Skip to main content

MR AND MRS HARROW AND THE PRIMARY PURPOSE RULE

EDM (Early Day Motion) 504: tabled on 14 July 1992

Tabled in the 1992-93 session.

This motion has been signed by 23 Members. It has received 1 amendment.

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

Amendment to this motion

There has been an amendment submitted to this motion.

View details of the amendment

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.

In addition to the sponsors, the following Members have signed to support the motion.

There are no withdrawn signatures for this motion.

After a motion has been tabled, other Members can table amendments to it. Amendments to this motion are shown below.

MR AND MRS HARROW AND THE PRIMARY PURPOSE RULE (Amendment 1)
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.'.
Labour, Bradford West
3
signatures
EDM 504A1: tabled on 21 October 1992