ration
360
to
eat poverty fore being allowed Many of my hon. mples of how these ice and the Catch! people will find Conservative Party y! Asian families trong family ties. young should care t is something to
1
rents do the Gov- ut by this change fewer than 1,500 è in Britain.
If
the Government chaos at the
been trying to argument. When Office there were ch I made appli- ts to come and three months or dren. They were ntees that they in Sub-Continent bd.
They were er.
e hon. Gentle- point. We are les are firm and essively restric- be put in their at personal dis- ion rules, I feel elderly should eatest humanity
estrictive rules erning young the ages of 18 ngsters a year to keep out of es? I suggest t compared to affected, quite onnected with
reign students o excessively victimise the han they will vernment will should listen nst Racialism, e three main
361
mony.
Immigration
4 DECEMBER 1979
political parties and of religious and immigrant groups. It is a responsible and respected body. It says that the pro- posals are extremely disturbing, dis- criminatory and will damage racial har- The new rules are opposed by the Churches. They are opposed by the Commission for Racial Equality, which says that several of the proposed changes are harsh, unnecessary and undesirable. The Government will find that many hon. Members will make more representations than ever before if the new rules are to receive the compassion, humanity and fairness which will be required.
"
The Home Secretary should practise what he preached when he said in 1976;
"I hope that the Government that is the previous Labour Govern- ment-
1
"will actively seek the co-operation of the representatives of the various ethnic minority groups in this country.”
-[Official Report, 5 July 1976; Vol. 914, c. 971.]
I assure
the right hon. Gentleman that the new rules are actively seeking non-co-operation. They may be welcomed in Bath and Bournemouth, but they will not be welcomed in Birmingham and Bradford.
We should concentrate on other aspects of improving race relations, and the new rules are not the way to do it. We should implement the Race Relations Act and find a fair way of treating those already settled here. I assure the House that the existing immigration controls are as firm as humane and and compassionate administration permits.
The changes will have only a marginal effect on the numbers kept out, and restricting the number allowed to enter is apparently the object of the exercise. However, the rules will create feelings of resentment and insecurity among minority communities and will cause unnecessary hardship and distress and lead to a deterioration in race relations.
Furthermore, the White Paper contains shameful and inexcusable rules that dis- criminate against women. That is why we shall vote against it and in favour of our amendment.
9.31 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): This has been a debate not only of divergent views but of
16 K 29
Immigration
ว
362
a combination of broad themes and speci- fic points. I hope that the House, will understand if I start with some of the specific points and move on the broad
to themes, particuly the question of hus- bands and fances, which has learty bas the major theme in the debate.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) made a number of specific points and asked a number of questions. I shall answer some of them, but I hope that he will understand if I do not answer them all; there was rather a lot. I shall also pick up one or two of the right hon. Gentleman's points that have a general bearing on the course of
the debate.
The right hon. Gentleman and a num- ber of my hon. Friends said that when the nationality Bill is introduced it will deal with sex equality. Having just looked at the right hon. Gentleman's Green Paper on a nationality Act, I do not think that anyone could say that it was a clarion call for sex equality. It paid some obeisance towards sex equality, but was much more eloquent in pointing out the difficulties and complications involved than in giving clear-cut answers. How- ever, I accept that it is an important point. It was also raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner).
I cannot at this stage say exactly what we shall put in the White Paper that my right hon. Friend announced earlier, but there is no doubt that we are bound to give careful consideration to the whole question of securing equal treatment be- tween the sexes. By any standards, that will be an important development in this
area.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, South and other hon. Members raised the implications of our membership of the EEC. It is true that a woman who is an EEC national who comes here to work may bring her husband with her. If he is not an EEC national, she would be better placed than women citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies whose husbands are excluded under the new rules. But that is inevitable in view of our obligations as a Community mem- ber. That point is of theoretical interest only. Few women from other EEC countries are likely to seek to import non-EEC husbands in that way.
Nor