On Tuesday I wrote about the advertising campaign that the Home Office has organised, supposedly to try to deal with illegal immigration. My point on that occasion was that the vans were likely to stir up fear and insecurity amongst people who are in this country legally and making a very positive contribution to our economy. Since then we have had the UK Border Agency carrying out spot checks at London railway stations and UKBA staff using the Home Office twitter account to claim that they had been successful in arresting people who they stated were guilty, even though these people are merely suspected of crimes. Inevitably this campaign has stirred up a great deal of media interest and this has led to some very disturbing comments and arguments being made.
On Friday Evening Simon Woolley of Operation Black Vote spoke on the BBC Radio 4 PM programme about a family from Castleford who were subjected to racial abuse that Mr Woolley suggests arose in part from the national reporting of this London based campaign by the Home Office. Simon was interviewed alongside Peter Bone MP who is not a Minister and has no responsibility for the Home Office. However Peter spoke about a subject that he does have knowledge of. Whether this was an intentional diversion, or that he mistakenly believed he was being asked to speak about something that he cares about, or that he was just plain confused is impossible to know. Every time he was invited to speak about the vans and railway station operations, instead of speaking about immigration (legal or not) he spoke about people trafficking. Peter was the Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Trafficking and so he knows a great deal about this subject, however one would hope that this level of knowledge would help him to distinguish between trafficking and immigration.
A few hours after the PM programme on the same radio station, Any Questions also focused on the issue of the vans, the tweets and the railway station operations. There was only one member of the panel who appeared to be on the side of the Home Office. Michael Howard was as robust in its defence as Peter Bone had been earlier. However he also took the confused line that Peter Bone had opened up. Clearly this may have simply been that Michael Howard had been listening to PM. One imagines that all panellists on Any Questions would do the same in preparation for the panel show. However I got the impression that Lord Howard was fully aware that he was using Trafficking to deflect attention from an incompetent series of actions by the Home Office.
The vans are a problem, the railway station operation appears to be poorly executed and the twitter campaign by the Home Office is a travesty of how Governmental agencies should use social media and may also have broken the law. However I believe that the Bone/Howard line of argument is most worrying of all. There is of course an overlap, in that technically someone who has been trafficked into this country will be here illegally, but most immigrants have not been trafficked against their will and many people who have been trafficked are not immigrants into this country. It seems inevitable that immigration will grab many more headlines between now and the General election and sadly the Sidhu family from Castleford will probably not be the only victims of related racism. However it is vital that our law makers and national leaders do not confuse themselves or the public on what constitutes trafficking. Many people within our communities are beginning to understand about trafficking, and we need all residents to be alert to behaviour that may reveal that this activity is taking place. However if our leaders superimpose one issue with another it is very likely that the one that carries much greater public understanding will become the dominant story. Trafficking is too important and costs society too much to become confused with an issue that will sadly be seen as a vote winner by politicians in all parties.
ianchisnall 
Hi Ian,
‘Racism’ is such an easy label to try and stick on people whose views one doesn’t share, rather than debate the issue of contention directly. More often than not this will be connected in some way with poor housing, inadequate supply of affordable accommodation and high rents, which are the historic root of why some communities seem incapable of living together.
What disgusts me about the ‘go home’ formula is that it reminds me of the way in which MPs in general (and this coalition government in particular) have so far failed to tackle the national housing crisis – and instead sought to profit from soaring house prices on their second homes!
But rather than label such people, it seems to me that the real issue here is the one you discuss in the closing focus of your article – human trafficking. I agree that economic migration is a fact of life and that most immigration is entirely voluntary. But surely the vast majority of people who have been trafficked into the UK are by definition the ones who are here as illegal immigrants (although I can’t say that I know what proportion of illegals this represents – do you?!).
I worry a lot about people with no legal status being exploited in the modern slave trade as underpaid domestics, or by unscrupulous employers in the sex industry, or in the black economy (is this still an acceptable term?!), or in the dingy backroom of my local takeaway … It’s not just a technical overlap.
So I think the Home Office probably does have an obligation to do something for illegal migrants, in the same way that other vulnerable groups in society are entitled to government support. Would I drive a van round with that particular campaign message? I guess not.
The difficult question for those of us with homes to go to, is what to do with someone who prefers to go on being exploited economically in the UK, rather than be returned to the desperate social and economic circumstances they originally sought sanctuary from. I imagine you must come across many cases like this in the course of your work. Sorry to put you on the spot old boy, but what’s the answer?!
Hi Richard, thanks for taking the time to write, its good to hear from you. The term human trafficking is used extensively by the Police and other statutory agencies to refer to people who are transported against their will for purposes such as sexual exploitation and economic benefit such as those you have outlined. This is a different understanding from those who might transport individuals with their consent and indeed where the immigrant has requested this. It is inevitable that anyone who has been trafficked to the UK from overseas is an illegal immigrant, however it is probable that there are far more illegal immigrants who came here either alone or with the help of others as above. A great deal of trafficking is not out of country transportation or from the UK elsewhere. Just as there are no firm figures for illegal immigrants, there are even fewer accurate records for trafficking so sadly I don’t know what the proportions are. It is sadly mere fantasy to see this campaign as in any way supportive of the immigrants being sought, although hopefully people who are clearly victims of trafficking will be treated differently to those who are more likely to be economic immigrants. There will of course be complex emotions and actions by some of these people, but it is highly unlikely that those who are victims of trafficking will be free to walk out of the brothels or even the cannabis factories to hand themselves over, let alone that they will have seen or understood these vans and their messages. I have some knowledge of the people concerned but I am not an expert.
Interesting, I must admit I thought the term human trafficking applied to arrangements where large sums of money voluntarily change hands. I wasn’t aware that references to it in policing parlance were people effectively being brought to UK against their will. I guess the nature of the relationship tends to become more coercive anyway on arrival whatever the antecedents. I agree with your scepticism about who the vans could possibly be targeting though!