Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Ratification: 1931)
Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Ratification: 2016)

I. Women recruited abroad with false promises of work
as nurses in the United Kingdom

The Committee previously noted from paragraph 29 of the report of the United Nations Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery on its twenty-sixth session (doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2001/30) that "an increasing number of women, especially from the Philippines and India, were recruited abroad with false promises of work as nurses [in the United Kingdom]. Once they had reached the country, their passports and work permits were confiscated. Without legal documents, they were more vulnerable to exploitation".

The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication in its latest report that, in February 2003, Work Permits (UK) set up an "Intelligence" Team, which is designed to ensure that any information received about abuse of the work permit arrangements or of overseas workers is rigorously investigated and lawfully acted upon. Work Permits (UK) has also a new post-issue checking team (which began work in May 2003) to actively check a random selection of employers to ensure that the information provided at the application stage was factually accurate, and that relevant legislation is being observed. Besides, Work Permit (UK) has issued a leaflet for overseas nationals (to be widely available from August 2003), which provides details of where they can get further advice on their rights in the United Kingdom while undertaking approved employment.

The Committee also notes that, in its communication of 1 November 2002, the TUC expressed its regret about the fact that the Government had not pursued these matters in formal consultation with the trade unions representing nursing staff in Britain. It hopes that the Government will provide, in its next report, further information on the measures taken in this area, in consultation with the employers’ and workers’ organizations concerned and, in particular, on practical working of the Work Permits (UK) teams referred to above.

II. Trafficking in persons for the purpose of exploitation

The Committee has noted with interest the information on measures taken to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons provided by the Government in reply to its 2000 general observation under the Convention. It has noted that the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act introduced a new offence of trafficking for the purpose of controlling someone in prostitution, with a maximum penalty of 14 years, which came into force in February 2003, and that more comprehensive measures covering trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation are included in the Sexual Offences Bill currently before Parliament. The Committee hopes that the Government will supply a copy of the Bill, as soon as it is adopted.

In the communication referred to above, the TUC refers to the situation of workers from abroad who fall victim to trafficking and may find themselves in conditions which would amount to forced labour, including confiscation of passports by employers, non-payment of wages, etc. In the TUC’s view, a fundamental weakness in the existing law and regulations remains that workers who denounce these practices, and in particular if they leave that employment, may find themselves at great risk of deportation.

As regards victim protection, the Committee has noted the Government’s indication in its 2002 report that there is already provision for victims of trafficking to be granted exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The Government is of the view that these arrangements are best considered on a case-by-case basis and that a blanket category of treatment is not the way forward, since any blanket grant of residency is open to abuse and may create a perverse incentive for traffickers to exploit more victims, by suggesting that they will be granted residency if they are trafficked. While noting these explanations, as well as the Government’s opinion that the current arrangements are more flexible and of greater practical benefit, the Committee would appreciate it if the Government would provide more detailed information on how these arrangements work in practice, giving examples of applications for residency accepted or refused and indicating the grounds for refusal.

In this connection, the Committee also notes with interest a recently published trafficking toolkit, which will serve as a best practice guide for immigration officers, police and other bodies dealing with trafficking, supplied by the Government with its latest report, as well as the Government’s indication that a pilot scheme for adult victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation was launched in March 2003, aiming at providing victims with safe housing, health care and legal advice. Noting also that the scheme will run initially on a pilot basis for nine months in order to assess the scale of demand for the services and to test its effectiveness, the Committee hopes that the Government will provide information on the outcome of this scheme and on further measures taken or envisaged to protect the victims of trafficking.