Equality Bill

All noble Lords this evening have made a persuasive case in favour of representative actions. We certainly welcome the intention behind the new clause, but we cannot accept it. It would be premature to legislate for representative actions in equal pay cases now because there are a number of difficult issues still to work through in order to understand whether the introduction of representative actions really would promote the better enforcement of individual rights. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, himself said, including a power in this Bill is really unnecessary. Section 7 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 already contains a power to make regulations on procedural rules which could be used to permit representative actions in equal pay claims in employment tribunals. We should think further about the use of this power. I note what the noble Lord said in his speech. I will reflect on that further. Our recent research into how representative actions would work for equal pay cases has shown that this is a complex issue which generates polarised views, although not in this Chamber. Some of the issues we need to work through include: what happens when discrimination cases are brought together with other cases, such as unfair dismissal; the extent to which costs should be borne by the losing party in tribunal cases; how such cases should be funded; whether claimants should have to opt in or opt out of a representative action; how disputes between a claimant and the representative party should be resolved; and how damages should be awarded and distributed to a successful class of claimants. There are also more issues to work through with regard to employment tribunals and the civil courts. This is because representative actions are to a limited extent permitted in the civil courts so that when introducing representative actions for things such as consumer and financial services cases, we will be building on an existing legal framework. There is no similar mechanism for grouping cases in the employment tribunals, so introducing representative actions for discrimination and equal pay cases in this jurisdiction would be a completely new departure. More time is therefore needed to consider the potential impact on the tribunal service. In order to help us work through these issues, the Ministry of Justice will be doing some further work with the Civil Procedure Rule Committee to develop a tool kit for departments to use and to develop flexible generic procedural rules within which any representative action scheme can operate. In conclusion, we recognise that there are problems with systemic pay discrimination. We accept that representative actions may bring great benefits both for individuals bringing claims under the Bill and potentially for defendants faced with multiple claims, and we will continue to look at this issue and may consult in due course. Concern has rightly been expressed around the Chamber about the backlog of equal pay cases and we are looking at whether there is more that the Government can do to speed up the handling of equal pay cases. Indeed, we have already introduced a number of measures to improve their handling. For example, the Employment Act 2008 contains provisions to enable ACAS to target conciliation resources on equal pay cases, with most likelihood of early resolution, and removes time restrictions on ACAS conciliation after an employment tribunal claim is made. We have also taken other actions in this field. But for the reasons I outlined earlier, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.