Convention on Domestic Workers

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on securing this important debate. I, too, attended the launch of the Centre for Social Justice inquiry into modern-day slavery and human trafficking. When I first heard at that event that the United Kingdom had opted out of the convention, I must admit that I was worried. I did not know why we had done that. On the face of it, it sounded an odd thing to do and it concerned me greatly. However, I have to say to the hon. Lady and other hon. Members that, when I looked more deeply into the issue, I realised that there were reasons why the United Kingdom did so.

The hon. Lady concentrated heavily on the issue of human trafficking, which she and I have made common cause on and no doubt we will continue to do so. I point out to her that the United Kingdom has recently signed the European convention on human trafficking, and I am happy to admit that I was one of the Members who lobbied our Ministers heavily to do so because I thought it was the right thing to do. I join her in saying that slavery and human trafficking is a modern evil; it is a disgrace that it goes on in our age. Some 27 million people are in slavery around the world, not just in domestic labour, but in bonded labour in factories and in prostitution. She is right to be concerned about the issue.

From the hon. Lady’s remarks, hon. Members might have gained the impression that the ILO convention would have an impact purely on those evil employers who traffic people to be their domestic workers. In fact, the implications of the ILO convention are much wider than that. The United Kingdom already provides significant employment protection for domestic workers; in fact, in general, it makes no distinction between domestic and other workers. It is worth reminding hon. Members that domestic workers benefit from being paid the national minimum wage. They receive sick pay, paid annual leave and protection from unfair dismissal. That already exists in United Kingdom law. We do not need an ILO convention. Those are rights enshrined in law by this Parliament. What we need is greater enforcement. We need to seek out and identify employers who are behaving badly.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, if we have something that is better than an ILO convention, we should not sign up to it? That is what he seems to be implying. He is implying that, if we have something better, then we do not need it. Surely, if we have something better, it is not problematic to sign up to it.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on securing the debate. She has a long track record of vigorous campaigning on this and related issues. She has explained the reason for the debate: to call the Government to account for their decision to abstain on the vote a fortnight ago on the International Labour Organisation’s convention on domestic workers. Detailed preparation of the ILO’s landmark convention continued for some time—indeed, since last year—with opportunities for countries to contribute to the work in progress in readiness for the vote on the convention at this year’s ILO international labour conference in Geneva some two weeks ago on 16 June.

Many people were taken aback to discover that although 173 Governments voted for the convention and only one, the Swaziland Government, voted against, the UK was one of eight countries that abstained from voting for the ILO’s convention on domestic workers. It is even more surprising that given the recent media reports about abuses in other countries and inexcusable treatment of domestic workers, the UK has, in abstaining, aligned itself with El Salvador, Malaysia, Panama, Singapore, Thailand, the Czech Republic and Sudan. The USA Government voted for the convention, and with the exception of the Czech Republic all EU countries voted for it. As we know from our previous discussions on the European working time directive, there is a plethora of different opt-out arrangements in many EU countries, but that has not prevented them from signing up.

Only last week, The Times reported on the

“abusive conditions endured by domestic workers...and their powerlessness”.

I believe that the Government have, by remaining silent, condoned that. We have heard horror stories today, and it is now clear that our Government are sending out completely the wrong message to millions of domestic workers around the world. When trying to help and protect them, they are often among some of the hardest to reach, particularly if they have recently arrived from abroad, live in, and have little knowledge of where to find help. Since 1998, following legislation by the then Labour Government, the UK has offered the overseas domestic worker visa, which provides workers with the possibility of independence from their employers. Will the Minister tell the Chamber what plans the Government have for the future of the overseas domestic worker visa, and whether there is any truth in the suggestion that they are looking to scrap it? I remind the Minister that the visa was introduced in 1998 with cross-party support, and that scrapping it would be a backwards step.

In 2008, the Labour Government set up the vulnerable worker enforcement forum, recognising that there was still much to be done to tackle hidden exploitation, and that vulnerable workers need an awareness of their employment rights and to know what to do if they suspect that those rights are being breached. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), then the Minister responsible for employment relations, set up and chaired a fair employment enforcement board. Campaigns were run to raise awareness of employment rights and encourage the reporting of abuses. Some £6 million of extra funding was provided to supply information about workers’ rights. As the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) suggested, that educational role is important and we must get information about workers’ rights to the relevant people. That campaign included outreach work using buses, but domestic workers are particularly difficult to reach, and both the carrot and the stick are important. We need education, but also the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, the temporary and agency workers directive, and now the domestic workers convention.

The ILO stated that

“this instrument sends a very strong political signal.”

By not backing the convention, the Government also send a strong political message, but of a different order. I am disappointed with the decision, and hope that the Minister will explain what he is doing to ensure that Britain protects its work force, no matter what jobs they do.

Let us look at some of the detail in the convention. Before the meeting in Geneva, the UK Government expressed concerns about three areas of the draft text: first, the articles covering working time; secondly, the potential application of health and safety regulations to private dwellings where domestic workers are employed; and thirdly, those sections of the convention that call for greater regulation of private employment agencies.

Considerable preparation went into the drafting of the convention, and if we look at how it is worded, we see that its articles refer repeatedly to bringing the law concerning domestic workers into line with existing national laws for the rest of the work force. For example, article 10 states:

“Each Member shall take measures towards ensuring…normal hours of work, overtime compensation, periods of daily and weekly rest and paid annual leave,”

which should not be less favourable than those provided for workers generally in accordance with national laws and regulations. In other words, as would be expected for an agreement that is prepared for endorsement by countries across the globe that have different laws and traditions, the convention allows countries to refer back to their own national laws and regulations. Legislation already in place for workers generally can be extended to domestic workers.

[Mr Davey]

Will the hon. Lady explain why the previous Government never extended the working time directive to domestic workers?

[Nia Griffith]

We could have an entire debate on the working time directive, but I am not going to get too distracted by that. I remind the Minister that we had an interesting discussion the other day in a European Committee, and it became apparent that most of the 27 countries in the EU operate various types of opt-out from the working time directive. Our original opt-out has been copied in many different ways, but each country has its own ideas. It is recognised that we need a full and frank discussion about what happens next; the picture across the EU has been a little confused and when we look at our domestic law, we need to ask what is appropriate, including for domestic workers. It is clearly not appropriate for people to work seven days a week, 24 hours day. We need to look at best practice and ensure that we follow that type of model.

[Jim Sheridan]

My hon. Friend should not be so modest. The Leader of the Opposition has said clearly that mistakes were made by the previous Government that we need to rectify. Although we recognise that, it is not an excuse for the current Government to bring in legislation.

[Nia Griffith]

Absolutely, particularly on issues that have taken years of discussion to get to our current position.

Let us return to how the articles in the convention are worded. They state that we should try to make national laws that apply to the general work force apply to domestic workers. That is not easy because domestic workers are often the hardest to reach. Nevertheless, we need to educate people and use the stick as well as the carrot.

The Government have said that they

“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.”

Let me remind the Minister of two parts of the convention: article 13 and the relevant recommendation. Article 13 states that each member should take appropriate action,

“with due regard for the specific characteristics of domestic work”.

It is clear that the convention views work undertaken by corporations and that carried out in people’s homes as different, and does not demand that they be treated similarly.

[Mr Davey]

The hon. Lady argues that the convention would not require health and safety legislation to be extended to homes where there are domestic workers. Is that her position? It is certainly not the legal advice we have received.

[Nia Griffith]

It is certainly not my position. Article 13 states that appropriate measures should be taken,

“with due regard for the specific characteristics of domestic work”.

We all know the benefits of health and safety provisions. For example, when students come to do work experience with me I receive a form from the school, asking about fire exits and smoke alarms. Those are sensible and routine questions that every office should be able to answer appropriately. Exactly the same should be the case with domestic workers. We would not want people to work in circumstances that are not safe. We now have higher standards than we used to have—thank goodness; those standards have considerably reduced the number of accidents at work. The convention states that although what is appropriate in a home may be different from what is appropriate in a corporation, that does not mean that protection should not exist.

[Mr Davey]

Is it therefore the Labour party’s position that the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 should be extended to households where there are domestic workers?

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Nia Griffith]

If the issue is about enforcement and we already have existing legislation, what is the problem with signing up to the convention? Of course we need to improve our enforcement. We need to do that in many areas. However, if the legislation is sufficient, in the Minister’s view, to meet the convention, what is the difficulty?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Nia Griffith]

Does the Minister not think that it would be highly desirable for the workplace to be made safe? Does he really want people to be exposed to all sorts of dangers, particularly when a large number of accidents happen in the home? What is his objection to strengthening the health and safety situation of domestic workers?

[Mr Davey]

I will come to the evidence for not applying the provisions in a second, but if I may, I will continue my remarks, because I want to answer the hon. Lady’s questions.

The Act would place a serious regulatory burden on individuals and create a fear of criminal liabilities if things go wrong. That speaks to the point made by the hon. Member for Slough, who says that there are not many prosecutions of small and medium-sized enterprises and that lots of advice is provided before such things happen. We could, of course, contest that, but what she fails to recognise is the fear of prosecutions, so let us look at the implications of that.

There would be new and significant disincentives to employing domestic workers in a private arrangement. Individuals may cease to employ the additional help they need, which could have serious social consequences. Elderly or disabled individuals, for example, could be deterred by the increased burden they would face from employing carers in their homes, potentially forcing them into residential care.

I assume that hon. Members, like me, visit constituents who are unable to come to their advice surgeries. I have two advice surgeries a week, but I also go to the homes of disabled and elderly people who are not able to come to see me. I have gone into many constituents’ homes, and my understanding of the health and safety legislation is that those homes would have to be significantly improved and changed. I do not believe that the people I visit would welcome inspections of their homes, which would be very intrusive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davey]

Indeed. That is why previous Governments, understandably, did not choose to extend domestic law in the way proposed in the convention; they had the choice, but they did not do that.

[Nia Griffith]

Is the Minister not aware of the many local authorities and private care companies that provide care? Their arrangements could be replicated in the independent care packages.

[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.