When the despicable actions of a rogue gangmaster led to the deaths of 23 Chinese cockle-pickers who drowned in Morecambe Bay in 2004, the public was appalled at the scandal of worker exploitation and human trafficking which was revealed.
The outcry brought together tireless campaigners like trade union leader Jack Dromey, industry leaders (from agriculture, horticulture, fisheries and forestry) and cross-party support to create the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, under a Labour government.
Nearly seven years on from the birth of the GLA, every shocking new case unearthed strengthens the case for this lean, mean agency. Only last November, the food sector was rocked with new allegations that over 30 Lithuanian workers in Kent were subject to bonded labour conditions, squalid accommodation, physically and verbally abuse, and were sometimes simply denied any pay.
An intelligence-led approach is still vital for the protection of workers against exploitation and trafficking by criminal gangs. Abuse and human slavery thrives where there are no checks.
But it also protects the food industry in the long term by seeking out and prosecuting the criminal element in the food supply chain: in the Kent case, the Lithuanian workers were collecting free range eggs for Marks and Spencer, Tesco, and Sainsbury. Any weakening of the GLA which could lead to more exploitation could severely damage consumer confidence in the UK supply-chain, as well as damaging the corporate reputation of all involved. This is bad for the bottom line, as well as for workers.
The GLA cannot do it all on its own, especially with the limited resources it has which will be cut a fifth by the end of this parliament. Businesses must do more. If you’re a food producer or a farmer (or a leading supermarket) finding workers offered at a price that’s ‘too good to be true’, then it probably is, and you’ll be found out. If you use exploited workers without showing due diligence, you’re not only undercutting good and responsible employers, but you could end up in the dock yourself.
This government has had the GLA firmly in its sights as part of the red-tape review for some time. It commissioned the Beecroft report which recommended scrapping the GLA, then thankfully – due to widespread outrage – it distanced itself from this reckless proposal. But more insidious threats remain.
There are proposals to weaken the current inspection regime, yet the government’s own analysis suggests that by reducing the number of inspections for new applications, as many as one in five rogue gangmasters could slip through the net. This could rapidly undermine confidence in the GLA licensing regime, as well as risking the wider exploitation of workers.
Sainsbury’s chief executive Justin King may seem like an unlikely advocate of regulation, but in a letter to Labour MP Michael Connarty he says the government’s proposals would ‘make it easier for rogue gangmasters to operate in the sector and will mean vulnerable workers are more likely to be mistreated’.
There are also concerns over plans to reduce the number of workers represented on the board of the GLA by cutting back on trade union places.
Also, where is the direct representation on the board from any organisation specifically representing trafficking and exploited workers? It is fine to have a single ‘observer status’ position reserved for the Ethical Trading Initiative, but shouldn’t ethical trading be more than ‘observing’ the functioning of a board which deals with worker exploitation (and related areas of human trafficking)?
Labour will not stand in the way of the GLA withdrawing from sectors which are already highly regulated – like forestry – where the risk of worker exploitation is resultantly low. But this must be based on evidence and consensus from those involved.
But this raises a logical – and ethical – quid pro quo: if the GLA can withdraw from sectors where the evidence shows there is less risk of exploitation, shouldn’t it be allowed to focus on new sectors where evidence points to high risk of worker exploitation: social work, the hospitality industry, and construction for example.
We need a One Nation approach that seeks to root out exploitation wherever it exists and to protect some of our most vulnerable workers. Yet the government won’t listen.
In contrast, Ed Miliband is actively looking at the case for an extended remit for the GLA as part of our policy review, as he made clear to Labour conference last year. Labour also sees the importance of an effective GLA, together with reform of agency workers and tightening of immigration rules in preventing the undercutting of local domestic wages and conditions.
At its heart, this is about the protection of vulnerable, isolated workers from abuse and exploitation, and – as in Morecambe Bay – death. The links to other serious organised crime and human trafficking are well known. Any government should think very carefully before weakening the body set up to protect these workers, or ignoring evidence of exploitation in other sectors.
Things could go very badly wrong indeed.
—————————————————————————————
Huw Irranca-Davies MP is Labour’s shadow farming minister. He tweets @IrrancaDaviesMP
—————————————————————————————