My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Hylton, for tabling these amendments. It is entirely right that we discuss this important issue; it is something on which, as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, mentioned, I and the Government are in no doubt whatever about the strength of feeling in your Lordships’ House. What is more, we are in no doubt that there is a problem that needs to be addressed; that is not in question at all. Were it not so, we would not have wasted taxpayers’ money, as it were, on the Ewins review in the first place, nor would we have introduced the measures that we did in the Modern Slavery Act, which sought to address some of these issues.
Let me be clear at the beginning about what I intend to do at this stage—and I hope that noble Lords will bear with me. My proposal is to set out some of the initial response to the report and address some of the comments that have been made in the debate. I would then be immensely grateful if noble Lords who have an interest in this area might have the opportunity to meet Home Office officials and myself—and possibly Karen Bradley if her diary permits—to go over what we propose to do.
7 pm
Following that discussion, and in the light of reflecting on the report and the contributions which have been made today and at that meeting, we will bring proposals forward on Report to set out what the Government intend to do. I frame things in that way so that we do not have to go through the pain of wondering whether on page 4 I am going to come to a crescendo and announce the position. Rather than a announcing a policy or a position, I am announcing a process which I think will be helpful to us and, I hope, to noble Lords in arriving at the right solution.
The Government acknowledge the need to address the particular vulnerability of those who are admitted to the United Kingdom as domestic workers. The Modern Slavery Act included new protections for this group of workers. It is also why we commissioned James Ewins to review the overseas domestic worker visa to assess whether such workers are sufficiently protected. His findings were published on 17 December. While the Government have not so far commented on his recommendations, we take them extremely seriously. The arguments are finely balanced. We want to ensure that our approach to the issue is right. We are continuing to work on our response, but I will take this opportunity to outline our broad view of the issues.
Ewins’s key recommendation is that overseas domestic workers should be able to change employers, irrespective of whether they have been the victim of abuse, and obtain an extension of stay for that purpose; in other words, he recommends the removal of the employer, or visa, tie. That, of course, is also the chief purpose of these amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, acknowledged. The amendments go further than Mr Ewins’s recommendation, which is that overseas domestic workers who seek alternative employment should be able to extend their stay for a further two years. By contrast, these amendments would provide for those in this position to extend their stay indefinitely, effectively going back to the situation which existed pre-2012 when overseas domestic workers could come in, change employer as frequently as they wished, apply for indefinite leave to remain after a period of five years apply and bring in their dependants. We introduced the change.
In addition, both amendments provide for granting a three-month visa to a victim of slavery. Section 53 of the Modern Slavery Act already provides for a six-month extension of stay where a domestic worker is the subject of a positive conclusive grounds decision under the national referral mechanism. This provision was implemented through changes to the Immigration Rules in October last year.
Mr Ewins has set out the case for removal of the employer tie. His report brings two key issues into sharp relief. First, it highlights the dearth of hard, quantitative evidence which can be brought to bear on policy-making in this area. Of course it is not in dispute that abuse takes place but, on whether the 2012 changes to the Immigration Rules have made overseas domestic workers more vulnerable to abuse, Mr Ewins concludes that no data exist to demonstrate either positively or negatively that the risk of abuse has increased or to confirm its prevalence. I am aware that other organisations referred to by noble Lords have supplied evidence, but that was James Ewins’s position. That is not to say that there is no evidence to support his prescriptions, but I can only agree with his view that the Government must,
“make serious inroads into the data deficit”.
We will do so. We can now use exit data, to which the noble Lord, Lord Green, referred, to obtain a better picture of how long overseas domestic workers remain here and how many overstay their leave. We will also continue to monitor national referral mechanism outcomes and the take-up of the measures introduced under Section 53 of the Modern Slavery Act to assess how well existing protections are working.
The second, and fundamental, issue that Mr Ewins’s report compels us to confront is how best we protect overseas domestic workers from abuse. Mr Ewins makes the case that if a worker is in an abusive employment relationship, removing the visa tie will make it easier for them to escape the abuse. However—and this comes to the key point potentially of difference between us, but I hope it is not an insurmountable barrier—it is not enough simply to provide an escape route for victims; we also need to avoid creating a revolving door of abuse which allows perpetrators liberty to bring other domestic workers to the United Kingdom who may face similar consequences.
Mr Ewins makes other recommendations in addition to removing the visa tie which could assist with this. Principal among them is a recommendation for compulsory information and advice meetings to be provided to overseas domestic workers who remain in the UK for more than 42 days, funded through an increased visa fee. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, would implement this recommendation. Such meetings would go to the crux of the issue by providing a safe place for domestic workers to come forward so that action can be taken against the perpetrators. We are looking carefully at how implementation could take place.
At this stage, I should say that the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, Kevin Hyland, observed that mistreatment occurred before the rule was introduced. He suggested that a system for checking the welfare of domestic workers could have more success in preventing abuse than a simple right to change employer. The Director of Labour Market Enforcement will in future have as part of the broad scope of their remit looking at abuse in the labour market, to which this area is particularly pertinent.
We should not deceive ourselves that the removal of the employer tie would be a panacea. It is undisputed that abuse took place before it was introduced.
In considering Mr Ewins’s recommendations, we need to assure ourselves that the measures we put in place assist us both to protect victims and to bring perpetrators to justice. We will continue to look at this important issue ahead of Report.
It is deeply concerning that Mr Ewins suggests that overseas domestic workers may have a negative perception of the national referral mechanism, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. It is incumbent upon us all to encourage potential victims to engage with the national referral mechanism. The Government have already implemented Section 53 of the Modern Slavery Act to provide domestic workers who may be victims of abuse with a period during which no enforcement action will be taken against them and to grant a six-month extension of stay where they are found to be the victim of slavery or human trafficking. If we need to go further, then we will do so.
At this stage, it is worth placing on record that victim support services are provided to individuals when they are referred into the national referral mechanism. Not only do we get a record of employers who are serial abusers but through the contract, which is delivered by the Salvation Army, individuals have access to safe accommodation, emergency medical treatment, material assistance, a complaints service, translation and interpretation services, information and sign-posting, advocacy for specialists services including counselling, assistance at appropriate stages of criminal proceedings against offenders, access to education for dependent school-age minors, and transport services. If victims of abuse are removed from one employer to another without touching the national referral mechanism, we need to make clear to them that they are missing out on a substantial amount of care—care given not by official bodies, which I understand they may be distrustful of, but by a highly respected charity in the UK.
In the light of those remarks and the pledge that we would appreciate the opportunity to discuss these matters further with officials and get views and data before coming forward with proposals for consideration on Report by noble Lords in response to the Ewins report, which we welcome and appreciate, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.