| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): If there was any confusion in Committee, it could only have been in the mind of the hon. Gentleman. There was a very full debate in Committee, the substance of which I repeat now. The purpose of clause 10 is to bring child benefit into line with the other social security benefits for people from abroad, as set out in the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1995.
Amendment No. 9, would subvert that purpose. It would fix the entitlements of some immigrants in primary legislation, whereas regulations would continue to be needed to prescribe entitlement for others.
I do not see why Opposition Members are so intent on removing consistency from the legislation. We made very clear in Committee how we intend to use the powers under clause 10 and we have given the House details of the groups who will retain entitlement to child benefit. I am prepared to run through them again but, to save time, the Opposition probably do not want me to do that.
Mr. Henderson:
Can the hon. Lady confirm that the categories mentioned in the amendments are covered one way or another by her intentions?
Miss Widdecombe:
I was about to do just that--perhaps the hon. Gentleman will hold on. I take it that he does not want me to read out the list of those who would be entitled and those who would not.
Mr. Henderson:
If the hon. Lady can answer yes to my question, I shall excuse her from that onerous task.
Miss Widdecombe:
We have given the House details of the groups who will retain entitlement to child benefit. The hon. Gentleman should now listen very carefully. They will include all the people from abroad specified in amendment No. 9 and more besides. The additional groups are all those--as I explained in Committee--covered by reciprocal and EC agreements.
It seems to us logical and consistent to have all the conditions for entitlement to child benefit for people from abroad set down in one place in regulations. We oppose
amendment No. 10 for precisely the same reason. We made clear, on Second Reading and in Committee, the categories of persons subject to immigration control that we intend to exclude from housing entitlement under clause 9. The main ones are those who are at present without leave and those with limited leave granted on the basis that they will have no recourse to public funds. Asylum seekers will not have access to council housing because that is a long-term resource which should be used for people entitled to live here. Asylum seekers will also be ineligible for assistance under the homelessness legislation, unless they have claimed asylum on arrival, are awaiting a decision from the Home Office and are in priority need.
I regret to have to tell the Opposition that, anyway, their amendments are defective. Amendment No. 10 would merely insert a superfluous list of categories into the definition of the term "immigrant" without substantially restricting the scope of clause 9. The same defect is also present in amendment No. 9.
Mr. Henderson:
I find it strange that the hon. Lady is describing our amendments as defective. The Government have had to make dozens of changes to the original draft of the Bill. Had the Government proposed a more cogent Bill and given more explanation, it would have been possible to identify the category of immigrant referred to in clause 12 in primary legislation and not to have had to leave it to an order that the Secretary of State may issue from time to time.
On the basis of the hon. Lady's commitment that the categories intended to be covered by amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are included in her list, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow):
I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 8, line 3, at end insert--
Madam Deputy Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments:No. 19, in page 8, line 3, at end insert--'Domestic workers--
No. 2, in page 8, leave out lines 29 and 30 and insert--'Interpretation--
No. 20, in page 8, leave out lines 29 and 30 and insert--'Interpretation--
Government amendment No. 49.
No. 58, in schedule 2, page 10, line 21, at end insert--'Persecution on grounds of sexual orientation--
Mr. Gerrard:
I tabled amendments Nos. 1 and 2 with the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), who is unfortunately unable to be present.
The amendments would deal with the discrimination that currently exists in the immigration rules against gay and lesbian couples, which make no provision for any unmarried--or non-marital, to be more accurate--relationship, whether homosexual or heterosexual. Spouses and fiances are recognised, but no other non-marital relationships are explicitly recognised. Some 10 or more years ago, the Home Office recognised reality and issued policy guidelines that covered unmarried, cohabiting heterosexuals. It is, therefore, possible for an unmarried, cohabiting couple--if they are heterosexual--to obtain entry clearance as partners. Obviously, they have to produce evidence of the relationships.
In 1993, some 400 unmarried heterosexuals applied and were allowed to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of the relationships, but similar applications from gay and lesbian couples are routinely refused, despite the fact that there have been one or two immigration tribunal decisions that suggested that it would be appropriate to deal with such an application as a relationship between two people as partners. The numbers involved are quite small--in 1995, the Home Office received 60 applications from gay and lesbian people who wished to remain on the basis of a relationship. In those cases, the average length of the relationship was approximately five years and, therefore, significant and of some length.
The arguments for the amendments are fairly straightforward, and include the effects of the present policy on what are, by any standards, stable, long-standing
and interdependent relationships between people who have every intention of staying together. One example is the case of a 34-year-old man, Mark, who is a chartered accountant and senior consultant with a well-known consultancy firm, earning a good salary. In 1991, he met a 37-year-old Brazilian called Paulo who was completing his PhD in London. They lived together from 1992 and, at the time, Paulo had a work permit. When the work permit ran out, he applied to stay on the basis of the relationship, but was refused. In similar circumstances, an application by a heterosexual couple would almost certainly have been accepted. The couple had been together for four years and had a stable, interdependent relationship. Paulo is now back in Brazil.
People in such circumstances are faced with two options. One is simply to separate; the other--as undoubtedly sometimes happens--is for the foreign partner to make a marriage of convenience to stay in the United Kingdom. Nobody wants that to happen.
I see no reason why relationships of the type that I have mentioned should not be recognised. I am sure that there are a few hon. Members--fortunately, a diminishing number--who believe that no homosexual relationships should be recognised and who regard such relationships with complete distaste, but even they should acknowledge that stable homosexual relationships occur.
The amendments would provide only equality with heterosexual relationships; that is all that is required. I would expect partners to be able to produce evidence to back up their claims that they were in a relationship that they intended to be long-standing and permanent. The change would cause no great difficulty. Some other countries have already recognised same-sex relationships for immigration purposes; Australia, New Zealand and Canada have, as have a number of European countries--Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and Norway. Partnership rights will probably be introduced soon in Spain. South Africa grants equal rights under the 1994 constitution to same-sex relationships. It would not be difficult or unusual if this country were to change the rules.
The amendments would clarify the immigration rules, which ought to refer to an interdependent partner, meaning
As I said earlier, all non-marital relationships technically contravene the present immigration rules, which use the terms "spouse" and
They do not refer anywhere to cohabitees. The amendments would tidy up the immigration rules by stipulating that long-term relationships other than marital ones ought to be recognised.
Amendment No. 58, which has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), acknowledges that individuals are persecuted for their sexual orientation, by proposing that, included in schedule 2, should be the words,
1A. In subsection (4) of section 1 of the 1971 Act (general principles), after the word "dependants", there shall be inserted the words "(including the spouses or interdependent partners)".'.
1A. In subsection (4) of section 1 of the 1971 Act (general principles), after the word "visitors," there shall be inserted the words "or as accompanying domestic workers,".'.
4.--(1) In subsection (1) of section 33 of the 1971 Act (interpretation), there shall be inserted, in the appropriate place in alphabetical order, the words--
" 'interdependent partner' means a person in a genuine and continuing relationship of interdependency with one other person which involves living together and a mutual commitment to a shared life;".
(2) In subsection (4), after the'.
4.--(1) In subsection (1) of section 33 of the 1971 Act (interpretation), there shall be inserted, in the appropriate place in alphabetical order, the words--
" 'accompanying domestic worker' means a person who prior to his entry into the United Kingdom is employed as a domestic worker and who accompanies or joins his employer in the United Kingdom;".
(2) In subsection (4), after the'.
A1. In subsection 2 of the 1993 Act (primacy of Convention), after the word "Convention" there shall be added the words"; and in interpreting the Convention, for the purposes of the immigration rules, persecution by reason of membership of a particular social group shall be taken to include persecution by reason of sexual orientation.".'.
"a person in a genuine and continuing relationship of interdependency with one other person which involves living together and a mutual commitment to a shared life".
"fiance(e) with a view to marriage".
"and in interpreting the Convention, for the purposes of the immigration rules, persecution by reason of membership of a particular social group shall be taken to include persecution by reason of sexual orientation."
22 Feb 1996 : Column 535
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |