Select Committee on Social Affairs debate -
Tuesday, 26 Nov 1996

SECTION 44.

Question proposed: "That section 44 stand part of the Bill."

Dr. Woods

I note Congress recommended this provision be reconsidered in the light of their recommendations regarding section 41 and experience of the British system. Congress points out that section 44 refers to the Circuit Court and makes provision for the court to request the equality services to investigate equality cases and prepare reports. These reports would be used in evidence in the proceedings.

Congress is concerned this will interfere with the independence of the equality services. It is similar to the British system which has been found to be ineffective, time consuming and over legalistic. Will the Minister give us his views on that?

Mr. Taylor

It is an important provision that the Circuit Court should have the power to request an examination and report from the equality services. They are expert at carrying out these investigations. That is a facility which the Circuit Court would welcome. It is at the discretion of the Circuit Court as to whether the judge would need to avail of that right.

Dr. Woods

The National Women's Council was also concerned about this section. They said:

The Employment Equality Bill provides that a claim for redress may be initiated by lodging a claim with the Director of Equality Investigations or by initiating proceedings in the Circuit Court. The difference between the two routes is that if a claim is lodged with the Director of Equality Investigations the damages which may be awarded are limited to a maximum of 104 weeks remuneration. If a claim is launched in the Circuit Court there is no limit on the damages other than the Circuit Court jurisdiction of £30,000.

There is no justification for having tiers of justice. If the claimant cannot afford to initiate proceedings in the Circuit Court then such a claimant has a possibility of being awarded unlimited damages with the full appeal to the High Court. If the concern is the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the Marshall II case where it was held that a limit could not be placed by national legislation on compensation which would be granted for discrimination, then the question arises as to why the legislature cannot confer unlimited jurisdiction on the Director of Equality Investigations or the Labour Court. It will also be desirable that the existing industrial relations mechanisms for resolving disputes and differences should continue to be utilised with its wealth of experience and expertise in equality matters.

Will the Minister comment on those concerns?

Mr. Taylor

I agree with the National Women's Council that the ideal tribunal for hearing these cases would be the Director of Equality Investigations or the Labour Court. However, because of the Marshall II case awards have to be potentially unlimited. In that case why not give unlimited jurisdiction to the Director of Equality Investigations and the Labour Court? The answer is that constitutionally one cannot because the Constitution rests jurisdiction in the courts and states that tribunals and similar type bodies may only have local and limited jurisdiction. One cannot give an unlimited jurisdiction to award damages to any body other than a court. This is a matter taken out of our control by European law and by our own Constitution.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 45 agreed to.