British rights bill passes

Press, 17 February 1983, Page 9

British rights bill passes

NZPA London The British Government yesterday survived a new attack on its proposed immigration rules, due to take effect today, with a majority of 37.

An Opposition bid to reject the proposals, modified after the Government was defeated on them in December, was rejected 298 votes to 261. In the December vote the rules, which allow husbands and fiances of British women to settle with them in Britain, were defeated 290 votes to 272, a result which followed a revolt by Conservative back-benchers.

In redrawing the proposals the Home Secretary, Mr William Whitelaw, scrapped two out of three concessions he had made to his Right wing, leaving his original scheme almost intact. The withdrawn concessions were that in the case of a foreign husband going to Britain to marry the marriage should last for two years and not just one as previously intended, and second, that deportation would almost automatically follow the break-down of a marriage in those circumstances.

But one concession to the Tory Right remains. This is that the onus of proving that a marriage is not one of

convenience, contracted solely with the aim of getting the husband into Britain, will remain with the couple.

In the House of Commons yesterday, Mr Whitelaw confirmed that there would als6 be no automatic deportation of a husband after two years if his marriage broke down. “It is right in principle that all women who share our citizenship should have the same opportunity to live here with the husband of their choice,” he said. The Shadow Home Secretary, Roy Hattersley, attack : ing the new rules, said there was no possible justification for such “overt and deliberate discrimination."

Limitations on rights to take husbands to Britain would mean that many people in genuine marriages would be kept separate.

He said that Mr Whitelaw had failed to distinguish between arranged marriages and bogus marriages. It was that misunderstanding which had caused so much difficulty. “It is basically a racist attitude, for what it says is customs that are different from ours are offensive and must be penalised and prohibited.”

It would be deeply offensive to prevent these marriages, Mr Hattersley said.