The House of Lords has voted against two key proposals in the Home Office’s Immigration Bill in a bad week for the Government.
It has been well-publicised that the Government was defeated in the Commons over proposals to relax Sunday trading legislation. Not so prominent in the news bulletins, however, is that Peers voted on Wednesday (March 9) to allow overseas domestic workers to change employers without risking immediate deportation. They also voted to allow asylum seekers the right to work if their claims have not been processed within six months.
The first rule change addresses accusations domestics brought into the country and subsequently abused by their employers must put up with the mistreatment or leave the UK (African Voice – Issue 616).
The defeat will give domestic workers – holders of so-called ‘tied maid visas – the right move to another employer once, after which they are permitted to remain in the UK for up to two years. At present, changing employers is not allowed.
“The scandal of abuse and exploitation has gone on for too long, sometimes in the most affluent parts of London,” crossbencher Lord Hylton said.
Opponents of the change argued it would create loophole that could be abused. Lord Green of Deddington, founding chairman of the MigrationWatch UK ‘independent’ think-tank, said it would mean someone could leave their employer whether they were being ill-treated or not, adding: “It provides what will be seen by many as a wide open door to the UK.”
Lord Bates said the government was committed to eradicating modern-day slavery and abuse, but argued the amendment could be open to manipulation by people who had not been placed in difficult situations.
Despite such objections, the amendment was supported by 226 votes to 198.
The Lords also voted against the Government and in favour of a Labour, Lib Dem and crossbench amendment to the Immigration Bill on the rights of asylum seekers to work.
Proposer Lord Alton of Liverpool said the amendment would end the “enforced workhouse destitution” that asylum seekers experience.
“They are frustrated at being forced to remain idle and survive on benefits,” he argued, adding: “How many of us could exist on just over £5 a day while an asylum application was being considered? This is way below the poverty line. Where is the justice and fairness in that?”
Under the current system, asylum seekers can only work if no decision on their case has been arrived at after a year, and only then in jobs specified on a Shortage Occupation List.
The crossbench Peer said the 3,500 people that had been waiting for six months or more by the end of last year deserved to be able to work rather than “eke out” an existence on “pitiful” state benefits.
“All the available evidence shows that permission to work does not act as a pull factor for asylum seekers, or migrants,” he said.
Arguing against, Lord Green warned reducing the time limit could encourage asylum seekers to “spin out” their cases using the appeals system.
“Not all people seeking asylum are genuine. The record is that 50 percent turn out not to be. We should be seeking to reduce pull factors, not increase them,” he said.
Lord Bates too argued that countries where asylum seekers can work as soon as they arrive attract greater numbers of asylum seekers; citing Sweden’s experience during the current migrant crisis as an example.
“We should not be doing anything to encourage more people to risk their lives. Now is not the time to make this change,” the minister argued.
Critics have called the Government’s proposal headline-grabbing but not workable.
West Yorkshire rights activist June Jones said, “If someone gets refused a right to stay here and they really can’t go home despite the Government saying they can they will just go underground.
“It’s just absolutely disgusting that we may not be able to properly support asylum seekers, who are some of the most vulnerable people in the world.
“But also, we have an aging population and massive skills shortage (…) Asylum seekers have a lot to contribute to this country.”
