HC Deb 27 October 1997 vol 299 cc565-7
4. Ms Beverley Hughes

What progress has been made in implementing changes in the primary purpose rule. [11660]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien)

The primary purpose rule was abolished on 5 June. A review of outstanding appeal cases has now been completed, and those involved should have been informed. Some people will make applications in the light of the change to the rule, and they will be dealt with through the normal procedure.

Ms Hughes

Does my hon. Friend agree that the abolition of the primary purpose rule has removed a discriminatory practice that affected many genuinely married couples, and that its removal has meant a great deal to the people concerned? I congratulate my hon. Friend on the successful completion of the review. I am sure that he will agree that future applications must be dealt with fairly and swiftly. What steps has he taken to ensure that they will be dealt with within a reasonable time?

Mr. O'Brien

A series of steps is in process that should ensure that cases are dealt with quickly. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support. The primary purpose rule was without a purpose, except to cause misery to many families. The mess that it caused to family life was deplorable. I am pleased that we were able to remove it and thereby show that we support families.

Mr. Hawkins

Does the Minister realise that the abolition of the primary purpose rule and the other changes that the new Government have introduced have led to the problems that he has been trying to explain away on Czech television in the past couple of weeks? Is it not quite clear that the previous Government were absolutely right to have a sensible, firm and fair policy? The minute the new Government took office they started messing about and caused enormous strains on the system through illegal, bogus asylum seekers trying to come to this country. Is that not a recipe for disaster?

Mr. O'Brien

The hon. Gentleman does not seem to know the difference between immigration controls and the asylum system. If this change in the primary purpose rule was so bad, why did the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) not pray against it, not seek to have a debate on it and not oppose it? The reason is that it was a fair change. It will ensure that the Government will do what they promised at the general election, which was to maintain firm and fair immigration and asylum controls.

Mr. Lock

Does my hon. Friend agree that the changes that he has made to the immigration laws, although they may not have been accepted by Conservative Members, have been widely accepted by people in the country? Does he further agree that those who have lined up to condemn the changes, whether from the xenophobic or the homophobic tendency, are to be deplored?

Mr. O'Brien

My hon. Friend is right, but he does a disservice to some Conservative Members, such as the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) who was conspicuous in welcoming the changes to the primary purpose rule. However, my hon. Friend is right: it is the same old Tories. At the Tory conference, the Tory leader said that his party would now be more open and tolerant. Within hours of that statement, we made an announcement on same sex couples which brought out rent-a-quotes from people, from Lord Tebbit to the ex-Member of Parliament, Sir Ivan Lawrence. The hard, intolerant, right-wing core of the Tory party is still there: we know it, no matter what the Leader of the Opposition now says.