Immigration Rules (Hansard, 19 December 1979)

§ 42. Mr. Deakins
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if references to recourse to public funds in paragraphs 21 to 98 of Cmnd. 7750, imply any change in existing policy under which children of an overseas student are admitted to State schools;

(2) if references to recourse to public funds in paragraphs 21 to 98 of Cmnd. 7750, imply any change in existing policy under which an overseas student and his dependants are eligible for National Health Service treatment;

(3) if references to recourse to public funds in paragraphs 21 to 98 of Cmnd. 7750, imply any change in existing policy under which an overseas student may claim a rent rebate for which he meets the established criteria;

(4) if references to recourse to public funds in paragraphs 21 to 98 of Cmnd. 7750 imply any change in existing policy under which an overseas student may in certain circumstances receive a local authority award for which he is eligible under the awards regulations;

(5) if references to recourse to public funds in paragraphs 17 to 94 of Cmnd. 7750 imply any change in existing policy under which a visitor to the United Kingdom may receive emergency treatment under the National Health Service.

§ Mr. Raison
The references concerned provide only for immigration control although they do not rule out changes in the other policies mentioned.

§ Mr. Deakins
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if a 218W person in approved employment may claim family income supplement for which he meets the established criteria without this being regarded as having recourse to public funds within the meaning of the proposed new immigration rules;

(2) if the children of (a) a business man, (b) self-employed person, (c) person in approved employment, (d) writer or artist, will continue to be admitted to State schools without this being regarded as having recourse to public funds within the meaning of the proposed new immigration rules;

(3) if (a) a business man, (b) a self-employed person, (c) a person in approved employment, (d) a writer or artist and his dependants, will remain eligible for National Health Service treatment without this being regarded as having recourse to public funds within the meaning of the proposed new immigration rules.

§ Mr. Raison
It is not possible to generalise about the circumstances in which a person in receipt of a particular form of State aid would be regarded as being in breach of the immigration rules as having recourse to public funds. Cases will be considered on their merits.

§ Mr. Tilley
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is meant by implied undertakings in paragraph 88 of Cmnd. 7750.

§ Mr. Raison
Undertakings which are not explicit.

§ Mr. Tilley
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is intended that a passenger shall be refused entry under paragraph 74 of Cmnd. 7750 if he has been convicted in the United Kingdom of a minor offence but was not recommended for deportation by the court under section 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1971 or the subject of a decision to deport him on conducive grounds under sub-paragraph 3(5)(b) of the Act.

§ Mr. Raison
Immigration officers will, as now, be able to use their discretion in such cases.

§ Mr. Tilley
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a passenger will be refused entry under paragraph 74 of Cmnd. 7750 on the grounds 219W of a conviction which is spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

§ Mr. Raison
No.

§ Mr. Tilley
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will give an assurance that no person who has become settled in the United Kingdom will be deported on the grounds that the sponsor upon whom he was dependent is no longer able to maintain and accommodate him and fulfil a guarantee given in accordance with paragraph 42 of Cmnd. 7750.

§ Mr. Raison
We have no plans at present for any change of practice in this respect.

§ Mr. Tilley
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance will be given to immigration officers as to how to determine whether a marriage was one entered into primarily to obtain admission to the United Kingdom, within the meaning of paragraph 50(a) of Cmnd. 7750, notwithstanding the intention of the couple to live together permanently as man and wife.

§ Mr. Raison
Cases would be determined on the basis of whether the circumstances gave rise to reason to believe that the marriage was one entered into primarily to obtain admission to the United Kingdom.

§ Mr. Tilley
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance is to be given to immigration officers regarding the criteria to be applied in judging whether a person's admission would be in the general interests of the United Kingdom within the meaning of paragraph 38 of Cmnd. 7750; and how they differ from the criteria to be applied in determining whether a person's exclusion is conducive to the public good within the meaning of paragraph 76 of Cmnd. 7750.

§ Mr. Raison
It is not possible to generalise about these cases, in which the onus is on the applicant to show that his admission would be in the general interests of the United Kingdom. The circumstances would obviously have to be quite different from those applying to anyone who fell to be excluded under paragraph 76.
220W

§ Mr. Tilley
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it remains the policy of the Government that children under 12 years of age seeking to join a single parent settled in the United Kingdom should be regarded as within the definition of those whose exclusion would be undesirable within the meaning of paragraph 46(f) of Cmnd. 7750, provided that, if the parent is the mother, she can offer adequate accommodation or, if the parent is the father, there is suitable accommodation and a female relative resident in the household willing to look after the child and capable of doing so.

§ Mr. Raison
Yes.

§ Mr. Tilley
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether someone who has completed four years in approved employment and whose employer indicates that he wishes to continue to employ him at the time of his application for settled status will be granted settled status if the employer subsequent to the application but before a decision has been reached ceases to wish to continue his employment.

§ Mr. Raison
In general, no.

§ Mr. Tilley
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that paragraph 119 of Cmnd. 7750 provides for the grant of settled status to someone who has completed four years in approved employment and whose employer wishes to continue to employ him to be at his discretion, subject to appeal, he intends to continue to follow the practice of refusing settlement only where it would be undesirable for the individual concerned to remain in the United Kingdom.

§ Mr. Raison
In most such cases cancellation of conditions will be appropriate but, as paragraph 119 provides, applications will be considered in the light of all the relevant circumstances.

§ Mr. Tilley
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give an indication of what would be regarded as an unreasonable time taken to produce evidence justifying the refusal of an application in the terms of paragraph 88 of Cmnd. 7750 and whether it will in any way be related to the delays experienced 221W by applicants awaiting replies from his Department.

§ Mr. Raison
The circumstances will vary from case to case and it is not possible to generalise. The comparison with the delays in my Department, which are due to the quite different reasons of pressure of work and staff shortages, is irrelevant.