---

Equality Bill [HL]

My Lords, this gives rise to a difficult and familiar problem that goes well beyond the scope of the Bill—that is, what one does to help the impecunious respondent or defendant in civil proceedings who is not poor enough to receive legal aid, or when there is no legal aid because the case is an employment tribunal. In my personal experience, I can recall only one case in which a very small business may have been unjustly treated because the case had to go to Luxembourg before a knotty point of law could be decided—and the business was a very small one indeed. So I understand the problem and am sympathetic to it. Of course, equality commissions often back cases that fail. The EOC, which is the one that I know best, does not have much money for legal proceedings and is extremely stringent about how funds are provided. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, nodding; she has direct experience of that, too. So they are not some great Goliath against a David or Davida; they have very limited funds. There are mechanisms in place to deal partly with the problem. One involves cost rules, if the case is in an ordinary court. Even in an employment tribunal, if a party behaves unreasonably it can be punished in costs, which is a very useful disincentive to irresponsible behaviour. If a case is vexatious or abusive, a tribunal court will deal with it. But in the last resort, as I am sure will be confirmed, legal assistance can be provided where there is a lack of equality of arms and where not to provide it would result in a violation of fairness under common law or under the convention. The problem is that, if we were to pass this amendment, we would build a conflict of interest into the same body that is funding the weak claimant. It would have to fund both sides. That would be a very difficult thing to imagine.