Britain's high street chains are named by sweatshop probe

Marks & Spencer, Next, Monsoon, Debenhams, Dorothy Perkins and Miss Selfridge accused by anti-poverty campaigners
By Gethin Chamberlain
The Observer, Sunday 12 December 2010

Photo caption: Workers sew at typical sweatshop. This one is in Guatemala City. Photograph: Jaime Puebla/AP

Some of the biggest names on the British high street use Indian sweatshops which pay poverty wages and break labour laws to keep costs to a bare minimum, according to a new report.

Marks & Spencer, Next, Monsoon, Debenhams, Dorothy Perkins and Miss Selfridge are all named as having used factories which exploit their workers.

The allegations – levelled in a report by anti-poverty campaigners War on Want and Labour Behind the Label – will come as a particular embarrassment to M&S, which is running a glitzy, multi-million pound TV advertising campaign under the slogan "Don't put a foot wrong this Christmas". It is the second time this year the company has faced sweatshop allegations.

Some workers reported they were paid less than £60 a month while, in one factory, being regularly forced to work until 2am to produce clothes for British shoppers. Workers in another factory in Gurgaon, on the outskirts of the Indian capital Delhi, say it is not unusual for them to have to work an extra 140 hours a month for half the overtime rate they should receive.

The allegations come after a series of Observer investigations exposed the appalling conditions in which clothes, perfumes and accessories are produced for the British high street.

Ruth Tanner, War on Want campaigns and policy director, said: "It is utter hypocrisy that Marks & Spencer tells shoppers not to put a foot wrong at Christmas while Indian workers producing its clothes earn a pittance. While Christmas is a time for giving, M&S and the other retailers shamed are acting like Scrooge. For years British retailers have failed to keep their pledges on decent treatment for the people who make their clothes. It is high time the UK government stopped this abuse."

Sam Maher, a campaigner at the group Labour Behind the Label and author of the report, said: "Workers interviewed from these factories spoke of living in a climate of fear, where violence and systematic exclusion from rights was a daily reality. These conditions and their poverty wages are inexcusable. Brands sourcing from Gurgaon must take action to stop violence against unionised workers and make sure they pay prices that allow for a living wage."

The report – Taking Liberties: the Story Behind the UK High Street – lays bare the human cost of the sweatshop culture. It says workers in Gurgaon "are subject to systematic exploitation, violence and repression, long and stressful working hours, casual employment relationships, and exclusion from the social rights, protection and benefits they should be entitled to. Workers spoke of living in a climate of fear and insecurity." Researchers interviewed staff from two factories in Gurgaon, whose names have been withheld to protect them from any backlash.

Monsoon said that because the identity of the factory it is alleged to have used was unclear, it could not comment on the report. Debenhams and M&S said they took seriously any allegations that suggested a breach of their strict ethical standards, while Arcadia Group, which owns Miss Selfridge and Dorothy Perkins, said it welcomed research into labour standards and was working on new management systems and on tackling the issue of a living wage.

Next said it was already aware of problems in Gurgaon and was taking matters "very seriously indeed".

URL: http://tinyurl.com/23aevfg

Unemployed told: do four weeks of unpaid work or lose your benefits

Unemployed told: do four weeks of unpaid work or lose your benefits

Crackdown on £190bn-a-year welfare bill
• Payments could be suspended for three months

By Toby Helm and Anushka Asthana
The Observer, Sunday 7 November 2010

The unemployed will be ordered to do periods of compulsory full-time work in the community or be stripped of their benefits under controversial American-style plans to slash the number of people without jobs.

The proposals, in a white paper on welfare reform to be unveiled this week, are part of a radical government agenda aimed at cutting the £190bn-a-year welfare bill and breaking what the coalition now calls the "habit of worklessness".

The measures will be announced to parliament by the work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, as part of what he will describe as a new "contract" with the 1.4 million people on jobseekers' allowance. The government's side of the bargain will be the promise of a new "universal credit", to replace all existing benefits, that will ensure it always pays to work rather than stay on welfare.

In return, where advisers believe a jobseeker would benefit from experiencing the "habits and routines" of working life, an unemployed person will be told to take up "mandatory work activity" of at least 30 hours a week for a four-week period. If they refuse or fail to complete the programme their jobseeker's allowance payments, currently £50.95 a week for those under 25 and £64.30 for those over 25, could be stopped for at least three months.

The Department for Work and Pensions plans to contract private providers to organise the placements with charities, voluntary organisations and companies. An insider close to the discussions said: "We know there are still some jobseekers who need an extra push to get them into the mindset of being in the working environment and an opportunity to experience that environment.

"This is all about getting them back into a working routine which, in turn, makes them a much more appealing prospect for an employer looking to fill a vacancy, and more confident when they enter the workplace. The goal is to break into the habit of worklessness."

Sanctions – including removal of benefit – currently exist if people refuse to go on training courses or fail to turn up to job interviews, but they are rarely used.

The plans stop short of systems used in the US since the 1990s under which benefits can be "time limited", meaning all payments end after a defined period. But they draw heavily on American attempts to change public attitudes to welfare and to change the perception that welfare is an option for life.

Last night the shadow work and pensions secretary, Douglas Alexander, suggested government policy on job creation was reducing people's chances of finding work: "The Tories have just abolished the future jobs fund, which offered real work and real hope to young people. If you examine the spending review then changes such as cuts to working tax credit are actually removing incentives to get people into work. What they don't seem to get about their welfare agenda is that without work it won't work."

Anne Begg, Labour MP and chair of the Commons select committee for work and pensions, said that many unemployed people already had a work record and carrying out work experience would give them less time to search for a job. "The problem is finding a job," she added. "One of the reasons the last government moved away from work placements and towards things such as the Future Jobs Fund was that it actually acted as a hindrance to them looking for work."

The Observer has also learned that ministers have abolished the Social Exclusion Taskforce, which was based in the Cabinet Office and co-ordinated activity across departments to drive out marginalisation in society. Documents show that the unit has become a part of "Big Society, Policy and Analysis".

Jon Trickett, a shadow minister focusing on social exclusion, reacted angrily, saying that ministers should "hang their heads in shame". Whitehall sources insisted the work would carry on, but more of it would take place in the Department for Work and Pensions.

Naomi Eisenstadt, who was director of the taskforce until last year and is now an academic at Oxford University, said the shift was worrying. "I don't think it is significant in terms of the name – call it a banana – who cares? What does worry me is why they are not using the civil servants who were doing the work on deep disadvantage in the Cabinet Office and exploiting their expertise," she said.

Eisenstadt added that it would be a concern if the government believed the "big society" could take the place of government intervention. "If you speak to any minister I am sure they would agree that civil society is one part of the solution, but not the whole solution," she said.

The proposals come as the government prepares to unveil policy plans across a number of departments. Tomorrow, the Ministry of Justice will reveal that thousands of criminals with serious mental illnesses or drug addictions will no longer be sent to prison but will instead be offered "voluntary" treatment in hospital. Documents will show that offenders will be free to walk away from NHS units because officials believe it would be pointless to create duplicate prisons in the community. "While treatment is voluntary, offenders in these programmes will be expected to engage, be motivated to change and to comply with the tough requirements of their community order," they will say.

Kenneth Clarke, the justice secretary, said: "Serious criminals who pose a threat to the public will always be kept locked up, but in every prison there are also people who ought to be receiving treatment for mental illness rather than housed with other criminals. The public would be better protected if they could receive that treatment in a more suitable setting."

URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/07/unemployed-unpaid-work-lose-benefits

Modern-day slavery: horrific conditions on board ships catching fish for Europe

From The Guardian, posted Thursday 30 September 2010
By Felicity Lawrence and Robert Booth

Exclusive: Crews marooned at sea off Africa found in squalor, with cardboard bunks, 18-hour shifts, and payment in fish

When environmental campaigners began tracking a hi-tech South Korean trawler off the coast of West Africa, they were looking for proof of illegal fishing of dwindling African stocks. What they uncovered was an altogether different kind of travesty: human degradation so extreme it echoed the slavery they thought had been abolished more than a century ago.

"It was horrendous," said Duncan Copeland, a senior campaigner at the Environmental Justice Foundation, who boarded the South Korean-flagged trawler at the end of 2008 with naval forces from Sierra Leone.

"The men were working in the fish hold with no air or ventilation in temperatures of 40-45 degrees. It was rusty, greasy, hot and sweaty. There were cockroaches everywhere in the galleys and their food was in disgusting boxes. All they had for washing was a pump bringing up salt water. They stank. It was heartbreaking."

As their investigation continued, the EJF found vessel after vessel, some up to 40 years old, rusted and in terrible repair, engaged in pirate fishing – an illegal trade that damages already fragile marine stocks and exploits human labour in shocking conditions.

The 36 crew members on the boat boarded by Copeland came from China, Vietnam, Indonesia and Sierra Leone. Eight men shared a tiny windowless area of the fish hold with four cardboard "bunks" resting on planks. Four worked in the hold sorting and packing fish for the European market while four slept, and they would alternate, literally rolling out to allow the next to roll in.

The Sierra Leonean crew members said they were not paid with money but in boxes of "trash" fish – the bycatch rejected by the European market – which they would be given to sell locally. If anyone complained, the captain would abandon them on the nearest beach, they said.

"The conditions aren't good, but we can't do anything about it," a worker on another South Korean-registered ship told investigators. "We live with it, because it is hard to find work. If someone offers you a salary of $200 to support your family it's not good, but we have to live with it."

In May, about 150 Senegalese men were found labouring in a ship off Sierra Leone; working up to 18 hours through the day and into the night, eating and sleeping in spaces less than a metre high. The vessel carried a licence number for importing fish to the EU, showing it had passed apparently strict hygiene standards.

EJF also found several apparently redundant trawlers out at sea still with crew on board, some of whom had been there more than a year with no radio or safety equipment.

"I was sent here by the company," said one fisherman on a trawler off the coast of Guinea. "The company sends a boat with supplies to bring me food like fish and shrimps. Nobody wants to come here."

The fishermen's tales reveal the human toll of pirate fishing, a business thought to produce a catch of at least 11m tonnes of fish a year worth more than $10bn (£6.3bn).

Living quarters inside one of the pirate fishing ships. Photograph: EJF

Vessels often stay at sea for months on end, with reefers coming alongside every couple of weeks to unload the catch and resupply them. As they operate in remote waters, they can avoid detection for long periods. The crew are effectively imprisoned, most cannot swim and many of those interviewed by EJF meet the UN definition of forced labour. Reports of violence, withholding of pay and retention of documents are common, said Copeland.

The investigators found a crew of 200 Senegalese operating off Sierra Leone in 2006. The men were living in a makeshift structure built on the stern of the ship, divided into four levels with barely a metre of headroom and cardboard packing boxes crammed together to serve as mattresses.

The ship did not appear on the official list of vessels licenced to fish in Sierra Leone at the time of sighting. Records show that it has visited Las Palmas in the Canary Islands, which is the largest landing point for west African fish into Europe and has been criticised by senior EU officials for its lax inspection regime.

But the investigators' original interest in fish stocks also produced worrying evidence.

Several of the vessels boarded by EJF are bottom trawlers, licensed to import to the EU, catching high value fish such as shrimp, lobster and tuna. Bottom trawlers drag heavy chains across the sea bed, scraping up everything in their path including coral. In one case, the boat had been dumping more than 70% of its catch overboard, including sharks – once the fins had been removed for the Asian market.

The vessel's owner had been putting its Senegalese crew out to sea in small boats to bring in tuna and shark to sell as caught by "hook and line, having first identified fishing targets with global positioning software. Many of the Senegalese were fishermen unable to sustain a livelihood in their own waters because stocks have been decimated by overfishing by hi-tech trawlers.

The EJF believes most illegal fishing is carried out by ships flying flags of convenience. Under international maritime law, the country where a ship is registered is responsible for its activities. Some countries allow vessels of other nationalities to register with them for a few hundred dollars and are known to ignore offences.

Pirate vessels can re-flag several times a season and frequently change their name. They are often backed by shell companies, which makes their real owners hard to trace and law enforcement extremely difficult. The maximum fine for illegal fishing is around $100,000, which is typically less than two weeks' profit from the trade, according to EJF.

The South Korean captain, first mate and engineer of one of the ships were arrested by the Sierra Leone navy and fined $30,000 plus their catch for fishing in the country's inshore exclusion zone. The same ship was however spotted in August, fishing again off the coast of Sierra Leone and Liberia according to EJF.

All at Sea, the Abuse of Human Rights aboard Illegal Fishing Vessels, EJF. www.ejfoundation.org

Does illegal fish make it to UK?

Deciding whether the fish on your plate is from an illegal catch from west African waters remains difficult, but it should be getting easier after a crackdown in recent months by the British and European authorities.

Under an EU regulation brought in this year, it is forbidden to import fish into the member states unless it has been certified as legal by the flag state of the vessel. That means if a ship sails under a Spanish flag, Spain has to certify the catch as legal. Campaigners believe the problem remains that some countries, including South Korea and China, are not effectively policing fishing vessels using their flags.

Investigators believe pirate fish are "laundered" – packed in boxes with the stamp of a licensed fishing boat. During checks in 2006 and 2007 the Environmental Justice Foundation found west Africa-caught denton, commonly sold in the UK as snapper or sea bream, in London fish markets. Some boxes of frozen denton carried the logo of a Chinese company that operates many of the illegal fishing vessels the EJF had observed operating in Guinea. The problem of pirate fish reaching the plate is thought to be greater for consumers in southern Europe, which consumes the bulk of west African fish, shrimp, prawn and lobster.

URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/sep/30/modern-day-slavery-fishing-europe?intcmp=239