HL Deb 19 July 1999 vol 604 cc736-8

(" .—(1) This section applies during the period of five years beginning on the date on which—

  1. (a) a non-discrimination notice served on a person,
  2. (b) a finding by a court or tribunal in proceedings under section 8 or 25 of the 1995 Act that a person has committed an act which is unlawful discrimination for the purposes of any provision of Part II or III of that Act; or
  3. (c) a finding by a court or tribunal in any other proceedings that a person has committed an act of a description prescribed under subsection (4)(b),
has become final.

(2) If during that period it appears to the Commission that unless restrained the person concerned is likely to do one or more unlawful acts, the Commission may apply to a county court for an injunction, or to the sheriff for interdict, restraining him from doing so.

(3) The court, if satisfied that the application is well-founded, may grant the injunction or interdict in the terms applied for or in more limited terms.

(4) In this section "unlawful act" means—

  1. (a) an act which is unlawful discrimination for the purposes of any provision of Part II or III of the 1995 Act; or
  2. (b) any other unlawful act of a description prescribed for the purposes of this section.

(5) A finding of a court or tribunal becomes final for the purposes of this section when an appeal against it is dismissed, withdrawn or abandoned or when the time for appealing expires without an appeal having been brought.").

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8. This new clause is intended to give the commission the power to take direct action where an organisation persistently discriminates. This would apply where an organisation had had served on it a non-discrimination notice or had had a tribunal court judgment against it. Where that was the case, the commission could seek an injunction against the organisation if it believed that, without such an injunction, the organisation could commit further unlawful acts.

The court or tribunal judgments that I refer to are in respect of unlawful acts under Part II and Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act. The clause includes a regulation-making power to extend the scope of unlawful acts beyond this. That is consistent with other provisions in the Bill, which provide for the range of unlawful acts to be extended.

Such provisions already exist for the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality. Although these powers have been used rarely, I understand that those commissions have found it helpful to have such powers. I am confident that the disability rights commission will also find such a provision helpful.

For the avoidance of any doubt, I should make it clear that this provision is aimed at persistent discriminators; that is to say, those who have already been through a fair and thorough legal process and have already been judged to be in default of the law. That is why the power to seek an injunction to prevent further unlawful acts—in effect, a speedy way to bring the matter to the attention of the court—is deemed appropriate in this particular set of circumstances. I commend the amendment to the House.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.—(Baroness Blackstone.)

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, my only concern about this amendment is the test for persistency. I do not invite the noble Baroness to elaborate any further this evening; indeed, I accept in good faith that it will be a fairly stringent test and that there will have to be very real, persistent non-compliance. However, it would be helpful to employers to know that it will be an objective judgment as opposed to a subjective one, and that there will not be too much variance between one person's judgment and that of another. Having said that, I have no objection in principle to the amendment.

Lord Addington

My Lords, I believe that this amendment is quite important because it has some teeth—a little bit of bite to back up the bark. As to the last comment of the noble Baroness, I, too, think that that is a very reasonable fear. Nevertheless, I had assumed that it would be taken into account.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

8 p.m.