Independent Advocates for Trafficked Children

Debate between David Simpson and Fiona Mactaggart

Tuesday 28th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered independent advocates for trafficked children.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter.

I was proud to contribute to the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Although I wanted it to include specialist guardians for trafficked children, I was glad to support section 48, which provides for independent advocates to be available to promote the best interests of those children, advocating for them and accompanying them through the many confusing official processes that they encounter. Section 48 benefited from a series of improvements as it passed through Parliament, and the Minister and the Government are to be commended for listening to the concerns and suggestions of Members and responding with positive changes to strengthen the role of advocates.

Let us just stop to think for a moment about the lives of children who have been brought to this country by exploitative criminal traffickers. They are lonely in a bewildering foreign country where they do not speak the language. The person who brought them here may have sexually exploited them or tried to get them involved in criminal activity to recoup the cost of their horrible and terrifying journey. They may be told that if they do not collaborate their families will suffer. They feel scared and abandoned. Some 982 children were identified as having probably been trafficked last year, and we know that there are more who will never come to the attention of the authorities. That is why Kevin Hyland, Britain’s independent anti-slavery commissioner, has said that

“it is essential to ensure child advocates are put in place as soon as possible.”

However, a year later, section 48 remains dormant on the statute book. More than a year since the Act was passed, and three months after the Minister promised we would be presented with new proposals, vulnerable trafficked children are still without the specialist support that the Act intended to provide. The delay in establishing the scheme is particularly disappointing in the light of the positive evaluation of the trial schemes produced for the Government by the University of Bedfordshire and published in December, which concluded that

“evidence from the trial suggests that advocates added value to existing provision, to the satisfaction of the children and most stakeholders. The ICTA service”—

—the Independent Child Trafficking Advocates service—

“appears to be important in ensuring clarity, coherence and continuity for the child, working across other services responsible for the child, over time and across contexts…This evaluation’s main conclusion is that the specialist ICTA service has been successful as measured in relation to several beneficial outcomes for trafficked children.”

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her fantastic work with the all-party group on human trafficking. During my time on the group, there was an issue with consistency in how police services throughout the United Kingdom deal with trafficked children. Has that improved with time or are there still the same difficulties?

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I do not think we have evidence about consistency, to be honest, but a comprehensive advocacy service would give us that evidence and could also improve consistency. The advocates were able to help children to orient themselves and navigate complex services; to keep trafficked children safely visible to all authorities—we know that is a problem in some areas—to build relationships of trust with the children and with other professionals; to speak up for children where necessary; to maintain momentum in the progress of their cases, including planning for their future; and to improve the quality of decision making in those cases. The children in the trials who had an advocate felt more secure and supported than those who did not. In the words of the report,

“when an advocate was involved in their life, the children had a sense of being cared for in a ‘tight knit’ manner. For the comparator group children, a steady impression emerged of more ‘loose weave’ relationships with intermittent contact with social workers”.

As one child put it:

“I can call my social worker and then she tells me OK but I’m busy or something. But if I call [the advocate] then she can make things happen.”

Convention on Domestic Workers

Debate between David Simpson and Fiona Mactaggart

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

I know that it is customary to praise the occupant of the Chair at such moments as these, Mr Howarth, but I am very pleased indeed that you are presiding over this debate on such a critical issue. My aim in calling for the debate is to hold the Government to account for their unannounced refusal earlier this month to sign the International Labour Organisation convention on domestic workers.

The convention’s introductory text describes why the protection is needed:

“domestic work continues to be undervalued and invisible and is mainly carried out by women and girls, many of whom are migrants or members of disadvantaged communities and who are particularly vulnerable to discrimination in respect of conditions of employment and of work, and to other abuses of human rights”.

It is for that reason that there have been international efforts over some years to produce a convention that covers basic human and workplace rights for people all over the world who work in other people’s homes as cleaners or cooks, or do other kinds of domestic work. The convention will entitle them to the basic labour standards that we expect for all workers.

I intend to show how, in the worst cases of abuse, some domestic workers in the UK are forced to work for no wages and are therefore basically slaves, others are subjected to sexual abuse and physical violence, some are barely fed, many have only a floor to sleep on, and many earn a pittance and work extraordinarily long hours. Some Members might feel that we did that yesterday in the House, but it is a regular occurrence for people in these circumstances.

The convention serves to give international backing to the right of domestic workers to protection against such abuses, and to entitle them to the dignity at work that every human being should expect, yet the UK Government were one of only eight Governments to abstain in the vote. Let us see what company we were in: the Governments of El Salvador, Panama, the Czech Republic, Sudan, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. Swaziland did not vote in favour. All other 173 Governments voted in favour of the convention, including the USA and China. All the worker representatives voted in favour, as did many employer representatives. It looks to me as if, in that list of shame—I do regard it as such—the UK is the country that is probably on its own in having a record of receiving rather than generating victims of human trafficking, a problem that is so rife in this sector. We should be especially ashamed of that.

My first question to the Minister with responsibility for employment relations is: why was the UK one of only eight countries to abstain on this vital treaty, which provides clear rights to the 100 million domestic workers around the world? This is not a small sector, and the issue is a very important human rights one. I have heard some excuses already. The UK Government representative at the ILO conference gave the following explanation:

“The United Kingdom already provides comprehensive employment and social protection to domestic workers; however, the strength of our general provisions means that it is occasionally inappropriate to treat domestic workers identically and, sadly, the Convention does not recognize this. For example, we do not consider it appropriate or practical to extend criminal, health and safety laws, including inspections, to private households employing domestic workers. It would be difficult, for instance, to hold elderly individuals employing carers to the same standards as large companies. Accordingly, the United Kingdom will be unable to ratify this Convention in the foreseeable future.”

Colleagues who have raised the issue with the Minister get exactly the same formula and exactly the same “for example,” but my belief is that this is not one example of many problems, but the only fig leaf that the Minister can hang on to. A letter from him refers to

“those few areas, such as health and safety law”,

and I hope that he will take the opportunity of this debate to tell us what the other areas are in which it is inappropriate to treat domestic workers the same.

The Minister’s claim on the grounds of health and safety law is fundamentally unfounded, because he knows, even better than I do, that health and safety is implemented incrementally. Local inspectors, if they engage with a company—I have worked for many small companies and have never been inspected by a health and safety inspector—usually offer advice notes before proceeding to criminal prosecution, unless there has been a death or a very serious injury, for example. Perhaps the Minister will therefore give specific examples of when small employers who are suspected not of putting customers’ health at risk—I accept that there are criminal prosecutions in such cases—but of putting employees at risk, have been subject to criminal prosecution and active investigation without prior advice, unless there has been a fatality or a serious injury. I do not believe that there is the rash of examples of heavy-handed health and safety implementation that the Minister implied in his letter.

In defence of the Government’s position, the spokesman continued:

“We do hope that the principles”—

that the convention enshrines—

“can help to raise standards”.

I want the Minister to tell us, therefore, how the UK Government’s position will help to maintain standards and enhance the rights and protections of domestic workers in the UK and around the world when, unlike the overwhelming majority of Governments, ours have actively chosen not to support the convention.

The statement by the UK’s representative continues:

“Within the United Kingdom, we will continue to see proportionate improvements to the social and employment protections available to domestic workers where particular problems are identified.”

I would like to know what improvements we will see because, in my view, the Government are doing precisely the opposite of improving conditions for domestic workers. On the very same day that the UK abstained in the vote, the Government announced a consultation on proposed changes to visas for the UK, including a proposal to end the domestic worker visa. That consultation includes options either to abolish the route for migrant domestic workers to enter the UK, leaving them open to being brought in by employers through informal routes in breach of immigration controls, or to restrict them to a six or 12 month non-renewable visa and remove the right for them to change employers, even if they are severely abused.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this very important debate. Leaving aside the fact that the coalition has failed to vote on the convention—hopefully we will hear what the Minister has to say on that—does she believe that the unions, the CBI or any other employment agencies are doing enough? Could they do a lot more?

[Fiona Mactaggart]

To my surprise, when I conclude my remarks, I am going to read a quote from the Centre for Social Justice. That is not normally a place to which I look for guidance, but when it launched its inquiry into human trafficking its director said that it was critical that all the sectors—the Government, voluntary organisations, employers and employees—worked together on a coherent strategy to deal with this modern-day form of slavery. My contention is that the Government’s position is confused—if I am kind—or actively malevolent —if I am not—and that it is not working coherently to deal with this serious and substantial human rights problem in the UK.

Removing the right for migrant domestic workers to change employer means a return to bonded labour. The visa has been recognised as the main form of protection for this group of workers, who, as has been recognised by the international convention, are especially vulnerable to severe exploitation, including slavery and trafficking for domestic servitude. Indeed, the 2009 report of the Home Affairs Committee included the statement:

“To retain the existing migrant domestic worker visa and the protection it offers to workers is the single most important issue the government can do to prevent forced labour and trafficking”

of such workers.

At a time when the Government are choosing not to participate in an international convention, they are choosing, domestically, to remove an important protection for migrant domestic workers against slavery and bondage. Removing the visa altogether will increase both trafficking via illegal routes and unlawful working, which will leave these workers believing that they are unable to contact the authorities for assistance and with fewer, if any, enforceable rights. Limiting the length of the visa makes it likely that unscrupulous employers will keep workers working for them beyond the length of the visa, again without any recourse to meaningful legal protection against severe exploitation.

The Government claim that anti-trafficking measures can replace the protections provided by the visa. I have talked to Kalayaan, whose work I praise. It is the most effective group that represents migrant domestic workers. I have known its work since about a quarter of a century ago, when it helped illegal entrants to the UK who did not know that they were illegal entrants. Together with others who work with victims of trafficking, it has produced a report that shows how ineffective the measures we already have are in practice for all victims.

The report shows that the overseas domestic worker visa is a relatively inexpensive and effective way of protecting migrant domestic workers, and that, without that legal channel, trafficking of domestic workers via illegal routes will increase. Workers who do not benefit from those protections, particularly domestic workers who enter the UK accompanying diplomats, are more likely to be in slavery than those who work in private households. Kalayaan’s figures show that seven in every 100 of the diplomatic workers they have seen were trafficked, compared with one in 1,000 migrant domestic workers in private households. That shows how effective the visa is.

Let us be clear: even when they are not trafficked, these workers are commonly subject to the most grotesque abuse and exploitation. Kalayaan has produced figures that show that two thirds of those who approached them did not have any time off—they worked seven days a week. Three quarters of them worked on call and had to be available 24 hours a day. More than half of them worked 16 or more hours a day, and 70% received a salary of £50 or less a week. I do not think that the Minister is proud of that type of exploitation, but it is a reality and the failure to sign up to the convention and to take any effective action means that it will be a more common reality in Britain.