Immigration: Primary Purpose Rule (Hansard, 5 June 1997)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn)

Following our manifesto commitment, we are acting to end the primary purpose rule because it is arbitrary, unfair and ineffective and has penalised genuine marriages, divided families and unnecessarily increased the administrative burden on the immigration system. The rule has also placed British citizens resident here at a disadvantage compared with other Eli nationals resident in Britain—to whom no primary purpose rule has applied.

Applicants under the rule had to prove a negative both before the entry clearance officer and on appeal. But, even where applicants lost their appeal, they would then be allowed in where there was a child with right of abode in the United Kingdom or where the marriage had lasted five years. It is also very doubtful that this inherently ineffective and unfair rule has worked to filter out those who sought to cheat the system. This question is not therefore about numbers, but about fairness.

My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is determined to build an immigration and asylum system that is fairer, faster and firmer. Ending this rule will allow resources to be focused on the other requirements of the rules, which are known to be fair, effective, and enforceable. These include:

First showing that the marriage is genuine: the couple must intend to live together permanently as husband and wife, and the marriage must be subsisting. In other words, it must not be a marriage of convenience.

Secondly, both parties to the marriage must have met.

Thirdly, both parties must demonstrate that they can maintain and accommodate themselves and any dependants without recourse to public funds.

The burden of proof in these cases will remain on the applicant. In addition, couples will continue to be subject to a 12-month probationary period, at the end of which they must show again that their marriage is genuine. This will be firmly enforced.

An amendment to the rules will be made today. Entry clearance officers are being instructed not to refuse entry clearance applicants where the refusal depends solely on the primary purpose rule. Similar instructions are being issued to staff in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. Home Office Presenting Officers are being instructed not to oppose cases on appeal where the refusal was based wholly on the primary purpose rule and the rule will not apply to outstanding applications. However, if an appellant still decides to proceed on his own initiative, he will still have to prove his case to the adjudicator, even though the Presenting Officer will not formally oppose the appeal. Those who have had their case and their appeal refused will be entitled to apply again (on payment of an appropriate fee).