Au Pairs: Status (Hansard, 8 February 1999)

§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn)
My Lords, we have no plans at present to change the status of overseas nationals living in the United Kingdom as au pairs.

§ Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, it seems to be in conflict with reports that I have read in the press. Is he aware of the degree of anxiety that is being caused to parents who are able to continue in employment only because of the present au pair system? If there is to be a change from the "reasonable allowance" provided for under Part 4, Section 88 of the Home Office Immigration Rules to the Department of Trade and Industry's national minimum wage, the cost of an au pairs will almost double. It will be from £70 to £95 per 8 week, depending on the age of the au pair. Will the Minister ask the Chancellor to include in his March Budget a provision for those obliged to pay on the new basis that child care will be tax deductible?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, I do not think that there is a fundamental change. For well over 20 years now, by virtue of the Employment Agencies Act 1973, employment is explicitly defined to include situations involving the engagement of au pairs by families. So the concept of employment is not new. An au pair should not work for more than five hours a day, with two days off. The national minimum wage proposals provide for a payment of £3 for the younger segment of au pairs and £3.60 for those aged over 22. As regards taxable benefits, I shall certainly transmit the noble Baroness's suggestion to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—with what hope of success I cannot guess.

§ Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister satisfied that these young people, as they mostly are, are sufficiently protected against exploitation? Is it not most unfortunate if they are sometimes expected to undertake work for which they are not adequately trained—perhaps very small children, for example?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, my noble friend is right. One needs to bear in mind that the fundamental purpose of au pairs being in this country is to learn the language, culture and social traditions of this country. It is absolutely right that they should be protected. They are protected by virtue of regulations made under the 1973 Act. If there is any exploitation contrary to the Act and the regulations the DTI should be informed at once.

§ Baroness Knight of Collingtree
My Lords, is the Minister aware that, if a family lets a room to a lodger, the Inland Revenue allowance is £80 a week; but if, instead, they let the room to an au pair, and feed and look after the young person concerned, the allowance is only £20? How do the Government expect the au pair to be fed? Could this matter be re-examined?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, the relationship of a lodger and a landlord is quite different from the family relationship with an au pair. I repeat: the au pair is here not to provide a source of under-paid, sometimes under-supervised employment; he or she is here fundamentally to learn the language. There are the restrictions that I have mentioned which have been extant for many years: no more than five hours a day, no more than five days a week.

§ Lord Avebury
My Lords, will the Minister say from what countries persons wishing to be au pairs may apply to come to the United Kingdom? Is he satisfied that the Immigration Rules are not in this respect racially discriminatory?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, the au pair scheme covers nationals of Andorra, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, 9 the Faroes, Green and, Hungary, Macedonia, Malta, Monaco, San Marino, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Switzerland and Turkey. I do not believe that they are racially discriminatory.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, are there any regulations concerning leaving au pairs in charge of very young children?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, there are not specific regulations that I am aware of, but the general law of the land relating to statutory parental obligations about the care of children overrides anything else. However, there are particular regulations which relate to au pairs, dealing with the nature of their employment and the form with which they must be provided.

§ Baroness Miller of Hendon
My Lords, I am glad to hear the Minister at the Home Office declare that au pairs are still under the regulations of the Home Office. However, I wonder where the national minimum wage comes in. Is the Minister aware that during the Report stage of the national minimum wage Bill, this House endorsed an amendment that I put down which gave the Secretary of State at her discretion, an opportunity to exempt certain categories of persons or occupations from the national minimum wage, if the need should arise. That was overturned in the House of Commons. I was described—not in the House of Commons, I hasten to say, but in a national newspaper—as the "vermin in ermine", in return for my hard work on that suggestion, which I found upsetting.
Does the Minister agree with me that his honourable friend in the other place who described my amendment as "a wrecking amendment" was incorrect? What my amendment would have done is to strengthen the Bill in order to allow the Government to depart from the unbending rigidity of the national minimum wage in certain circumstances. With the newspapers and the agencies for au pairs, that has caused a conflict between the Home Office and the Department of Trade and Industry.

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, in response to the noble Baroness's questions, first, I am sorry that anyone should have called her "vermin in ermine". After all, we must remember that ermine is vermin.
I believe that there is no difficulty between the Home Office—which is a notoriously civilised and accommodating department—and our friends and colleagues in the DTI. Au pairs have some human rights. The obligation to pay £3 an hour—although it seems to be more than one is paid as a Home Office Minister—is not enormously burdensome.
Others of our colleagues in Europe have similar schemes. For example, in France employers must ensure that the value of the total employment package is at least equivalent to the French minimum wage. The Netherlands and Luxembourg include au pairs for the 10 purposes of national minimum wage levels, Belgium and Spain exempt them. So there are different approaches to the matter. However, au pairs have rights.

§ Lord Dholakia
My Lords, on the list which the Minister has just read out the countries were mainly from Europe. Does he have it in mind to extend the list to countries in other parts of the world?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, others who are not nationals of the countries on the list I read out may come as working holidaymakers. So, for example, those who are Commonwealth citizens, including citizens of Australia, are entitled to come here as working holidaymakers. Those who are nationals of the European Union countries may come here by virtue of the provisions which allow free movement between one EU country and another.
I answered the particular question in that deliberate way because that is the au pair scheme, but it does not mean that nationals of other countries of the kind I described cannot come here with generally similar arrangements.

§ Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, I am shocked that the noble Lord said that £95 a week is nothing to pay. Last week the Secretary of State for Health was appealing to nurses to come back to work, yet they are expected to pay £95 a week out of their net income. I am disturbed by that. I feel that the conflict was bad enough without the Minister's remarks. Is he not aware of the conflict, first, between the Home Office and the Department of Trade and Industry and, now, the Department of Health? Does he not think that there is a dramatic difference between someone living as a member of one's family and an employee? Are there not other ways of dealing with the real problems brought out by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner? An au pair is not to be exploited, but that does not mean that she should not live as a member of the family and learn English. Such people come here primarily as students.

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, I did not say that £95 a week was nothing. I said that £3 an hour was not a vast amount to pay. I believe that to be so. If any noble Lords doubt me, I invite them to try to live on a wage of £3 an hour.
Perhaps I may continue to answer the noble Baroness's questions. The fact that one lives in a family does not mean that there is no employment situation. I repeat that since 1973 the circumstances of an au pair are that he has been employed.

Lord Belhaven and Stenton
My Lords, the noble Lord gave us an impressive list of countries. Will Her Majesty's Government add Poland to that list? If not, why not?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, we have no intention of adding Poland to the list. If the time came when Poland became a member of the European Union, then Polish nationals would be able to come in ns of right in the way that 1 indicated earlier to the noble Lord, 11 Lord Dholakia. I have to tell your Lordships, with some regret, that there have been difficulties about immigration of Polish nationals. For example, in 1997 no fewer than 4, 000 were refused entry and 600 were detected here as being illegal entrants. There have been discussions between representatives of Her Majesty's Government and those who represent Polish interests.

§ The Countess of Mar
My Lords, is it not up to the prospective au pair to decide for himself or herself whether to take up the proposal of someone who wants to use their services? If they are not happy with the wages, they do not have to do the job.

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, the answer is that often or in most cases it is not a relationship of equality. The mere fact that a young man or young woman wants to come here to learn the language and benefit from our culture ought not to leave them open to wholly unprotected exploitation.

§ Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, would the Minister care to put straight a small error he may have made when he said that ermine was vermin? Does he agree that, in fact, it is the stoat which is vermin and that the stoat's winter coat, when removed from it, produces ermine which is worn by an honourable estate in the land?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is right. What I should have said is: "dead ermine is vermin".