HL Deb 23 January 1997 vol 577 cc889-95

8.46 p.m.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

The subject of the Bill goes back to 1980. In that year the Government abolished work permits for incoming domestic workers. Under the old system a domestic could change employers within the same category of work. In place of that system the government of the day arranged a concession outside the Immigration Rules whereby visitors and temporary residents—usually, but not always, from the Middle East—are allowed to bring their existing domestics with them. These workers have no separate immigration or work status. They must go away if their employer leaves this country. They may not change employers and are liable to deportation if they leave their employer.

This concession may be good for trade and our balance of payments; however, it certainly leaves the domestic workers very exposed to exploitation and a whole range of other abuses because they are tied and bonded to a single named employer.

Problems and complaints have arisen over non-payment of wages, extremely low pay, poor food and bad conditions. The list continues with verbal, physical and sexual ill treatment, including rape and assault, not to mention the withholding of passports, lack of holidays and free time and imprisonment on the employer's premises. Many hundreds of cases have been fully documented, largely by the voluntary Commission for Filipino Migrant Workers, without whose dedicated work the London situation would have been far worse. I am sorry to say that new cases continue to arise.

The very unfortunate consequences of government policy have frequently been raised in Parliament. Since 1992 there have been some 24 Questions on this topic in your Lordships' House and I and other noble Lords spoke at Second Reading and moved amendments at all stages of the passage of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. In the other place over a similar period there have been at least 60 Questions and early-day Motions.

I am sorry to say that the Government's response to this parliamentary concern has been slow and gradual, despite delegations and discussions with various Ministers. The only improvements worthy of the name have been the interviewing of domestics, and sometimes also of their employer, prior to departure from the employer's country of origin. Leaflets have also been provided setting out mutual duties and rights. These measures have been only partially effective and have not achieved the full improvement in behaviour that is so much needed.

The Government have refused to set up an interdepartmental committee to consider this matter. They have refused to prescribe maximum hours for domestic work or to publish a code of good employment practice. They were not willing to consult with the International Labour Organisation on preventive measures or inform ambassadors stationed in London of current English rates of pay for domestic work. They have declined, I am sorry to say again, to introduce spot checks on employers.

In view of that truly lamentable record, extending now over some 16 years, I feel fully justified in introducing this Bill. I only regret that it is so modest and so tightly drawn. The scope of the Bill is, in fact, very narrow and the protection it offers is limited to litigants and witnesses in cases before our courts. That is made clear in the Long Title and by the repetition of the words " United Kingdom" in each of three subsections.

Let me now explain the content of the Bill. Subsection (2)(a) enables qualifying domestics to take work while their case is pending or in progress. I hope that the Home Office will not say that that allows them to take any job which may be on offer. In my view, that would be a far-fetched suggestion, since such a person is unlikely to be qualified for anything other than domestic work and in any case the permission to work only lasts while the case is pending or in progress.

Subsection (2)(b) gives protection against deportation. I suggest that that is vitally important, since it is unrealistic to expect poor and possibly unpaid workers to maintain themselves in a third country, while preparing and fighting a case here.

Subsection (3) allows a plaintiff or witness to overstay their leave of entry or not to fulfil their conditions of leave while their case is pending or in progress.

I submit that all three forms of protection are absolutely necessary. They are the bare minimum required to enable overseas domestic workers to bring cases against employers, or indeed against others, and to appear as witnesses in third party cases. The Government have frequently claimed that such domestic workers have access to our courts and to our legal remedies. My Bill will, at long last, if enacted, give reality to that claim.

I propose this measure in the interests of justice: justice for people who have been abused and exploited and justice for a minority of employers who should not be allowed to profit from their shameful and criminal behaviour. One of the duties of Parliament is the redress of grievances. Therefore, I commend the Bill to your Lordships.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Hylton.)

8.54 p.m.

Lord Archer of Sandwell

My Lords, in Thatcherite Britain, the tradition of Wilberforce and Shaftesbury, of Kingsley and Dickens, is out of fashion. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will be placed by history squarely in that tradition. I believe too that your Lordships' House is indebted to him for the clarity and moderation of his introduction to this debate. That introduction would render superfluous any lengthy intervention from me. The brevity of what I propose to say is a tribute to that introduction.

I seek to make only one point. There are always good reasons why we should moderate our compassion. There were persuasive reasons why we ought not to have ended the slave trade, limited children's working hours or kept small boys out of chimneys.

There are problems with this Bill. We need to protect the labour market in this country. Heaven knows, there are job seekers enough already being destroyed by the rejection of one application for work after another. So no one complains that anyone seeking to come to this country to find employment should be subject to controls. If the young girls about whom the noble Lord spoke had been told that they would not be admitted to this country, it might have been very difficult to argue against that.

But that is not what the Government have done. The Government have already bound up their lives with Britain. They have made them dependent on the mercy of the British authorities—not on their application nor for their benefit; they have been admitted to this country for the benefit of their employers. They have been brought here not as potential immigrants nor in pursuance of a normal work permit, but as part of the personal luggage of those who brought them, like their mobile telephones and their hair curlers. If we allow that to happen, surely we have incurred an obligation to ensure so far as we can that they are not abused.

Yet, a survey carried out in 1995 by Miss Bridget Anderson, on behalf of Anti-Slavery International and Kalayaan, showed that of the Kalayaan women brought to this country as domestic workers, 34 per cent. have suffered physical abuse, 61 per cent. were regularly denied food, 74 per cent. were not paid what they had been promised and 22 per cent. were imprisoned within their employers' homes.

Whenever we raise the question, the Government tell us, "Well, they are protected like everyone else by employment legislation." I have here a parliamentary answer in reply to Miss Maria Fyfe on 19th June 1995: The position of overseas domestic workers is no different from that of other employees in this respect. Contractual terms are matters for employers and employees to agree. Once agreed, they are legally binding and, in cases of non-compliance, employees can take action for breach of contract through the civil courts or, in certain circumstances, through industrial tribunals". Alone, afraid, in a strange country, sometimes not speaking English or having difficulty with the language, the picture of one of those girls walking into a public library, asking for a copy of Butterworth's Employment Law, looking up her rights and proceeding to the industrial tribunal would not even be convincing fiction. What the noble Lord asks for in his Bill is moderate indeed: where there may be a remedy, they should not be precluded from pursuing it.

If I may say so, my heart goes out to the noble Earl, who certainly is not lacking in compassion but is sometimes, I fear, saddled with an unattractive brief. I hope that that is not the case today. If the Home Office is intent on denying even this basic minimum of justice, the Government will be remembered in history with those who opposed Wilberforce and Shaftesbury.

8.58 p.m.

The Earl of Courtown

My Lords, in introducing this Bill the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has once again demonstrated his deep concern for the welfare of those overseas domestic workers who are abused by their employers. I know that no one in this House will doubt the sincerity of his compassion for the victims of such abuse, which has led him to bring these issues before your Lordships this evening. I am equally sure that no one can be anything but appalled by the examples of abuse we have heard of from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, as well as those we have read of in the media.

Perhaps I may begin by explaining the circumstances under which overseas domestic workers are allowed to come to the United Kingdom with their employers. It is a fundamental element of the Government's immigration policy that the number of overseas nationals allowed to come here to work should be very strictly controlled. Only those with a high level of skills which are in short supply here will normally qualify for work permits. But a rigid adherence to this policy would mean that overseas domestic workers—whose skills would not be sufficient to qualify them for work permits—could not accompany their employers here at all. As a result, many of them would simply lose their jobs. It has also to be recognised that many wealthy visitors who contribute significantly to our economy would be deterred from coming here if they could not bring their domestic employees as part of their household.

It is for those reasons that the concession exists—outside the Immigration Rules—allowing overseas domestic workers to come here with their employers provided they, and their employers, meet certain criteria.

We insist that the domestic workers are in possession of entry clearance before they come here. That allows a number of checks to be made to establish whether the necessary requirements are met. Those are that the domestic worker must be at least 18 years old; that he or she has worked for the employer for at least 12 months and for at least two years if anything more than a short visit here is intended. The employer must give a written undertaking to provide adequate maintenance and accommodation, including a separate bedroom for the domestic worker. He must also set out in writing the terms and conditions of employment. A copy of that is given to the employee, who must confirm that he or she agrees to them. Interviews with domestic workers for entry clearance are conducted with the employer excluded and the worker is given a leaflet explaining his or her rights in the United Kingdom. As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that will give contact points for assistance from the Home Office, the police, the local law centre, citizens advice bureaux or the Racial Equality Council, as well as the employee's embassy.

As your Lordships will see, this is not a concession which is casually handed out. The aim is to ensure as far as we possibly can that only those domestic workers who are already in an established employment relationship with their employers and who wish, of their own free will, to continue that relationship may benefit. Steps are also taken to ensure that when extensions of stay are applied for, those are only granted to those domestic servants in whose cases satisfactory arrangements continue to apply. I should also say here that under no circumstances do we allow the recruitment of domestic workers directly from overseas by employers already in this country.

That these arrangements generally work in a satisfactory way is evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of domestic workers—around 12,000 every year—come here with their employers and return whence they came without incident. But it is a tragic fact of life that, despite these precautionary measures, a small proportion of employers seriously abuse their domestic workers while in the United Kingdom. As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, explained, it is the victims of that abuse which the present Bill seeks to protect. It aims to do so by amending the Immigration Act 1971.

The 1971 Act provides, among other things, for the imposition of time and employment restrictions on persons subject to immigration control. The Act further provides that those who do not comply with those restrictions commit an offence and render themselves liable to deportation.

The present Bill would create a special category of overseas domestic workers who are witnesses or plaintiffs in any proceedings before a court or tribunal in the United Kingdom. In their cases, all employment restrictions would be suspended. They could not commit the offence of overstaying or working in breach of their conditions of stay, and they would not be liable to deportation.

In short, those people would be given unrestricted access to the labour market and virtual immunity from prosecution for immigration offences and deportation. Moreover, the Bill would not accord that exemption solely to the victims of abuse but would extend it to those domestic servants who are witnesses in court proceedings completely unconnected with their own personal circumstances. It would therefore create a category of persons uniquely privileged under our immigration laws.

Lord Archer of Sandwell

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I fully take the point that he has just made; that is, that if the sole purpose of the Bill were to assist the workers about whom we are talking, it would have to be confined to proceedings in which they are seeking to enforce their rights. But, while we are on that subject, does not a witness always assist a court in ascertaining the facts? Would not there be something to be said, as a matter of public policy, for enabling anybody who has evidence to give in a court, to remain in this country long enough for them to give it?

The Earl of Courtown

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, poses a number of interesting questions. He is far better informed on some of the more legal aspects of this subject than I am and perhaps therefore I can arrange to write to him.

The Government have no wish to minimise the suffering of the victims of abuse in whatever circumstances it may occur. The leaflet given to domestic workers makes it clear that while they are in the United Kingdom they have the full protection of our criminal and employment laws. But we believe that the privileges that would be accorded to them under this Bill would be against the interests of the resident labour force and of firm but fair immigration controls. The Bill's provisions would also be open to abuse by those whom it was never intended to cover. It is the Government's firm belief that the best way to minimise the risk of abuse is to weed out the bad employer by attaching strict conditions to the grant of entry clearance before domestic workers are allowed to come here. I have outlined the present criteria to your Lordships this evening. But we have always been ready to listen to suggestions for improvements in these procedures and that remains the case. Where abuse has occurred here and domestic workers are required as witnesses in subsequent proceedings, we shall continue to exercise discretion where there are sufficient grounds for exceptional treatment.

In view of my remarks it will not surprise your Lordships to hear that the Government cannot support this Bill, though, in keeping with the traditions of this House, we shall not be opposing it this evening.

9.6 p.m.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, I am grateful for at least the spirit in which the Bill has been received on both sides of the House. At this point I should like to say that I received apologies from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, who had fully intended to speak in the debate but, owing to the length of earlier business, had to leave and therefore could not speak.

It is not necessary for me to detain your Lordships or to comment on either of the two speeches that we heard. It remains simply for me to ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.