§ 2.57 p.m.
§ Lord AVEBURYMy 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 how they reconcile their proposals for changes in the treatment under the law on immigration of husbands and fiancés of women with a right of abode in the United Kingdom with their obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead)My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will very soon be presenting a White Paper containing proposals for changes in the immigration rules. The Government do not believe that these proposals will contravene our international obligations.
§ Lord AVEBURYMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, according to the best advice that I have been able to receive, these proposals are contrary to Articles 3, 14, 16, 17, 23 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Articles 8, 12 and 14 of the European Convention? Is the noble Lord further aware that the Home Secretary publicly admitted that the proposed changes regarding husbands and fiancés are discriminatory, but refused to be drawn on 817 whether or not the Government's policy would be reversed if the European Court should subsequently find us guilty of an offence? In the circumstances, would it not be better to think again about this matter?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, not one of the articles which the noble Lord has quoted so far as the International Covenant is concerned is relevant, because, when the previous Government ratified the covenant in 1976, the Government entered a reservation so far as this country's immigration control is concerned. So all the articles that the noble Lord quoted to me are not relevant at all. So far as the European Convention is concerned, I repeat that the Government do not believe that we shall contravene the convention, but perhaps your Lordships would prefer to see the actual text of the White Paper before we discuss that matter in detail.
§ Baroness BIRKMy Lords, is the Minister aware that a woman who is a citizen of any other EEC country may come to Britain and bring her overseas husband with her? This puts British women in an absolutely absurd and iniquitous position. Is the noble Lord further aware that countries such as the United States, Sweden, and Israel treat men and women citizens alike, and there is no bar on foreign spouses? Perhaps he could let me know whether there is any developed nation which discriminates against women in the way that is proposed by this Government.
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, I do not believe that the reply to a Question for Written Answer in another place on 1st November, from which the noble Lord's Question arises, in any way reflects proposals which are sexually discriminatory. The abuse of the arranged marriage system is in itself sexually discriminatory, and I am surprised that the noble Baroness does not recognise this. It uses girls in this country in such a way as to enable men to enter illegally, in effect. I think this is something which all fair-minded people in this country would wish to see brought to an end, and it is at this that the Government's proposals are aimed.
§ Baroness BIRKMy Lords, I am sorry to intervene again but, in view of 818 what the Minister has said, I think we ought to be presented with some evidence about this—what are the abuses, what are the numbers concerned?—so that we know on what basis this really reactionary proposal is made.
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, that is a perfectly fair question, and perhaps the noble Baroness, and indeed the House, would prefer it if detailed statistics were given when the White Paper is presented; but, in broad terms, the number of husbands coming into this country has changed since the concession was made by the previous Home Secretary, Mr. Roy Jenkins, in 1974, so that we now have husbands coming in at three times the rate at which they were coming in during 1974. So far as concerns the number of male fiancés coming in, the rate of increase is considerably greater.
§ Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARDMy Lords, would my noble friend not agree that, regarding international civil and political rights, it would be equally apt to ask Members opposite how they reconcile their obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights with the trade union closed shop?
The Lord Bishop of TRUROMy Lords, in view of the fact that there appears to be an admitted intention to discriminate on grounds of colour, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Government have sought the advice of the Commission on Racial Equality on the implications of such a step?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, I should like to say to the right reverend Prelate that, if he cares to look at the Written Answer to a Question in another place given by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on 1st November, he will see, I think, that it is not apparent that the proposals are racially discriminatory. They will mean that Asian and other girls from the new Commonwealth who are born here will benefit equally with women born in the United Kingdom from provisions enabling them to bring in the partners of genuine marriages.
The Lord Bishop of TRUROMy Lords, I asked whether the Commission on Racial Equality had been consulted. Js that so, or not, may I ask the Government?
§ Lord BELSTEADNo, my Lords, so far as I know that is not the case, but it is not the case for the reason that I have given.
§ Lord HATCH of LUSBYMy Lords, will the noble Lord agree with his right honourable friend the Home Secretary that the proposals mentioned in this Question are both sexist and racialist; and, if so, does this not directly contravene the pledge given by the Conservative Party in its Manifesto that all British citizens should be treated equally?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, the noble Lord is quite right about the Conservative Party Manifesto, but the Manifesto also said that firm immigration control is essential for good community relations, and it is this that the Government are attempting to achieve.
§ Lord SEGALMy Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the immigration officers (who, by and large, do a difficult task with sympathy and humanity) will give priority to immigrants who are refugees from political and religious persecution; and will he not agree that these immigrants, in respect of whom this country has a great tradition, are likely to prove a far greater asset to the community than those who seek to enter the country because "the grass is greener on the other side"?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, I should like to say this to the noble Lord, Lord Segal. I think it has run across party boundaries that in this country we really have attempted to do our best so far as concerns people who are fleeing from régimes which are harsh; and, of course, the latest example of this has been the tragedy of the Vietnamese boat people. I do not know whether it exactly answers the noble Lord's question, and indeed I think we ought to wait until we have the statement on the White Paper, but may I draw the noble Lord's attention to the second paragraph of the Written Answer given by my right honourable friend the 820 Home Secretary on 1st November, in which he refers to the discretion which the Secretary of State has in looking at applications for entry into this country.
§ Lord AVEBURYMy Lords, on the question of the abuse of the arranged marriage system, is the noble Lord aware that in an answer which I think he himself gave me it was shown that, since the change in the rules in March 1977, only 356 husbands have been refused leave to remain indefinitely in the United Kingdom following the 12 months' probationary period, and that this amounts to less than 3 per cent. of the total number of husbands admitted during that period? Further, is the Minister aware that in neither of the instruments I mention in my original Question, nor in the law of any civilised country, can there be found the notion of reasonable and unreasonable discrimination, introduced in the letter from the noble Lord to me of 3rd August? If the Government really believe in the rule of law, as they say, then why do they persist in doing something which is clearly contrary to the obligations we have assumed, at least under the European Convention on Human Rights, to which Great Britain has solemnly bound itself by its adherence to that instrument?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, to the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question I would simply repeat, without going into statistics, which I have but which I do not think the House wants at the moment—
§ Lord AVEBURYYes, my Lords.
§ Lord BELSTEADVery well, my Lords. In 1973, before the concession was made by the then Home Secretary in 1974, there were some 2,440 husbands who were already here and were allowed to settle. In that year, a further number of husbands were admitted for settlement, making a total of about 3,000 of these men who had then entered the country. In 1974, only one year later, after the concession, some 7,000 husbands were admitted; and last year that total had risen to 9,500. So far as fiancés are concerned, in 1973, before the concession, only a handful of male fiancés was admitted for settlement. Last year, the number was over 2,000. I think those statistics show that this is a practice 821 which not only is deliberately evading immigration control but is increasing. I say that because I think, if the noble Lord will forgive me for saying so, he really is ignoring the fact that there is a problem here, and it is a problem which is on the increase.
§ Lord AVEBURYMy Lords, the noble Lord's figures do not show anything of the kind. Is it not the case that, if the noble Lord wants to show that abuse is taking place, he has to demonstrate to the House that during the 12 months' probationary period, for which husbands are now admitted following the change in the rules in March 1977, further leave to remain is then refused? Is it not correct to say that in a Written Answer to me the other day the noble Lord himself gave the figure that only 356 husbands had been so refused leave to remain permanently in the United Kingdom since the change in the rules, and that this represents less than 3 per cent. of the total admitted during that period?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, I have the pleasure of answering in writing so many Questions from the noble Lord on this subject that I am afraid that one or two of my replies slip my memory. Perhaps the details of this matter are something which we should now debate on the statement on the White Paper.