Overseas Domestic Workers

HL Deb 28 November 1990 vol 523 cc1037-58

7.50 p.m.

Lord Hylton rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they will take to prevent exploitation of, and reduce the hardships suffered by, overseas domestic workers admitted to this country under the Home Office concession of 1980.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the redress of grievances is a prime function of Parliament. My Question this evening addresses the grievances of a limited group of people; namely, those admitted to this country without work permits to accompany or join an existing employer who intends to visit or reside in Britain.

Since 1980, employers have come from Greece, Hong Kong, Nigeria, Singapore, the United States and many mid-Eastern countries including Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, the Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The employees who have suffered injustice and exploitation have come mainly from developing countries in the Indian subcontinent, Indonesia, West Africa, Morocco, Ethiopia, Eritrea, South America and in considerable numbers from the Philippines. In many cases workers were originally recruited in or for the Middle East.

Since 1986, some 600 cases of exploitation have been documented. Therefore, cases have been occurring at the rate of about three per week and I am sorry to say that matters have worsened since the invasion of Kuwait. Many domestics, perhaps a majority, experience the confiscation of their passports. The result of that is that they do not know their exact immigration status, which is usually that of a visitor or a person named to work for a specified employer. Many such workers have no written contracts of employment or their contracts are arbitrarily changed. Their wages are often withheld or paid in kind. They are compelled to work excessive hours and numerous examples can be quoted of deprivation of food and privacy or denial of access to friends or indeed to the outside world at all.

It has been rightly said that some servants only see the airport, the employer's house and the road between the two. Many have been physically abused or attacked by employers or their children. Most domestics are women and many have suffered sexual abuse, including actual, attempted or threatened rape.

If, in response to appalling treatment in a supposedly free and democratic country, a domestic runs away from the employer, he or she remains in great difficulties. Such people are frequently without money, personal possessions or accommodation. No passport may mean no health care and they are wide open to further exploitation by subsequent employers or landlords. They become illegal persons as unauthorised immigrants or overstayers. Therefore, they are liable to deportation without a right of appeal from within the United Kingdom unless they have already been here for seven years.

Here I should like to pay a warm tribute to the work of organisations such as the Asian Women's Resource Centre, the Commission for Filipino Migrant Workers, and Kalayaan, which incidentally is a Malay word meaning freedom. Without those bodies the suffering of abused and exploited workers would have been much greater. The Anti-Slavery Society has also been most helpful on all the human rights aspects of this matter.

Rather than after-care, we now need the prevention of abuse. My attention was drawn to this matter originally by the case of Mrs. Laxmi Swami. That Indian lady was falsely imprisoned and barbarously ill-treated by two Arab princesses over a four-year period. She escaped from her employers and after a five-year legal struggle was awarded damages of £300,000 by the High Court last December. That resounding victory for British justice coincided with an Early Day Motion signed by 104 honourable Members of another place. There was also a petition to the Home Secretary which attracted some 4,000 signatures.

I am glad to say that since then there has been modest progress. In March this year the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, who I am glad to see will be speaking this evening, and I met the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, at the Department of Employment, together with officials representing the Home Office. Consultation then followed with the Foreign Office and on 24th July the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was able to announce in reply to a Written Question that entry clearance procedures would be reformed and improved and that information leaflets would in future be issued to both employers and domestics at the entry clearance stage.

I have seen the leaflets in draft and they try to set out the legal rights of domestics and the protection available to them under United Kingdom law. I very much hope that the leaflets will clear away many illusions and will be effective in protecting domestics coming to Britain in the future.

That welcome governmental action does not solve the problems of domestics who are already here. They fall into two classes: first, those who are still with their original employer; and, secondly, those who have left their employer, usually because of exploitation, maltreatment or abuse. Perhaps I may give two examples. Cherry is a Nepalese woman. She was not paid her wages and her employer kept her in captivity in London. She was at first refused medical treatment and was only later allowed to go to hospital. After a partial recovery there, she left her employer.

My second example concerns Sally. She is aged 26 and comes from the Philippines. For three years she endured harassment, verbal abuse and aggression caused by children. In London she was never paid; her passport was withheld and she was locked in. Eventually she climbed out of the third floor window only to fall from a drainpipe, breaking her pelvis and arm in the process. I am glad to say that she is now free.

I urge Her Majesty's Government to act immediately to help people such as those in the examples I have given. They did not come to England to submit to virtual slavery. The concession made in 1980 to employers needs to be matched by a parallel concession to the employed. In the past the Department of Employment has argued that domestics who are exploited should make use of industrial tribunals and civil and criminal litigation in order to protect their rights. I regret to say that that view is totally unrealistic. Few resident domestics will dare to use those procedures while they are still in employment. If they leave or are sacked, they immediately breach their conditions of entry and become liable to deportation. Again, in that situation few will risk embarking on proceedings for which legal aid may not be readily available. Rights are a pure illusion unless they can in practice be fully exercised.

What is the remedy? I ask Her Majesty's Government to provide these domestic workers with an immigration status which enables them to work and above all to change employers. That is the remedy asked for by the Early Day Motion, by a meeting organised through the Commission for Racial Equality in July this year, and by the voluntary bodies closely involved. Even if a change of employer is limited to the same category of work, it will be a cheap and effective remedy. Employers will stand to lose their employees if they do not treat them properly. Employees will have an alternative to exploitation. Such a change would be consistent with existing immigration practice.

I ask the Government to consider other safeguards. They could insist on written contracts of employment signed by both parties for all domestics coming to this country for more than a month or two. That is the Canadian practice. They could arrange for regular spot checks on employers by authorised inspectors who must be able to see each domestic in conditions of privacy. I understand that that is what happens in the Netherlands.

Finally, there is the question of those who entered under the concession and are now overstaying. Will the Government regularise their position provided they remain in employment? Will those people be allowed to apply for settlement once they have lived here for four years? That would do much to reduce the hardship suffered by separated families, the hardship that stems from economic necessity and the pressure of intractable circumstances.

I am grateful to all those taking part in the debate and thank them in advance. I believe we have identified urgent grievances. I have attempted to outline remedies. If the Government have better solutions I look forward to hearing them. Meanwhile, let us remember the famous judgment of Lord Mansfield in the case of Somersett in 1772, when he said: Every man who comes to England is entitled to the protection of English law". The poet Cowper wrote: Slaves cannot breathe in England. They touch our country, and their shackles fall".

The time has come to apply those maxims to the present situation. I look forward to hearing the debate and in particular the Government's reply.

8.2 p.m.

Lord Pitt of Hampstead

My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in this Question. I have had my attention drawn to this problem and cases have been mentioned to me regarding people who have been treated badly.

I know that the Government feel that people coming to this country from abroad with a household and employees should be allowed to bring those employees, otherwise they may find themselves in difficulty. I understand that. But the Government should lay down conditions so that when those employees are brought into the country they are entitled to certain forms of treatment. The contract suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, which I understand is used in the Netherlands, is one way of doing that. Another method of dealing with the problem is laying down conditions at the port of entry and providing a means of inspection. The inspectors would know the address and be entitled to visit the employees and ensure that their living conditions are lawful. To allow the problem to continue is quite wrong.

It is wrong of the Government to allow people to be brought into the country and virtually treated as slaves. It is not enough to say, as the Department of Employment says, that they should use the industrial tribunals. That is ridiculous. Once they leave their employer they in effect become immigrants with no right to be here. Therefore they could be deported. If, when they went to the tribunal, the tribunal or the Home Office had the right to allow them to remain in this country, that would be another way to solve the problem. I do not know whether the Government would wish to use that. Merely to say that they should go to an industrial tribunal is nonsense.

I know the Minister has a brief, but I should like him in the course of replying to bear in mind the suggestions made. I ask him to look at the matter from the point of view of an individual who entered employment and as a consequence is brought into a strange country and kept as a virtual prisoner. No government could regard that as right; it must be wrong. Therefore for the Government to find a solution that is capable of application—not a spurious suggestion such as going to the industrial tribunal—is vital. I hope that the Minister will say that he has accepted the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton.

Finally, I wish to raise the question of wiping the slate clean. It is a fact that some people living in those conditions have run away from their employer. If we are to start afresh and ensure that we resolve the problem, we should make it possible for those people to register. If they have lived in this country for a certain period they may perhaps be allowed to stay. We need to clear the matter up. I hope that the Government will tell us that in some way or other they will deal with it.

8.7 p.m.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

My Lords, like everybody else who has looked at this problem I was deeply shocked by the cases quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, to which my noble friend Lord Pitt also referred. I have seen a good many more examples written down. I shall not quote them; the evidence we heard was enough for us to insist on action. It is incredible that such abuses should be occurring in our country in 1990. I am certain that the Minister and his colleagues must feel as I do. Therefore it is a question of deciding not that something should be done if possible but that something must be done at once.

I do not want to go through the particulars again because the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, made them very clear. I am informed—perhaps the Minister will confirm this estimated figure—that there are around 3,000 situations of this kind, with one and sometimes more domestic workers working for an employer, usually a family, who have moved in for reasons considered acceptable to this country, sometimes for a visit and sometimes for a very much longer stay.

When these families come here they bring with them a domestic worker who is given a visa for six months if it is a short stay; it may be for a year. The visa is on a passport which almost always is held, sometimes in a perfectly honest and decent way for convenience, by the employer. Therefore, if something goes wrong the domestic worker has absolutely no redress. I am told that the Commission for Filipino Migrant Workers to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred has dealt with over 200 cases a year which have gone wrong in one way or another. An employer can be, and in some cases has proved to be, extremely ruthless.

If we agree that the situation must be rectified, I suggest that it is a simple matter, with a simple solution involving only two changes. I am merely repeating what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said but in slightly different terms. The first change has already been proposed by the Minister in his Answer in July to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton; namely, the issue of information leaflets to employers and employees at what the Civil Service calls the entry clearance stage. I suppose that means when the family enters the country and obtains clearance—setting out the legal rights of domestic workers and the protection available to them.

Incidentally, that action was promised for the autumn but as the autumn officially becomes winter in November it is already overdue. A delay from July to November cannot be accepted. I ask that the Government certainly get this action, which is the easiest part of our recommendations, into operation by Christmas. I know that the Minister cannot make promises, but I hope that he will tell the House that he will try to do that.

There is an important point in that connection which was made by my noble friend Lord Pitt. It is not enough just to send these information leaflets to people as they come into the country. They must be sent to every person who has already come into the country; at any rate to each family. If workers are not with a family, the Home Office must endeavour to ascertain where they are and, as my noble friend Lord Pitt said, at least put matters right on a temporary basis.

The second stage to which the noble Lord referred will need more ministerial determination to get through. It will not get through because we say that it ought to. I believe that the authorities would rather not do it. There are difficulties. Therefore, I ask Ministers—our representative here, his newly appointed chief and everyone else concerned—to acknowledge that the position cannot continue and that if the authorities see difficulties they will have to find a way out of them. That is the kind of order I expect Ministers to give.

In order that these workers who enter the country are allowed to change their jobs, on proper notice, and to leave their employer to find another more congenial position—provided they do not go outside the domestic worker field—they must be given something like official immigration status, independent from their employer. That is the issue and clearly there are a number of different ways of doing that. One such way would be to give the worker a permit with a certain limitation, but I do not want to go into details. However, they must have official immigration status independent from the employer.

As regards workers leaving one employer and going to another, there is a good demand for domestic workers. A worker who is unhappy should be allowed to give notice and go to an employment office where similar work can easily be obtained. The new employer would have to renew the visa. I suppose the immigration authorities would fear that such a scheme could constitute a simple path to increased immigration, but I believe that their fears are exaggerated. The worker would be told that it is essential to obtain a new visa. The authorities would be advised because the employer would have to notify them that notice had been given. That could be tied up by any competent civil servant. It should be a rule that due notice should be given by the worker and that the employer should advise the immigration authorities, who could then check with the worker. That sort of checking is done every day all over the world and there is no difficulty whatever.

However, nothing is foolproof. As matters stand today, workers can leave and find work privately. By doing so they stay on in this country on an unauthorised basis. A worker who suits a new employer will never be heard of again by the authorities. Therefore, the plan I am putting forward would stop illegal arrivals from staying and put the whole situation onto a proper basis. In any case, we must bear in mind that the numbers are very small. It is worth risking one or two unauthorised workers slipping in so that we can put right some of the terrible things that have been described.

I am told that there are over 3,000 of these domestic workers, and of those only about 200 a year give any trouble. When compared with immigration as a whole, the numbers are trivial but the damage that is being done is not trivial. Therefore, I earnestly request the Government to take some action. The bad cases are so bad that we cannot accept anything from the Government but effective action. We have said exactly what should be done and there is no difficulty in doing it.

There is one further point, to which my noble friend Lord Pitt referred. The next step should be to allow a worker who has worked with a visa for four years to have indefinite leave as a resident in Britain. At the moment that is granted to anyone who holds a work permit and who stays for four years. I believe that it should apply to the workers we have been discussing but who at present have no work permits.

In this country 100 years ago domestic workers—or servants as they were called—were liable to treatment which was better than the stories we have been hearing though in some cases it was nearly as bad. Most family households lived happily in a way which was almost feudal. However, servants could sometimes be very badly treated when things went wrong. Thank goodness the position today has been reversed. Only the rich have servants who live in, and they live in terror of losing them. Those of us who can afford a daily lady, even once a week, are very much at her mercy, as most of us know very well. I can see that there could be a case for allowing foreign families to enter the country, but they must not bring the bad habits of 1850 into the 1990s.

I want to hear from the Minister that he will make perfectly clear to his colleagues that no answer will satisfy us except that immediate action will be taken on the lines I have described, or action which will have exactly the same effect.

8.17 p.m.

The Earl of Longford

My Lords, we are all extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. He possesses the quality of gracious indomitability which I think derives from his great-grandfather, Mr. Asquith, as he was when Prime Minister. Of course in his later days Mr. Asquith acquired a somewhat negative image. He was associated with the phrase, "Wait and see". However, the noble Lord is not asking us to wait and see but to look at the situation and to do something about it.

In fact, Mr. Asquith was described rather better by Sir Winston Churchill in a famous essay in which he explained how tough he was. He used the phrase that his achievements were not all done with rosewater. That, I believe, is underlying the genial exterior of the noble Lord and his certain toughness—ruthlessness perhaps. I hope that the Minister will take the message that he is not dealing with a lot of wets but with people who are going to threaten his career. I have not seen the tape but I hope that the Minister has gained some promotion. He deserves promotion but he must first achieve something in this field.

I know that he cannot just announce the new policy. There is a new Minister and he is a gentleman whom we wish well, as we do the many Home Secretaries under whom some of us have had to suffer in years past. I had better be careful because his predecessor is a gentleman with whom we shall have many contacts. We shall want to obtain many favours in the immediate future so we do not want to say anything disparaging about him.

The new Home Secretary is a gentleman who is clearly anxious to please. I hope that he will realise that there is a very easy way of pleasing us. As the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said in his statesmanlike speech, it is a very small problem. According to my information, about 3,000 people are involved. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Reay, will not simply put us off with sweet endearments. I hope he will inform the Minister that there is an easy way for him to make his name quickly although he may not have very long to do so of course. I hope all these matters will be brought home to him in the most forceful way possible.

The main points have been very well made by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. However, one note that he struck made me feel anxious. He described the almost privation under which he is living. Apparently, it is only with difficulty that he can afford a lady to come in once a week and who tyrannises him. I know that old Etonians like the noble Lord, myself and Mr. Hurd, are inclined now to explain that we are really very impoverished and that we went to Eton because of a scholarship. The noble Lord and I have had comfortable lives. I am sure that the noble Lord would be the first to point out that the people we are concerned with have had very uncomfortable lives. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, referred to a state of affairs which one would consider incredible for this country.

I got involved with this matter partly through the activities of my endlessly active daughter. Since then I have learnt some of the facts. A few months ago I would have said that all the problems were just bilge invented by the communists or suchlike people. Yet these events are taking place. There is no doubt that slavery is taking place in England. Who would have thought that such a state of affairs was possible? The main points have been covered and I shall not go over them again. I support the arguments which have been well-stated by earlier speakers.

In order to give a little first-hand vividness, I shall refer to two young women to whom I shall not give their true names. They have been to see me here. Sanda (though that is not her real name) is a 30 year-old Filipino. She was brought into this country by two employers, a Palestinian male and an Englishwoman. She was not allowed out. For three months she lived in a small room without heating and very little food. She was left scraps. I do not say that they were the actual crumbs that the dogs ate under the table. She was hit with ashtrays when the employers became displeased with her.

She was caring for a four year-old child and at one point both of them fell down stairs, no doubt accidentally. I am sure that these facts can be verified. I am not joking when I say that the woman employer took a knife to kill this wretched Filipino lady. Luckily, there were guests in the house who pulled the employer away. That is a true story and anyone who doubts it can no doubt have it verified. The woman had no rights whatever which is the position brought up by earlier speakers. If she tried to escape she would be picked up and no doubt sent back to the Phillipines where she would try to support her family. That story was told me just a few yards from here by the woman.

Another story involves a woman I shall call Cely. She was a machinist. She needed a job to help support her mother, brothers and sisters in the Phillipines. For four months she was not paid any money at all. The children were hitting her, spitting at her and pulling her hair. She slept on the floor in the lavatory. She escaped out of a window and fell down two floors. She broke her pelvis and her arm. She showed me her broken arm so I have no doubt about that. In a way that incident enabled her to escape because she was picked up by kindly persons and taken to hospital. She stayed in hospital for two months. Then she went to one of the excellent organisations which help people in distress.

I have related those two stories because they illustrate what we are talking about. As the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said, it is incredible that such events should be happening in Britain. When I say that there is no sign of it being stopped, I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, would agree with that. I think he said that some improvement is being made. These events, or others very much like them, are taking place at the present time.

I do not need to deal with the remedies because they have been well-explained. The most crucial factor is to enable these people to leave their employers and work for someone else. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has called for them to have a state of independence from their employers. The solution is fairly obvious. I beg the Minister not to make a pronouncement tonight which he cannot stand by, but to bring home to his new chief the extreme feeling which has been aroused already and which I am sure will grow even more intense in the future.

8.26 p.m.

Lord Wilberforce

My Lords, in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in opening this debate was good enough to refer to the Anti-Slavery Society, of which I have the honour of being the joint-president, perhaps I may be allowed to add a few words. The society is very much concerned with this problem internationally. It is worth bearing in mind that it is an international problem and it is not peculiar to this country. The same kind of situation is known to exist in a number of European countries. The Anti-Slavery Society has been looking into it and it has put in a quite detailed report to the working group on contemporary forms of slavery.

However, this evening we are only concerned with this country where undoubtedly a very serious and tragic number of events have taken place. We do not know exactly what is the scale of the problem. Our society asked the Home Office how many people there were in the category of domestic workers. We were told that no figures exist for the number of domestic servants admitted as visitors each year and who have employers. That is hardly good enough. One should know how many of these people there are and where they are. One wants to know the scale of the problem and the locations of the people so that the welfare organisations can make contact with them.

Some quite simple administrative action at the entry and clearance place should enable the Government to have a proper record of the scale of the problem. Undoubtedly the problem does exist. Noble Lords may be fairly near the mark in estimating the total number to be between 2,000 and 3,000. That is only a guesstimate at the moment although an intelligent one. Undoubtedly there are some cases of what is known as debt bondage. People have incurred expenses either through their flights or the agencies and they are not given any wages until the money is repaid. As a result girls who come here with the intention of supporting their families in the Phillipines or in Manila are unable to send any money back until the debt is repaid. The debt is a millstone around her neck. Noble Lords know perfectly well that debt bondage is itself contrary to the slavery conventions quite apart from other forms of deprivation of liberty which may be called quasi-slavery. However, apart from that, as many noble Lords have said, there are cases which can be described as in effect cases of slavery. If someone from a hypothetical country in Africa or Asia said, "I am willing to come to Britain. If I do so, I shall bring a good deal of money but I must bring my slaves with me", no government would dream of letting him come. If he came, the moment he set foot on English soil the slaves would be free. That opens the door to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, that the Government would be perfectly entitled to impose requirements on people coming here to ensure that conditions of actual slavery, quasi-slavery or debt bondage did not exist.

The detailed remedies have been well explained, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. I should like to comment on the scheme being introduced by the Home Office for the issue of information leaflets to employers and domestics at the entry clearance stage. That is all very well but it is not much use if all it does is set out the legal rights of domestics working here. The whole problem is the giving of a visa limiting employment to one person only and thereby not allowing a change of employment. If the person concerned leaves the employment, she becomes an illegal immigrant, she is immediately criminalised and under the 1988 Act can be deported without any possibility of appeal. The matter must be tackled through the form of the visa. It must be open to those coming in to seek employment within the same category. They should not be put into a criminal category. If they are here for a certain time they must be given the right of settlement.

I need not expand further on those points. I wish to emphasise the great interest of our society in this matter. We owe a debt to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for taking the issue up and for making such efforts in bringing the problem to the notice of the authorities.

8.32 p.m.

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, I had not planned to speak in the debate, but the subject before us is one of great importance. I am angry about the plight of domestic workers, which has been reported in our newspapers and described by noble Lords during the debate. I completely endorse what has been said by other speakers. I am sure that the Government would agree with what has been said.

The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, pointed to the key problem of the immigration status of these people. I have two proposals. The first is fairly practical. There is a need for a widespread understanding of what we mean by acceptable employment standards. It is all very well to hand out leaflets at points of entry, but that is not enough. The vast majority of people living in this country obtain from television information about the social mores of society.

I would hope that the BBC, ITV and the independent television production companies could make television programmes for peak viewing times to explain the importance of acceptable employment standards for domestic workers. They should further explain the revulsion felt by British people to the excesses referred to during the debate. I hope that my remarks will be drawn to the attention of the television authorities.

I turn to my second proposal. We have heard how in one incident redress was sought through the law courts. A sum of £300,000 was mentioned. That is all very well for people who can take part in our legal system. One needs to be fairly well off or be able to find a well-off patron in order to take part in our legal system. From my experience as a local councillor and from knowing Members of another place and of the European Parliament I feel that the avenues of democracy could be useful in trying to tackle this problem. It is important that democratic representatives—people who have a degree of power in our society—should be made aware of what is going on and in some senses be made responsible for doing something about it. While most local councillors, MPs and MEPs would react sensitively, sympathetically and supportively to cases of maltreatment of domestics employed by visitors to this country, there is not the bond of voting.

I believe that those who have been resident in this country for a year should automatically qualify for the vote and should be able to take part in elections. They would then have a relationship with society and would be able to say that they have a local councillor, an MP or an MEP. The concept of everyone in a particular area having a vote is very important. It would link the oppressed domestic worker with the organs of power in our democratic state. It is important to build those links. I accept that the ideas I am expressing will not come to fruition in the near future but I put them forward as a means of building links between the dispossessed in our community and the people with power. We should be trying to find ways of helping ordinary people to live together without abusing each other.

Perhaps I may return to my main points. I stress the importance of television as a medium of communication. We should use television to express our society's standards of acceptable behaviour in terms of employment practice, to highlight the unacceptable and to explain to everyone in the community the difference between right and wrong. We need to build links between people who live in our society and the elected representatives. I hope that the Government will take action soon in regard to this sad reflection on British society.

8.40 p.m.

Lord Richard

My Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for initiating the debate. The issue clearly needed airing and it needed open discussion. It also needs a response from the Government. We are extremely grateful to the noble Lord for launching the debate.

I do not think that anyone listening to the debate can fail to have been struck by the unanimity of view expressed by all speakers. There is a problem here which clearly needs redress. Inevitably, one looks to the Government for such redress. The individual stories we have heard—and there are many more of which noble Lords will be aware—are hair-raising. We have heard histories of abuse and ill-treatment. The picture which emerges is one of the extreme vulnerability of these domestic servants, lacking, as they do, status, independence and access to the remedies which are available to our own citizens and, indeed, to many people working in this country who are not citizens of the United Kingdom.

The starting point for discussion of the problem must be the concession which the Government have made in respect of these domestic workers. I have with me a copy of Hansard dated 24th July of this year. On that date the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, answered a Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, on the scope of the concession. He said: We very much regret that any cases of abuse and exploitation of overseas resident domestics should have occurred in this country, but we have concluded that in most cases the current arrangement benefits the servants themselves, who might otherwise lose their jobs if they were unable to come here with their employers. It is also important for the United Kingdom not to discourage those people with a substantial contribution to make to our prosperity who expect to be accompanied by their households when travelling here. We have therefore decided to continue the concession and allow domestic servants working as a member of their employer's household abroad to accompany or join their employer, or a member of his immediate family". The noble Earl outlined certain controls which would be imposed: All domestic servants will be required to obtain entry clearance before coming here … the domestic servant must have been in continuous, paid employment with the employer abroad for at least the previous 12 months before coming … the minimum age is 17 years … information leaflets will be issued".—[Official Report, 27/7/90; cols. 1449–50.] I should point out to the Government that those four controls seem to me to be minimal. I am sure that information leaflets are valuable, provided: first, that they reach the domestics; secondly, that the domestics are capable of reading them; and thirdly—most important of all—that domestics who find themselves in difficulty are capable of enforcing the remedies which are set out in the information leaflets.

The real problem is explicit in one sentence. It arises from the fact that we admit people who are in fact workers but that when we admit them we insist on pretending that they are coming into the country as visitors. That pretence is the basis of many of the difficulties which have been highlighted this evening. It is wrong in principle to treat people coming into this country to work as if they were visitors and then treat them as illegal entrants when they cease working and try to leave employment.

Perhaps I may briefly run through some of the difficulties to which this pretence gives rise. I begin with the position beforehand of a potential immigrant to this country; that is, the situation in which he or she is placed prior to arrival. The first stage of immigration control is obviously the acquisition of a visa. As I understand it, most people in this category come from countries where visas are required if citizens wish to visit the United Kingdom. The visas are issued for a specific purpose. This normally means that they are issued for a category defined by the immigration rules. However, as domestic workers do not fit into any of those categories, it seems that they are given "visit" visas. Moreover, if such people wish to work in this country they must obtain a work permit. These must be obtained prior to travelling to the United Kingdom in addition to any visa requirement.

The late 1970s saw a phasing out of quotas as regards work permits for unskilled workers, including domestics. The quota was abolished at the end of 1979. Since that time, there are no work permits available for domestics coming into the UK. Therefore, there is no way—prima facie, at any rate—for a domestic wishing to work in this country in that capacity to obtain a work permit. That places her in a totally different capacity.

While there are provisions within the immigration rules for workers and for business (permit-free categories) and self-employed persons, there are no provisions for domestics except one which relates only to the domestics of members of staffs of diplomatic missions. Therefore, that is the basis —and, I suppose, it explains the need—for this systematic departure from the immigration rules to admit domestics and hence the so-called "concession" which, as I understand it, has been operating throughout the 1980s. That is what these people have to do before they come to the United Kingdom.

What happens to most domestics when they arrive in this country? They either receive six months' leave to enter with a prohibition on employment or they receive leave to enter for a longer period with employment restricted to a particular employer. That usually depends on whether the employer is coming for a short or longer period of time; in other words, they either come in as visitors or they come in bonded. What happens at the end of the six months? Applications for extension of leave to remain with the original employer who brought them in are normally granted. However, applications to change employers are routinely refused on the basis that no work permit was held on entry. Thus, such people are caught both ways. They cannot obtain a work permit because there is no quota for them, but if they come in as a visitor, at the end of the time allowed—although they have in fact been working and everyone knows that this is so—when they seek to gain alternative employment, their status reverts to that of a person who has been working in the country who is not entitled to do so and therefore the extension is refused.

It is true that there are no clear provisions in the rules which deal with changes in employment. However, as I understand it, the practice has been to allow applicants to change employment within the same category. A change of job within the same occupation and skills category is allowed and will usually be approved by the Department of Employment, but changes in category are not allowed. Therefore, the domestic servant finds herself in the situation where, first, she is in this country as a visitor; secondly, she is bonded to a particular family; thirdly, she cannot find alternative employment because of the immigration rules; and, fourthly, if she tries to leave, she is liable to be deported.

Other disadvantages are experienced by these people. Work permit holders are allowed to have their families with them provided that they can be maintained and accommodated without recourse to public funds. However, there are no such provisions for domestic workers. Noble Lords have already raised the point about the acquisition of permanent residence. Work permit holders qualify for settlement after four years in that capacity, but, again, there are no such provisions for domestic workers. So far as concerns other provisions, if a domestic servant runs away from her employment she is immediately liable to deportation. Moreover, unless she has been here for more than seven years, her appeal rights in deportation proceedings are extremely limited under the Immigration Act.

Clearly there is a problem. One should not overstate it; at the same time one should not understate it. It is a fact that a group of people in this country are being subjected to extreme abuse. It is not a situation about which we as a nation should be proud. The problem may not be large in terms of numbers; it is however large in terms of inequity and exploitation.

What can be done about the problem? There are two approaches. One, which has been aired by a number of noble Lords this evening, is to treat them as if they have a work permit; namely, let them move jobs within the same category, and after four years let them be able to claim residence. The other approach would be not to admit them on a concessionary basis but on a more regular basis and in their own right. This would avoid the problem of their coming to Britain and being bonded to one family. They would have an independent status and a legal status before actually coming here. I await the Government's response on this.

It may be that the cleaner, neater and quicker solution is perceived to be the first of those two alternatives; namely, that once in the country one should treat them as if they had a work permit and therefore have the same rights as other people who have work permits. My only qualification there is that it involves a secondary concession outside the scope of normal immigration rules. As a matter of principle, immigration policy should not be based on concessions but rather on properly understood and universally applied principles. But whichever approach the Government take, I would conclude by saying to the noble Lord who is to reply that clearly here is a problem which has been highlighted in this debate tonight. It needs to be looked at with sympathy by the Government; and action in respect of it is grossly overdue.

8.51 p.m.

Lord Reay

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for the opportunity he has provided for us to debate what can be done to help people who come here from overseas as domestic workers. I should first like to say that the Government are just as concerned as he is and as other noble Lords are about the reports of mistreatment and exploitation of overseas domestic workers. I should like to pay tribute to the leading role the noble Lord has played in drawing attention to this problem.

In July we announced some changes aimed at reducing the kind of abuse described by the noble Lord and others, but with the permission of your Lordships I should like to return to this subject later. The arrangement under which some domestic workers come to this country is a concession outside our normal immigration arrangements, and it is one made in the interests of the workers themselves. It has been the clear and consistent policy of the Government to keep new primary immigration under tight control. As a key part of that control, work permits are issued by the Department of Employment only to those overseas nationals with high levels of skill and experience to come here to jobs which require those qualifications and which cannot be filled by people already here or elsewhere in the European Community. Thus, since 1980 no work permits have been issued for any type of domestic work.

However, the Government thought that it would be unreasonable for a domestic worker who had worked for an employer and formed part of his household abroad to be prevented from coming to the United Kingdom if the employer came here. This is both humanitarian and pragmatic. Domestic workers who were unable to accompany the household to the United Kingdom could well lose their jobs, their homes and their livelihoods. Looking at our national interest, if wealthy investors, skilled workers and others with the potential to benefit our economy were unable to be accompanied by their domestic staff they might not come here at all but take their money and skills to other countries only too keen to welcome them.

The concession operates in two ways. Domestic workers accompanying an employer who is visiting the United Kingdom can come here also as visitors and, like any other visitor, may stay no more than six months. Domestic workers accompanying an employer who comes here on a longer term or a permanent basis are admitted for 12 months in the first instance; but if their employer stays longer they may remain with him. After four years working here for the employer they become eligible to apply for settlement, at which point the restrictions and conditions on their future stay are removed.

We believe that the concession has generally worked well and that the great majority of domestic workers who have come here under these arrangements have been much helped by the concession. After all, they would otherwise have been excluded from the United Kingdom and might well have faced a most uncertain future. The relatively few cases where an overseas domestic worker has been badly treated in the United Kingdom rightly attract attention, but we do not believe that these in any way reflect the general treatment which overseas domestic workers receive.

The Government do not accept the suggestion that it is the concession itself which in some way creates the problems that have arisen. The conditions which apply to domestic workers are in practice just like those which apply to any other worker from overseas. The standard arrangement is for overseas workers to come here with work permits. These are issued only for specific jobs with named employers and are valid for a limited period only. Work permit holders have no entitlement to take any other work until they have been here in approved employment for four years and become eligible for settlement. In other words, the conditions for work permit holders are in line with those for overseas domestic workers who come here under the concession, and there would be no practical advantage at all in bringing domestic workers within the work permit arrangements.

Another suggestion which is made is that we should at least allow domestic workers to change employers here. The Government cannot accept that. Domestic workers are admitted in this exceptional way in order to safeguard their livelihoods. It was never the intention to give them unrestricted access to the United Kingdom job market. It would clearly be impracticable and, I would suggest, undesirable to allow only those domestic workers who charged their employers with mistreatment to move elsewhere. We would therefore effectively have to give all overseas domestic workers freedom to move to any job whenever he or she wanted to do so. This would be quite inconsistent with the whole reason for the concession, which is intended to enable domestic workers to stay with the employers for whom they have worked overseas. It would also give overseas domestic workers an unwarranted advantage over all other overseas workers, including work permit holders, who are not allowed to take other work here. This would not be consistent with the objective of a firm but fair immigration control, and I must tell your Lordships that the Government are not prepared to make such a change.

The noble Lord also implied that overseas domestic workers somehow have no rights when they come to the United Kingdom. That has sometimes been implied, but it is not the case. Everybody in the United Kingdom is entitled to the full protection of the criminal and civil law, regardless of their nationality or purpose of stay. Any domestic worker who is, for example, physically abused by his or her employer can and should contact the police, if necessary by dialling 999, as it is the job of the police to take action against criminal behaviour. Also, as a court case late last year showed—noble Lords have referred to this—a domestic worker who is ill treated may be able to bring civil proceedings in the United Kingdom courts.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, will the noble Lord be kind enough to give way? He rightly mentioned the court case. Would be not agree that that was a totally exceptional case? He must accept that it took five years to bring it, and I can tell him from my own knowledge, from correspondence and communication with the plaintiff's solicitor that no compensation has yet been received. I hope it will be received very shortly, but, leaving that case to one side, the point I endeavoured to make was that there are rights in theory but that they are not enforceable in practice.

Lord Reay

My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. I shall be dealing with some of his specific points in a moment but I am just describing the basic situation as it exists. As I said, there is a possibility for civil proceedings to be taken.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

My Lords, may I intervene? I hope the noble Lord is going to tell us what he will do, since he cannot do what we have asked him to do. The legal situation now, as it exists, is simply not acceptable, and the noble Lord must know that.

Lord Reay

My Lords, as I said at the beginning, I shall come later to what else we are doing. Domestic workers from overseas who work for private employers and under the terms of their contracts of employment ordinarily work in Great Britain have the same employment protection rights as British employees. There is thus nothing in the suggestion that there is something peculiar about the position of domestic workers from overseas which excludes them from the rights and protection that we all take for granted.

I have taken some time to set out the position because, however much we deplore the incidents which have been described this evening and which have caused us all much concern, we need to recognise that there are no simple solutions. The Government are aware that overseas domestic workers can be vulnerable and we have been looking carefully at ways in which we can help to minimise the chances of ill-treatment. Indeed we are grateful for the advice and assistance that we have received from the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and others with a close interest in the welfare of overseas domestic workers which they have contributed to this review.

As my noble friend Lord Ferrers announced in a Written Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, on 24th July this year, the Government have decided to continue the existing concession but will introduce tighter controls before the domestic worker comes here. Under the new arrangements, the admission of domestic workers will be limited to those aged 17 or over who have worked for the employer abroad for a substantial period: 12 months where the employer comes as a visitor and 24 months where the employer comes here for any other purpose. In all cases the domestic worker will be required to obtain entry clearance before setting out and the entry clearance officer will interview the domestic worker to satisfy himself about the arrangement. The entry clearance officer will also ensure that the domestic worker receives and understands an information leaflet explaining his or her rights. This leaflet will be available in a number of languages and its contents will also be explained orally to those domestic workers who cannot read.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

My Lords, will the leaflet be available before Christmas?

Lord Reay

My Lords, I shall come in a moment to the question which the noble Lord raised in his speech. A copy of the leaflet will also go to the employer, together with a covering letter explaining its purpose and emphasising the serious view that the Government take of the need to abide by the laws of this country.

We are currently preparing the new leaflet in consultation with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the organisations which particularly represent domestic workers here. The noble Lord has himself made two suggestions, both of which we are happy to adopt. These are that the leaflet should be printed in a way which emphasises that domestic workers should keep their passports themselves in a safe place and that they may be entitled to at least one week's notice of dismissal. Secondly, the leaflet should explain how to obtain treatment from the National Health Service.

We hope that the leaflet can be ready and that we can introduce these new arrangements early in the new year. This should ensure that the domestic workers who come here know where to turn for help when in need and both they and their employers will be quite clear that they have a right to protection under the law of this country.

I was asked some questions which I have not covered so I wish to make a few additional remarks. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, pointed his finger at deportation, to which a domestic worker who leaves his employer may find himself or herself exposed. It is an essential part of our immigration control that an overseas national can stay here normally only by qualifying under the immigration rules to do so. There will be cases where exceptional treatment is justified but these will be where there are the most compelling, compassionate circumstances. We cannot extend such treatment to whole groups.

We cannot offer domestic workers any guarantees that they will not be deported if the basis for their stay comes to an end. But each case will be considered carefully and compassionately before any enforcement action is taken.

The question of contract was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Hylton, Lord Pitt and others. The Government believe that the terms and conditions of employment are matters to be agreed between employers and employees without the interference of government. Legislation therefore does not set hours of work or levels of pay and the Government would not want to impose terms of contract for this group of people.

The question of spot checks was raised. We fear that to institute something similar would involve the creation of a bureaucracy which would be unlikely to be effective in most cases, given that the majority of those who come here are visitors. I might also point out that in this country domestic employment is excluded from the coverage of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 because of the practical problems of enforcement and the invasion of privacy if inspectors were empowered to go into private households. The same would apply in this case.

The question of an amnesty was raised. We have no plans to grant a general amnesty, but any case of a domestic worker here who is an overstayer or an illegal entrant is carefully considered on its individual merits before action is taken either to deport or remove him or her.

I answered the question as to when the leaflet would be issued. We are at present considering the detailed comments we have received on it. The latest of these was sent to us by the Campaign for Justice for Overseas Domestic Workers only on 13th November. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office will write to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, enclosing a final copy of the leaflet as soon as possible.

The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, asked me whether the leaflet could go to all those who are already here. I am afraid that we do not consider this to be practicable since most domestic workers enter for only a short time. They come in on a visit with their employers. However, we shall consider issuing leaflets to all those who apply for an extension of their stay here.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

My Lords, if it is a matter of a 20p stamp, it seems to me entirely unreasonable that my request should not be met.

Lord Reay

My Lords, I do not believe it has anything to do with the stamp. Large numbers of people in this category who come under this concession come for short visits. That is the difficulty.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

My Lords, I asked the noble Lord either to confirm or deny the figure of 3,000. That is a guess but I would be prepared to pay for 3,000 stamps myself. Let us talk the same language.

Lord Reay

My Lords, as I have said, I do not believe this has anything to do with the matter of postage stamps. However, I am afraid that I cannot confirm the figure that the noble Lord has given as I do not have the information.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

My Lords, will the Minister please find out what the figure is and then write to me? Each of these persons has been dealt with by the authorities. Therefore the authorities must have a record. I do not believe for one moment that this information could not be found in two hours.

Lord Reay

My Lords, I shall be happy to look into the matter to see whether I can find the figure that the noble Lord asks for. However, I cannot give him an assurance that I shall be able to come up with the figure although I shall certainly look for it.

No doubt I have been asked other questions, and I shall reply to them in writing. I am happy to see that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has just returned to the Chamber. I can assure the noble Earl that I shall be happy to draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the new Secretary of State the feelings that have been expressed on this matter and the proposals that have been made in the debate this evening.

The Earl of Longford

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I hope I may make one point. Did the Minister mean that he was going to draw the attention of his right honourable friend to the tremendous emotion that has been expressed in this debate and not just to the dry statements that have been made?

Lord Reay

My Lords, that is what I said I would do.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I hope he will clarify one point. He said that the pamphlet that is to be issued will make it clear that people can go to the police for redress if they feel they are being abused in some way. He said they would have their passports. I take it that would give them some form of security. However, if a domestic servant is unable to obtain other domestic employment after falling out with his existing employer, he will not be able to earn any money and he will have to return straight home. If he has his passport, he can go home under his own means rather than be deported; but all that means is he would have to pay his own fare rather than have his fare paid by the Government. What does a domestic servant gain from this measure? If he complains, he will be out of a job and he will not be able to get another job. That seems to me to be the great weakness of the measure. A servant cannot go elsewhere even if he has established that he has drawn a blank as it were with his existing employer. The only course open to such a servant is to go home. What good does that do?

Lord Reay

My Lords, the position is that such a worker is able to stay on in this country until the end of the period for which he has permission to remain. However, he may not take other employment.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, if a servant has lost his existing employment and cannot take other employment, how is he to live?

Lord Reay

My Lords, the position would vary from one case to another.