Eleanor Laing (Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, Scotland; Epping Forest, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 85, in clause 17, page 10, line 15, after ‘person’, insert ‘body or organisation’.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 76, in clause 17, page 10, line 18, after ‘person’, insert ‘or body’.

No. 77, in clause 20, page 10, line 35, after ‘person’, insert ‘or body’.

No. 79, in clause 20, page 11, line 9, after ‘person’, insert ‘or body’.

No. 86, in clause 28, page 16, line 33, after ‘who’, insert ‘or organisation which’.

No. 87, in clause 28, page 16, line 37, after ‘individual’, insert ‘or organisation’.

No. 88, in clause 29, page 18, line 13, after ‘individual’, insert ‘or organisation’.

No. 89, in clause 29, page 18, line 15, after ‘individual’, insert ‘or organisation’.

Eleanor Laing (Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, Scotland; Epping Forest, Conservative)

Clause 17 deals with grants, and clauses 28 and 29, to which some of the amendments in this group relate, deal with legal assistance and its costs. We tabled the amendments to find out whether the Government intend to exclude small organisations or charities from receiving any financial help or assistance to deal with cases brought as a result of the Bill, or possibly by the new commission.

Subsection (1) states:

“In pursuance of any of its duties under sections 8 to 10 the Commission may make grants to another person.”

We suggest in amendment No. 85 that the commission should be able to make grants to another person, body or organisation. Although I appreciate that “person” has a legal meaning that is much wider than just an individual human being, it does not necessarily include a small charity, small organisation or small business brought into any proceedings as a result of the Bill. This is important because the Bill imposes considerable new duties on, for example, employers, and rightly so—we want to see those duties imposed on employers.

I have always argued—we dealt with this matter at some length on Second Reading—that it would be unfair and counter-productive, and would inhibit the working of the Bill, if small businesses and small employers, even those with just one or two employees, were deterred by the rigour of the legislation from employing anyone who might bring a case under any of the six strands of discrimination that the new commission will examine. That would do the exact opposite of what we intend the legislation and the new commission to do.

One way we can ensure that a small employer, charity or other small body without sufficient funds to have its own legal advice would not be deterred from employing, entering into a contract with or doing business with someone who might be the subject of a discrimination action is to ensure that funding would be available from the public purse for such an action.

Having said that, I return to my recurring theme: we do not want the costs of the commission and of implementing the legislation to impose a greater burden than necessary on the taxpayer. I am not suggesting—far from it—that any of the amendments should be a charter for encouraging litigation or, as I said previously, that any of the provisions should be an open invitation to lawyers to engage in interesting exploration of the meaning and intent of the law. However, such a safeguard in relation to funding would ensure that the right balance was struck. My other recurring theme is that, if we put too many burdens on business, particularly on small business and small organisations, charities and other voluntary organisations, the intent of the Bill will backfire.

James Brokenshire (Hornchurch, Conservative)

I want to echo some of the comments made by my hon. Friend, and in particular, to focus on enforcement powers. I want to ensure that by making reference to a “person” the provisions are not restricting the enforcement powers—that those powers will be available to ensure that racism or sexism, for example, is not permitted in certain organisations even if they do not fall within the limited definition of “person”.Similarly, as my hon. Friend said, we obviously want to ensure that the grants given under clause 17 are made available to all persons, in the widest possible sense. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the definition of “person”, given its import in relation to subsequent clauses.

Meg Munn (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Sheffield, Heeley, Labour)

I shall deal first with amendment Nos.d¤85 and 76, which, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) said, seek to extend the power to   make grants to cover both persons and bodies. I consider the amendment to be unnecessary. We have provided a power in clause 17 for the Commission for Equality and Human Rights to make grants to what is termed in the legislation “another person”. As the hon. Lady stated, the term “person” in legislation means not only a natural person, but a legal person—that is to say a body of persons corporate or unincorporate, unless a contrary intention appears. That would include a body, a charity, a company or an organisation, so the additional wording proposed by the amendments is unnecessary. The only group not covered by the term “person” in the Bill is a group of loosely associated people, and I can imagine no circumstance in which the commission would want to make a grant to such a group. [Laughter.] That is probably my only joke of the day, so hon. Members should enjoy it. If the purpose of the amendments is to enable the commission to make grants to firms, charities or other organisations, I can confirm that the Bill permits that, so I cannot accept amendments No.d¤85 and 76.

Amendments Nos. 77 and 79 are similar to amendments Nos. 85 and 76, as they seek to ensure the commission’s investigation power applies to a body as well as a person. The Bill applies that power to a person, and for the reasons that I have just outlined, that would also cover a body or an organisation. I can confirm that the commission can conduct an investigation into a company or other organisation. The amendments are therefore unnecessary and I cannot accept them.

Amendments Nos. 86 to 89 are designed to open up the commission’s power to provide legal support. The Bill enables the commission to support an individual victim of an act of unlawful discrimination or harassment. The amendments seek to enable the commission to support organisations that may become party to proceedings brought under the equality enactments. However, organisations cannot be the victim of unlawful discrimination or harassment. The equality enactments provide protection from discrimination only for individuals. If an organisation could not be a victim, the only way it could be involved in legal proceedings is as a respondent: that is, the party against whom the proceedings are brought. It is not our policy that the commission should support respondents of proceedings.

Hon. Members will doubtless be aware that that matter was discussed at some length at various stages of consideration of the Bill in the other place. Concerns were expressed about proceedings in which the litigant had the full support of the commission against a small firm or a small charity. Baroness Ashton sought to reassure noble Lords that we do not have to fear unreasonable or oppressive action by the commission. The commission will work primarily through promoting good practice and helping bodies comply with the law, fostering constructive links with a wide range of bodies, including small businesses—which have warmly welcomed the commission—and charities. We expect the commission to use its   regulatory powers only rarely, and to support cases brought by individuals in only a few cases, such as to clarify important points of law. I emphasise that the commission will use its powers strategically, and following the precedent of the current commissions, will provide support in only a few cases. Together, the existing commissions support only 200 to 300 cases a year, so the notion of the new commission unfairly bearing down on small organisations is wrong.

I recognise the possibility that a small organisation could find itself defending an action brought with the commission’s support, but there are checks and balances that ensure that a body in that position isd¤notd¤disadvantaged. Most legal proceedings on discrimination are brought in employment tribunals, which are specifically designed to have straightforward procedures that make formal representation unnecessary. In addition, in both courts and tribunals, clerks, judges or tribunal members would seek to assist in matters of procedure a person who was unrepresented.

Procedures exist to allow the termination of a case brought before a court or tribunal which is vexatious or does not disclose a cause of action. We now have procedures in place in employment tribunals to sift out claims that cannot be substantiated. A tribunal application will be accepted if the aggrieved party has been through the statutory grievance process with the employer, as required by recent reform of employment legislation, maximising the chance of a non-judicial outcome. Similarly, there are also procedures that allow a successful respondent in court to claim the costs of their defence.

Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 would include organisations in the provision of clause 29 for the recovery of costs for assistance in legal proceedings and are consequential to amendments Nos. 86 and 87, so I cannot accept them.

In conclusion, I am not willing to accept amendments Nos. 85, 76, 77 and 79 on the ground that they are legally unnecessary. I cannot accept amendments Nos. 86 and 87 either, because an organisation cannot be a victim of discrimination and the commission can only provide legal support for proceedings brought by victims. It is not our policy to support parties alleged to have discriminated. As I said, the other amendments are consequential to amendments Nos. 86 and 87, so it makes no sense to accept them. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to consider withdrawing her amendment.

Eleanor Laing (Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, Scotland; Epping Forest, Conservative)

I thank the Minister for that explanation and am pleased that she has given us a statement of the Government’s intention. I am willing to accept the definition that she gave of the legal meaning of “person”. As I said, I fully accept that, of course, but it was necessary to clarify the Government’s intention. I appreciate the fact that my noble Friends in another place dealt with the matter at   some length in Committee and gained similar assurances from the Minister there. I am pleased that the matter has also been clarified here, because it is important that fairness be maintained in any proceedings under the Bill.

I know what excellent work is done by the three bodies that will be replaced and what care is given to the selection of matters as possible court or tribunal test cases. It is important that the ability to do that work will continue when the new commission is up and running. I share the Minister’s desire that a group of loosely associated people should not necessarily come under the auspices of the Bill. That is right, and satisfies my continuing theme of ensuring that costs do not escalate. The legitimate bodies that I have in mind, such as small charities and businesses, are not groups of loosely associated people. They are legal persons. I am satisfied that they will be covered by clauses 17, 28 and 29.

I thank the Minister for giving me the reassurance that I sought and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Meg Munn (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Sheffield, Heeley, Labour)

The power to make grants is presently available only to the Commission for Racial Equality. It has used that power extensively to provide funding for a variety of organisations, including race equality councils, to do innovative work, particularly on local delivery. We have made a commitment that current levels of support for race equality work will be sustained for the foreseeable future. The clause extends grant-making powers across the full remit of the commission and will enable it to provide financial assistance to a wide range of voluntary and other organisations, including those that operate at local level. The commission will be able to use the experience and knowledge gained by those local bodies to inform its work.