| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Points of Order
12.31 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is obviously great interest in all parts of the House in the likely Government new clauses to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. When are we likely to be able to see the groups of new clauses that you have selected for debate? Are you able to give us any further information about when those important items will be available?
Mr. Speaker: The Government new clauses are being printed as we speak. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman. My selection will take place as soon as I leave the Chair.
Mr. Clive Soley (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand the importance of the exchanges on the Floor of the House between the Opposition parties and the Government at Prime Minister's questions, but the first 20 minutes were occupied by the party leaders. Taking into account the smaller parties, that left only 10 minutes for Back-Bench Members. Will you give some thought to how we can ensure that Back Benchers are heard?
Mr. Speaker: I am the custodian of the rules of the House. There is no breach of rules in what the hon. Gentleman describes. If hon. Members wish to change the rules in that respect, they are more than welcome to try to do so.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may be aware that, according to credible sources in the north of Scotland, the Highland Regiment is to be deployed in Iraq this November. That will mean that personnel will be away from their homes and families over Christmas. Should not reports such as that be confirmed to the House before we have to read about them in newspapers?
Mr. Speaker: I have the highest regard for the Highland Regiment, and for all Scottish regiments, but I cannot be drawn into such matters.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Like you, I support the important campaign Make Poverty History, which is fully endorsed by both sides of the House. However, you will have noticed that a number of hon. Members are wearing arm bands today. If you cannot do so now, will you issue a statement later about the appropriate dress code for the Chamber?
Mr. Speaker:
Hon. Members often wear badges supporting various organisations. No breach of the rules has taken place, so I cannot intervene. However, some hon. Members approached me beforehand about the wearing of arm bands. It is my preference that they should not wear them, but it is up to the individual.
9 Mar 2005 : Column 1520
Control of Identification Documents (Offences)
12.34 pm
Chris McCafferty (Calder Valley) (Lab): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it an offence for employers and certain other persons to destroy or control the identification documents of another person in specified circumstances; to amend the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 and the Consular Relations Act 1968 so as to make diplomatic and consular staff and their households liable in relation to that offence; and for connected purposes.
The purpose of the Bill is to tackle a loophole in the law that has allowed many people, including criminals, to abuse others through human trafficking, domestic slavery, sexual exploitation and forced marriage. I am sure that hon. Members will be as surprised as I was to learn that it is not an offence under UK law to appropriate and keep someone else's passport. That should be illegal and someone found guilty of that crime should go to prison.
The unauthorised holding of someone's passport or other identity documents is an important tool for the unscrupulous to control vulnerable people. It is well documented as a technique used in people trafficking, particularly when the individuals concerned are then exploited through poor employment or forced involvement in the sex industry. It is sometimes used by families to force unwanted marriages on young women.
The Bill applies particularly to documents such as passports, immigration papers and driving licences, and to any official document that is necessary for someone to establish their identity. The Bill also amends rules relating to the rights of foreign diplomats in this country, so that they, too, will be covered by the offence. There have been a number of cases in which it was alleged that domestic staff working for foreign diplomats have been controlled and treated as virtual slaves through control of their identity documents. It is important to ensure that that cannot be excused under the cloak of diplomatic immunity.
The number of people affected by this contemporary slavery has increased dramatically during the past decade. As a UK delegate to the Council of Europe, I have been involved in drafting amendments to the draft convention on the trafficking of human beings, and I welcome that convention. Trafficking results in abuse of the human rights of trafficked persons, including the right to life, liberty, dignity, freedom of movement, and freedom from slavery and slavery-like practices. Measures covering trafficking must have at their core the protection and respect of those rights. It is difficult accurately to identify individuals as trafficked persons, but it is important to do so promptly because of the risk to their lives and safety if we fail to do so. I welcome the draft convention, which ensures that the intentional, unauthorised retention, removal or destruction of another person's identity or travel documents for the purpose of enabling trafficking is criminalised.
Last year was the United Nations year of the struggle against slavery and its abolition. It provided a valuable opportunity to remember those who have been victims of the slave trade and those who campaigned for its abolition. It also highlighted the fact that slavery has not
9 Mar 2005 : Column 1521
yet been abolished. Millions of women, children and men are enslaved around the world, and no region is free from that abuse.
Slavery today takes many forms—for example, bonded labourers, forced labour, trafficking in human beings, and forced marriage. A marriage can be said to be forced when at least one party does not give consent to it or when pressure is brought to bear. In the UK, that can occur in several ways. A young person may be lured abroad on a pretext; they may be imported or even bought by a UK citizen. According to the Home Office, those most at risk are young women between the ages of 13 and 30. A clear form of violence against women, forced marriage can also be a form of domestic slavery. It places women in a situation of total vulnerability, at the mercy of psychological, sexual or domestic violence, and the withholding of a passport is a common practice in such cases.
Bonded labourers are often migrant workers who are not adequately protected against forced labour and exploitation here in the UK. We need look no further than the tragic incidents in Morecambe bay to see the power and ruthlessness of the gangmaster. A recent report by Kalayaan, a non-governmental organisation that campaigns for and supports migrant domestic workers, highlights how migrant workers' rights are inadequately protected under existing UK legislation. Kalayaan found that, on average, 49 per cent. of domestic workers registered with it—a total of 511 migrant workers between January 2001 and June 2003—had had their passports taken by their employers. The removal of a passport makes migrant workers vulnerable to deportation and allows employers to exert additional pressure on workers to accept bad pay and conditions. It also makes it impossible for them to access many services and entitlements. Despite that, there is no effective legislation in the UK that protects workers from having their passports withheld or that penalises employers for doing so.
Article 21 of the 1990 UN convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and members of their families stipulates that all migrant workers should have protection against the confiscation or destruction of their identity documents. Many migrant domestic workers, mostly women, are working in situations that constitute forced labour. For example, documents may be removed to coerce migrants into staying in a job or to accept exploitative conditions of work. It would seem, from the evidence provided by
9 Mar 2005 : Column 1522
Kalayaan, that the right balance has not been struck, because many migrant domestic workers in the UK are reduced to being forced labourers, which is also a contemporary form of slavery.
Professor Bridget Anderson, from Oxford university, in her comprehensive research on domestic slavery, found that many professional employers certainly do not see themselves as abusive or exploitative and would be the first to condemn trafficking in domestic workers, which they see as something that is done by others, not people like them, but some of the reasons those respectable people give for employing migrants, rather than citizens, to work in their homes are disturbing:
"They're so desperate for work, they're not looking to get fired, they're looking to keep their job."
"The whole idea of getting a migrant worker is that you're not getting into paid maternity leave and that stuff."
In this sector, as in many others, there is not a simple division, between those subject to forced labour and slavery, and happy, free, waged labourers. There is a continuum of exploitation and abuse, and it is in the grey area that most cases lie.
As I said earlier, 2004 was the UN year of the struggle against slavery. It would be a fitting way to commemorate that struggle if the Government took steps to reduce the number of people who fall victim to trafficking and forced labour in the UK by supporting this Bill and ensuring that a law is put in place to make the withholding of identity documents illegal in the UK.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Chris McCafferty, Mrs. Betty Williams, Ms Diane Abbott, Geraldine Smith, Julie Morgan, Dr. Jenny Tonge, Mr. Mike Hancock, Ann Clwyd, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mrs. Ann Cryer, Paul Flynn and Sandra Gidley.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |