Immigration Rules (Hansard, 20 May 1985)

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ Lord Glenarthur
No, my Lords. In accordance with Section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971, the immigration rules are laid before Parliament. There is thus opportunity for Parliament to consider the justification for the rules.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, this is another example of a Question made necessary by the refusal of the Minister to answer a specific point made by me, in this case during your Lordships' debate on women on 1st May. Is it not the case that wives in this country, whether or not they be British citizens, have no right to secure their husbands' entry from abroad, whereas husbands have the right to arrange for their wives living abroad to join them in this country? Is this not a flagrant breach of the principle which the Minister enunciated at the end of our debate on 1st May; that the Government are committed to equality?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, the differences in the treatment of husbands and male fiancés compared with wives and fiancées reflect the need to protect the domestic labour market.

§ Lord Avebury
My Lords, does the Minister not recall that Parliament has considered the report of the Commission for Racial Equality which draws attention to numerous examples of discrimination in our immigration law which some of us have been talking about for many years? During the course of the debate to which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, referred, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, agreed to make certain changes to the rules as a result of that report. Can the Minister say what progress has been made with those moves and whether, as a result of continued reflection on the CRE report, any further changes are contemplated?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will be aware that there are currently three cases before the European Court of Human Rights. The commission's report was an advisory report, and the court's judgment, which will be binding, has not yet been received.

§ Baroness Wootton of Abinger
My Lords, if it is a matter of principle not to discriminate, is it not absurd that that principle should be set on one side, apparently for reasons connected with the labour market?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, despite changing patterns in recent years, men are still more likely than women to seek work, and particularly full-time work at that. The Government have taken the view that at a time of high unemployment it would not be right to make the changes which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, is seeking.

§ Lord Glenamara
My Lords, is not the argument about the labour market entirely fallacious? Is it not the case that immigrants create a demand for goods and services which more than cancels out the effect of the employment of them?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, it was a Labour Government who in 1977 found it necessary to reintroduce tests to prevent marriages of convenience for immigration purposes. In 1979 we were elected with a mandate to strengthen those tests. Having tightened up the work permit system so as to prevent young men entering this country, it would be absurd if we allowed exactly the same young men to come onto the labour market by using marriage as a device. It works both ways.

§ Lord Pitt of Hampstead
My Lords, will the Minister accept that his replies so far have been very disappointing? Does he not agree that the rules in question are racist as well as sexist, in that it is mostly non-Europeans who are affected by them?
Again, will the Minister not accept—I am moving to another side of the immigration rules—that, 4 whatever may be the actual wording of the rules, there is a great deal of discrimination occurring at airports? I have already told your Lordships the story of when I was chairman of the commission investigating the disturbances in Bermuda—

Noble Lords
Order! Question.

§ Lord Pitt of Hampstead
My Lords, one of the members of the commission—

Noble Lords
Order! Question.

§ Lord Pitt of Hampstead
My Lords, I am sorry, but I am asking a question. One of the members of the commission objected to my suggestion that we should write a report because of the discrimination experienced at Heathrow Airport. Will the Minister not agree that, whatever may have been the decisions of the House, it is right to look at rules which it is suggested are discriminatory to see whether that is so?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I entirely reject the noble Lord's assertion that the rules are in any way racially biased. The immigration rules stipulate quite clearly that the control of immigration should be administered without regard to race, colour or religion; and any breach of this requirement would be dealt with by means of disciplinary procedures.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, why is it, then, that discrimination on sex grounds is necessary, according to the Government's criterion? Is it not the case that a large number of women born abroad who come to this country take full-time employment? I believe that the last figure was 41 per cent. of Asian women. Are the Government protecting the male labour market or protecting the total labour market; or is this simply another sign that the Government believe in a male dominated society in which the man is considered to be the head of the household and the breadwinner?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord is suggesting that because the rules apply to men in this way they should apply also to women. It has not been considered necessary, up until now, to apply the tests to foreign wives and fiancées, but we continue to monitor any evidence of abuse of the marriage rules by women to secure admission into this country.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the same rules apply to the European Community to protect the employment market? Does he not also believe, bearing in mind the conflict there is over this problem, that there should now be a new, full-scale inquiry into the whole issue?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I should have thought that it would be better to wait for the judgment from the European Court of Human Rights.