§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will amend the Immigration Acts to allow Indian women legally resident in the United Kingdom, as well as men, to visit India to bring back their wedded partners to this country.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS)My Lords, while there is nothing to prevent an Indian woman settled in this country from visiting her husband in India, the Government do not propose to amend the Immigration Rules so as to permit Indian husbands to come here to settle with their wives as of right. My right honourable friend's predecessor in the previous Administration announced on January 30, 1969, that it had been decided to withdraw the concession under which a Commonwealth citizen was allowed to settle here in right of his wife. The concession was withdrawn because it seemed that marriage was being used by young men of working age as a means of entering, working and settling in this country.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he recollects that many of us raised this matter of sex discrimination when, last year, the Bill was before this House? Indeed, I think we divided the House on it. May I further ask him this question? Is it not the case that, within the terms of the Act, an Indian man can go to India, marry there and bring back his wife, but that an Indian woman cannot go to India, marry there and bring back her husband? 604 Is the Minister aware that this means that a large number of young Indian women in this country have no opportunity of marriage at all?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, factually the noble Lord is correct about the differentiation. The reason for it is that it has been recognised, I think quite widely, that the wife ought to live in the country where her husband lives, and this is the reason why husbands can bring their wives from India but not vice versa. It may be a controversial issue, but, nevertheless, my noble and learned friend said yesterday, in the course of our small debate, that he thought that controls at this particular moment were particularly important. This is one which was introduced to prevent what seemed to be an abuse, and I am afraid that at the moment Her Majesty's Government think that it must be maintained.
§ BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGEMy Lords, we all know that this kind of arrangement is open to abuse, but it is quite intolerable that there should be a rigid line drawn between the privileges of a man and those of a woman. I am sure the Minister is aware that in some cases it is the woman who is the breadwinner as much as, or even more than, the man. At the very least, what we must insist on is that the Government consider these matters individually, and that they should not draw a strict line of discrimination between the sexes.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for making that point. This is exactly what is done. The general rule that I have outlined is applied, but this does not mean to say that cases are not individually looked at, and looked at very closely. Since the beginning of January, 1969, there have been cases where hus-hands have been allowed to come and join their wives in this country. It is not a very large number, but there have been individual cases where this has been allowed because of the particular circumstances, no doubt including those that the noble Baroness mentioned. Therefore it is not rigid: it is just a prima facie rule.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, while appreciating what the Minister has said, may I ask him whether he is aware that I know that individual cases of this kind 605 have been accepted? But is he also aware that today, because of this Act, a large number of Indian women are not able to go to India to marry their affianced partners because they know they will not be allowed to return to this country with them, and they desire to reside in this country? May I ask the noble Viscount one further question? Has he had a memorandum from the Slough Indian Welfare Association on this matter, and has the Home Office replied to it?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, I am aware that the noble Lord is aware of that situation, and I think that it is factually correct. As for the memorandum that the noble Lord mentioned, I am afraid that I have not yet received it but doubtless will almost at once.
§ LORD SLATERMy Lords, would the Minister not agree, in view of the replies that he has given to my noble friend Lord Brockway and also my noble friend Lady Lee, that the Government are becoming a party to matrimonial separation?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, I really do not think that that is a conclusion which can be drawn from the position as I have stated it.