Modern Slavery Act Statement
Introduction This statement is made pursuant to section 54(1) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
It constitutes Holistic Support’s slavery and human trafficking statement for the financial year ended 31 March 2019.
This statement covers the activities of Holistic Support and Parenting Chit Chat , which procures goods and services and form part of our supply chain.
Our Organisation Holistic Support is a small organisation
We have around a small team of staff both employees and volunteers, all of whom are based in the United Kingdom.
Our staff are directly sourced and are generally not in any category which is seen to be vulnerable to modern slavery in this country, so our main focus is to ensure there are policies and due diligence procedures in place for our suppliers.
Policies We underpin our approach to tackling the risk of modern slavery in our supply chain. These include:
Working with Suppliers and Partners Policy which sets out internal requirements for buying goods and services;
Responsible Procurement Policy covering issues of human rights, child and forced labour and modern slavery; and
Whistleblowing Policy which encourages staff and volunteers to report concerns including any related to modern slavery/trafficking and child or forced labour.
Due Diligence We continue to monitor suppliers particularly in working to identify any we believe present high modern slavery risks in our supply chain. This includes those who support the procurement of goods and materials for our fundraising and marketing activities, particularly where those goods and materials are acquired from suppliers in high risk countries.
All suppliers which we class as high risk must:
Complete our Modern Slavery Act Due Diligence Questionnaire which covers their governance, policies, training and supply chain management processes; and
On an annual basis and prior to sourcing, provide full detail of the supply chains they are proposing to commission goods from on our behalf
Supply chain Over the past year we have developed a programme to assess the modern slavery standards of our key suppliers. We are committed to continuously improving our practices to identify and eliminate any slavery and human trafficking in our business and supply chains, and to acting ethically and with integrity in all our business relationships.
We use a wide range of suppliers who provide services at events and support our operations We have issued all suppliers with contracts referencing our sourcing standards and the requirements we expect them to meet on modern slavery. We then follow this up with a questionnaire to better understand the environmental and ethical credentials of their supply chain, and to ensure that they achieve our benchmark.
We remain focussed on assessing our high risk spend areas and on raising awareness across all staff and volunteers to make sure all products and services are sourced and supplied responsibly and ethically.
Staff and volunteer wellbeing We have a clear framework of rules and behaviours and encourage the reporting of any concerns or breaches so that they can be dealt with appropriately in accordance with our policies and procedures. We offer communication channels which allow staff and volunteers to raise concerns confidentially and anonymously if they wish.
We also provide staff with a secure way of seeking advice about any modern slavery or human trafficking issues personally affecting them or their families.
We check that staff can demonstrate their eligibility to work in the UK and they are asked to undergo an eligibility check before commencing work with us. We also seek confirmation from volunteers that they have eligibility to work in the UK.
Looking Forward In the coming year we will continue to review our approach to safeguarding to ensure it continues to appropriately reflect aspects such as child exploitation within our supply chains.
We will continue to enhance our procedures to help us identify, prevent and mitigate any risks of modern slavery or human trafficking in relation to new and existing suppliers and in relation to our own operations.
This statement is made pursuant to section 54(1) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and constitutes the Trust’s modern slavery and human trafficking statement for the financial year ending 31 March 2019.
Approved by the Board on 31 August 2019 and signed on its behalf by Fatou Gassama.
Gillett Square Report
Executive Summary
1. The square used to be a vibrant family friendly place, crucial to the welfare of local black communities
2. Borough specific factors and a lack of security of the square has stopped families being able to congregate in the square and businesses are struggling as a result. The proposed development, combined with neglect of maintenance responsibilities is making it impossible for businesses to remain
3. The square requires more commitment to maintenance and proper oversight of the proposed development to maintain its cultural significance
4. The loss of the cultural significance of the square would suggest a failure of Hackney Council to take the demands of the Black Lives Matter movement seriously in its actions
The data used to create this report comes from structured interviews with business owners. The data has been anonymised. 50% of the businesses were available for interview. Where data is lacking, figures have been extrapolated from existing data.
Overview of the Square
There are 18 businesses in the Gillett Square area. Around 66% of shopkeepers identify as Black,
22% Asian and 11% Middle Eastern.
All shopkeepers either rent from Hackney Community Development (HCD) or a private landlord. While this is common for businesses, it does make them more exposed to the risks we will explore later in this report.
All respondents reported that their customers are an equal mix of classes, nationalities, ages and localities. This demonstrates that Gillett square is a successful melting pot bringing together different cultures.
Historical business ethnicity in Gillett square
0.78% of the business owners currently in the square have been here over 10 years. Of which, 28.5% have been here for the entire lifespan of the square. Respondents were asked to recall the ethnicities of previous tenants. Nigerian, Phillipino, Bangladeshi and White British were given as answers (1 of each).
History of Gillett square
The area was developed two decades ago with the purpose of supporting the community and provide a public space together. The square was the start of the sweeping regional community support programs provided by the EU. It was the first completed project in Mayor Ken Livingstone’s ‘100 Spaces for Londoners’. In 2012 it won the WAN architecture award for community contribution. In 2017.
Since then, the funding structure has become detached from its original goals. In recent (3-5) years there has been a rise in crime and “anti-social behaviour”. Many respondents reported that the funding that goes to HCD is not effective at supporting the community. Some business owners have even suggested that some of the activities are provided by HCD in an irresponsible way so as to facilitate the encouragement of antisocial behaviour.
Respondents also noted a change in the business environment due to unsustainable development of the area. Local nearby businesses have disappeared and been replaced by chains (Costa; Pret; Honest Burger etc.). However, some of the younger businesses describe it the gentrification of the area bringing more small independent businesses. The businesses with private landlords reported higher rents and marginalisation of existing communities.
When developments such as the [insert name of big ugly tower near Dalston Kingsland station] were proposed, residents were told that recent high value developments would give back to the square. However, this is yet to be seen and has led to pricing out of long-standing locals. Some businesses have reported this has led to a less family-orientated atmosphere, which is key to the vibrance of the square.
In 2017, Gillett Square was petitioned by the community to become an asset of community value when it came under threat from private developers. When HCD announced their development plans in the same year without proper consultation of the affected businesses this sparked concerns. The development has been objected to by Conservation Areas Advisory Committee, the local traders and even the ex-CEO of HCD. The development group has refused to publish its financial viability projections. Due to the £2m cost of the project and limited lettable space, rent rises in the future look likely.
`
Antisocial Behaviour
One of the chronic issues that the businesses must deal with in Gillett Square is crime and “Antisocial behaviour”. Which worsened 3-5 years ago. Multiple respondents reported that violent attacks and shoplifting are common and that police are not willing or able to take any substantial action.
Respondents cited the following causes:
● Demolishing of local family housing forcing communities to move away
● Removal of homeless services leading to more vulnerable people in the square ● Change in the demographic of square “regulars”
o Big increase in quantity and nature of drug dealing, crack cocaine
o This has led to an increase in petty crime from people trying to feed habits and gang violence as the N16/E8 postcode boundary leads to aggression over “turf”
Many businesses stated this has led to less of the (predominantly elderly) regulars coming to the square due to fear. This has damaged the intergenerational atmosphere of the square. The rise in antisocial behaviour has led to quieter business for almost all respondents. Some respondents suggest there is an issue with mental health among the new regulars which is not being treated seriously by authorities.
`
Previous attempts to reform the square
This is not the first-time business owners have sat down with HCD, council and residents in the past. One business owner described the council and HCD as playing “responsibility ping pong” with respect to square maintenance and security. A committee was set up one year ago by HCD, but businesses suggest that this simply provides lip service and larger decisions are taken without proper consultation.
After security concerns were raised, some business owners were invited to view the Hackney CCTV Control centre in 2018. During this visit, despite blind spots being identified, drug exchanges could be seen taking place with no follow up action. One business owner installed their own private CCTV on the side of their building which captured an episode of gang violence. The camera was destroyed the following evening by an assailant who was identifiable in the video. No police action was taken.
History of residents
o Compare Dalston square to Gillett square
▪ Waiting for Reply from FOI request sent on 29/09/2020
● Should have received a reply by 19/10/2020
o However, they did say COVID is making requests take longer
▪ The Council’s Response (27/10/2020):
● The Council spends £10k per financial year for the highways maintenance of Dalston Square and Gillet Square
● It will take too much time to research the initial investment in each square
▪ I have submitted a second FOI for extra information on 28/10/2020.
● Reply should arrive by 17/11/2020
o However, due to COVID request may take longer (previous response took 8 days longer
`
Why is this a racial issue?
● Gentrification
● Less maintenance of Gillett square with respect to other areas such as Dalston Square
How can this be addressed?
● Remove toilets
o Some respondents have received violence due to the situation with the toilets o Maintaining the cleanliness of the square to a level where the community are proud to take care of it
● Better Lighting
● Maintain the square with the same services as Ridley road market
● Worried about the new development plans from HCD
o The redevelopment was criticised by the community from the get go, including by the ex-CEO of HCD
o Tenants were guaranteed return as part of planning permission but HCD have failed to facilitate the transition
o The 3-month rent holiday not enough to cover lost profits due to the construction o Rents will be 10% higher for 2 years with no security of tenure afterwards o HCD have violated their planning permission already by failing to:
▪ 1) enlarged bin store and public w.c. facility must be installed on Gillett Square
▪ 2) temporary retail pods shall be installed and fitted out prior to the demolition of the existing retail pods.
● Extra costs of moving to the temporary pods were promised to be covered (electricity, plumbing and fitting) but were not)
o There is not enough protection of the distinctive market pods which give the square its character and fame
● Some respondents want more monitoring and a more holistic security response
o This could be in the form of an open dialogue between police and businesses. However, a community-based response would be preferable.`
Conclusion
● “[Gillett Square] Has the potential to be the "beating heart" of Dalston; safe, vibrant and valued by locals; "Street fest" festival was a success because there was strong security and people were searched on entry and exit; You can stop people from going in public spaces (parks do it)”