Immigration Bill — House of Lords, 2016-01-20
Topic: Immigration
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, there are two amendments in this group, one in my name and in the names of my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark, the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. There is a second amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, within the group. I intend to be relatively brief because I imagine that a number of others may wish to speak in this debate The amendment to which I wish to speak seeks to reverse the 2012 visa changes for overseas domestic workers by allowing them to change their employer and renew their visa for a period of 12 months, "as long as they remain in employment and are able to support themselves without recourse to public funds" It would also provide for overseas domestic workers to be entitled to a temporary visa, permitting them to live in this country for the purposes of seeking alternative employment when there is evidence that they have been a victim of modern slavery A similar amendment was pursued during the passage of the Modern Slavery Bill, when the Government declined to go down the proposed road as they were having an independent review undertaken of the overseas domestic worker visa, including those for diplomatic overseas domestic workers. That independent review by James Ewins was, I believe, presented to the Home Secretary on 6 November last year and published on 17 December, when the Commons Minister said that the Government’s response would be announced in due course In his review, Mr Ewins considered as his fundamental question, "whether the current arrangements for the overseas domestic workers visa are sufficient to protect overseas domestic workers from abuse of their fundamental rights while they are working in the UK, which includes protecting them from abuse that amounts to modern slavery and human trafficking" His review concludes that, "the existence of a tie to a specific employer and the absence of a universal right to change employer and apply for extensions of the visa are incompatible with the reasonable protection of overseas domestic workers while in the UK" In the light of this finding, he recommends in his review as the minimum required to address the problem which he has identified that, "all overseas domestic workers be granted the right to change employer … and apply for annual extensions, provided they are in work as domestic workers in a private home … that such extensions do not need to be indefinite, and that overseas domestic workers should not have a right to apply for settlement in the UK in order to be adequately protected", and that, "after extensions totalling up to 2 ½ years, overseas domestic workers are required to leave the UK", with this extension being, as I said, the minimum required to give effective protection to those overseas domestic workers who are being abused in the UK Mr Ewins also stated in his review that the rights that he is proposing should be granted to all overseas domestic workers, with no different treatment between, "seriously abused, mildly abused and non-abused workers", and that, "overseas domestic workers must be given a real opportunity to receive information, advice and support concerning their rights while at work in the UK", if the essential changes that he has proposed to the terms of the visa are to be of practical help to such workers. He also comments that implementation of his recommendations, "will provide data, information and intelligence which will enable the police, Immigration Enforcement or the proposed Director of Labour Market Enforcement, to take intelligence-led steps to investigate and pursue those who abuse overseas domestic workers with criminal, civil or immigration sanctions" There are many other important recommendations and points in Mr Ewins’s review to which I have not referred During debate on the then Modern Slavery Bill about the overseas domestic worker visa issue and the Government’s decision to have an independent review, the Minister in the Commons said that the Government looked forward to the recommendations of the review. She went on to say that while she could not commit a future Government, the intention was that whoever was in government would "implement the review’s recommendations" I do not wish to go over the ground again on the arguments in favour of the terms of the amendment I am moving, as they were spelled out during the passage of what is now the Modern Slavery Act. Since then, the recommendations from the independent review which the Government set up have been published and, in essence, they confirm the validity of the concerns expressed during the passage of that Act, including on the tie to an individual employer. I invite the Minister to say what the Government’s response is to the recommendations in the independent review and what actions they now intend to take, since we need to resolve the issues surrounding the overseas domestic worker visa as part of our consideration of the terms of this Bill. I beg to move.