IMMIGRATION ACT 1971 (AMENDMENT) BILL (Hansard, 3 July 1973)

§ Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann (Kensington, North)

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Immigration Act 1971 to extend the right of abode to the husbands of women who have such right and to the widows or former wives of those with right of abode who are citizens by registration.

When I applied to the Table Office three weeks ago for the opportunity to present the Bill, it was my intention to introduce a rather wider measure which would remove the retroactive provisions of the Immigration Act 1971. But, in view of last Tuesday's debate and the very disappointing vote, I have reluctantly decided that the House is not yet willing to do that. I have, therefore, limited the Bill to a less controversial proposal; namely, to give British girls the rights which their brothers enjoy, the right to marry whom they choose, and for the family to live in Britain afterwards. This is an anti-discrimination measure, directed at both sexual and racial discrimination.

The present law is that the wife of a man who is a citizen of the United Kingdom by birth, by adoption or by naturalisation has the right to come and live in the United Kingdom. The husband of a British woman has no corresponding right. There are provisions under which, if hardship would be caused to the wife by her being required to live in her husband's country, the husband may be admitted, but the exception seems to be very narrow.

In a recent letter to me, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane), the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, wrote: … a woman who marries a man who is not a United Kingdom resident is normally expected to live in her husband's country unless this would cause her exceptional hardship. If there were wider awareness of this rule, many parents with daughters at university, where there are numbers of foreign and Commonwealth students, would be more worried than they are.

If my son marries a Malaysian girl, they are both entitled to settle in Britain if they wish, but if my daughter marries a Malaysian boy, she will have to make 258 her home in Malaysia unless she can show exceptional hardship. The word "exceptional" has crept in. Hardship alone is not enough. I know of one case in which permission has recently been given, in which, under South African law, apartheid would prevent the parties from living together. But does one have to be in such extreme circumstances to qualify? I am afraid that probably one does.

The letter from the Under-Secretary to which I have referred dealt with the case of Mr. Georghios Kyriacou, and said: Mr. Kyriacou was admitted to this country on 4th December 1970 for one month as a visitor, on a condition which precluded his taking employment. A week later, he married a woman born in this country whose parents had come from Cyprus. They had already known one another very well through holidays. He then applied for the revocation of his conditions of admission to enable him to stay here permanently but his request was refused on the grounds that he did not qualify to remain here in right of his wife. As you are aware, a woman who marries a man who is not a United Kingdom resident is normally expected to live in her husband's country unless this would cause her exceptional hardship, a factor which in our view is not present in this case. Mr. Kyriacou was, therefore, allowed until 30th August 1971 to make arangements to leave the country. His appeal against this decision, under the Immigration Appeals Act 1969, was dismissed by an independent adjudicator in January 1972; leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal against the adjudicator's determination was refused. Mr. Kyriacou, however, still did not leave the country and he was arrested last August. The Home Secretary takes a serious view of offences against the immigration control, and it is his usual practice to act on a recommendation for deportation made by a court for such offences unless there are strong grounds for not doing so. Mr. Kyriacou was informed that his marriage to a woman born in this country did not give a right to remain here, but, even after his appeal had been dismissed, he continued to remain here illegally. The Home Secretary, therefore, decided to make a deportation order against him. Mrs. Kyriacou, in a letter which she has sent to many MPs, said: My husband has committed no criminal offence. He is not a political agitator or a liability to anyone. His ex-employer is in fact very anxious to re-employ him. I am a British subject by birth, my baby was born here. If the deportation order is carried out, then in effect my baby and I will be deported too. We love England and want to remain here. In particular, I want my baby to enjoy the same kindnesses, considerations and freedoms 259 that I have experienced, and that only a life in Britain would permit. The proposed deportation of my husband seems very unfair, and I think discriminates against me as a woman. If I were a British male, I could marry a foreign girl and there would be no question of her being deported. But purely because I am a woman, I do not have sufficient status to confer the right of residence in Britain upon my husband. I can't help being a woman. Mr. Kyriacou, Mrs. Kyriacou and the baby are now living in Cyprus, the whole family, in effect, having been deported.

There is an exception in the case of Commonwealth husbands with a grandparent born in the United Kingdom, so the rule is both racially and sexually discriminatory.

Although I have quoted only one case, every hon. Member to whom I have spoken about the Bill tells me that he knows of cases in which the rule is causing great distress—although whether that is sufficient to qualify as "exceptional hardship" is a very different matter.

The rules were changed in 1969. Before that, husbands were accorded similar rights of entry to those now given to wives. The then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), explained to the Select Committee that the change was introduced because the number of men seeking entry as fiancés was evidence of abuse, and that if fiancés continued to be admitted, many of them would not in fact marry.

Quite apart from the question of whether, to prevent such an abuse, it is necessary to deprive a large number of people of a fundamental freedom—the right of a family in which husband and wife come from different countries to choose in which they will live is a fundamental freedom—there is no need for the present very restrictive rules in order to avoid abuses.

My Bill refers to those who have actually married and remain married. A 260 marriage of convenience that is soon dissolved would confer no right on anyone. A widow would have the right to remain as at present, but the right would be extended to those whose husbands were British by registration. The present rule can cause hardship to a widow who has severed all contacts in her own country so as to marry and live in Britain.

Abuse by those claiming to be fiancés can be prevented by changing the immigration rules. In all but exceptional circumstances, the girl can be required to meet her fiancé at the port of entry and she can be interviewed beforehand. I am not suggesting that fiancés whose marriages have been arranged by advertisement, correspondence or parental negotiation should be admitted—that is also an abuse of personal freedom—but in most genuine cases there will be photographs or other evidence which will readily establish a genuine personal relationship.

It is to enable such people to marry and to remain in Britain that my Bill is designed. I believe that the Bill is an essential ingredient of fundamental human rights, and I hope that the House will accept it.