Clause 81 - Prohibition of discrimination
Equality Bill [Lords]
9:30 am
Meg Munn (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Sheffield, Heeley, Labour)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for creating the opportunity for the Committee to discuss the exemptions that apply to the intelligence agencies in the context of sex discrimination in the same way that we did when we discussed national security matters in the context of part 2 on Tuesday.
As the hon. Gentleman said, Amendments Nos. 164 to 167 would remove from clause 81 the exceptions provided in that clause for the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service, GCHQ and the parts of the armed forces that assist GCHQ in accordance with the requirement of the Secretary of State.
The amendments would make it unlawful for the intelligence agencies, as we may collectively call them, to commit any act in exercising their functions that would constitute discrimination or harassment. In the light of Tuesday's debate, and from what the hon. Gentleman has just said, I understand that he wants me to set out the rationale for exempting the intelligence agencies from the prohibition on discrimination, the reason why the Government believe that the exemption should remain, and why we cannot accept his amendments.
When we considered the policy on sex discrimination in public functions and any exceptions to it, we paid close attention to all the relevant issues when we developed the exceptions provided for in new section 21A of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. We considered the specific circumstances of sex discrimination and the exceptions to the comparable provisions relating to discrimination in public functions in the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. It is not surprising that many of the exceptions that we have provided mirror those in the race and disability prohibitions, as there are obvious reasons for consistency. That includes the exceptions for certain bodies exempted for constitutional or national security reasons, such as Parliament and the security services.
However, we did not simply slavishly roll forward the status quo into this legislation. Our view is that the exemption is justified. The intelligence agencies need to be as unfettered as possible in the discharge of their activities and responsibilities. We need to remove from them any uncertainty about whether they are falling foul of the discrimination requirements. There may be sound operational reasons for exercising their functions in respect of one sex or another. If they were not exempt, that might constitute unlawful discrimination, and that is simply not what we want to achieve. We do not want to apply such constraints to their operational autonomy, or cause uncertainty about whether they are breaching discrimination laws when conducting activities that have an overwhelming operational logic.
The hon. Gentleman made a fair point about an internal mechanism for dealing with the issue; I hope that he is content for me to write to him to reassure him and other Committee members about the processes. These days, we have to be especially vigilant about national security matters, as I am sure that all Committee members agree, and the arrangements for exclusion of the intelligence agencies from the prohibition on discrimination are proportionate to the need. I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.