Clause 107
Equality Bill
9:30 am
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, Labour)
This is an important issue relating to representative actions, on which we took considerable evidence from the Women’s National Commission, the TUC and others prior to our formal debates in Committee. It is disappointing that the Bill does not contain a provision for representative actions. I will try to be brief and stick to the point, because everyone is familiar with the arguments following the evidence that we took.
As we all know, pursuing an equal pay case at a tribunal is a long, complex and stressful process that rarely delivers equal pay for women. Much pay discrimination has been discussed in previous debates as systemic, and collectively it affects a group of women, yet the courts still have to hear each case individually rather than hearing a group of cases together. Each individual woman making her own claim can suffer emotional and financial costs. As a direct result of that, many legitimate pay claims do not progress to the court stage. Furthermore, the tribunal process as a whole is unnecessarily protracted and financially burdensome to all parties.
Representative actions would ensure that individual women were less likely to be victimised. The process would be quicker and cheaper for all parties and would apply to all women affected, not just those who can take the case. It is no surprise that that is supported by the likes of the trade union Unison, which for many years worked on behalf of its members on equal pay and the single status agreements, which took at least five years to settle, although some cases are still not yet settled.
I can cite the case of some of my constituents, who are carers in the local authority. A large number of women settled their claim without recourse to the tribunal system and received—eventually, after a few years of negotiations—£5,000 in compensation. However, four women in my constituency decided that they would pursue the claim to the tribunal and are waiting yet for a settlement. They did not receive the £5,000 because they are pursuing the claim—the council would not pay the sum without prejudice to the outcome of the case.
To its credit, Glasgow city council did pay the sum, and women who are pursuing the claim there will, I hope, reach a conclusion within the next five years, if they are very lucky indeed. It is to the four women’s credit that they are determined not to take the £5,000, which is a great deal of money for a low-paid worker, but they should not have to do that in the first place. That is a powerful argument in favour of representative actions.
While recognising that the Civil Justice Council is carrying out work on representative actions and collective redress procedures, questions have been asked by citizens advice bureaux and others about whether the CJC’s proposals are sufficient for an effective collective redress regime in discrimination cases. Will the Minister confirm that the CJC is reviewing the technical aspects of that area of law, but is not specifically concentrating on equality law?
The TUC and others believe that the introduction of the concept for equal pay cases via the Bill is appropriate. I would be grateful if the Minister explained why she feels it necessary to await the outcome of the deliberations of the Ministry of Justice, rather than allow groups of employees to take actions in discrimination cases, whereby trade unions or the EHRC could bring a claim on behalf of identifiable groups of women.