New clause 8 - Monitoring of exception in relation to immigration cases
Equality Bill [Lords]
1:15 pm
Evan Harris (Science, Non-Departmental & Cross Departmental Responsibilities; Oxford West and Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause was proposed my noble Friends Lord Dholakia and Lord Lester in another place on Report and Third Reading in order strongly to urge the Government either to consider a new monitor for immigration to consider the way in which the exception relating to discrimination that we have provided for in part 2 of the Bill works or to extend the duties of the current race monitor to do that. It is important to explain why it is necessary for that to be covered and to ask why neither option seems acceptable.
When exemptions were made to the race discrimination provisions for immigration functions—understandable exemptions given that rules will apply to certain nationalities and, arguably, at least in theory, that may well go beyond nationality, to other factors—the Government appointed a monitor to produce a report to Parliament to show that the exceptions were being dealt with fairly and appropriately. In that way, we are not solely reliant on the ability of often vulnerable people—in many cases, outside this country—to bring appeals or judicial reviews where appeals are provided for. The purpose of the independent race monitor is also to provide public confidence in the way in which that aspect of immigration control is administered. She is paid out of public money to perform that function and annual reports are available.
Discrimination dealing with religion or belief is, if anything, as sensitive or even more sensitive. Part 2 proposes something that is in itself acceptable: exceptions for immigration. That is dealt with under the public duties clause in subsections (4)(f) and (4)(g) to clause 51, which we discussed earlier. Given that this is a more sensitive subject, it is reasonable that the Home Office immigration service and the public would be reassured if there were some oversight of how things were done.
The amendment was described in the House of Lords as a modest proposal and, on Report, the Minister, Baroness Scotland, agreed to take it away and consider it. It was proposed again on Third Reading. The point was made again that it is reasonable to have that assurance and this confidence-building measure in respect of the immigration service. Immigration officers have wide powers and although the police are subject to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, immigration powers are not always subject to it. My noble Friends felt that there was a need to safeguard the way in which the immigration rules are applied. In response, Baroness Scotland rejected the arguments, and I want briefly to analyse her comments so that we can take the argument forward rather than simply repeating it.
Baroness Scotland claimed that the exception in clause 52—I believe it is now clause 51—is
''relatively narrow in comparison with that which is provided at Section 19(D)''—
of the Race Relations Act 1976. She said that it could affect a large number of nationalities and many people, and that
''it may apply wherever there are objective grounds for believing that it is reasonable to subject people of different nationalities to differential treatment for the purposes of immigration control.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 October 2005; Vol. 674, c. 854.]
I understand that there could be a large number of authorisations affecting a large number of people.
Baroness Scotland then said that the discretion to discriminate on grounds of the public good through the exercise of an exception in respect of religion or belief is likely to apply to individuals and is unlikely to be an everyday occurrence. Therefore, it would affect a relatively limited number of people. In that case, one could argue that the race monitor's role could be expanded to cover those cases. It would not require an extra salary, extra staff or an extra provision, so that in itself is not an argument for not doing it, particularly in such a sensitive area. There have already been appeals against the Secretary of State's exercise of discretion. For example, the Government did not win in the case of Reverend Moon. They were not successful on all their assertions. Surely it would be better to have monitoring that would enable the Government to learn from those mistakes.
Baroness Scotland went on to say that it was assumed that the proposal would be a relatively easy thing to do, would not take too much time and would be an add-on that could be easily accommodated. She explained that the people to whom she spoke believed that that was not the case, but it was not entirely clear why.
It seems reasonable for us to ask that the exercise of the exception in this case is subject to a monitor. If we are talking about fairness, particularly in respect of sensitive issues such as religion and immigration, it does not seem too high a price to pay. I hope that even the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) would accept that it would not involve a huge amount of money or time if someone who is already paid were to take on this duty as well. It is a question of having confidence that the exception is used appropriately and fairly, and I urge the Minister to reconsider the Government's position.