ON February 5th 2004 the country was shocked and sickened to learn that 23 Chinese workers had drowned at Morecambe Bay whilst picking cockleshells.

On that day the word ‘gangmaster’ with all its sinister connotations entered into the public imagination.

Such was the public revulsion as the story of inhuman exploitation of these workers emerged, that the Labour government was forced to act.

A backbench MP’s private bill which called for the compulsory registration and control of gangmasters, was adopted by the government, which had been previously arguing in favour of ‘voluntary’ regulation, and war was declared on the evil gangmasters.

At the beginning of last year the Trades Union Congress (TUC) together with the International Labour Organisation (ILO), which is a UN body dealing with labour issues and rights, had commissioned a report from British academics on the scale of forced labour in Britain.

This report was completed in August 2004, but only saw the light of day on the very eve of the first anniversary of the tragedy of the Chinese workers at Morecambe Bay.

This date was not chosen as some commemoration of this tragedy, what has emerged is that such is the damning nature of this report the Labour government put pressure on the TUC and ILO to withhold its publication until after the General Election.

Although the TUC has denied that pressure was put upon it by the government not to ‘rock the boat’ prior to the election, the fact that the report was only published after it had been leaked to the Guardian newspaper and that the ILO (which relies for its funding from governments) did not append its name to the report strongly suggests that pressure was indeed applied.

Reading this report, entitled Forced Labour and Migration to the UK, soon shows why this Labour government has every reason to fear its publication.

Whilst it was easy for the government to heap blame on the gangmasters who reap enormous profits from the exploitation of migrant workers, the inescapable fact that emerges from this report is that the conditions which allow them to flourish in this barbaric trade have been created by the Labour government itself.

The gangmaster, far from being a shadowy, mafia like figure existing in the economic shadows, is in fact an integral part of British capitalism in the 21st century, encouraged and nourished by the policies started first under Thatcher and enthusiastically followed by the Blair administration.

Deregulation, privatisation and the creation of a ‘flexible’ labour market are the ever so respectable face behind which super exploitation of the most vulnerable sections of the working class flourish – exploitation which is of such a nature as to earn the definition of ‘forced Labour’.

The Authors of the report, Dr Bridget Anderson of Oxford University and Dr Ben Rogaly of the University of Sussex, open with a definition of ‘forced labour’, making the point in their introduction that in the past investigations have mainly centred on those sectors involving forced prostitution and the commercial sex industry.

But, as the report points out, forced labour is not restricted to the sex trade: ‘abuses have been found in cheap takeaways and expensive restaurants, mushroom picking, bakeries, private homes, fishing vessels and all-night stores.’

‘Forced labour’ is a term which the report explains has become entwined with the term ‘trafficking’.

The report quotes from the Asylum and Immigration Bill of 2004 which declares a person who facilitates travel of another to the UK or within the country, commits a criminal offence of ‘trafficking’ if the person being transported ‘is subject to force, threats or deception designed to induce him –

i) to provide services of any kind

ii) to provide another person with benefits of any kind, or

iii) to enable another person to acquire benefits of any kind.’

What the authors point out is that this legislation makes the movement of people a crime rather than ‘the forced labour aspects or abusive employment.’ (page 8)

As they say this has the effect of making, in the eyes of the government and the law enforcement agencies, criminal tragedies such as Morecambe Bay, a question of immigration rather than the conditions under which those Chinese workers were forced to work.

Moreover, the report emphasis ‘one does not have to be “illegal” or be working without state permission, to be “trafficked”, and as we will see migrants who are working with permits may be subject to forced labour and illegal deductions.’

It is in section three of the report that the authors raise the issue that has terrified the Blair government.
In this section, entitled ‘Labour Market Issues and Forced Labour in the United Kingdom’, they lay out that their study is focused on four economic sectors; construction, agriculture, horticulture, contract cleaning and residential care.

But first they deal with what they term the ‘general characteristics of the UK labour market.’ in order to provide a context ‘in which labour exploitation and, arguably, forced labour are occurring.’

The report states:

‘The UK now has one of the most flexible labour markets in Europe. This flexibility has several dimensions: flexible employment patterns, for instance with regard to working hours; easier hiring and firing of workers; widespread use of short-term contracts; greater flexibility in pay arrangements, linked to performance, for example; and a high geographic mobility of the workforce.’

Blair and his Chancellor Gordon Brown, are always quick to boast how under a Labour government Britain has become the most ‘flexible’ economy in Europe.

They glory in their refusal to participate in even the most limited employment protection laws afforded by the European Community, echoing Thatcher at her most reactionary when they talk of ‘freeing’ British capitalism from the laws and red tape of employment legislation.

As far as Blair and Brown are concerned the only laws worth having are those passed by Thatcher which undermine the right of trade unions to strike in defence of wages and conditions.

The stark consequences of ‘freeing up’ capitalism for the working class are spelt out even in the dry official statistics quoted in the report:

‘Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that in the spring 2004 there were an estimated 272,000 jobs with pay less than the national minimum wage held by people aged 18 or over.’

So much for those trade union bureaucrats, who for years have been peddling the line that for all its faults the Labour government has at least tackled poverty through the minimum wage.

What these official figures do not take account of, of course, is the very meat of this report.

Those industries who rely on not just cheap labour, but virtual slave labour to produce the profits that the capitalist class crave above all else, are not seedy back-street companies, the chain which starts with enslaved migrant workers ends in some of the biggest companies in the country.

How this happens is explained in the report, along with graphic interviews with migrant workers which expose the reality of the labour government’s boast of having created a flexible vibrant economy and presents the stark reality of a crumbling capitalist economy based on fear, threats, violence and debt slavery.

• continued tomorrow.