Clause 20 - Investigations
Equality Bill
9:45 am
James Brokenshire (Hornchurch, Conservative)
The amendments are intended to gain greater clarity on the actions of the commission when it seeks to use enforcement powers or when entering into an agreement with a person suspected of committing an unlawful act, as defined in the Bill. Amendment No. 78 relates to clause 20(2) on the commission’s investigatory powers and, specifically, to the wording on whether the commission suspects that the person concerned may have committed an unlawful act.
The amendment intends to ensure that the commission acts reasonably and responsibly. There is no suggestion that it would not do so, and I am sure that the Minister will confirm that the actions of the commission are intended to be reasonable and responsible. However, in seeking to insert the words “on reasonable grounds”, the amendment intends to give some assurance to the outside world that the commission will act in a reasonable manner, given the strength and power that it will have with regard to resources and funding. The amendment requires that, when the commission determines that it will investigate under clause 20, it will do so on a reasonable suspicion. We do not intend that, if a complaint is made to the commission, it should not take that complaint seriously. It is clear that it should do so; that is a responsibility and duty of the commission. However, it must consider such a complaint carefully before embarking on a full-scale investigation. Amendment No. 78, therefore, seeks to ensure that the Bill guarantees that the commission will act reasonably and that it will initiate an investigation only if it has reasonable grounds for suspicion.
Amendment No. 80 is concerned with clause 23. Various parts of the Bill are worded in terms of the commission’s “thinking” that something is the case. That is rather loose language in the context of a body comprising various individuals who have a collective thought process—an interesting concept in the light of our debate on legal personality. The amendment seeks clarity by substituting “is satisfied” in the context of a situation in which the commission might seek to enter into an agreement with a person whom it suspects of having been engaged in some form of unlawful act.
Clarification is necessary in that context. If the commission is to enter into an agreement with such a person, it needs to be satisfied whether the person has committed an unlawful act. Given that clause 23(3) refers to whether the commission thinks that a person has committed an unlawful act, I suspect that such an agreement would be admissible in evidence in any subsequent proceedings. The wording will give an indication that the agreement had been entered into in the first place on certain grounds, or as the result of a thought process. It is therefore important for the commission to satisfy itself that an unlawful act has been committed, rather than merely using loose wording that might not stand much scrutiny.
Small businesses or individuals approached by the commission on the grounds that they should enter into agreements, because if they do not do so proceedings will be taken against them under the Bill, might feel that they are suffering from an inequality of arms and, therefore, being pressurised into entering into such agreements. It is incumbent on the commission, when considering whether an agreement is the correct way to proceed, to satisfy itself that an unlawful act has been committed.
Amendment No. 81, too, relates to my problem with “thinks” in the context of the commission. It seeks to amend clause 24 to allow the commission to seek an injunction—again, if the commission “believes on reasonable grounds” that a person is likely to commit an unlawful act. That is an important power; the commission can stop unlawful acts and breaches of the equality laws. However, the commission must act reasonably, rather than on a whim. In terms of a court’s armoury, I remember having had an injunction described to me as being like a nuclear weapon. It is incumbent on the commission to act reasonably when deciding whether it should seek injunctive relief. To echo the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest, we must, as much as anything, ensure that we receive good value for money and that the commission considers its actions carefully when committing funds to such actions.
Amendment No. 82, in connection with clause 25, is on the same point again—
“Where the Commission thinks that a person has done an act to which this section applies”,
it may take certain action. The amendment again seeks to clarify whether the commission is doing so on the grounds of reasonable belief. Can the Minister clarify for us the cognitive processes of the commission and explain whether it has the ability to think in its own right?