Clause 62 - National security
Equality Bill [Lords]
6:43 pm
Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General, (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Beaconsfield, Conservative)
I should like the Minister to clarify how the national security let-out will work in practice. This ties in with clause 70, which sets out a procedure for national security issues to be raised during court proceedings on the intervention of the Attorney-General. Am I to infer that it will be necessary for the Government to show that a national security angle justifies the discrimination, or will the Secretary of State simply need to provide a certificate saying that national security applies and that is the end of it?
Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
I will need to write to the hon. Gentleman to specify the precise circumstances in which a Minister would sign the document and the extent to which it would be a matter for the court, acting on advice from officials representing the institutions of national security. If there is in fact no difference between those two things, I shall want to make that clear in my letter.
Earlier, we touched on the point that national security cannot be compromised. Even where an element of discrimination might be inherent in an activity, national security must take precedence. We have sought to make that clear in clauses 62 and 70, as well as in other clauses debated today.
As we are touching on clause 70, it may be appropriate to say that it provides for rules of court to enable the court hearing proceedings under this part of the Bill to exclude a claimant or his representatives from the court. Of course, there would be proper judicial support for that individual, who would be able to make a statement prior to the proceedings. The clause also provides for the Attorney-General or the Advocate-General for Scotland to appoint a lawyer to represent the claimant's interests in such cases. There is therefore considerable judicial support for that individual, albeit that it is necessary at times to exclude them from the proceedings.
Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General, (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Beaconsfield, Conservative)
One reason why I was wondering about that was that if the Secretary of State's certificate provides a national security defence or opt-out, why do we need clause 70 at all? Presumably, a case with a national security angle will never get into court in the first place. I wanted a bit of clarification on that. I can infer that a national security angle might suddenly emerge in a case and that the court might need to go into camera or to keep the claimant out. Seeing that the Government have given themselves extensive powers to provide for a national security opt-out, however, it would be helpful if the Minister could set out in his letter exactly how he expects the provisions to operate in practice.
Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
I will certainly be happy to provide that information. I suspect that the level of detail involved will require a letter, and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and copy my letter to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.