§ 12. Mr. ChisholmTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take with regard to the primary-purpose rule.
§ Mr. WardleI have no plans to amend the primary-purpose rule.
§ Mr. ChisholmThe primary-purpose rule has always been unjust, arbitrary and morally indenfensible. As Europe has finally made a nonsense of it, will the Minister undertake to scrap it unconditionally—and not with the proviso that couples must stay together for a further four years at threat of deportation? That would be an outrageous attack on the rights of women who are treated intolerably by their husbands.
§ Mr. WardleI can only assume that the hon. Member is referring to the Surinder Singh case, which is still sub judice but which did not involve the primary-purpose rule. It has never been suggested that Mr. Singh's marriage was contracted with the primary purpose of seeking admission to the United Kingdom.