363
Immigration
[Mr. Raison.]
Immigration
364
365
Th
rules,
4 DECEMBER 1979
restrict the entry of au pairs from EEC is there any evidence of exploitation countries, from which a large proportion of the provisions.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, South and a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House raised what is often described as the Catch-22 position of aged parents. It is not possible to estimate precisely how many will be able to come under the new proposals. It seems reasonable to suppose that the numbers will be small- accept that- and that they may be extremely small.
We shall consider the argument that the combination of the dependency re- quirement with the standard of living criterion makes it too difficult for parents to come. I cannot say more than that, but I hope that the House will feel that we have listened very carefully to this point in the debate.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): Is it not a fact that under the existing rules it is already extremely difficult for aged parents to come? Not only must money be sent but the tribunal has shown on a number of occasions that it is neces- sary to satisfy the tribunal that the money is necessary for the parents' upkeep. The number of people who have been allowed to come in as aged parents has been very small indeed.
Mr. Raison: That may be true, but I have just said that we shall consider the points raised in the debate, and I cannot see the point of the hon. Gentle- man's intervention.
With regard to au pairs and the decision to restrict entry to Western European au pairs, the original concept of the au pair arrangement was that daughters above school age of families in this country and abroad changed places for a year or two, that each was treated as a member of the host family helping with small jobs about the house, as a daughter in her late teens or early twenties would usually be expected to do, and would take the opportunity to learn the host's language and something of the way of life in that country.
For many years now,
this arrangement has, by tradition, been a European one. Girls who come from further afield are open to exploitation, especially now, when it is impossible to obtain work permits for resident domestics. We do not
16 K 30
of au pairs come. The restriction is not new in principle. The previous Govern- ment issued work permits for domestic employment only to West Europeans.
I have been asked what evidence there is of abuse of the au pair arrangement by girls who are not West Europeans. We do not keep separate figures of refusals of au pairs, but since the issue of work permits for resident domestics was restricted earlier this year to West Europeans there has been a good deal of pressure to admit, as au pairs, girls from the countries which were so ex-
cluded.
The question of refugees was raised by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South, and also by the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals). I was asked whether the changes relating to Member for Leeds, refugees-which I think the right hon. South welcomed broadly-would make the rules more restrictive. They would not. The changes are designed solely to bring the rules more into line with the provisions of the refugees and with current practice. convention relating to the status of
The right hon. Member for Norwich, North gave broad support for the changes that we have introduced. I note that he believes that we should have gone fur- ther. I think he knows that we have already considered very carefully addi- tional matters that he would have liked us to cover in the rules. It is fair to say that the right hon. Gentleman also con- sidered them when his party was in power. We have concluded that the changes in the White Paper are as far as we can reasonably go.
I want to clear up a point which arose out of exchanges on my right hon. Friend's statement the other day concern. ing visitors coming here to meet fiancees, I have been asked for clarification of the reply that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave, on my advice, to a sup- plementary question from the hon. Mem- ber for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell). The hon. Member asked under which section of the immigration rules a fiance would be allowed to come here to meet his intended wife. My right hon. Friend replied that a fiance could come as a visitor.
new
suade intend
the e
under
the W our i be cir of pe
fiance marri
Mr. hon. tion o is com person visit, always
Mr.
situati
differe
ment that in satisfie
will re
for pe
meetin
they do ing aft absolu that ha
I tur of the questio places.
Govern
differen
One m should
sidered
the rule teristics wide di effect to outside
I hav tailed p to the husband
this is most di
some of my own House speech f for Lou
16