The Lithuanian ‘slaves’ highlight the holes in Britain’s anti-trafficking strategy
|
Version 0 of 1. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about the Lithuanian workers who say they were treated like slaves on egg farms based in Kent is that their case came to light at all. The British government’s estimate is that there are 10,000 to 13,000 people in forced labour in the UK. Compare that to the trivial numbers of prosecutions, and it is clear that trafficking for forced labour and sexual exploitation in the UK remains a high-reward, low-risk business. This is, in part, because of gaps in law enforcement, and opportunities provided to the unscrupulous in the law and policy of the land. For example, in spite of years of pleading to the government by Anti-Slavery International and others to extend the remit of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, it still only has powers to regulate in food and agriculture. Other sectors where there are concerns of high risks of forced labour, such as construction, cleaning, catering and domestic work, are substantially uninspected. Related: Lithuanian migrants trafficked to UK egg farms sue 'worst gangmaster ever' Part of the reason that so many of those enslaved in the UK are domestic workers is because the overseas domestic worker visa that the government has in place is essentially a licence for trafficking. The nature of the tied visa means that if workers flee an abusive employer, they run a high risk of being deported. This gives enormous power to unscrupulous and exploitative employers. In spite of demands to give greater protections to domestic workers at risk of trafficking, the government has steadfastly refused to change the system. Ministers are very proud of the Modern Slavery Act, which the Home Office piloted onto the statute books at the end of the last parliament, and is regarded by the government as “world leading”. But it is hardly a panacea for all the issues of contemporary slavery. Central to the limitations of the act is an underpinning view of slavery in the UK as principally a matter of organised crime that requires robust policing to bring the “evil” to justice. Consequently the act is very much a criminal justice response to slavery. There certainly is a need for effective policing in dealing with contemporary slavery. But even if the police were renowned for its anti-slavery culture (which, aside from a few specialist units, it is not), the government is in the process of undermining this approach by the drastic cuts it is imposing on public services including the police and Crown Prosecution Service. With so many serious crimes, it is difficult to imagine how the police will ever be able to meet all the anti-trafficking expectations pinned to it. Ministers' 'Dirty Harry' language concerns me: will migrants be recognised as trafficking victims or summarily deported? In addition to a criminal justice approach in the struggle against slavery there is a need for a human rights one: slavery is inflicted on those that society has sought to make powerless. Any optimal anti-slavery strategy should therefore seek to put power into the hands of those who have been denied it. For example, across the world we see the importance of the basic right to change employers as an anti-slavery strategy, something denied to overseas domestic workers in the UK. There are some positive elements in the act, in particular on victim protection and transparency in supply chains. These are a result of intense advocacy by civil society and business, and by diligent work in the Lords and Commons from committed parliamentarians, pulling concessions from the teeth of a reluctant government. But exposure to this human rights perspective has not swayed the government from continuing to cast slavery as principally a matter of organised crime by evil people. Indeed, some government ministers seem so enamoured with the idea of themselves in the forefront of the struggle against evil-doers that they have begun to cast some things that are not even about slavery – such as the refugee crisis in the Mediterranean – as a struggle against people-traffickers. Yesterday’s declaration by James Brokenshire, the immigration minister, about a crackdown on firms in construction, catering and cleaning that employ “illegal” immigrants may be a serendipitous change of heart by the government that will lead finally to the long-sought extension of the remit of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority to deal with labour exploitation in these areas. But the “Dirty Harry” nature of Brokenshire’s language does leave me concerned as to how any migrants found in such employment will be treated. Will they be recognised as potential victims of trafficking, or will they be summarily deported? Related: UK tied visa system 'turning domestic workers into modern-day slaves' This isn’t a baseless worry as it is a matter on which the government has previous. In a 2010 study conducted by the Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group, a consortium of NGOs on which Anti-Slavery leads, we found that when UK and EU citizens suspected of being trafficked were assessed by the authorities, 76% of cases were positively identified as trafficking. In contrast the rate of positive identification as victims of trafficking for nationals from countries outside the EU was only 11.9%. That imbalance smacks to me of institutional racism. The announcements made by the government about the plans to criminalise irregular workers in new immigration legislation bodes further ill. We know many of them will have been exploited – and moving away from the criminalisation of irregular workers if they were exploited is a basic principle of a human rights approach to tackling slavery. The processes for identification of victims of trafficking, along with the highly problematic overseas domestic worker visa, are under review. But the intemperate language from ministers relating to “illegal” migrants dangerously obfuscates the issues. If ministers remain intent on demonstrating how tough they are on immigration crime, they could end up establishing a chaotic system staffed by confused officials who deport potential witnesses, sabotaging police efforts to prosecute the traffickers – and undermining the government’s stated ambition of being a world leader against slavery. |