---

People Trafficking

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, for bringing this issue back to our attention and for making such practical proposals to the Government, which I hope will enable them to take action. This year the Government have listened to the public and the NGOs campaigning on this issue, and have finally, after long hesitation, signed the Council of Europe convention. Why they decided to do that this year I do not know; perhaps it is part of the legacy of William Wilberforce. There is no doubt about the commitment of Ministers to tackling this evil trade. I declare an interest as a former council member of Anti-Slavery International, which has done an enormous amount over many years to bring the issue to public attention. The Government have introduced new offences for trafficking and set up the new Human Trafficking Centre, as mentioned. I understand that no prosecutions have resulted from all that, although I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. I hope that the Government will not just sign conventions and pass legislation but will actually catch the perpetrators of these crimes. Like the right reverend Prelate, I hope that, if the Government truly believe in the protection of young trafficked women in particular, they will expand their limited programme of safe accommodation and extend the period of protection, based on the Italian model. That is especially important if, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, the number of such young people has been greatly underestimated. The Minister knows that I would like to raise the question of migrant domestic workers, one of the groups affected by the new trafficking and immigration rules—surprisingly, however, they do not have the same public profile as others. The charity that campaigns on behalf of domestic workers, Kalayaan, is highly respected by non-governmental organisations in this field and works closely with ASI. Under the 1998 rule introduced by the Government, migrant domestic workers are issued with one-year renewable visas and can seek work with another employer—change employers—if they wish. The fact that they are not tied to one employer means that they can come forward to receive support and assistance without putting their status and livelihood at risk. Two recent cases supplied by Kalayaan serve as illustrations. Last year the charity assisted a migrant domestic worker from India who had been raped by her employer. She was subsequently thrown out by the employer, but because of the security afforded by the 1998 rule she felt free to call the police, seek assistance and support and eventually find work with a new family. That example shows how co-operation at the right time between domestic workers, NGOs and the police under the current rules can put a stop to abusive treatment. Under the new proposals, she would not be able to contact the police without facing removal from the UK. As with many domestic workers, in her case that would mean being sent back to India with debts already incurred in moving out and obtaining a new job. In another case, a domestic worker from the Philippines was subjected to extremely exploitative working conditions. She was expected to work an 18-hour day, with no days off, earning only $250 a month. She was also insulted and intimidated by her employers, who retained her passport—such retention happens to about 50 per cent of all employees registered with Kalayaan. She felt that her only option was to run away. Kalayaan was able to assist her, liaise with the police to get her passport back and find alternative work, but under the proposed new rules, the woman would have to endure the conditions offered, return to her country or become an illegal worker. During the debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Hastings on slavery on 10 May, I quoted statistics collected by Kalayaan confirming that many migrant domestic workers suffer forced labour, abuse and exploitative working conditions on an almost unimaginable scale. Out of 387 workers registered during the year to March 2006, nearly one-quarter reported physical abuse and a similar number said that they were literally locked into their jobs. It seems extraordinary that the Government still want to reverse the 1998 rule, having recently acknowledged that it has been positive in reducing abuse and exploitation. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, for instance, said in reply to my noble friend Lord Hylton on 26 March that the Government are, "““conscious that the change we brought in greatly benefited domestic workers in this situation””.—[Official Report, 26/3/07; col. 1436.]" Incidentally, I warmly congratulate the noble Baroness on her new appointment. In her reply on 10 May, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, merely said that under the new points-based system there would not be a separate route for overseas domestic workers in private households, although she said that there would be appropriate safeguards such as the identification of cases of possible abuse to minimise the risk of subsequent exploitation. Safeguards are all very well, but a change in the law under the points system can only make matters worse, because victims of abuse who are forced to flee from their employers having been lawfully in this country will be turned overnight into illegal migrants and vulnerable to further exploitation. I urge the Government to think again about this matter, because migrant domestic workers are in a very special category. I have given the department notice of this question and sincerely hope that the Minister can give me a clearer answer than I have received hitherto.