Convention on Domestic Workers

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

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.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)]

The hon. Lady has an excellent record on campaigning against human trafficking and slavery. How would signing the convention have helped to tackle slave labour and human trafficking in the UK? What difference would it have made to our domestic legislation?

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Signing the convention would make a difference in three ways. The first is the signal it would send to traffickers, who will otherwise believe, no doubt, that the UK is joining their infamous gang and saying that this country is open to human trafficking. We know how extensive human trafficking is in the UK and that it is more profitable than drug dealing. It is the most profitable activity for organised crime, although the field of human trafficking is unorganised as well as organised, because people as well as agencies supply domestic workers. Moreover, individual families bring domestic workers with them. It is, therefore, important that Britain sends out a signal that we are closed to that kind of abuse.

Secondly, the victims themselves would also get a signal. People who work with victims of trafficking have told me that those victims believe that they have no recourse to help and that the clear signal is that they are dependent on their owners/employers, who usually retain their passports. They do not believe that anyone can help them. They are frightened of approaching the police and, frankly, our national referral mechanism is an incompetent way for them to get help.

Thirdly, if we were signatories to the convention, the Minister would have to do something about this level of labour exploitation. Our laws apparently say, and we claim at international events, that we have fantastic working hours and protection and so on. However, 67% of the migrant domestic workers who approached Kalayaan said that they did not have any time off, were working seven days a week and worked on call for 24 hours a day, and more than half of them worked for 16 or more hours a day. The Minister may say that the UK’s position is that people ought, voluntarily, to be able to work for more than 16 hours a day, but I do not believe that those workers were working voluntarily for more than 16 hours a day when their salary was £50 or less a week. If the Minister were a signatory to the international convention, I think that he would actually have to do something about this level of labour exploitation in people’s homes.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government’s position appears to be that signing the convention would either make no difference or create a series of other, consequential problems? Other nations, communities and countries have supported and signed the convention, so does she also agree that the Minister should outline the difficulties that the Government think have appeared and that the rest of us are unaware of?

[Fiona Mactaggart]

The hon. Gentleman is right. I think that we all find what has happened to be depressing.

As well as being subject to labour exploitation, these workers are also subject to horrific working conditions. About half of those who approached Kalayaan did not have their own room and had to sleep on the floor. We do not expect to see those sorts of working conditions in Britain in the 21st century. Two thirds of them were not allowed out unaccompanied, and two thirds had their passport withheld. That is unlawful. I know of no prosecution, except in cases in which someone has succeeded in being declared as having been trafficked, but that applies to only a tiny minority of these poor victims. Many of them are also victims of psychological abuse.

I have tried to show the ways in which the abuse is widespread and serious. I do not want to accuse the Government of bad faith, but, having talked to people who participated in the ILO process, I was shocked at the way in which our national representative behaved during the negotiations as the agenda approached its conclusion. It suggested that our aim was not in any way to improve conditions for these vulnerable workers. Apparently, the UK often led European Union amendments to attempt to dilute the convention in areas such as working hours and occupational safety and health. I have described the working hours that migrant domestic workers frequently face. Will the Minister tell us what working hours he thinks are reasonable for workers in people’s homes? Does he think that they deserve effective, not theoretical, protection in relation to working hours?

Even when all other countries had agreed on positions, the United Kingdom cited continued objections to the consensus, for example, on the working and living conditions of children. What protections does the Minister think that children should have when working in other people’s homes? The United Kingdom stated that the final text of the convention would be unratifiable. Indeed, the Government intend not to ratify the convention and will not even vote for it, citing apparent conflicts with EU regulations. The EU bloc and all other major countries decided wholeheartedly to endorse and vote for the convention, so the United Kingdom representative was the only dissenting voice in the plenary voting session on the convention.

On 23 May, less than a month prior to the final decision, the Minister said in reply to a question asked by two hon. Members about the matter:

“The Government will seek a workable convention that can be ratified by as many countries as possible, and consequently protect vulnerable domestic workers worldwide”.—[Official Report, 23 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 469W.]

The Minister does, therefore, recognise that an international convention can protect vulnerable domestic workers worldwide. However, having abstained on the ILO vote, can the UK Government play a positive role in encouraging other countries to ratify the convention or protecting vulnerable domestic workers worldwide? We have completely lost moral leadership. Will the Minister tell us what contribution he thinks Britain can make to international action to protect this vulnerable group of workers?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this most important matter to Westminster Hall for debate. As far as I am aware, she has not mentioned the UK Border Agency and the role that it should play in relation to the convention. Does the hon. Lady feel that the UK Border Agency should be better resourced and equipped to help those migrant workers who, in reality, are slave labour? Perhaps there is a greater role for the UK Border Agency to play in the matter.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

That organisation should be better at dealing with the issue, but I am not sure that it is easy to do so properly at borders. That is one of the challenges. There needs to be an in-country resource to which vulnerable trafficked people know they can turn for help. Their fear is that if they turn to the authorities for help, they will be outed. Unfortunately, that happens too often as those concerned are classed as illegal. For many people, that is through no fault of their own. They are here without status and they are illegal because their owner—we must not forget that we are talking about a kind of ownership and slavery—has retained their passport unlawfully and has said, “Don’t worry, I’ll sort this out,” and so on.

There needs to be an effective in-country recourse to which people in these circumstances can turn. Unfortunately, the national referral mechanism frequently fails to provide that because it does not consider its first priority to be protecting the individual. There is a laborious tick-box process and, because there is no real prospect of prosecuting someone for trafficking and getting a conviction, often the national referral mechanism will suggest that a person is not really trafficked. That is really sad.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

Certainly we need to break the coalition’s “Upstairs, Downstairs” mindset in relation to workplace issues. On the question of people having to report the horrific circumstances in which they live, does my hon. Friend agree that the trade unions’ work on taking the evidence that was given—and I hope the Minister will arrange meetings with the trade unions to talk through the issues—is vital? If the trade unions had not been there to pick up these issues, I doubt anyone else would have done so.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the powerful things about the ILO is that it is tripartite—it involves Governments, employers and trade unions. Where trade unions have picked up these issues, they have been brilliant. It has been difficult in some ways because trade unions have traditionally organised in big workplaces, and organising domestic workers has been a challenge for them. I had the privilege of speaking to a Nepali trade unionist who talked about how she had organised domestic workers in Nepal. Frankly, if someone can organise domestic workers in Nepal, they must be a genius organiser. It was wonderful to hear about their work in connecting to this vulnerable group of people. That was a strong piece of evidence about how trade unions can, by reaching out to people who are in these completely isolated workplaces, protect workers very well.

I want to draw my remarks to an end. I said that I would conclude by citing the Centre for Social Justice. When Gavin Poole, the executive director of that organisation, launched his very welcome inquiry into trafficking he wrote:

“Enslaved in homes across the UK are vulnerable domestic workers who want to earn money cleaning and cooking, but instead have their passport seized by their ‘owner’ and are forbidden to leave the house in which they live and work; sleeping on the kitchen floor and eating leftovers from the family meal is commonplace. We believe that whilst there is much good work going on in the UK to confront slavery, much of it led by the voluntary sector, there is a need for a strategic overview to detail how this hidden criminal activity can be defeated once and for all. For instance, it is essential that all government departments, the voluntary sector, the police and local authorities move in the same direction in order for the UK’s response to be appropriate and effective…One slave in this country is one too many, and it is time for the UK to take a lead again. I encourage people who think slavery is a thing of the past to look again, and join the CSJ as we work to help build a different future for people trapped in this tragedy.”

The Minister’s coalition Government have borrowed many ideas from the Centre for Social Justice. I hope that they do not make this one an exception because, on this matter, what we see are words going in one direction and actions going in another direction. The Minister should change his mind. Let us have another U-turn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Selous]

If the hon. Lady will allow me to develop my argument a little further, she will understand what I am saying. I just wanted to make the point regarding the protections that all of us are rightly concerned about. I have taken to task many employers in my constituency and elsewhere who have not behaved properly towards their workers. We need to enforce the law that we already have. I am looking for reassurance from the Minister, as, I am sure, are many hon. Members. There is much in the text of the convention that he will be keen to apply. He will want to ensure that we root out evil employers who treat their domestic staff in the way described by the hon. Member for Slough. There is not one of us here, including me, who wants to see that continue.

There is much in the convention that is good, but there are one or two areas that are problematic. One problem in particular is that it applies to other groups of workers that the hon. Lady did not even mention in her remarks. She read out the list of countries that did not sign the convention, including the United Kingdom. What she did not tell us was that a number of countries did sign it, but then said that they were not going to ratify it.

The United Kingdom has, quite rightly, very high standards when it comes to international agreements. We are a country of our word. If we say that we are going to do something, we do it. We play cricket, we believe in the rules and we follow them. It is pretty dishonest of many other countries, which she did not name, to sign up to the convention and then say that they will not be ratifying this bit or that bit.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Canada, for example, said that it would find the convention difficult to ratify. I read the whole of the report, but I did not read that any country said that they would not. They said that they would struggle to ratify it, and I think that that was simply being honest.

[Andrew Selous]

I am making a slightly different point. Some countries ratified the convention, but then said that they would not enforce it. I just think that that is dishonest. The United Kingdom could have gone along and signed, got a pat on the back, not have had the aggravation of having this debate today, and then quietly not done anything about it. I am proud that, as a country, if we say that we will do something, we do it—that is important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith]

It is appropriate to endorse what is in the convention. The convention seeks to sort the issue out and find what is suitable.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

The Health and Safety at Works etc. Act 1974 does apply to domestic workers. The only exception relates to criminal legal sanctions. We know that in practice the Act is already enforced differently for small employers and large employers. Therefore, in response to the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), it would be perfectly proper for the Act to be imposed more lightly in a domestic workplace with only one worker than it would be in a big workplace with dangerous machinery and many workers. That is already the case in Britain. My view is that the Government are trumpeting an excuse.

[Nia Griffith]

I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent explanation. Let us move on to recommendation 20, which states:

“Members should consider additional measures to ensure the effective protection of migrant domestic workers’ rights, such as…providing for a system of visits to households in which migrant domestic workers will be employed”.

The emphasis in the recommendation is on looking into and trying to find out the best way to deal with the matter. What has the Minister done, for example, to find out what happens in Finland or Ireland? What has he done to find out what happens in other countries, so that we can learn from those models, look into the best ways of dealing with the matter—best practice—and achieve improvements in standards?

The Government’s actions so far send a stark message to the world. By not supporting the convention, the Government are sending a bleak message to domestic workers not only in the UK, but throughout the world—perhaps 100 million people, who in some countries constitute up to 12% of the work force. The UK still commands considerable respect in the world, but at a time when the convention has been supported by 173 countries, including the US and almost all of the EU bloc, the Government seem to be suggesting that they will not stand up for the idea of extending to domestic workers the same basic rights as those enjoyed by workers throughout the economy. That is sending a very gloomy message to the world.

I would like to ask the Minister a few questions before I finish. Will he explain exactly why the UK chose to abstain from voting for the convention? It would have formed the basis for the UK to improve protection for domestic workers in the UK and would have shown leadership to the many countries in the world that still respect the UK and whose Governments may be trying to ratify the convention in very challenging circumstances.

Media reports quoted the Minister’s Department as saying that the Government would not be ratifying the convention to bind the UK by its rules “for the foreseeable future” and so they felt that it would be wrong to vote for it at all, but why do they not intend to ratify it for the foreseeable future? Is it just a low priority? Is it that no one in the Government wants to work out how existing UK law can be extended to cover domestic workers? That is what the convention is about—extending existing UK law. After all the times that hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised the related issue of the EU directive on human trafficking, are the Government still not aware of how much concern there is about this issue?

Will the Minister explain why a spokesperson for his Department is quoted in the press as saying that the Government “strongly support” the principles enshrined in the convention and that the UK

“already provides comprehensive employment and social protections to domestic workers”

when there is clearly plenty of evidence to show that, in reality, domestic workers do not always enjoy such rights and benefits?

What is the real reason behind the Government’s decision? Is it a complete phobia of anything that might look like a regulation, and the hollow-sounding promise on regulation? This year, it has been a case not of one in, one out, but of 53 in and three out. Are the Government succumbing to the constant demands from their Back Benchers, the hon. Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who regularly propose scrapping the minimum wage and heap ridicule on measures to protect workers from exploitation? I sincerely hope not.

Now that the UK has not voted for the convention, what do the Government intend to do to improve the rights of domestic workers in the UK? Having abstained in the ILO vote, how can the UK Government play a positive role in encouraging other countries to ratify the convention? Can the Minister confirm whether it is true that in the negotiations, the UK also asked to be officially disassociated from an agreed EU position on encouraging countries to consider adopting voluntary codes to cover incidents of abuse of domestic workers by their diplomats while posted abroad? I ask that in the light of a report this week in The Guardian, which states:

“The US state department has expressed concern about the abuse of domestic staff working in foreign embassies in London, saying repeated allegations of mistreatment have not been addressed by the government.”

That is a very serious accusation indeed.

If the legislation and the reality are already better than what is required by the convention, what is the problem with signing up to it? If we are saying that our existing laws are too good to be extended to domestic workers, I find that disgraceful. If we are not yet in a position to meet all the demands of the convention, surely it would be an aspiration to work towards and we should look towards ratifying it. Will the Minister explain why the Government have chosen to put us in an extremely embarrassing position in the world by not signing up, sending out a very negative message to workers both in this country and abroad?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Slough South East (Fiona Mactaggart) on securing a debate on this important subject. She spent quite a lot of time talking about trafficking, and I understand her campaigning role on that and her record, but we do want to talk about the text of the convention, so I thank her for the opportunity to explain why the Government abstained on the vote on the convention while strongly supporting its principles.

A key factor in understanding our position is recognition of how the convention would or would not have changed our domestic laws for domestic workers. In the UK, we already have a legal framework of basic employment rights and social protections for employees and workers, including domestic workers. So, like other workers, most domestic workers benefit from the national minimum wage, statutory sick pay, paid annual leave and protection from discrimination and unfair dismissal, as well as other protections. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) was completely right about that: the key question is enforcement.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

The Minister says that most domestic workers benefit from paid annual leave.

[Andrew Selous]

They should.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I am sure that they should. I want to know how the Minister knows that most actually do, because in my experience, it is very likely that most do not. I do not know how he knows that most do.

[Mr Davey]

This is a question of the law. The law says that those workers are entitled. Signing the convention would have made no difference to that. The question that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire raised was about enforcement. The hon. Lady should understand that. It is about enforcement.

[Mr Davey]

Of course I will come to that point as it is central to my speech, but let me say for the record that I am undertaking a review of enforcement and compliance rights in the UK to try to improve enforcement in the UK. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire would welcome that.

Domestic workers have the same access as other workers to mechanisms for enforcing their rights. The national minimum wage and statutory sick pay, for example, are enforced by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and those and other rights can also be enforced by individual workers, if necessary by taking a case to an employment tribunal.

If the domestic worker is an agency worker, they have additional protections under the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003. Those regulations prohibit agencies from charging work-finding fees; require agencies to pay workers for all the hours worked; and provide other protections. They are enforced by my Department’s employment agency standards inspectorate, which responds to complaints and, additionally, carries out a programme of proactive, risk-based inspection.

The pay and work rights helpline, set up by the previous Government, provides an accessible single point of contact for all workers—and, indeed, employers—seeking advice about or wanting to report abuses. It covers basic employment rights, such as the national minimum wage, working hour limits and the special regulations applying to agency workers. A translation service is provided in more than 100 languages for those who need it.

As required by the convention, our child employment regulations are robust. Children under the minimum school leaving age can only do light work, and there are strict rules on when and for how many hours children can work.

For egregious offences at the serious, criminal end of the spectrum, the UK has recently introduced a new offence of holding someone in slavery or servitude or requiring a person to perform forced or compulsory labour. The offence builds on existing statute and will in some circumstances make prosecutions easier.

Signing the convention would have made no difference to the measures that we have in the UK. It would have made no difference to stopping slavery or human trafficking. Why? Because we already, rightly, have some of the strongest laws in this area. There is no question, then, about the Government’s commitment to the principles behind the convention. In almost all respects, our laws already match the requirements set out in the convention.

I come now to the question posed by the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith): if we already comply with almost all of the convention, why did we abstain? The main sticking point for us is the convention’s approach to health and safety in private households. The wording does not provide sufficient flexibility to meet the UK’s long-established approach. Nor does it match our principles of proportionate regulation based on risk. Indeed, because it is inflexible and disproportionate, it could, if implemented, have damaged the interests of vulnerable people. I am sure that the hon. Member for Slough South East would not want that.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I am not Slough South East; I am all of Slough.

[Mr Davey]

I apologise to the hon. Lady.

Let me explain the position in detail. Article 13 of the convention requires each member to take

“in accordance with national laws, regulations and practice, effective measures, with due regard for the specific characteristics of domestic work, to ensure the occupational safety and health of domestic workers.”

For the UK, that requirement to take effective measures would, in practice, mean extending the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 to private households employing domestic workers. I ask colleagues to consider what that would entail.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

As I understand it, the Act does apply to private domestic workers, with the exception of section 51, which provides a specific exclusion in relation to criminal prosecution. It is not usual for people in a small workplace to go to criminal prosecution without previously having been advised by inspectors, unless there has been a death or serious injury. As I said in my speech, perhaps the Minister can give us an example of where criminal prosecution has taken place in a small workplace.

[Mr Davey]

I have to tell the hon. Lady that domestic workers are excluded from part I of the Act, which covers health, safety and welfare in connection with work and the control of things such as dangerous substances, and which includes some general duties. There are protections under civil law, and I will come to them in a second, but I am afraid that signing the convention would have meant extending the Act to private households employing domestic workers.

Anyone employing a domestic worker such as a cleaner, a home help, a child minder, a carer for an elderly or disabled person, a gardener, a nanny or an au pair—it is a long list—would have been covered by a range of health and safety regulations, and, in particular, by the 1974 Act. Hon. Members might ask what is wrong with that, but they should consider the implications. The Act would place specific duties on such employers to ensure the health, safety and welfare of domestic workers in so far as that was reasonably practicable, and individual householders would have to familiarise themselves with the law. According to the Act, they would need to consider the information, training, instruction and supervision that their helper needed. They would need to assess the helper’s tasks and any risks from equipment and substances to which the helper might be exposed. The householder would also have to carry out a wide range of risk assessments, which would be different for each home.

The sanctions for non-compliance would be criminal. Householders failing to comply with the law would be subject to criminal penalties providing for unlimited fines and imprisonment for up to two years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davey]

Of course, those would be covered if we went down this route.

What would be the benefit of extending health and safety laws to individuals and increasing the scope of our criminal regime? Why would we want to give health and safety inspectors a new right to visit millions of homes? Why would we want to pass quite an intrusive law, which the previous Government baulked at? The evidence of the need for such a change is weak, to say the least. Despite what the hon. Member for Llanelli said, households are low risk in health and safety terms. If there is any increased vulnerability for domestic workers, it arises not from health and safety concerns, but from issues such as their treatment by their employers, which is already covered in other legislation.

Of course, we could have voted for the convention and then not ratified it.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Before the hon. Gentleman leaves health and safety, will he answer the first question I asked him? I asked for a specific example of a small employer, none of the employees of which had died and which was not suspected of putting customers at risk, but which had been prosecuted.

[Mr Davey]

I do not have such an example at my fingertips. I will write to the hon. Lady. However, she fails to address the fear that introducing these provisions would engender, which my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire addressed.

If we had voted for the convention and then not ratified it, what would that have said about the UK? We have heard a lot about our reputation, but other ILO members undermine the ILO by not going ahead and ratifying conventions they have voted for, which is no good for the ILO or labour rights. In the negotiations, we tried to come up with a convention that we could have voted for and ratified—that is what we want. We worked very hard on that and we supported the development of the convention because we see it as important. We rightly meet our legal obligations and do not run away from them.

That is a conventional approach to the ILO, and it is one the previous Government took. Let me explain that by giving some examples. The previous Government abstained in an ILO vote on the maternity protection convention in 2000. I think they would have supported the convention, but it no doubt had some burdensome implications in domestic law. The previous Government also abstained in the 2006 vote on the ILO’s recommendations on employment relationships. That was probably not because they were against the principles, but because they realised that the provisions would have an impact on UK legislation. In other words, we are taking exactly the same approach as the previous Government.

During the debate, it has been suggested that we are letting the rest of the world down and sending a signal that we do not care about these issues, which is one of the more outrageous suggestions I have heard, given the records of the previous Government and this Government. This Government are leading the world in taking practical action to combat human trafficking and to help exploited workers around the globe. Members should consider the Department for International Development’s funding for the Salvation Army anti-child trafficking project in Malawi or its new programme aimed at reducing human trafficking in south Asia, which focuses on helping women and girl domestic workers and garment sector workers. Members should also consider our support for other Governments’ anti-trafficking efforts, such as the Bangladesh police reform project, which established a specialised police unit to combat human trafficking. Above all, Members should consider the increase in the overseas aid budget, which comes when other budgets at home are being cut.

I therefore totally reject the suggestion that we are not showing leadership in the fight against some of the awful crimes we have heard about. We are showing leadership here, and we showed leadership on the convention. We regret that we were unable to vote for it, because others were unable to give member states more flexibility in a sensible and measured way.