Clause 73 - Employers' and principals' liability
Equality Bill [Lords]
7:00 pm
Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General, (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Beaconsfield, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 132, in clause 73, page 43, line 9, leave out subsection (2).
The clause provides for employers' and principals' liability where the default and the discrimination are in fact carried out by their employee or agent. However, subsection (4) states:
''In proceedings under this Part against a person in respect of an act alleged to have been done by his employee it shall be a defence for the employer to provide that he took such steps as were reasonably practicable to prevent the employee from . . . doing the act, or . . . from doing acts of that kind in the course of his employment.''
That is in respect of an employee. I was somewhat surprised to see that no such provision or defence is provided for in the case of the acts of an agent. I am drawing the Committee's attention to that by seeking to delete subsection (2), which would altogether remove the responsibility of a principal for the acts of an agent.
To give the Minister an obvious example, let us say that I employ a letting agent to let a property that I own. He is apparently a reputable letting agent operating in the locality. Unknown to me, however, he is in fact a religious bigot who dislikes the idea of people of minority faiths coming into the area, so, in operating the letting policy, he tries his best to ensure that people of minority faiths are deterred from applying by being surly and unpleasant to them. If they do get a letting, he tries—unknown to me, because I am the principal—to respond very slowly to any request that they make and is generally unpleasant to them.
If those matters are completely outside my knowledge—that will often be the case, as the Minister will realise simply by applying his mind to it—is it right that the principal should be saddled with the default of his agent? There is an easy way to cure the problem, which is to provide for a similar protection to that provided for employers in respect of employees, but the Government have not done that. In the absence of such provision, I am very unhappy about clause 73(2).
Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
In direct answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, no, it is not right that a person who benefits from the unlawful actions of their agent should be able to escape entirely. The intentions expressed are the same as those expressed in section 32 of the Race Relations Act 1976. However, the different wording seems to us, potentially at least, to raise questions about whether the effect is exactly the same. The hon. Gentleman has made a good point that requires further reflection. We will reflect on it further and, if clarification is required, we will bring that forward at a subsequent stage.
Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General, (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Beaconsfield, Conservative)
I am grateful to hear that from the Minister. Part of the problem is that what is an agent is variable. An agent can be someone with whom one has a close relationship or who is operating on behalf of an individual. Alternatively, the relationship may be quite distant. I would not want people to be unfairly penalised or even saddled with a claim when they had acted with complete propriety and the agent's actions were outside the scope of the agency agreement. If the Minister responds positively, I will be very grateful. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 74 to 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Dhanda.]
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Seven o'clock till Thursday 8 December at five minutes to Nine o'clock.