Supplementary memorandum submitted by
Kalayaan
ISSUING OF ENTRY CLEARANCE TO THE UK AS A
DOMESTIC WORKER IN A PRIVATE HOUSEHOLD.
Entry clearance to enter the UK as a domestic
worker in a private household is issued by the British embassy
or consulate in the country from which the worker is travelling.
One of the requirements for entry clearance is that the worker
has to have been previously employed by the family for a minimum
period of twelve months before applying to come to the UK. The
worker is then supposed to be given information as to their rights
as a worker in the UK and interviewed in person, separately to
the employer, in order to give them an opportunity to disclose
any concerns they may have.
According to migrant domestic workers (MDWs)
registering at Kalayaan, the above procedures are often not followed.
Case Study:
Ravi (not his real name) entered the UK in the
employ of a wealthy and influential family from the Middle East.
His wages were so low that despite the very long hours he worked
he was not able to send any money home to his family. This drove
him to run away despite his employers having confiscated his passport.
When Kalayaan secured proof of Ravi's visa we
discovered he had been issued a visit visa despite having clearly
entered the UK to work in his employers' private household. Using
the Data Protection Act we eventually secured Ravi's visa application
form. The embassy confirmed that they were not able to provide
interview notes as Ravi was not interviewed at the post. Ravi
told us he had never seen the application form for his visa before
and the signature on the form was clearly not his. Together with
the form was a letter from Ravi's employers requesting he be issued
"a visit visa" in order to travel to the UK as a "member
of their service staff".
Having entered the UK on a visit visa Ravi was
working in breach of the immigration rules. He has no employment
rights or recourse against his employer.
The 89 new MDWs who registered at Kalayaan
between 3rd January 2008 and 31st March 2008 when asked by Kalayaan
about their visa application process reported the following:
Interviews when applying for visa:
52 were interviewed at an overseas British embassy
32 were not interviewed (but were issued a visa)
5 did not supply any data
Of those interviewed how many MDWs had their employer
present during the interview?
41 told Kalayaan that their employer or a member
of their employer's household was present during their interview
11 told us that they were interviewed alone
At which British posts overseas were these 89
visas issued and how many interviewed the MDWs to whom they issued
visas?
|
| British embassy | Total MDW visas
issued by this post
| How many of these
workers were
interviewed?
|
|
| Didn't name embassy | 8
| 5 |
| India | 30
| 19 |
| Singapore | 2
| 0 |
| Jordan | 1
| 1 |
| Oman | 3 |
2 |
| Kuwait | 6
| 3 |
| Hong Kong | 4
| 2 |
| Brunei | 4
| 1 |
| UAE | 8 |
3 |
| Qatar | 2 |
2 |
| Saudi Arabia | 5
| 1 |
| Bahrain | 3
| 3 |
| Morocco | 1
| 1 |
| Russia | 3
| 3 |
| Cyprus | 1
| 1 |
| Israel | 1
| 0 |
| Nairobi, Kenya | 1
| 0 |
| Colombo, Sri Lanka | 2
| 2 |
| Lagos, Nigeria | 2
| 1 |
| Indonesia | 1
| 1 |
| Philippines | 1
| 1 |
| Total visas issued | 89
| 52 |
|
Information given at overseas posts:
In the past the Home Office has produced an information booklet
entitled "Information about domestic workers". This
was designed to be translated and given to (MDWs) as they applied
for entry clearance[52].
Kalayaan distributes these booklets to workers that register at
Kalayaan. We find these leaflets particularly useful as they provide
written evidence to the MDWs who receive them of the rights they
had been told they did not have (such as the right to change employers).
These leaflets have also proved useful in persuading authorities
of the rights and entitlements of MDWs.
When Kalayaan attempted to reorder supplies of the booklet
last year we were told they were no longer being printed.
Also of concern are discrepancies in information being given
to both workers and employers about the National Minimum Wage
(NMW). As workers MDWs are covered by the NMW legislation, however
the Immigration Directorates' Instructions clearly state that
non-payment of the NMW by an employer is not a reason to refuse
a visa[53]. This clearly
facilitates confusion and encourages abuse. An employer can declare
that they intend to pay a worker well below the NMW, in breach
of UK employment law, and still be issued a visa to bring them
to the UK.
Importance of maintaining the domestic worker visa and associated
rights and protections.
Despite the shortcomings of the domestic worker visa it is
important to remember how much worse conditions were for migrant
domestic workers who were brought to the UK by employers before
1998. At that point there existed no specific route of entry for
the domestic workers of families coming or returning to the UK.
The lack of a specific immigration route via which to bring domestic
workers did not prevent employers from bringing them. Instead
they were brought as family members, visitors or simply had "to
work with|" stamped in their passports. We still hear many
instances of these types of visa being issued to domestic workers
today. Removing the Migrant Domestic Worker visa will not stop
employers bringing workers to this country it will only serve
to make the workers less visible and thus more vulnerable.
This meant that domestic workers were not formally recognised
as workers in the UK, they were working in breach of their immigration
status and when they fled employers escaping sometimes horrific
abuses they had no legal options or recourse to justice, and lived
in fear of the authorities rather than approaching them for supportThe
government have acknowledged that conditions of MDWs in the UK
have improved since the introduction of the visa in 1998[54]
and Kalayaan works hard to support MDWs to access their existing
rights. In order to ensure that individuals trafficking MDWs to
the UK for the purpose of labour exploitation are punished, MDWs
need to know that they can approach authorities without fear of
detention and deportation.
How many MDWs are trafficked?
Kalayaan works with all MDWs whether or not they are trafficked.
We firmly believe that if domestic workers are entering the UK
with an employer for the purpose of work there must be sufficient
legislation in place to prevent them being abused and put into
forced labour. This is the only way to prevent the trafficking
of MDWs. Migrant Domestic Workers are particularly vulnerable
to exploitation and severe abuse due to their dependency on one
employer for information about their rights in the UK, often for
translation, for their immigration status, for their work and
for their housing. It was in recognition of this vulnerability
that the UK government introduced existing protections for MDWs
in 1998.
The 312 MDWs who registered at Kalayaan during 2006 reported
the following abuse:
Physical abuse 26%
Psychological abuse 72%
Sexual abuse 10%
No room or private space within the house within which they
lived and worked 61%
Lack of food 41%
No time off at all 70%
Not allowed to leave the house 62%
Taboos and lack of trust upon first contact with Kalayaan
mean that statistics such as sexual abuse are underreported.
Experts in trafficking such as Klara Skrivankova from ASI
identified all the MDWs she met during a research visit to Kalayaan
as having been trafficked[55].
Under the Palermo Protecol trafficking involves the movement
of people across or within borders; threats or use of force, coercion
and deception; and the abuse of power or a position of vulnerability
for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation including at the
minimum forced labour or services and slavery or practices similar
to slavery or servitude. Looking at the reported abuse above it
is clear that many of the domestic workers who register at Kalayaan
have been trafficked. 32% of MDWs who registered at Kalayaan during
the financial year 2006-2007 were not in possession of their passports
as these had been taken from them by their employers. Interviews
with workers demonstrate that passports are withheld in order
to control workers.
Protection for MDWs under the Council of Europe Convention
on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings
As the statistics of abuse reported by MDWs to Kalayaan show,
despite the progressive improvements made in 1998, many MDWs are
still trafficked to the UK. Existing protections for MDWs need
to be built on, for example by making MDWs and their employers
aware of their rights and obligations when entry clearance is
issued and again at the point of entry into the UK and ensuring
that employers know that any abuse will result in prosecution.
Kalayaan applauds the UK government's commitment to ratify
the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking
in Human Beings (ECAT) but is concerned to point out that this
should on no account be considered to be an alternative to the
existing protections available to MDWs in the form of the existing
visa with the provision to change employers and recognition as
a worker in the UK.
Not only does it make no sense to remove existing protections
in order to implement others but it is also clear that such a
move would greatly increase the power discrepancies between vulnerable
workers and abusive employers and so increase the numbers of MDWs
trafficked for labour exploitation. It would be an extremely negative
indictment of Home Office policy and practice if they were to
increase the vulnerability of migrant domestic workers to trafficking
and reduce the escape routes from situations of trafficking for
these workers at the same time as the Government ratifies ECAT.
Kalayaan does not believe that ECAT will be able to adequately
protect MDWs for the following reasons:
— Identification: MDWs who have been trafficked
are not recognised as such by authorities, despite the often clear
indicators including their employers being in possession of their
passport, having received no wages and having no knowledge of
their own immigration status. For instance a Kalayaan client who
had been trafficked to the UK and experienced forced labour as
well as extreme physical abuse had twice escaped to the police
(separate stations) and tried to report the employer. In both
cases she was returned the employer with no follow up or investigation.
— Approaching authorities: If MDWs lose the
right to change employer without breaching the immigration rules,
there will be some truth in the threats currently used by trafficker's
of MDWs regarding workers treatment by authorities as immigration
offenders, liability to deportation or removal by the authorities.
Having escaped their trafficker, they will be terrified to approach
authorities for fear of detention and deportation and instead
will remain in the UK underground, undocumented and extremely
vulnerable to retrafficking or further exploitation.
— Cost: There is currently no official accommodation
provided under ECAT for anyone trafficked for labour exploitation.
Under the current provision for MDWs most escape abuse, find better
employment as a domestic worker in a private household and are
able to apply to remain in the UK. This happens at no cost to
the government and workers are only able to remain if there is
a demand for their work. To remove existing protections for MDWs
would increase numbers trafficked all of whom would have to be
provided for under ECAT.
Kalayaan recommendations
— To maintain the existing protections for MDWs
in the UK which were introduced in 1998 which include the right
to change employers and protection for MDWs in the UK under UK
employment law.
— To ensure that protections for MDWs as workers
are consistent in the UK and in British embassies overseas and
that both workers and employers are aware of duties and protections
under UK law.
8 May 2008
52
Anderson, B. 1993 "Britain's Secret Slaves" p. 64 Back
53
Immigration Directorates' Instructions. Chapter 5, Section 12,
Domestic Workers in Private Households. Dec 02. Paragraph 3.3
The National Minimum Wage Back
54
Baroness Scotland noted on 26 March 2007 that the Government is
"conscious that the changes we brought in greatly benefited
domestic workers". Back
55
Anti Slavery International, Trafficking for forced labour, UK
Country Report 2006 Back
| 
