Clause 17 - Grants
Equality Bill
9:30 am
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.