MR AND MRS HARROW AND THE PRIMARY PURPOSE RULE

As this motion is using historical data, we may not have the record of the original ordering, in which case signatories are listed alphabetically.

This is an amendment to an existing motion

This motion was originally tabled by Mr Chris Smith on 14 July 1992. This is amendment number 1.

View details of the original motion

Suggested amendment

at end add 'urges the Government to abolish the primary purpose rule; and warns the Government that, if they propose the abolition of the primary purpose rule in return for extending from a year to four years the so-called probationary period limiting the right of spouses to apply for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom, this would provoke a storm of protest and subject some spouses, especially women, to blackmail and intimidation.'.

Original motion text

That this House is deeply concerned at the impact of current immigration rules and procedures upon Mr Harrow, a resident of Islington South and Finsbury, and his wife, a Philippine citizen; is appalled at the conclusion by the immigration authorities under the primary purpose rule that their marriage was not a genuine one; is further concerned at the subsequent delays and frustrations in arranging for an appeal hearing; is dismayed by the adverse impact this has had on Mr Harrow's health; is deeply worried that they have now been forced to decide to settle in the Philippines together rather than in Britain, involving the surrender of Mr Harrow's job and livelihood; believes that their determination to be together gives the lie to the assumptions made by the authorities about the nature of their marriage; and believes that this case demonstrates the appalling hardship that can arise from the application of the primary purpose rule.

The first 6 Members who have signed to support the motion are the sponsors. The primary sponsor is generally the person who tabled the motion and has responsibility for it. The date shown is when the Member signed the motion.