Convention on Domestic Workers

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Westminster Hall

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Selous]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving us those points of detail, so that they are now on the record.

The workers whom the hon. Member for Slough did not mention, and the reason that I have come to speak in this debate today, are people such as child minders, carers, housekeepers, cleaners and nurses who work for many of our frail and elderly constituents. The worry is that the imposition of criminal health and safety law in people’s private homes could mean that some of our frail and elderly constituents could be forced out of their homes and into residential care. All I would say to hon. Members is that they can come here and share my passion, and the passion of the hon. Lady, against the evils of human trafficking—we are as one in this Chamber on that issue. If she looks closely, however, at the text of the convention and its implications, inspectors could come into our constituents’ private homes, examine the rooms, gadgets and layout of the house, and perhaps tell a frail, elderly lady that her home is not fit to have a carer. That lady could be forced to move into a residential home.

The Government are right to be wary of some of the unintended consequences that they believe the ILO convention could have. As I said earlier, it is important for the Government to enforce those parts of the convention that are important and that we can agree on. There is, however, another group of perhaps 250,000 or 300,000 workers who we have not heard about—child minders, carers, cleaners and housekeepers. We have not heard what the effect on their employment could be if the enforcement of this ILO convention is not got right.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

The hon. Gentleman is outlining potential consequences for the United Kingdom. Is there any evidence of any of those problems happening in the countries that have signed the convention?

[Andrew Selous]

This is a new convention that is being signed, so neither the hon. Gentleman nor I know what will happen. I come back to my general point.

The hon. Member for Slough was good enough to say that she was not necessarily impugning the motives of the Government. I am just trying to explain, as I understand it, the rationale for the United Kingdom to hesitate. It is not because the Government, or any members of it, are in favour of employers treating their staff wrongly. On the contrary, as a Government, my hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friends here today will say that we hold no candle for rogue employers. We want employers to treat workers fairly and properly, but we think carefully before we sign.

The hon. Lady spoke just about human trafficking. From her remarks, we would not have thought that the convention would apply to many of our constituents who work as carers, cleaners, nurses or housekeepers for our frail and elderly constituents who need extra help. All I say to hon. Members—who I think have come to the Chamber for honourable and proper reasons, and for reasons that I think we all share—is that there are wider implications to this issue. There could be unintended consequences. I will press the Minister to ensure that we enforce the convention—we can do this ourselves, we do not need to sign all parts of it—where we think that it is right, and where we think it bears down properly and legitimately on unscrupulous employers. I believe that he will be able to give me that reassurance when he comes to reply to the debate.