Ms. Champers Tamgh

HL Deb 03 July 1991 vol 530 cc1091-100

9.38 p.m.

Lord Hylton rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider their intention to deport Ms. Champers Tamgh, who has been in England since 1985, i n view of circumstances calling for compassion.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, one of the prime functions of Parliament is the redress of grievances. Tonight I wish to explain the grievances and the grounds for compassion surrounding the case of one domes tic worker in London who came originally from Nepal. I shall leave it for the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and other speakers if they so wish, to explore the urgent need for protection and for prevention of abuses among overseas domestic workers generally following the not entirely satisfactory Government reply to the short debate that I initiated on 28th November 1990.

The case of Ms. Champers Tamgh was brought to my attention by her solicitor in the North Kensington Law Centre in early March. Since then I have corresponded at some length with the honourable gentle man M r. Peter Lloyd, the Home Office Minister responsible for immigration. In spite of that, Ms. Tamgh still faces the possibility of deportation.

Her history is as follows. She came from Nepal but worked, married and had children in New Delhi. In 1985 she was recruited to work in London for an Indian couple, Mr. and Mrs. Tanden, who lived in Highgate. She was, and still is, illiterate and in 1985 could only speak Nepali and Hindi, though in the past few years she has acquired a reasonable command of English. She travelled from Delhi to London by air in the company of Mr. Ashuk Kapoor, a friend of her employer.

Ms. Tamgh had no knowledge whatever of British immigration law. As far as I know she was not seen by British officials in India and on arrival in London was asked no questions by immigration officers. It is probable that her passport was stamped as a visitor to this country. She was not to know that, since her passport had been retained by Mr. Tanden and she only received it back again several years later.

Ms. Tamgh never had a written contract or conditions of employment either with the original employer or with two subsequent ones. With Mr. Tanden she received £84 a month, paid in Indian rupees, plus board and lodging. Her food was mainly rice and dhal, never eggs, butter, meat or fish—and seldom fruit. She was required to work from 6 a.m. to midnight, seven days a week and was paid about 17p per hour. She suffered constant personal abuse and threats and her private letters were regularly opened. Her employers told her on arrival never to leave the house and garden, and there was a security guard physically to prevent her leaving.

In November 1986, after living under such intolerable conditions for nearly a year, Ms. Tamgh's health was failing. She was suspected of having tuberculosis. For this reason the employers saw fit to imprison her alone in a flat on the fifth floor of Water Gardens in the Edgware Road. After a month she was allowed to go to hospital, from where she succeeded in escaping from her employers.

Wages were unpaid for some four months. These were recovered through an action in 1987 in the Bloomsbury County Court—Case No. 8722081. False imprisonment and personal damages were also claimed, but the case was settled by agreement. The wages were thus eventually paid, but only a nominal sum of £17 was received in respect of the other two heads of claim.

The legal system has therefore afforded limited protection to Ms. Tamgh. It was not able to prevent her suffering financial exploitation at the hands of three separate employers, nor could it protect her against serious health damage. Tuberculosis was confirmed and an operation was done to remove certain neck glands. Goitre was also diagnosed. Following the operation, Ms. Tamgh attended the pain clinic at the Central Middlesex Hospital and was for a time fitted with a transcutaneous nerol stimulator. Her general practitioner, Dr. Jasani, suspected a neuroma formation following the first operation, but Mr. Birch, a senior orthopaedic consultant at St. Mary's Hospital, Paddington, has since advised that a second operation to remove two lymph nodes would be too dangerous.

It will be clear from the details already given that deportation to India would be highly undesirable and unsatisfactory on medical grounds. Ms. Tamgh has herself told me that in India she would not be able to afford the tablets she still has to take in London, let alone other expensive forms of treatment that may become necessary. In my view it would be quite wrong to remove her from the possibility of aftercare by the doctors and surgeons who have looked after her so well in this country.

Here I must comment on a statement contained in letters to me dated 10th May and 18th June 1991 from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Lloyd, to the effect that Ms. Tamgh was not entitled under immigration rules to free treatment by the National Health Service. That seems a remarkable comment in relation to someone who has worked here for a large part of the past six years. Has she not contributed to the British economy? Has she not helped to make possible the residence in London of wealthy expatriates who employ security guards as well as other domestics? In any case, I think it is most probable that Ms. Tamgh is covered by the exemption provided in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations (S.I. 306 of 1989).

I turn now to Ms. Tamgh's work record since 1987. She worked for five months for an Indian family in east Acton, earning £35 per week for a 10-hour day, and later for two years for an Iraqi family in Knightsbridge earning £20 per week, where she was on call from 6.30 a.m. until 1 a.m. the following day. Both jobs were residential. The families treated her correctly, even though they exploited her financially. It is worthy of note that the rates of pay compare very badly with those for au pairs, whose hours of work are strictly limited by official regulations. I have met Ms. Tamgh's present part-time employer, who warmly recommends her as honest, conscientious and reliable. She has cared for his two children, now aged 5 and 7 years.

More important, however, than the work record and the medical history and outlook are Ms. Tamgh's family circumstances. I must emphasise that these have not so far been brought into the correspondence with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. That is because they have only recently became known to me. Therefore, I urge him and his right honourable friend the Home Secretary to give them the most careful consideration.

The facts, as I understand them, are that Ms. Tamgh's husband in Delhi is an invalid, having been completely paralysed for the past two years. Their two children are cared for by an aunt who is herself a single parent, maintaining her own three dependent children. Thus a total of five children and two adults survive only as a result of money sent to them by Ms. Tamgh from London. Without her earnings, the whole family would soon become destitute. It is clear that her pay in London, even at rates that we believe to be unfair and unjust here, will exceed any remuneration she is likely to receive in India. The welfare and well-being of the whole family is, therefore, at stake in the event of deportation.

I ask Her Majesty's Government to do two things before reaching a final decision. First, I ask them to arrange for Ms. Tamgh to be interviewed in London, as there has been no direct contact so far in this case, only correspondence via solicitors and other intermediaries. Secondly, I believe that the British Embassy in Delhi should verify the circumstances of the family members who live in Delhi, who are in fact as I have described them. I have the aunt's address and can make it available.

Your Lordships will know that in asylum cases, many people who do not qualify as refugees under the 1951 United Nations Convention are granted "Exceptional Leave to Remain" in Britain. The Home Secretary has a discretion just as wide in immigration cases. Everything that I have seen and heard about this case persuades me that that discretion should be exercised in respect of Ms. Tamgh. I earnestly trust that the combination of past ill-treatment and exploitation, with the present medical condition and family circumstances, will be sufficient to persuade Her Majesty's Government to reconsider the matter, with or without the verifications which I have already suggested.

9.48 p.m.

The Earl of Longford

My Lords, someone whose name escapes me was once asked to follow the great orator Edmund Burke and could think of nothing to say except, "Ditto to Mr. Burke". I find myself in the same position and can only say "Ditto" to what was so eloquently explained by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I shall not detain the House very long this evening, but I shall do so for rather longer than I did last night. According to the Official Report of yesterday's proceedings, I rose to speak at 7.28 p.m. and finished my speech at 7.25 p.m.; in other words, I spoke for minus three minutes. That was quite an achievement. Perhaps it should be copied by some noble Lords.

The story which has been explained to us by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is a terrible one. In fact, when one thinks of all these horrors, it brings to mind difficult and wider issues. For example, who is to decide the matter? I do not envy the Minister. Here he is with the best will in the world. We have all been junior Ministers in our time, at least many of us have. He comes to the House with a brief of some sort which he must read. However, I am not quite sure whether that will satisfy him tonight when he goes to say his prayers. Indeed, perhaps he would like to feel that he had done a little better than that and that he had actually held out a ray of hope.

Therefore, let us see whether the Minister can prove that he has initiative and independence of mind—without jeopardising his career, which none of us would wish him to do—by saying that the matter will at least be considered. A flat, negative response would, frankly speaking, be disappointing.

The minimum response should be that demanded by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. He was asking for an interview. Who will interview this lady? Why not the Minister? We cannot expect the senior Minister to find time to do so with all his other preoccupations, but I suggest that the Minister might ask leave to see the lady and to go into the case. His officials are bureaucrats. They thrive on paper. This is a case that cannot be settled on paper. Someone should see this lady. Perhaps the Minister can answer this question: who will see this lady? He should be the one to see her. In a general sense, I always support any case that the noble Lord raises. This is a terrible story. I do not say that anyone is to blame. It is a tragedy that could be put right with a little kindness and imagination, and I hope for that from the Minister.

9.50 p.m.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who has yet again brought to the attention of the House a case which demands a response based on humanitarian grounds. He has described in great detail the tragic case of an Indian woman who was virtually imprisoned by her employers and treated with a total lack of humanity. He also gave details of the intolerable conditions in which she lived and the deterioration in her health which resulted. He has advanced a strong case for a decision to be based on humanitarian grounds.

We should also be grateful to the noble Lord for having championed the cause of this small vulnerable group of overseas domestic workers. They find themselves here for a variety of reasons but are not protected within any kind of framework. For that reason they are open to discrimination and abuse. They should be accorded greater protection under the law.

As my noble friend Lord Longford said, there is nothing we can add to the background of Ms. Tamgh, her present situation, the unspeakable conditions to which she was subjected by her employer, and the predicament in which she now finds herself. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has asked the Minister to consider her case carefully, and to change the present intention to deport her. We look forward to his response with hope.

The noble Lord has advanced a good case for special consideration to be given. It is probable that when the lady first arrived she had no knowledge of British immigration laws. As the noble Lord said, she left India in 1985. Due to virtual imprisonment by her employer, she would have been unaware of her employment conditions on reaching London. Nor would she have been in a position to know what her immigration status here was. I was interested to hear from the noble Lord that the honourable gentleman Mr. Lloyd had told him that Ms. Tamgh is not eligible to receive health care in this country. Will the Minister comment on that point? I do not know why she is ineligible to receive health care in this country. I did not know that there was anyone who would be ineligible for health care.

Although the precise circumstances surrounding each overseas domestic worker in this country obviously differ, I believe that the case of Ms. Tamgh reflects the unsatisfactory and uncertain legal position in which workers can find themselves. In order to help him with the background to the debate, the noble Viscount will no doubt have read the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in November last year which examined the difficulties encountered by overseas domestic workers in general. The noble Lord was not putting forward a specific case; this evening, he is. 1 am sure that the noble Viscount will have noted the total unanimity of view expressed by all those taking part that the problem surrounding overseas domestic workers was real and needed solving. He will also have noted that the reply by his noble friend Lord Reay in no way satisfied the House.

It is to be welcomed that information leaflets are issued to employers and employees which set out the legal rights of domestic workers and the protection available to them. This was announced by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, in the debate. However, the problem is that those domestic workers who are already here will not have received such leaflets. Therefore, they will remain unaware of their rights. That would certainly have been the case with Ms. Tamgh and perhaps the Minister will say that the Government are considering issuing leaflets to those overseas domestic workers who were here prior to the date of their first issue. Some questions put in that debate need answers from the Government before we can have any confidence that domestic workers from overseas are sure of being treated with humanity and justice in this country.

I am examining the wider issue: the Minister may not choose to do so. But this is an opportunity to point out the various courses that the Government could take in order to overcome the problem that we encounter with domestic workers who do not have work permits and who do not enter the country under immigration laws but under Home Office concessions. Some courses were put forward by my noble friend Lord Richard in the debate in November. They probably need consideration. My noble friend felt that such people should be treated as though they had a work permit and should be allowed to move around within the same area of work, enabling them to escape from bad employers. Then, after four years, they should be allowed to claim residence if they so wished.

The other approach suggested by my noble friend was that domestic workers should not be admitted on a concessionary basis but on a more regular basis in their own right. That would avoid the problem of their coming to Britain and being bonded to one particular family and in some cases, such as that of Ms. Tamgh, bonded to a very bad employer. They would then have independent legal status before coming here.

Those are ways of solving the dilemma. I do not expect the Minister to give an answer tonight, but I remind him of the wider context of the problem we are considering tonight. We hope that the Government will decide to make a change which will safeguard a small but, as I said, highly vulnerable group of people in this country. In the meantime, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is asking the Government to remember the particular case of Ms. Tamgh. Again, I remind the noble Viscount of what his noble friend Lord Reay said when summing up the debate in November, when talking about guarantees to domestic workers: Each case will be considered carefully and compassionately before any enforcement action is taken."—[Official Report, 28/11/90; col. 1055.] I think that is what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is asking the Government to do tonight. He has put forward some very strong evidence and there is an extremely good case, which should be considered on compassionate grounds and also as a particular case. I hope very much that the noble Viscount will be able to tell us that that is what the Government will do.

10.4 p.m.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, as the House will have heard, there are without doubt compassionate features in this case to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has drawn attention. I fully recognise the noble Lord's concern for the wellbeing of Ms. Tamgh, as does my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office with whom the noble Lord has been in correspondence. It is this Government's policy to maintain a firm but fair immigration control and it is against this background that Ms. Tamgh's wish to remain in this country has been fully, carefully and sympathetically considered, having regard to all the facts of her case.

If I may, I should like to review this rather complicated case. Ms. Tamgh entered the United Kingdom on 16th November 1985. Her passport was endorsed to limit her stay to six months and with a condition which prohibited employment. She immediately took up employment without authority as a domestic servant. Indeed by her own admission she was recruited in India and came to this country for that specific purpose. Subsequently, when her six months' stay expired she neither left this country nor sought an extension of stay. Noble Lords will have heard that Ms. Tamgh claims to have been maltreated during her unauthorised employment, alleging that she was poorly fed and imprisoned in her employer's homes. These allegations were the subject of an investigation by the police who referred the matter to the Crown Prosecution Service to consider whether there were sufficient grounds to justify the institution of criminal proceedings against Ms. Tamgh for overstaying and her employer for false imprisonment and other immigration offences, but it was decided to take no further action against any party.

The Earl of Longford

My Lords, may I interrupt? Was it really decided whether she had been maltreated? The fact that nobody was prosecuted does not dispose of that allegation.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, the matter of prosecution is obviously something for the Crown Prosecution Service and not something upon which I can comment. However, the story goes on. On 13th September 1989, the North Kensington law centre, acting as Ms. Tamgh's representative, applied to the Immigration and Nationality Department for Ms. Tamgh to be allowed to remain in the country to receive medical treatment. It is a requirement of the immigration rules that a person who wishes to remain in the United Kingdom for such treatment must pay for that treatment privately and an application for an extension of stay is to be refused if there is reason to believe that the treatment will be at public expense or that the applicant does not intend to leave the United Kingdom at the end of the treatment. Inquiries established that Ms. Tamgh was receiving medical treatment from the National Health Service since she was not in a position to pay for such treatment herself. Notwithstanding this, her application was referred to the medical adviser at the Department of Health who, after consulting Ms. Tamgh's own doctor, advised the Immigration and Nationality Department that treatment for her medical condition was available in India and that she was fit to travel. In view of this, and only after fully being satisfied that Ms. Tamgh would not suffer by returning to India and that there were no other special features to her case to justify taking the exceptional step of the grant of leave to remain outside the immigration rules, her application was refused.

Under Section 14(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 an entitlement to appeal against a refusal to vary a limited leave is conferred only on a person whose limited leave to enter or remain has not expired at the time of their application. Ms. Tamgh's leave to enter had long expired on 16th May 1986. She had therefore no right of appeal to the independent appellate authorities and was advised, via the North Kensington law centre on 10th May 1990, to make arrangements to leave the United Kingdom.

On 24th May 1990 the North Kensington law centre applied again on Ms. Tamgh's behalf for leave to remain exceptionally outside the immigration rules on compassionate grounds in the light of her medical condition and because the medical treatment she was receiving was not believed to be available in India. Her case was once again referred to the medical adviser at the Department of Health, who, after obtaining new medical evidence from Ms. Tamgh's doctor, again indicated that appropriate facilities for the treatment of her condition were available in India and that she was fit to travel. In reaching a decision on the application, full regard was given to the difficulties of Ms. Tamgh's position and the strain which a prolonged period of ill health must have placed upon her. But it would have been wrong not to have had regard to the public interest. Ms. Tamgh was an overstayer who had no basis of stay in this country and medical advice indicated that her well-being would not suffer if she were to return to India. Her application was thus refused and on 4th February this year she was advised, via the North Kensington law centre, that she might be liable to prosecution and deportation if she did not make arrangements to leave the United Kingdom.

My Lords, before I can sum up on the case I have to say that the anxieties that the noble Baroness has on issues relating to domestic servants are well known to this House, but the matters that have been raised are not relevant to Ms. Tamgh's wish to remain in this country. She has made two applications to the Immigration and Nationality Department to remain here. Both of these were to enable her to continue medical treatment.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in recent correspondence with my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, drew attention to a change in Ms. Tamgh's medical condition. While we are not persuaded that this is sufficient to reverse the decision, we have looked again at this case, and, in the light of what the noble Lord has just told the House, we will certainly give full consideration to any further evidence or medical evidence sent to the Home Office. It would be in everyone's interest if this could be received promptly: otherwise my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will want to consider whether he should enforce Ms. Tamgh's departure. But I can say to the noble Lord that, if this information is received promptly, no action will be taken in the meantime to remove Ms. Tamgh.

Perhaps I may answer just a couple of points that were raised by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. One was a request that we should interview Ms. Tamgh. Staff conduct an interview when they consider it is likely to help to resolve a case. Ms. Tamgh is applying to the state for medical treatment. This is something on which expert advice has to be obtained from doctors. At this stage an interview with Ms. Tamgh would not help her case. It is the medical evidence that is required.

The noble Lord asked me if the High Commission should visit her home in Delhi. Again Ms. Tamgh is applying to stay for medical treatment. What is relevant is whether the treatment is available back home in India, and we are assured that it is. Her domestic circumstances are not relevant to the application and a visit by the High Commission staff would not help her case at this stage.

Two other points were raised. I have to say again that the immigration rules approved by this House require that anyone who wants to remain for medical treatment must pay for such treatment. The noble Baroness also asked about leaflets for domestic servants. Leaflets are only provided to those who actually apply to stay as a domestic worker. Ms. Tamgh has never applied to stay as one.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, before the noble Viscount finally sits down, I should like to say that he has made some helpful remarks, which I appreciate very much, on the medical side of the matter. Would he go just an inch further and be kind enough to pass on as strongly as he can to his honourable and right honourable friends the family and compassionate aspects of the matter, which, so far as I know, are new to the consideration of the case?

Viscount Astor

My Lords, I shall certainly draw the attention of my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office to this debate. I must repeat to the noble Lord that further evidence, if it can be sent to the Home Office as promptly as possible, will be looked at.