§ 2.49 p.m.
§ Lord COTTESLOEMy 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—
- (a) whether the wife of an overseas national, whose husband is the holder of a work permit and is in whole-time employment in this country, is normally free to reside in this country and to accept employment here; and
- (b) whether the husband of an overseas national, whose wife is the holder of a work permit and is in whole-time employment in this country, is normally free to reside in this country and to accept employment here;
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, the Immigration Rules for Control on Entry provide for the admission of the wife of a work permit holder provided that he is able and willing to support and accommodate her without recourse to 99 public funds and that she has a current entry clearance granted for the purpose. Such a wife is normally allowed to stay here for the duration of her husband's stay and is not subject to any restrictions on accepting employment.
The Immigration Rules do not, however, provide for the admission of husbands of work permit holders, although my right honourable friend is prepared to consider making an exception in special cases where the woman is to be employed here for at least 12 months. Generally speaking, a husband must qualify for entry in his own right, because it is essential, especially in these days of high unemployment, to maintain a strict control over the entry of persons likely to take employment to the displacement of resident labour.
§ Lord COTTESLOEMy Lords, while thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for that reply, I should like to ask him two further questions. First, does he not consider that the disparity between the treatment of husbands and wives in this matter is contrary to the spirit of the Sex Discrimination Act? Secondly, if I were to give him particulars of a case where a United States citizen whose wife is in employment as a teacher in this country with a work permit, is himself prevented from accepting employment available to him in this country, because he is refused a work permit which—if I understand correctly the terms of the Ministry of Employment circular—he does not anyway need, would the noble Lord be kind enough to look into the matter with a view to setting it right?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, the Immigration Rules are not subject to the Sex Discrimination Act since the Immigration Act of 1971 ante-dates that Act. As regards the second point made by the noble Lord, I should be very glad to consider the matter and to have it looked into. If the noble Lord has the circular to which he referred I should like to have it so that we can look at its wording. The only other point that I should make as regards that matter is that, since 1973, there has been a concession under which a Commonwealth husband has been allowed to join his 100 Commonwealth wife who has been, or is being, admitted for the purpose of employment. However, it does not follow that he is entitled to take employment. This is a matter for the Department of Employment to determine. As I pointed out in my first reply, this is done to protect the resident labour within the United Kingdom.
§ Lord AVEBURYMy Lords, does the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, think that it is quite wrong in principle, notwithstanding the fact that the Sex Discrimination Act was passed after these rules were framed, to continue to allow certain rules to incorporate an element of sex discrimination? Will he not, therefore, urge his right honourable friend to bring the rules into line with the principles in the Sex Discrimination Act?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I think that I ought not to express an opinion, but had better draw the attention of my right honourable friend to what the noble Lord has just said.