Clause 20 - Investigations
Equality Bill
10:00 am
Meg Munn (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Sheffield, Heeley, Labour)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising these issues in such an interesting manner. He provides me with an opportunity to explain the background to the measures to which the amendments refer. If I have understood his remarks correctly, the amendments are intended to clarify the triggers for the commission’s enforcement powers in relation to investigations under clause 20, agreements under clause 23 and applications to court under clauses 24 and 25. They are also intended to ensure that the commission does not act in an unreasonable way.
I assure the hon. Gentleman and all members of the Committee that I entirely agree with those sentiments. We want the commission to be a respected, powerful and authoritative regulator that takes legal action as a final resort, directs its efforts strategically, rather than in a scattergun way and gives value for money. It is right that the commission’s enforcement powers should have serious consequences for the parties in question. As such, they should be exercised wisely and judiciously. On that basis, I can assure members of the Committee that the amendments are not necessary.
On amendment No. 78, we intend the commission to carry out an investigation only when it has reason to believe that the person concerned might have committed an unlawful act of discrimination or harassment. That is what the legal definition of suspects in the clause means; it is implicit that the suspicion must be on reasonable grounds.
Similarly, the Bill’s reference to “thinks” in clauses 23, 24 and 25 contains the same implicit requirement that the commission must have reasonable grounds on which to form its view. It may be helpful to set out what might constitute reasonable grounds in relation to the amendments.