Sarah Teather
Main Page: Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat - Brent Central)Department Debates - View all Sarah Teather's debates with the Home Office
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Burrowes
I rise to commend my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), particularly for his new clause 20, which I support. Many have said that we need to follow the money, but we also need to recover it and ensure that it gets to the right places, not least law enforcement agencies. I am aware from previous discussions about proceeds of crime that it becomes a territorial issue, not least within the Government. It is important, and it is very much in the Minister’s and Department’s self-interest, to ensure that the money is recovered and that it goes where we want it to in law enforcement. So I very much commend the purpose of the new clause.
I will speak briefly to amendments 132, 133 and 134, continuing the debate we had in Committee about the importance of recognising and prosecuting exploitation, whether or not a person has been trafficked, and where the form of exploitation cannot be construed as slavery, servitude or forced labour. I will not go over old ground. I am grateful for the Minister’s letter following the debate, where she sought to reassure the Committee that such situations are covered by the definition of “forced labour” in European Court of Human Rights case law and the Court’s understanding of that as “all work or service.” My concern is that we should not just rely on European jurisprudence and we need to take the opportunity to have clarity in the Bill, not least for front-line officers, who are trying to use all the tools in the box. We will have the guidance that the Minister says is going to come, but we need greater clarity on the wider understanding of “exploitation”.
The Minister also provided reassurance by saying that situations of begging, benefit fraud and petty criminality can be covered by prosecution for other offences. I hear that, but I have concerns relating to those other offences, not least those involving assisting or encouraging another offence, for example, begging or theft. That would mean that to prosecute exploitation we would be relying on construing the victim not as a victim, but as an offender, aided or encouraged by their exploiter. We recognise that the victims are the victims, and we need to ensure that “exploitation” covers the entire range of modern day slavery. Further work can be done on that, perhaps in the other place. She also said that other penalties can be attracted, but I am not convinced that they are sufficient, given the nature of these offences. So I ask for further consideration of a wider construction of “exploitation”. We also need to ensure, as my proposal seeks to do, that that construction covers the nasty exploitation of children. We have the definition of exploitation in clauses 3(5) and 3(6) and this is about widening the construction in the way that the Minister and all of us want, particularly in relation to children.
Finally, I wish to flag up the issue of consent. That is a live issue, where work still needs to be done. We all agree on the law; the issue is whether it should be explicit in the Bill, avoiding the Minister’s concerns about it getting in the way of prosecution and about relying on evidence where consent is an issue, but making it clear that what we all say—
Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)
We have no time, but I just want to put on the record that I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Burrowes
I thank the hon. Lady very much. I am sure we can find a way of putting in the Bill our understanding that consent is irrelevant here, particularly in relation to children. As for what is in case law, let us get a form of words in the Bill that ensures that we increase the prosecutions for slavery, particularly in relation to children.
Sarah Teather
I wish to comment on new clause 2. This Bill is unique in that it is one piece of Home Office legislation that I warmly welcome. None the less, I was disappointed to find that it did not include any provisions relating to the protection of overseas domestic workers.
Since becoming an MP 11 years ago, I have had many constituency cases involving overseas domestic workers who have managed to escape an abusive or exploitative employer and who were seeking protection. Those women had been made prisoners; their passports had been stolen and they had been made to work extremely long hours for very little pay and with no time off.
In April 2012, the Government changed the rules so that domestic workers would no longer be able to change employer. Instead they have a tied visa, which links their immigration status to their employer. The evidence collected by Kalayaan indicates that the result of the new visas has been an increase in abuse and exploitation. I understand that the Minister disputes those figures, but her own proposals will not address the problem that Kalayaan raises.
Given the levels and types of abuse that are experienced by overseas domestic workers, we should view this Bill as the opportune vehicle to provide extra protection, as it goes to the very heart of protecting victims of modern slavery. There was an extremely short debate on this matter right at the end of the Committee stage. The Minister said then that reintroducing the right to change employers was not the answer to preventing abuse. It was very difficult for us to explore all the issues because we were right up against time. The Minister then showed us a new information card that will be given to overseas domestic workers, and since then she has sent me a draft revised standard template contract, for which I am very grateful. However, I am not convinced that these steps, while welcome, will be enough on their own to prevent abuse while the tied visa system is still in place. This is not a one-or-the-other issue. I accept the Minister’s argument that abuse undoubtedly also took place before the change in the visa system, but I am not convinced that merely giving people more advice will be enough. We need to tackle the tied visa system, which seems to have made the problem worse.
Some 78% of domestic workers who have arrived on a tied visa and then sought assistance from Kalayaan have reported that their passport was confiscated by their employer. What is to stop that same employer taking the information card as well? Moreover, given that many will not have access to a phone, how are they supposed to dial the numbers on the card, assuming that the card is even in a language that they can read in the first place?
In Committee, the Minister criticised the robustness of Kalayaan's figures. It should be remembered that Kalayaan is an extremely small organisation, with very limited resources.
Karen Bradley
Let me make myself clear. I do not dispute Kalayaan’s figures. I was merely pointing out that there was evidence of abuse both before and after the tie of the visa. I therefore believe that we need to tackle the root cause of that abuse and not merely look at the tie on the visa. I do not dispute the figures that Kalayaan has put out.
Sarah Teather
That is a helpful clarification. I agree with the Minister that we have to tackle the root cause of the abuse. I simply think that we need to do both. I am not sure that the solutions that the Minister has suggested will be enough on their own. I wonder whether I could persuade the Minister, especially as Kalayaan is such a small organisation, to consider collecting more data on overseas domestic workers. We know that abuse exists, and it would be helpful in our debates to have more accurate tracking of what happens. It may be that only the Government have the resources to fund such research.