Equality Bill

I welcome the amendments of my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham and support the points that he has raised, and some of the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi. It seems clear that the current exception could permit a non-citizen who develops cancer, say, to be expelled from the UK if it is deemed necessary for the public good—and it will be very important to hear what that definition is—because of the possible cost of their cancer treatment to the NHS. As the National AIDS Trust has suggested, it could result in families being split up if, for example, one member has a disability such as HIV and they are refused entry because of the costs to the health system over time. That may not be the Government’s intention, and I certainly hope that it is not. However, if it is not, it is even more important to amend the Bill at this stage and clarify the situation. I note that in Committee in the other place, the Solicitor-General attempted to reassure colleagues that a legitimate aim and proportionality would be considered by the courts when applying this exception. However, she went on to note that that particular route seemed somewhat circuitous. Amendments 58ZB, 58ZC and 58ZE would make clear in the Bill—and there is a lack of clarity, as we have argued on previous Bills, though not of this nature—that the exception could be applied only when it is a genuinely proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. I end by reminding noble Lords that disabled migrants are some of the most vulnerable people in our community, and they face potential discrimination from many different angles. They are also a group who can and indeed have contributed a great deal to our society and who deserve protection from discrimination in the same way as their UK-citizen counterparts. It is therefore vital that the Government clarify in the Bill that this new exception can be used only in limited circumstances when it really is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.