Patrick Mercer (Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Newark, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 224, in clause 18, page 17, line 2, at end add—

‘(5)It shall be unlawful for any person imposing any condition or requirement in relation to or on an individual in cases falling within subsection (2) to discriminate against such a person or group of persons on any grounds, including nationality, ethnic or national origins, colour, race, citizenship or immigration status.’.

This is an important clause, because as we have seen already, it underlines the prohibition on requirements to produce an identity card. We have had a number of discussions and arguments about that issue in respect of various parts of the Bill. We therefore thought it both sensible and prudent, to borrow a phrase from the Government, to introduce an amendment that would add a new subsection (5), as shown. I hardly need expound that the intention of the amendment is   to ensure that, despite the conversations that we have just had, use of the card as some sort of racial tool by whatever authority—including the police or other enforcement agencies—becomes an offence if it can be proved clearly. It is as simple as that.

The clause is important, and by adding the simple subsection proposed in the amendment, we would not only strengthen the provision, but have a clear understanding in the Bill of a number of the issues we have described already with regard to illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, Travellers and the like.

Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)

In essence, the amendment seeks to ensure that the Bill is in full compliance with all extant and live statues. I have yet to see the clause that says, “For the purposes of this Bill, the following statutes are not applicable”, followed by a list including the Sex Discrimination Act 1986, the Race Relations Act 1976, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and so on. The Bill must be in full compliance with all existing legislation. That is as it should be.

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s motive, but what he wants is wrong and unnecessary, not least because he is seeking—this is the case in terms of where we are as of this date, or at least where we get to with commencement of the Bill, should it become an Act—to ensure that only the elements that are germane to legislation now should prevail. I am not sure that there is a provision in the Equality Bill that is before the House or soon will be, but sexuality may well become another area that pushes on the body of discrimination legislation. If we agree to the amendment, regardless of whether there is a subsequent Act, such measures would not apply in his terms.

I am not saying that there is a deliberate ruse behind the amendment, but I think that it is right and proper—I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to use this opportunity to say so—that the Bill, along with all the others that will hopefully become Acts, must be fully compliant with everything already on the statute book, unless something says otherwise. That is not the case, so it is compliant. Whether we are talking about the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, race relations, the Human Rights Act 1998 or all elements of anti-discriminatory legislation, we will ensure that the Bill is fully compliant when it is enacted and duly takes effect.

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s motives, but other issues remain afoot, even with all that legislation in place, on which we need to be very careful, not least in respect of what was said earlier about those who are most vulnerable and discriminated against in some way, such as by the authority at the consent point with regard to those with a learning disability. We need to pick up such matters in compliance with other assorted legislation through the established regulations.

The reasons for the amendment are utterly commendable, but the substance of the amendment is utterly unnecessary. I commend the hon. Gentleman on the spirit behind the amendment, but I ask him to seek leave to withdraw it because such matters are already embraced in the Bill.

Patrick Mercer (Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Newark, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister, who has reassured me. Our comments have served their purpose in probing the issue and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)

I did not want to intervene in the debate introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark, but it is important to bear it in mind that several worries were expressed on Second Reading, not only by Conservative Members, but by Labour Back Benchers, that the Bill might lead to a sense of alienation among the ethnic minority communities, especially in the city nearest to my constituency, Leicester, which has a 35 per cent. ethnic minority population, and in the big cities. I note that all three Government Front Benchers represent city seats. Well, Leigh is part of Greater Manchester. I have been there. It is not exactly the rolling acres of rural Leicestershire, but that does not matter.

The point is that we all represent constituencies in which people will feel alienated to some extent because of things that are done to them by the Government. Given the matters under discussion and at such a time, it is particularly important that we are acutely sensitive to the need of the ethnic minorities not to feel outside the normal rights of the citizen. I hope that we can be reassured daily that the Government have that in mind. I am sure they do, but we simply cannot slide by such issues as a matter of course.

Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)

I want to endorse those points—perhaps uniquely, given my record and that of the hon. and learned Gentleman thus far in our proceedings. I take his concerns sincerely to heart. It is our intention, and it will be our endeavour, to ensure that the picture he paints will not prevail.

On a personal note, my constituency has a 45 per cent. black and ethnic minority population and, much to the annoyance of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), it has the largest Gujarati and Hindu population in the country, which pleases me enormously. It is now the centre of British Hindu society.

Of course we take such matters seriously. We must, and whether in respect of ethnicity, racial or disability discrimination, or the other worries raised under the previous amendment, we are much alive to such issues. They must and will permeate all aspects of the Bill, including the 60 regulatory powers when appropriate. On behalf of the Government, I accept with sincerity the exhortation of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough to take such matters seriously.