Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General, (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Beaconsfield, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 127, in clause 54, page 35, line 27, leave out subsection (3).

I have nothing against the clause, but is there a difference between causing and inducing someone to do something? In fact, I probably made a mistake in my amendment: if any subsection needs to be deleted, it is subsection (2), because I think that inducing encompasses causing, although it is just arguable that causing does not encompass inducing. Whichever way round it is, I should be jolly grateful if the Minister would tell me why both subsections (2) and (3) are thought necessary. There is perhaps a certain amount of overkill here. If a person induces, or attempts to induce, someone to do something, they are causing, or attempting to cause, someone to do something.

Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe & Sale East, Labour)

I look forward to further discussions about amendments that have not been tabled. It might help if I set out briefly what subsections (1), (2) and (3) cover.

Clearly, it is wrong to instruct someone to do an unlawful act—I do not think that anyone disputes that—and that is covered by subsection (1). It is also clearly wrong to cause someone to do an unlawful act; that, we believe, requires a significant degree of influence. It is clearly wrong for people to influence   others in that way. That is covered by subsection (2). We say that persuading a person to do an unlawful act, even when one has no power to cause them to do so, is wrong, too. The distinctive aspect of subsection (3) is that it deals with the fact that a person need not have the power to make discrimination happen in order to encourage it. We should not allow people to encourage unlawful behaviour.

The hon. Gentleman may feel that we have gone in for overkill, but I think that we are making sure that every angle of the issue is covered. I would have thought that he would be enthusiastic to make sure that there were no loopholes through which people could wriggle. The provision is genuinely an attempt to eliminate the possibility of people influencing others to do unlawful things. Through the three measures that I have just set out, we seek to cover each and every angle, so that no one can escape the law.

Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General, (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Beaconsfield, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I can understand his reasoning, but I did not infer that ''cause'' required the exercise of a power to make something happen. The Minister confirms what I already thought: that inducing encompasses causing. To that extent, what I said originally was right. The phrase

''it is unlawful for a person to induce''

would also cover subsection (2). While I am a great believer in keeping legislation short—the Bill runs to 82 pages—and the impact of the provision might be sufficiently marginal for us not to worry about it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.