364
m EEC
portion
is not Govern- omestic ans.
te there gement opeans. res of
e issue mestics West d deal s, girls
so ex-
sed by South, er for
I was ng to thon. comed more anges rules of the
us
of
rwich, anges at he e fur-
have
addi-
ed us o say con-
ower.
es in
can
arose
hon.
cern-
cees, f the
ome
sup- lem-
(Mr. nder
les a re to hon.
e as
365
Immigration
4 DECEMBER 1979
That is the position under the current rules, and it will remain open under the new proposals for any fiance who per- suades the immigration officer that he intends to return to his own country at the end of his visit, to enter as a visitor under paragraph 17 of the draft rules in the White Paper. But it is certainly not our intention that the new rules should be circumvented by the entry as visitors of people who do not qualify to come as fiances, with a view to settlement after marriage.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that no immigra- tion officer will accept that a person who is coming here as an intended fiance is a person who will leave at the end of his visit, and that therefore those visits are always refused?
Mr. Raison: Under the new rules, the situation will obviously be somewhat different. There will be a defined require- ment for people to have met. I believe that immigration officers, when they are satisfied that the application is genuine, will recognise that it will be reasonable for people to come here with a view to meeting their intended fiancé so long as they do not try to queue-jump by remain- ing after that has happened. There is absolutely nothing in the rules to prevent that happening.
I turn to another point that arises out of the question of fiancés, and that is the question of siblings born in different places. Obviously it is inherent in the Government's proposals that those born in different places will be treated differently. One must acknowledge that. However, I should add that difficult cases can be con- sidered for exceptional treatment outside the rules. Indeed, it is one of the charac- teristics of our system that there is very wide discretion to the Home Secretary in effect to take any decision that he wishes outside the rules.
I have tried to answer some of the de- tailed points. I should now like to turn to the broad and important question of husbands and male fiancés. Obviously this is the area in which there has been most disagreement. I acknowledge that some of the disagreement has come from my own side. We heard what the whole House will recognise as an impressive speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell). I do
16 K 31
Immigration
366
not agree with what he said, but he spoke honestly and with courage. Others of my hon. Friends also made their views clear. The Opposition amendment refers to the equal
•
rights of all British citizens legally settled here... whatever their race, colour or creed ".
Oddly enough, as has been pointed out already, it does not mention sex under those categories, no more than did our manifesto. It is quite clear, of course, why neither the Opposition amendment nor our manifesto mentions sex, because we know perfectly well that sex equality does not exist under our nationality and immigration laws. They are not based on sex, and that is a fact that must be recognised.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: But the law in this country under the Sex Discrimination Act is very clear, and equality before the law covers that as well.
Mr. Raison: With respect, the law in this area is not covered by the Sex Dis- crimination Act. It is covered by the Immigration Act and the Nationality Act. Those are the laws under which we must operate in the area about which we are talking. That is an inescapable fact.
I remind the House that in our manifesto we gave clear notice that we intended to tackle the problems of hus- bands and fiances. Of course, we said then that we would go back to the pre- 1974 arrangement which, as the House knows, was introduced by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). It may be asked why we need the new additional restriction that we are proposing. As we have said to the House time and again, there is a general aim simply of reducing numbers.
It is proper to remind the House of what my right hon. Friend said earlier- that numbers are a serious factor in this respect. In 1973, no more than 200 husbands from the new Commonwealth and Pakistan were accepted for settle- ment whether on arrival or because of removal of the time limit. By 1970, after the change had taken place in 1974, that figure had risen to more than 6,300. Since then, there has been a small drop because of the greater priority that has been given to dependent wives and children. In the 12 months to mid-1979, the equivalent figure was 5,600. However, the number