Equality Bill [HL]

It is an interesting debate, and it reveals different views about how the commission will operate. I start by reassuring noble Lords that it is not intended that the commission should be anything other than supportive of business. We want the commission to work in a positive spirit with business to encourage compliance. It is not about jumping to the courts at the first opportunity. It is about taking a proportionate approach and acting reasonably. We want the commission to engage with business, to offer advice on good practice and do all the things that have commended the work of the commissions to business over the years, hence the support shown by business for the new commission. That is the primary way in which we expect the commission to engage with business. This is about supporting businesses and helping them to make changes where they are needed, not about taking people to court. In the commissions as they are there is a role for enforcement, and there will be circumstances were the commission feels that it is important to support an individual victim of discrimination to bring such a claim. That power is available to the existing commissions. In 2003–04, they picked up 400 cases out of 20,000 cases brought before the courts and tribunals. There is no suggestion that the power of the existing commissions has resulted in spurious cases being brought. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has indicated, the power has been around for 30 years. I have not seen examples of spurious cases, and no noble Lord has mentioned any that have occurred. As a result of the way that we have framed the legislation, I do not expect that any will occur now. As the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, the commission has the power to compel evidence, and I recognise that aspects of that could be onerous, which is why we have   safeguards in place to check the powers of the   commission and ensure that they are not used irresponsibly. I refer the noble Earl to Schedule 2, which enables a person served a notice to provide evidence to apply to a court to have the notice cancelled on the ground that it is unnecessary or unreasonable. That is an important safeguard in the Bill. The Bill provides for representations to be made and for the commission to consider representations made in relation to an inquiry, investigation or assessment. No party is required to make such representation, nor need they be made by a lawyer or legal adviser of any kind. So the first thing I would say to the noble Baroness is that there is no question that the commission will not continue the good work of previous commissions. There have not been spurious cases: cases taken forward have had merit. It is also worth looking at how our employment tribunals currently operate. They have become more straightforward, more accessible and better able to sift through the claims that cannot be substantiated. A tribunal application will be accepted only if the aggrieved party has been through the dispute resolution process with his employer, maximising the potential not to end up in court—a good example of how we try to make sure that only the cases with merit are taken forward. My contentions are: first, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that it would be inappropriate and, in a sense, trying to face in both directions at the same time for the commission to offer the support. I am not convinced that that is the best use of the resources that the Government would put before the commission. Secondly, and as importantly, there are no examples of spurious cases. That has not occurred in the past. The way we have framed the legislation means that it has the safeguards within it, not least the safeguards I have indicated within Schedule 2. Thirdly, the whole premise of the work of the commission is to be supportive of business, hence businesses being supportive of the new commission, which I think is very important. On the basis that I have indicated that the commission is designed to support business, not to hinder its operation, and on the basis that that would be an inappropriate use of resources, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment. In doing so, I thank the noble Earl for his letter, which I received today. I shall be in touch with him about the issue.