---

Equality Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 35:"Page 3, line 26, at beginning insert ““But””" The noble and learned Lord said: This group of six linked amendments is intended to slightly refine the provisions on national security matters that we introduced in Committee. They relate to Clause 6, which limits disclosure by the commission of certain types of information. It prevents the disclosure of information provided to the commission by an intelligence agency unless that agency has authorised the disclosure. Amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 37 clarify that information subject to enhanced protection by reason of its national security sensitivity will now include information ““relating to”” an intelligence service as well as information ““provided by”” an intelligence service. The purpose of this clarification is to ensure that the statutory provision in subsection (4) that prohibits the commission from disclosing any information provided by an intelligence agency without its consent now extends not only to material provided by an intelligence service—that is, the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service or Government Communications Headquarters—but material relating to an intelligence agency which may have been provided to the commission by a third party. Since the aim of this provision is to prohibit the disclosure, even in a commission report of an inquiry or investigation, of information that would prejudice national security, it seems sensible to include information relating to, as well as provided by, an intelligence service. Subsection (4) of Clause 6 will therefore now provide that the commission may not disclose information relating to, as well as that provided by, an intelligence service, unless the relevant intelligence service itself authorises the disclosure. Schedule 2 provides powers for the commission to issue a notice requiring the provision of information during an inquiry, investigation or assessment of a public sector body and if necessary seek an injunction to enforce the notice through applying to the county or sheriff courts. In the case of an intelligence service a different procedure applies. An intelligence service may give notice to the commission that it intends to disregard the notice on specified grounds of national security. The commission may, however, apply to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal to have the notice enforced. Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 to Schedule 2 provide necessary instruction on the procedure that the tribunal should follow. They provide that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal must apply the principles of judicial review in considering an application by the commission for an order to enforce a notice it has issued to an intelligence service to disclose information. In the absence of such a provision, it is likely that the tribunal would apply judicial review principles, but it would not be obligatory. Since the policy intention is that such principles are applied, for the avoidance of doubt it seems sensible to make express provision for that on the face of the Bill. That is what we have done. Amendment No. 92 extends the class of material that the commission will be required to protect, in a way that the Secretary of State may specify, to include information or documents relating to an intelligence service as well as information and documents provided directly to the commission by the intelligence service. This is a similar provision to the amendment that I have just mentioned. Previously, the Bill applied a statutory bar to disclosure without consent only to material provided by the intelligence services. Likewise, the commission would be under an obligation only to protect documents provided by the services. This amendment and Amendment No. 36 extend the provision to cover materials relating to the intelligence service. I beg to move.