Clause 96 - Authority to carry
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
9:30 am
Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)
I will speak not only because we jointly sponsored the amendment but because I remember the debates that we had during the Committee consideration of the Race Relation (Amendment) Bill on this and related issues. I, too, am confused, and I follow the promptings of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) on the amendment.
Although it was controversial at the time, the Government insisted that they exempted people performing certain functions in the immigration and nationality directorate from some of the race relations legislation. The justification was that it might be necessary, for example, to stop and search all Bosnians as a group, even though there would be no reason for thinking that they might be terrorists or that they were acting illegally other than information that suggested that there was an issue. I understood the argument, although I did not agree with it and tried to amend the legislation.
We examined the issue earlier when it came up in clauses 6 and 7. We agreed to clause 6, which changes the 2000 Act and limits the exemptions for people performing Home Office functions. That was welcome. I, too, am concerned to discover how far the Government intend to use the clause to discriminate against passengers. The clause provides for a ministerial order in secondary legislation to authorise continuing discrimination on racial grounds. That should trouble us, and I thought that we had agreed to get rid of that.
The hon. Gentleman asked if the clause allows a carrier to make such a distinction. If so, that would be invidious. A carrier flying from South Africa to the
United Kingdom could decide not to allow any Angolans on the plane. That is a thoroughly unacceptable position, and would be a possible risk under subsection (3) if it retained the word ''nationality''. I am conscious that we have not yet seen the draft regulations, and are in the dark as usual.
Subsection (3) states:
''An authority-to-carry scheme must specify—
(a) the class of carrier to which it applies . . . ''
and
''(b) the class of passenger to which it applies (which may be defined by reference to nationality''.
It then refers to
''the possession of specified documents''.
I understand the argument that certain documents, for example a visa, are needed to get on a plane. That may be acceptable, but whatever Ministers intend in subsequent regulations, the subsection appears to suggest that certain nationalities will have to act in certain ways. I imagine that the only justification for that is that a UK national or a British overseas citizen could be treated differently. I could understand it if the subsection meant that a carrier is entitled to differentiate between UK nationals or, at a pinch, UK and European Union nationals, and others, because there is a different rule for moving around Europe.
It would be helpful if the Minister could provide an explanation, as there is considerable concern inside and outside the Committee that the provision harks back to an unacceptable provision in the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.