To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals to repeal the primary purpose rule; and if he will make a statement.

I have no plans to repeal the primary purpose rule, which I regard as an important safeguard against abuse.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that if the Labour party was elected to govern this country it would do exactly what he has said that he will not do. Does he agree that if the primary purpose rule were abolished that would result in a massive increase in secondary immgration to this country which the British people would abhor? Does he agree that that would be disastrous?

The primary purpose test prevents abuse by those prepared to enter into marriage solely to settle in the United Kingdom. It continues to be our policy that genuine spouses should be allowed to join their partners in this country, but any objective person knows that marriage can be and sometimes is exploited as a route to settlement in the United Kingdom and that there must be some protective rules. We intend to retain them.

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement that genuine cases will still be considered. Does he accept that those who abuse the rules and who, by playing the system, are allowed to remain in this country damage the cause of people who have genuine reasons for coming and who do not know how to get in?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Officers in my immigration service try to seek out those who abuse the rules who often, by so doing, keep others out. I remind the hon. Gentleman that about 27,000 spouses are allowed in each year, 7,000 of them from the Indian sub-continent, and that 2,500 are ejected. The rule by no means relates only to the Indian sub-continent. For example, it also applies to mail order brides from Thailand and the Philippines.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that any controls on immigration are bound to be resented by those who fall on the wrong side of them? None the less, strict controls are necessary so that the indigenous population is not subjected to massive new immigration. That is the precondition for good race relations.

My hon. Friend has put it very well. The rule is an important safeguard against abuse by those who are prepared to consider marriage as a device for securing admittance. My hon. Friend may recall that when a Labour Government were elected in 1974 they abolished the restrictions on spouses, but three years later they were so concerned about the numbers coming in that they introduced the marriage of convenience test, which is the forerunner of the primary purpose rule. I am disappointed that Labour now wishes to repeal that rule.

Does the Home Secretary accept that, while we must guard against abuses, it is absurd that a French citizen can enter this country with his non-EC spouse and their dependants under the age of 21 whereas a British citizen cannot marry a non-EC spouse without having to prove a negative under the primary purpose rule? Does not that absurdity merit some revision so that at least a British citizen and a French citizen are placed on an equal footing in this country?

That example does not lead me to the position of the hon. Gentleman's party—that one should scrap the primary purpose rule. If that was done, I am sure that marriage would be exploited, not only by people from the Indian sub-continent but by people in other parts of the world. It is prudent to retain the rule.