Immigration (Hansard, 19 October 1992)

§ 26. Mr. Madden
To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in how many cases since June, to date, the Home Office has applied to adjourn immigration appeal and immigration appeal tribunals to enable applications from spouses with children with a right of abode in the United Kingdom to be reviewed.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr, John M. Taylor)
In the period June to 14 October, the Home Office applied for adjournments in the type of case to which the hon. Member refers on 249 occasions before immigration adjudicators and on 11 occasions before the immigration appeal tribunal.

§ Mr. Madden
Although I accept that the reuniting of limited numbers of families separated under the primary purpose rule is welcome, does not the hon. Gentleman accept that that rule remains manifestly unfair and unjust? Will he urge Home Office Ministers to abolish it immediately, and warn them that it would be wholly unacceptable for them to replace the primary purpose rule by extending to four years the probationary period before which a spouse can apply for permanent settlement? That action would result in a storm of protest.

Mr. Taylor
The state of the law is entirely a matter for the Home Office, and it is not my place to give it guidance.

§ Mr. Dickens
Does my hon. Friend agree that entry to the United Kingdom must be controlled in a strict but fair manner? Every illegal immigrant who enters the United Kingdom takes up a job or receives benefits that we cannot afford. If I had a pound for every illegal immigrant in this country I would be a very rich man, and there would be plenty of jobs for everyone.

Mr. Taylor
As ever, my hon. Friend expresses himself more vividly and powerfully than I can, and I completely agree with certain of his remarks.

§ Mr. Boateng
Is not the Minister well aware that in this matter—as in housing, welfare and employment law—the law centres movement makes a valuable contribution to the cost-effective provision of legal services? The Minister knows that those services are under threat from local authority cuts throughout the country. Will his Department do something to prevent the disruption of legal services, or are we to see only more hand-wringing and head-scratching from this wretched Government?

Mr. Taylor
I do not think that I am in either the hand-wringing or the head-scratching business—but I am in the business of welcoming the hon. Gentleman to the Opposition Front Bench. He brings to his job considerable knowledge of his subject and, in particular, of law centres.
I know that the Lord Chancellor is personally sympathetic towards law centres. Part of the difficulty is that they are often so beset with local disputation that it is hard for an external agency to contribute constructively.