Equality Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 192:"Page 32, line 8, leave out paragraph (f)." The noble Lord said: The amendment is in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Lester and Lady Falkner. The clause states that,"““‘public authority’ includes any person who has functions of a public nature””," but that excludes the authorities specified under subsection (3). It is an interesting list that mentions,"““the House of Commons . . .  the House of Lords  . . . the authorities of either House of Parliament  . . . the Security Service  . . . the Secret Intelligence Service  . . . the Government Communications Headquarters, or . . .  a part of the armed forces of the Crown which is, in accordance with a requirement of the Secretary of State, assisting the Government Communication Headquarters””." We understand the reason for and do not intend to question the exclusion or prohibition in relation to those authorities. However, the clause goes further and exempts certain functions under subsection (4). The amendment is in relation to subsection (4)(f). We have difficulty with that paragraph because, under the clause, it is unlawful for public authorities to commit any act that constitutes discrimination or harassment. ““Public authority”” is defined in similar terms to the definition in the Human Rights Act 1998, but is subject to a number of exceptions, with the result that the protection afforded by Part 2 falls short of protection under the Human Rights Act. This is not the first time that those of us in this part of the House have drawn attention to that aspect of law. My noble friends and I took up our serious reservations about the matter during the passage of the then Race Relations (Amendment) Bill. The JCHR is particularly concerned about Clause   54(4)(f), which states that any decision of a public authority to refuse entry clearance or leave to remain, or anything done in pursuance of such a decision, is exempt from duties of non-discrimination and harassment under the Bill. Given the obligations under the Human Rights Act of public authorities that perform immigration functions, including obligations not to discriminate on grounds of religion and obligations to respect rights to private life and physical integrity, the committee is concerned that the Bill applies lesser standards to such public authorities on these matters. I simply cannot understand why the Government can justify this exclusion. The Immigration Act is being implemented by immigration officers and I see no problem with that. But I see problems if the Immigration Act is being implemented in a way that is discriminatory against certain sections of the community. The analogy with stop and search is important here. If, for example, people are stopped and searched on the basis of intelligence reports, I have no difficulty with that. But if they are simply being stopped on the ground of their race, colour, national or ethnic origins, one should be seriously concerned. I cannot understand why the Government need to include those functions. While the Race Relations Act 1976, as amended, also contains an exception from non-discrimination for certain immigration functions, we favour removing Clause 54(4)(f) altogether. That would be the effect of the amendment. I beg to move.