§ Lord AVEBURYasked Her Majesty's Government:
When the policy of the Department of Health and Social Security was changed from that outlined in the letter from the then Secretary of State to the chairman of the Leicester Area Health Authority (Teaching) of 29th April 1976, that is to say, that the production of passports would not be demanded of persons with "foreign-sounding" names; what was the outcome of investigations being undertaken by the local conciliation committee of the Race Relations Board on this practice, and whether they will not seek the advice of the Commission for Racial Equality on the legality of demanding passports in relation to Section 1 (1)(b)(i) of the Race Relations Act, 1976.
§ Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNEThere has been no change. The letter to which the noble Lord refers concerns the practice of singling out one particular group in the community and requiring them, as a matter of routine, to produce proof of eligibility to use the National Health Service every time they seek admission for non-emergency treatment. This remains unacceptable.
I understand that when the local conciliation committee of the Race Relations Board investigated the complaint at Leicester in 1976 they formed the opinion that the practice of automatically requiring Asian patients to produce passports constituted unlawful discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1968 which was then still in force. In view of the fact that the practice was brought to an end before the investigation began, it was thought inappropriate to seek assurances from the hospital, and the case was closed.
1456WAThe Government attach great importance to good race relations and would not condone the practice of requiring any particular group of people, as a matter of routine, to produce passports as a condition of obtaining treatment. But we also attach great importance to effective control of abuse of the NHS by visitors. If staff, on the basis of information routinely collected from the generality of patients find themselves in doubt as to a patient's eligibility, and if they are unable to resolve their doubt by further questioning, then they may properly ask for further evidence, including passports, to enable them to resolve the doubt. This must be done sensitively. I believe this would be lawful under Section 41(2) of the Race Relations Act 1976, since it would be done in pursuance of an arrangement made with the approval of a Minister of the Crown. The interpretation of the law, is, however, a matter for the Courts.