO, 2009). 
10 See the report by J. Allain and colleagues on this issue, avail-
able through the JRF website, see footnote 5 (Allain et al., 
2013). Perhaps surprisingly, some big businesses have sup-
ported further regulation, arguing that unscrupulous compa-
nies, using forced labour, would be able to price their goods 
lower, thus taking a greater market share from the “better” 
companies. 
There has also been substantial pressure to extend the 
remit (and thus the resources) of the Gangmasters Li-
censing Authority from its current narrow focus on 
three industrial sectors to many more (or even the 
whole of the labour market), which would probably re-
quire it to move its departmental home again. At pre-
sent the GLA is only able effectively to investigate a 
small fraction of possible forced labour cases. 
The outcome of these debates remains to be seen 
and lobbying will remain intense right up to the day of 
enactment. At present, whilst it seems that claims for 
the UK to be world-leading in its legislation may be 
somewhat overblown (not least because it has been 
taking advice from other countries on the form of vari-
ous proposals), there is no doubt that many other 
states are watching the Bill’s progress with interest and 
hopefully will learn from it. Once enacted, it will pro-
vide many improvements and provide a focus for fur-
ther debate and improvement, though there is a huge 
task to turn law and policy into practice. There is little 
doubt however that it will be considerably less than 
200 years before another Act comes to be placed on 
the statute book. 
Conflict of Interests 
The author declares no conflict of interests. 
References 
Allain, J., Crane, A., Le Baron, G., & Behbahani, L. 
(2013). Forced labour’s business models and supply 
chains. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. 
Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group. (n.d.). What we do. 
Retrieved from: www.antislavery.org/atmg 
Barnados. (n.d.). Retrieved from: www.barnados.org.uk 
Craig, G. (2007). Speech at launch of UK Human Traf-
ficking Foundation, Leeds, UK, 14 November 2007. 
Craig, G., Wilkinson, M., Gaus, A., Mcquade, A., & Skri-
vankova, K. (2007). Modern slavery in the UK. York: 
Joseph Rowntree Foundation. 
Geddes, A., Craig, G., & Scott, S. (2013). Forced labour 
in the UK. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. 
HoC. (2013). Draft modern slavery bill. Presented to 
Parliament, Cm 8770, December 16 2013. 
Joseph Rowntree Foundation (n.d.). Forced labour. Re-
trieved from www.jrf.org.uk/search/site/forced%20 
labour 
Palermo Protocol. (2000). Protocol to prevent, suppress 
and punish trafficking in persons, especially women 
and children, supplementing the United Nations 
convention against transnational organized crime. 
New York: United Nations. 
TSO. (2009). Coroners and Justice Act (c.25). London: 
The Stationery Office. 
 Social Inclusion, 2015, Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages 136-139 139 
About the Author 
 
Gary Craig 
Gary Craig is Professor of Social Justice at Durham University and Emeritus Professor of Social Justice 
at the Wilberforce Institute for the study of Slavery and Emancipation, University of Hull. His major 
researches at present focus on different aspects of modern slavery such as forced labour and human 
trafficking although he researches more widely in the fields of “race” and ethnicity. He currently co-
ordinates the forced labour monitoring group within the UK: www.flmg.org 
 


Human Trafficking and the UK Modern Slavery Bill

University of Hull Institutional Repository

 Social Inclusion, 2015, Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages 136-139 136 Social Inclusion (ISSN: 2183-2803) 2015, Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages 136-139 Doi: 10.17645/si.v3i1.202  Commentary Human Trafficking and the UK Modern Slavery Bill Gary Craig 1,2 1 Durham University, County Durham DH1, UK; E-Mail: Gary.craig@durham.ac.uk 2 Wilberforce Institute for the Study of Slavery and Emancipation, Yorkshire HU6 7RX, University of Hull, UK;  E-Mail: g.craig@hull.ac.uk Submitted: 10 December 2014 | Accepted: 19 December 2014 | Published: 23 February 2015 Abstract This article provides a commentary on growing awareness of human trafficking to and within the United Kingdom and government responses to it. Keywords forced labour; modern slavery; trafficking Issue This commentary is part of the special issue “Perspectives on Human Trafficking and Modern Forms of Slavery”, edited by Siddharth Kara (Harvard Kennedy School of Government, USA). © 2015 by the author; licensee Cogitatio (Lisbon, Portugal). This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribu-tion 4.0 International License (CC BY).  Two hundred years after William Wilberforce led the UK parliamentary campaign to abolish the Transatlantic Slave Trade,1 British parliamentarians have woken up to the fact that slavery still existed, not just, as many thought, on the other side of the world in exploitative or poorly regulated labour markets, or in autocratic dictatorships, but on their own doorstep. Disbelief in the existence of modern slavery, in all its forms, was widely shared: as Archbishop Desmond Tutu, no stranger to exploitation, put it in 1999, “Slavery…I didn’t know about all these forms that existed. I think it’s largely because we aren’t expecting it. It is hidden. Generally people would not believe that it is possible under modern conditions. They would say ‘No I think you are making it all up’, because it’s just too incredible” (Tutu, 1999, as cited in Craig, 2007). The British government was thus initially reluctant                                                           1 It is probably worth noting that, in line with many other claims made by the UK government to be world-leading, the claim that this was an innovative initiative is not true. Denmark had abolished the slave trade in its colonies in the late 18th century, several decades before the UK. The UK Act was how-ever significant because the UK had industrialised the slave trade, making it larger, more efficient and more profitable—for a while—than it otherwise might have been. to endorse all aspects of what has come to be known as the Palermo Protocol, the legal instrument estab-lished by the United Nations in 2000 to “prevent, sup-press and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children” (Palermo Protocol, 2000), sup-plementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, and followed in 2005 by the Council of Europe Convention on Trafficking in Human Beings. Questions in the UK parliament re-vealed considerable ignorance of the scope and scale of trafficking; estimates of those involved were very vague and, as it later turned out, hopelessly under-counted the actual numbers involved. As evidence grew (supported by growing awareness of the related issue of forced labour—for example, the death of 23 Chinese cockle pickers working for a crimi-nal gangmaster, who drowned off the English coast in 2004—and more general labour exploitation), the UK began to move on the issue establishing, in 2007, a new organisation, the UK Human Trafficking Centre (UKHTC), staffed largely by serving police officers, to monitor and collect data, and report to government on the extent of human trafficking. By 2013, the scale of human trafficking emerged more clearly. The UKHTC, now part of the umbrella National Crime Agency, re- Social Inclusion, 2015, Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages 136-139 137 ceived almost 3000 referrals that year, from so-called First Responders,2 of alleged trafficking victims to its National Referral Mechanism (NRM), the official “entry point” for victims seeking “rescue” and rehabilitation. By then, it also became clear that human trafficking, whether for sexual or labour exploitation, was the tip of a much larger modern slavery iceberg. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, a charitable foundation spon-soring research into poverty and disadvantage pub-lished a report in 2007 into the scope of modern slav-ery in the UK (Craig, Wilkinson, Gaus, Mcquade, & Skrivankova, 2007), following this with a large research programme into forced labour (see Joseph Rowntree Foundation (n.d.), for example, Geddes, Craig, & Scott (2013)). By 2014, it had become clear that both the scale of modern slavery was much larger than had been presumed, and that its scope was also much wid-er than had been understood, with new forms of slav-ery practice becoming much more common within the UK. These included the imprisonment of young (often Vietnamese) men by Chinese gangs to manage canna-bis “farms”, the severe physical and sometimes sexual exploitation of domestic workers by wealthy business-men/women and diplomats, forced begging and theft by young children trafficked or smuggled into the UK for this purpose and the suggestion, although as yet un-substantiated, that some people had been trafficked in-to the UK for the purposes of organ harvesting.3  The growing clamour around issues of modern slavery, focused initially on the issue of trafficking for sexual purposes in particular, where a number of prominent NGOs had been active in lobbying govern-ment, alongside growing pressure from groups of MPs, finally led to the government agreeing to publish a draft Modern Slavery Bill, which appeared in December 2013. This Bill (HoC, 2013) was very weak and led to substantial criticism from virtually every side, notwith-standing the claim by government that it was intended to be world-leading in the fight against modern slavery. The draft Bill went through an unusual process before reappearing in a final form before Parliament in June 2014, being subject to examination by a Joint Select Committee4 and by a separate All-Party Group of MPs, each of which was highly critical of much in the Bill and much that should have been but wasn’t. The Bill was                                                           2 First Responders are a range of organisations which have the responsibility for referring alleged victims of trafficking into the NRM: these include immigration authorities, local council chil-dren’s services departments, police forces, some Non-governmental organisations and other criminal justice agencies 3 Organs such as livers and kidneys are removed under com-pulsion or duress of some kind (for example to settle cases of debt bondage), often in dangerous contexts, for sale to wealthy people requiring transplants. 4 Specifically-nominated group of representatives from both the Commons (the Lower House) and the Lords (the Upper House) also subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny (a more tech-nical legalistic process) and examined by other inter-ests within Parliament (such as the Joint Committee on Human Rights) for any implications for their own work. At the same time, many individuals, organisations, NGOs, researchers and others, took the opportunity to promote their own critiques. By the time the govern-ment’s final Bill was published, it had thus been very thoroughly scrutinised, the government’s claim that it was world-leading looking fragile indeed.5 Before a Bill becomes an Act of parliament, it pass-es through a series of processes: in a nutshell, these in-volve detailed debate in a special Bill Committee, in which existing clauses are fought over and new ones (possibly) added (Committee stage); an amended Bill is then presented to the Commons (Report stage) when the whole House has the chance to debate it, clause by clause; passage then to the House of Lords where a very detailed and possibly elongated debate takes place through a similar process; and return to the House of Commons in an amended form when final debates take place and, normally, the government has its way, in the process often nullifying many changes which the Lords have made. Given that the govern-ment intends the Bill to be enacted by the end of Par-liament, this requires it to pass through all its stages essentially by Easter 2015.6 Despite growing awareness of the much wider scope of modern slavery, most of the Bill remains fo-cused on the issue of human trafficking. Much of the early work of the Commons Committee debating the Bill focused on establishing the precise wording needed to encompass all the possible offences which might be involved, and how children in particular might be pro-tected by its provisions.7 One key argument has been                                                           5 There has been considerable debate as to why, in the last year of a five year parliament, the Home Secretary Theresa May, should bother to promote a Bill of this kind which was un-likely to be a large votewinner. Most explanations have come to rest around the view that, if the General Election is unkind to the Conservative Party and the current leader David Camer-on is obliged to resign the leadership, it would not harm May’s ambitions to be party leader if she were associated with legis-lation which would distance her from the epithet of “nasty par-ty” often attached to the Conservatives. Her behaviour during the passage of the Bill suggests that she personally has had some difficulty in maintaining that distance. 6 By the time of reading this, we shall know whether this was the case and in what form the Bill finally reached the statute book. Much concern regarding this timetable is centered on the Lords where it is feared that everyone will have a view—perhaps at great length—and that time will be so pressured by the point at which the Bill goes back to the Commons, that se-rious issues may be lost or not debated. 7 This is important as the UK judiciary remains largely very ill-informed about the nature of modern slavery and has often ei-ther failed to recognise the seriousness of offences or regarded victims of trafficking or forced labour as criminals. The gov- Social Inclusion, 2015, Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages 136-139 138 about what form the precise protection for children might take with one suggested scheme, involving chil-dren being provided by the state with Advocates, to defend the best interests of the child, being piloted by an NGO.8 Whilst the issue of trafficking remains very central to the Bill, this has essentially focused almost entirely on trafficking for sexual exploitation of adults and children (those defined by the UK to be under 18).  The issue of trafficking for labour exploitation, and of forced labour (which can occur whether or not traf-ficking is involved) is receiving far less attention. Alt-hough forced labour was made a freestanding criminal offence in 2009,9 thus technically detaching it from the issue of trafficking, the number of cases brought before the courts remains very low and in one notable case, Operation Ruby, what was a clear-cut and very well-prepared case of forced labour was thrown out by the judiciary who had, it seemed, a very limited under-standing of how forced labour worked, the judge argu-ing that if people were free to move around, they could not be regarded as being enslaved: this completely failed to understand the nature of psychological or emotional compulsion. At the time of writing, one im-portant victory appears to have been won with the government finally agreeing to include a clause requir-ing companies to take some responsibility for exploring whether slavery might be found in their supply chains.10 Contrarily, the Committee however has failed to respond to demands to protect domestic workers.                                                                                            ernment is now committed to recognising victims as just that. 8 This is one of several initiatives the government has taken whilst the Bill is still being debated. Another is to create a Modern Slavery Unit within the Home Office; yet another to move departmental responsibility for the Gangmasters’ Licens-ing Authority, which scrutinises businesses for evidence of forced labour, from the agricultural department (DEFRA) to the Home Office; a fourth to review the NRM in light of the scath-ing critique developed by many organisations (see the reports produced by the Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group, n.d.); and a fifth, to advertise publicly for the post of Anti-Slavery Commis-sioner. This role, essentially that of a national rapporteur, was recommended by the Council of Europe to be an independent one but, although the Bill alludes to an Independent Commis-sioner, it is far from clear that the Commissioner can work free from government interference and, for example, report direct to Parliament. To advertise the post whilst the issue has yet to be debated in Parliament smacks of a government determined to get its own way. The pilot project is being undertaken by Barnados, a leading UK children’s charity (n.d.). 9 In a clause in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (TSO, 2009). 10 See the report by J. Allain and colleagues on this issue, avail-able through the JRF website, see footnote 5 (Allain et al., 2013). Perhaps surprisingly, some big businesses have sup-ported further regulation, arguing that unscrupulous compa-nies, using forced labour, would be able to price their goods lower, thus taking a greater market share from the “better” companies. There has also been substantial pressure to extend the remit (and thus the resources) of the Gangmasters Li-censing Authority from its current narrow focus on three industrial sectors to many more (or even the whole of the labour market), which would probably re-quire it to move its departmental home again. At pre-sent the GLA is only able effectively to investigate a small fraction of possible forced labour cases. The outcome of these debates remains to be seen and lobbying will remain intense right up to the day of enactment. At present, whilst it seems that claims for the UK to be world-leading in its legislation may be somewhat overblown (not least because it has been taking advice from other countries on the form of vari-ous proposals), there is no doubt that many other states are watching the Bill’s progress with interest and hopefully will learn from it. Once enacted, it will pro-vide many improvements and provide a focus for fur-ther debate and improvement, though there is a huge task to turn law and policy into practice. There is little doubt however that it will be considerably less than 200 years before another Act comes to be placed on the statute book. Conflict of Interests The author declares no conflict of interests. References Allain, J., Crane, A., Le Baron, G., & Behbahani, L. (2013). Forced labour’s business models and supply chains. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group. (n.d.). What we do. Retrieved from: www.antislavery.org/atmg Barnados. (n.d.). Retrieved from: www.barnados.org.uk Craig, G. (2007). Speech at launch of UK Human Traf-ficking Foundation, Leeds, UK, 14 November 2007. Craig, G., Wilkinson, M., Gaus, A., Mcquade, A., & Skri-vankova, K. (2007). Modern slavery in the UK. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Geddes, A., Craig, G., & Scott, S. (2013). Forced labour in the UK. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. HoC. (2013). Draft modern slavery bill. Presented to Parliament, Cm 8770, December 16 2013. Joseph Rowntree Foundation (n.d.). Forced labour. Re-trieved from www.jrf.org.uk/search/site/forced%20 labour Palermo Protocol. (2000). Protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children, supplementing the United Nations convention against transnational organized crime. New York: United Nations. TSO. (2009). Coroners and Justice Act (c.25). London: The Stationery Office.  Social Inclusion, 2015, Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages 136-139 139 About the Author  Gary Craig Gary Craig is Professor of Social Justice at Durham University and Emeritus Professor of Social Justice at the Wilberforce Institute for the study of Slavery and Emancipation, University of Hull. His major researches at present focus on different aspects of modern slavery such as forced labour and human trafficking although he researches more widely in the fields of “race” and ethnicity. He currently co-ordinates the forced labour monitoring group within the UK: www.flmg.org  

Human trafficking and the UK Modern Slavery Bill

Repository@Hull - Worktribe

Gary Craig

Directory of Open Access Journals

This article provides a commentary on growing awareness of human trafficking to and within the United Kingdom and government responses to it.</jats:p

Human trafficking and the UK Modern Slavery Bill

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Name not available

Cogitatio Press (E-Journals)

University of Hull Institutional Repository

Repository@Hull - Worktribe

Directory of Open Access Journals

Name not available

Crossref

SSOAR - Social Science Open Access Repository