30.When an employee experiences harassment or discrimination, if they are unable to resolve their dispute internally with their employer, the case can be taken to an employment tribunal to be heard by a judge. Employment tribunals are less formal than courts and were originally intended to provide a forum for employees and employers to settle employment disputes in a way that was accessible and took into account the reality of the workplace. However, the proportion of individuals who say they have experienced workplace discrimination or harassment and go on to pursue cases at tribunal is very low.
31.The prospect of being taken to tribunal does not act as an incentive to employers to comply with the law. What is more, employees face what are often overwhelming barriers to pursuing a tribunal case, including the three-month time limit to bring a case, the potential to be written off as a troublemaker by other employers and the fact that the cost of legal advice could far exceed potential compensation. These are all serious risks that employees have to weigh up even in clear cases of unlawful discrimination. These barriers are discussed in more detail below.
32.Rosalind Bragg of Maternity Action told us that while about three quarters of pregnant women and new mothers in the workplace will experience some form of pregnancy and/or maternity discrimination, only around three per cent. will pursue a formal grievance and fewer than 1 per cent. will go to tribunal. Joeli Brearley of Pregnant then Screwed suggested that only 0.6% of women who encounter discrimination raise a tribunal claim. In our 2018 Report, we highlighted the EHRC’s estimate that there had been only 18 tribunal claims alleging sexual harassment in the previous year.
33.Since February 2017, employment tribunal decisions have been published online and are easily searchable. As employment lawyers Brahams Dutt Badrick French explained, “with the recent introduction of the online database of Employment Tribunal decisions, on which all Tribunal judgments are published, the names of claimants and details of their claims, including the treatment they suffered, can become easily publicly accessible by a google search.” Several witnesses highlighted concerns about being seen as a troublemaker as a significant reason why many potential claimants would prefer to settle confidentially rather than pursue a discrimination claim to tribunal. Rosalind Bragg told us:
There is this very well-founded fear amongst women that, if they talk about having had problems at work, even if their problem is not of their own making, they will be labelled as a troublemaker and they will find difficulties getting new employment.
34.We heard from individuals who believed that their career had been blighted—in some cases for decades—because prospective employers were aware of discrimination complaints that they had raised against a previous employer. Some individuals had suffered significant press intrusion and inaccurate reporting around their tribunal case. Other individuals told us that they had signed NDAs partly to protect their career and reputation from the very public fallout of the tribunal process.
35.In our 2018 Report, we raised concerns about whether the protections within the tribunal system—for example around anonymity—were sufficient to protect individuals with claims alleging sexual harassment. During that inquiry, employment lawyer Andrew Taggart of Herbert Smith Freehills LLP told us that claimants could apply for restricted reporting orders “so that there are restrictions on the reporting of the name of an individual”, but that these did not give full anonymity, with the final decision still being published. He also suggested that a review could help to establish whether further protections and modifications to the employment tribunal system were needed to enable those with discrimination cases to bring their case with dignity.
36.We recommended in our 2018 Report that the Government take steps to ensure that “tribunal claimants alleging sexual harassment that could constitute a sexual offence should have access to similar protections to those available to complainants in sexual offence cases in the criminal justice system”, such as lifelong anonymity. The Government response stated that “The Employment Tribunal Rules of procedure [ … ] allows for parties to request anonymity for any length of time, including lifelong anonymity should they require this.” However, Brahams Dutt Badrick French have suggested that anonymity is “far from automatic” and have raised the concern that “claimants with unusual names (often from ethnic minorities)” might be more disadvantaged than others by the practice of publishing tribunal decisions online.
37.We are concerned by the evidence that online publication of tribunal judgments has increased the risk for claimants of being blacklisted by future employers, and that this is a significant barrier to potential claimants bringing discrimination claims. We note that it is possible to be granted anonymity within the employment tribunal system but we are not convinced that this would be apparent to potential claimants and litigants in person. Indeed, the impression we have received from experienced employment lawyers is that anonymity is hard to obtain and rarely granted. We are particularly troubled by the suggestion that ethnic minorities may be disproportionately disadvantaged by the online reporting of tribunal judgments.
38.We have previously highlighted our concerns about the three-month time limits for lodging certain discrimination claims at tribunal and the deterrent effect that the limit has on those considering making a tribunal claim. We have also made clear our concerns that particular groups, such as those who have been the targets of pregnancy or maternity discrimination or of sexual harassment, may be disproportionately disadvantaged by the short time limit. The need for longer time limits in such cases is well-evidenced in our 2016 Report on Pregnancy and maternity discrimination and our 2018 Report on Sexual harassment in the workplace.
39.During this inquiry, Ministers told us that the Law Commission has been consulting on whether to extend time limits and that a Government consultation is also expected. We are still awaiting details of when that Government consultation will take place. With that in mind, we will not rehearse here the arguments for extension, except to say that the evidence we have received for this inquiry provides further support for such an extension. We reiterate our previous calls for time limits to be extended to six months in cases where sexual harassment, or pregnancy or maternity discrimination, is alleged. Likewise, we reiterate our call for a wider review of the time limit in all discrimination cases.
40.We are concerned that particular groups of people, or people with particular types of claim, may be disproportionately disadvantaged by aspects of the tribunal system. We have outlined particular concerns about how short time limits and online reporting of tribunal judgments might disproportionately affect particular groups. We consider that an equalities review of the tribunal system is long overdue. We must have confidence that the system set up for dealing with complaints of workplace discrimination is not itself having a discriminatory effect.
41.We note that the Law Commission consultation on time limits is part of a wider review of “the jurisdictions of the employment tribunal, Employment Appeal Tribunal and the civil courts in employment and discrimination matters” However, this review is focused on jurisdiction and limits, and does not address equality of access more broadly or potentially discriminatory systemic elements.
42.We recommend that the Government commission an equalities review of the employment tribunal system and report publicly on its findings. The review should consider whether particular groups of people, or those with particular types of claim, are being disproportionately disadvantaged by the way that the tribunal system currently operates and whether modifications to the system are required to rectify this. The review should look not only at those who have lodged tribunal claims, but should also seek evidence from those who have considered bringing a claim but been deterred from doing so.
43.Lack of access to legal advice is another major barrier to bringing discrimination cases to tribunal. Rosalind Bragg of Maternity Action told us:
There is a huge shortage of affordable legal advice for women who experience pregnancy and maternity discrimination. There is essentially no legal aid support here. There is a very minimal provision, and it is wholly inadequate for women who wish to pursue a case. They do not have access to support at tribunal. [ … ] there is very limited advice available that allows them to clarify whether they have in fact experienced discrimination and what their options are.
44.Alternative options for those who cannot afford to instruct a lawyer and who do not qualify for legal aid include legal advice offered through household insurance, trade unions, legal advice centres and lawyers working on a no-win, no-fee basis. The Employment Lawyers Association has suggested that such options are “rarely satisfactory for those seeking to settle or litigate sensitive harassment or discrimination claims”. Professor Dominic Regan, a special adviser to the Association of Costs Lawyers and visiting Professor at City Law School, London, suggested that solicitors will “regularly act on a ‘no win, no fee’ basis if they think the case has real merits” but that they “will avoid difficult cases because they will run the risk of putting in many hours of work for which they will never be paid.” He went on to suggest that in such cases lawyers will usually take the maximum allowable payment for their work of 35% so that successful claimants “will therefore see a sizeable slice of their compensation go to their legal representatives”.
45.The individuals we heard from also identified the lack of affordable legal advice as an issue. One individual stated that “[l]egal advice is cost prohibitive”. Another described having to pursue a claim as a litigant in person because they weren’t in a union and their home insurance provision “appeared to cover employment only for minimal phone help”.
46.Lucy Frazer QC, Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice, told us that “ legal aid is available for Equality Act claims—claims under the Equality Act 2010 or any earlier discrimination legislation for discrimination, harassment or victimisation.” She added that access to this support was subject to “means and merit” testing and that it covered advice. However, employment lawyers and others have suggested that access to legal aid is very limited. The ELA stated that it “is not normally available to employees, even those with very low earnings.” Emma Webster said that “[t]here is no legal aid that supports anybody through the tribunal process.”
47.The limited extent of legal aid in discrimination cases was set out by the Minister in further written evidence. She clarified that, currently, those seeking legal aid must go through the Civil Legal Advice (CLA) gateway—a telephone service in which their case is assessed. If “their case appears to be eligible and the statutory tests of means and merit tests are met”, they are then referred to one of the specialist discrimination providers for further advice. This advice will be given remotely if the case is considered suitable for this, and face-to-face if not. Legal aid for representation at first-instance tribunal is “not generally available” for discrimination claims, but applications can be made for representation at Employment Appeal Tribunal. She also set out the current means test, including that an individual must not have: a monthly gross income over £2,657; a monthly disposable income over £733; or disposable capital over £8,000.
48.Government statistics show that in the first three quarters of the financial year 2018–19, there were 11 applications for civil representation for discrimination cases, of which six were granted. In 2017–18, there were 10 such applications, of which nine were granted. The figures for legal advice show that in the first three quarters of financial year 2019–19, there were 1,420 matters started in which “legal help and controlled legal representation” was available in the discrimination category. In 2017–18, there were 1,836 such matters started. The Minister noted that these figures did not include discrimination claims funded under other categories, such as housing. However, she also informed us that the Government was “concerned by the fact that these numbers are low” and suggested that this “may be due to the mandatory telephone gateway”. She added that the Government had therefore “committed to removing the mandatory element of the telephone gateway so that face to face advice will be available in the future” in the hope that this would “improve access to legal aid.”
49.We are concerned by the lack of affordable legal advice available for employment discrimination cases. We hope that an awareness-raising campaign will help signpost employees to the free advice that is available, and that such advice will be improved. However, tailored advice will be needed by many employees and access to legal aid for discrimination cases is very limited. The Government should review legal aid thresholds and monitor the effect of the changes it is making to improve access to legal aid. We make further recommendations on the provision of legal advice on the content of NDAs below.
50.It has been argued that tribunals are accessible to those who do not have legal representation, because they are less formal than other courts. Minister Lucy Frazer QC told us:
The tribunal system is set up to ensure that it is less formal than a court process. Our tribunal judges are trained to appreciate that people might not always have legal representation, so they are trained to understand and stop oppressive questioning, for instance. [ … ] Our tribunals [ … ] are extensively used across the board, often with great success, by applicants who are unrepresented. Of course one can always improve the system, but I think they offer a good service for those people who want to use them.
51.However, The Employment Lawyers Association (ELA) has suggested that while employees “do not, technically, need to instruct lawyers to go to Tribunal [ … ] they are likely to be at a disadvantage if they do not and their employer and/or the perpetrator does.” During our 2018 inquiry we heard compelling evidence from the Free Representation Unit (FRU) about the particular challenges and barriers for litigants in person bringing a tribunal claim involving a complaint of sexual harassment. One litigant in person described how they were supported through the process by a friend, who spent hundreds of hours preparing documents and supporting them emotionally. They outlined how delays in the process meant that it took almost two years to get to a hearing and suggested that the employment tribunal system was no longer set up for individuals to represent themselves. They described how the experience had affected them:
If it was not for the kindness shown from a friend, [ … ] I would not have been able to get as far as I did with the employment tribunal case, if at all. [ … ] The technical process of the employment tribunal is potentially overwhelming for a lay person. Hundreds of people, each year must be put off going through the process. The length of time the process takes creates what feels like unrelenting stress and must also deter applicants seeing the process through. Add to this personally for my claim, my very limited income as I’d been sacked and the humiliation and injustice I felt. [ … ] As a result of the initial allegation, during the subsequent two-year process, and until the present time, I have suffered immeasurably with my mental and physical health.
52.We note that discrimination cases tend to be both complex and sensitive, and that this makes them more onerous for claimants to pursue as litigants in person. Claimants may be dealing with significant emotional fallout from the original dispute, as well as, often the stress of being without employment. In addition, the more complex the claim, the more difficult it will be for them to gather and collate evidence, and the longer may be required for a hearing. We are concerned that the tribunal system may have become too onerous for litigants in person with complex discrimination claims. We are currently considering this issue further in our inquiry on Enforcing the Equality Act: the law and the role of the EHRC, but it is clear that many people either do not know of, or do not have access to, support in navigating an increasingly complex tribunal system. We recommend that the Government review the practical support currently available to litigants in person, in consultation with Acas and other relevant organisations, with a view to filling gaps in support.
53.As we highlighted in our 2018 Report, tribunal awards are low and costs can be high. In contrast to other forms of civil litigation, each party pays their own legal costs regardless of the result.. Consequently, even in cases where the claimant “wins”, their legal costs may not be covered by the compensation. The ELA has highlighted the cost risks of taking forward a case, setting out the likely minimum legal costs and the average award:
Tribunal litigation is expensive and very time consuming for participants and lawyers and, accordingly, pursuing litigation to the Tribunal is not undertaken lightly by those who are advised properly. For example, irrecoverable legal costs associated with a properly run discrimination / harassment claim that is taken through Tribunal without settlement are unlikely to be less than £10,000. The average Tribunal award for sex discrimination, according to Tribunal figures is £19,152.
54.The ELA added that the even after abolition of tribunal fees, “employees are normally at a huge disadvantage, because of their typically more limited financial resources.” We note that the costs of going to tribunal can be far higher than the minimum figure of £10,000 given by the ELA. In a recent employment tribunal case in which sexual harassment was alleged, The Times reported that the claimant—former City worker, Nathalie Abildgaard—had legal costs of £100,000. In this case, her legal costs were exceeded by her reported settlement of £270,000, but they give an idea of the potential cost risks. Ms Abildgaard was quoted as stating:
The barriers for individuals to get access to justice are too high. [ … ] It’s been incredibly expensive and time-consuming. I was only able to do this because I have no financial commitments—I don’t have children and have no mortgage or student loan. This is not the case for most people. [ … ] It’s been an exhausting process, incredibly stressful [ … ] I had to withstand a lot of hostile behaviour from the respondents. You’re against someone who has almost unlimited resources compared with you.
We heard similar sentiments from individuals who had pursued cases at tribunal or had considered doing so. Some of those we heard from had suffered severe financial loss as a result of taking a case to tribunal. Others had settled their case because they felt that extreme inequality in the resources available to them, in comparison to those available to their employer, meant there was little realistic prospect of them winning their case and recovering their costs.
55.Several legal experts agreed that concerns about costs and low awards are a key barrier to potential claimants bringing a claim and one of the main reasons for settling cases instead of pursuing them. Julie Morris, Employment Solicitor and Head of Personal Legal Services, Slater and Gordon, said:
The reality is that the legal costs of going to tribunal, coupled with the fact that the remedy in the tribunal is relatively limited [ … ] mean that it very rarely makes financial sense to go all the way to the tribunal. If your employer is making an offer to you that stops you having to incur those costs and compensates you for your claim, in most cases they will take that financial settlement. Most employees will have a price at which they are prepared to settle. It has become the absolute norm that in return the employer would expect an NDA as part of the price of that settlement.
56.This was echoed by the evidence we received from individuals. One witness told us that she would not have considered pursuing her tribunal claim had she not received no-win, no fee legal support from her solicitor and an offer of pro bono advocacy if the case went to a hearing.
57.Compensation for discrimination cases in the employment tribunal is split into financial losses, including lost salary and bonuses, and non-financial losses, and so settlements can be high where the employee has lost a highly paid job. However, the claimant is expected to prevent or reduce their financial losses—for example by taking reasonable steps to obtain alternative employment—and compensation will not be awarded for any loss that should have been prevented but was not. Non-financial losses include injury to feelings, personal injury, psychiatric harm and aggravated damages, and these can be awarded even where there is no financial loss. Injury to feelings compensation is assessed using guidelines known as Vento bands or guidelines, which set out three bands of potential awards. The Vento band guidelines are reviewed annually by the Presidents of the Employment Tribunals in both England and Wales, and Scotland. The current guidelines suggest payments of £900 to £8,800 for “less serious cases” in the lower band; £8,800 to £26,300 for cases in the middle band, which “do not merit an award in the upper band”; and £26,300 to £44,000 for “the most serious cases” in the upper band. Only “the most exceptional cases” will receive awards exceeding £44,000.
58.We heard from Californian employment lawyer Peter Rukin about the very different regime in California, where compensation awards can be much higher. He told us:
Obviously, it depends on the facts of the case. It depends on what jurisdiction you are in. [ … ] Generally speaking, when we are talking about sexual harassment claims that are meritorious and that would go to trial and potentially obtain a successful verdict, you are talking about values ranging from tens of thousands of dollars to millions of dollars. There are cases where multi-million dollar verdicts have been given in sexual harassment claims.
59.While it is usual for each party to pay its own costs in the UK, tribunals may make costs orders requiring one party to pay the other’s costs where there has been “unreasonable conduct”, but such orders are rare. Professor Dominic Regan has set out how in county or High Court cases, “pressure can be exerted on claimants by threatening to pursue costs if an offer was not accepted and, at the hearing, the claimant recovered less.” Those courts have different cost regimes to tribunals and so the use of such tactics should be less common at tribunal. However, we have heard that such threats are being used, even though they may be unenforceable. Claimants who do not have legal representation may be particularly vulnerable to such tactics. One litigant in person described reluctantly settling for a sum that was “as much as I could have hoped for if I had been successful in my claim” but that was “conditional on the inclusion of a NDA”, because they were concerned about being pursued for the other side’s legal costs if they did not. They stated:
I totally abhor NDAs and from the outset had said I would never sign one. I wanted to see the tribunal through to the end. [ … ] My case was strong, and I had no doubt I would win at the tribunal. Unfortunately, because of the substantial amount offered, I knew that even if I had won at the hearing, it was possible that if a judge awarded me less than the Respondent, they could then have applied to the court for their costs. This can happen if a judge decides that it was vexatious, to continue with the full hearing when what is considered to be a reasonable offer has been made. I did not want to take the risk, given that costs were likely to be extensive, with the amount of time allocated to the hearing, and that the Respondent would likely be employing solicitors and Barristers.
60.We are concerned that fears about being pursued for employers’ legal costs may be driving individuals to agree to settlement terms such as confidentiality clauses that they do not want which cover up unlawful behaviour. This may be due to a lack of clarity around the costs regime, or to the use of potentially unenforceable threats by the other party or their lawyers. The Government must ensure that there is adequate guidance for tribunal judges and litigants about the circumstances in which a refusal to settle a claim may be considered “unreasonable”. This guidance must be made clear and accessible to litigants in person and should set out that refusal to agree to an NDA should never, in itself, be deemed unreasonable behaviour in this regard.
61.We were interested to hear from Californian employment lawyer Peter Rukin about the one-way cost shifting system that operates with employment cases there, with employers paying employees’ costs if the employee’s case is upheld. He explained how this drives companies to settle meritorious cases, stating:
Under California law, if the company loses a trial they not only have to pay their own lawyers’ fees, they not only have to pay a damage reward to the employee but they also have to pay the employee’s lawyers’ fees incurred in the litigation of the case. Really, there is significant exposure. If you have got any kind of meritorious sexual harassment claim, there is very significant exposure. In my experience, it is the risk of that exposure that really drives the settlement process.
He went on to explain that “the cost of litigation for either side in a harassment case can run up into easily well beyond the tens of thousands of dollars, into the hundreds of thousands of dollars”, noting that “those fee awards may be larger than the actual damage awards to the employee”.
62.Employment lawyer Julie Morris suggested that if this approach were adopted in the UK, it might give employees “much more of an appetite to fight and not have to take a settlement because they cannot afford to fight”. She also highlighted the need to consider how such a system might apply to smaller employers. Another employment lawyer, Jane Mann, suggested that such a cost-shifting system was worth considering here “because the imbalance is a massive issue”. However, she also drew attention to the need to “have regard to the interests of the employers”.
63.In our 2018 Report we called on the Government to “improve the remedies that can be awarded by employment tribunals and the costs regime to reduce disincentives to taking a case forward.” We recommended that tribunals “should be able to award punitive damages and there should be a presumption that tribunals will normally require employers to pay employees’ costs if the employer loses a discrimination case in which sexual harassment has been alleged.” The Government recognised, in its response, concerns about costs and about being pursued for employers’ costs, “dissuading people experiencing sexual harassment in the workplace from enforcing their rights”, but did not set out any actions it would take to tackle this problem. This is unacceptable.
64.Whilst recognising the problem, the Government rejected our recommendation for punitive damages on the grounds that “the current range of remedies available to Employment Tribunals [ … ] offers significant deterrent to employers and compensation to workers” and that the “fundamental purpose of a tribunal award is to compensate a party for the detriment suffered and to restore them to the state they would have been in had that treatment not occurred”. It is clear that the current regime is not a deterrent to employers but is a significant deterrent to employees. The Government has stated that it will raise the aggravated breach penalty, for cases with deliberate or malicious breaches, from £5,000 to £20,000. Currently, however, these penalties are awarded rarely. It rejected our recommendation on cost awards stating that this would “raise questions of whether the reverse should apply: that people accused of sexual harassment and against whom the case was not proved should be automatically awarded costs from the complainant”.
65.The Government is wrong in its assertion that there is currently “significant deterrent” and compensation for unlawful discrimination within the tribunal system. The evidence we have received from legal experts and from individuals attempting to use the tribunal system demonstrates that this is not the case. Employment lawyers routinely advise potential claimants with strong cases of unlawful discrimination against using the system because the risks outweigh the potential benefits. A rebalancing is required. We also challenge the suggestion that the tribunal system is meeting the stated aim of compensating parties for the detriment suffered and restoring them to the state they would otherwise have been in. When compensation awards are significantly depleted by, or fail to cover, the legal costs of bringing a case, then that party is not being restored to the financial state they would have been in had that treatment not occurred. In addition, no account is being taken of the significant financial and reputational risk of bringing a case in the first place.
66.The Government is wrong to suggest that one-way cost shifting for employment claims would not be defensible. It would be a welcome step towards redressing the imbalance of power, where this exists, between employers and employees with a discrimination dispute. In addition, compensation awards must be significantly increased to incentivise employers to do more to prevent discrimination and harassment in the workplace. This can be done through the introduction of punitive damages and by increasing the current awards available for non-financial losses such as injury to feelings and psychiatric harm.
67.We call again on the Government to urgently improve the remedies that can be awarded by employment tribunals as well as the costs regime to reduce disincentives to taking a case forward. Tribunals should be able to award punitive damages and there should be a presumption that tribunals will normally require employers to pay employees’ costs if the employer loses a discrimination case in which sexual harassment has been alleged. The bands in the Vento guidelines should be increased significantly to take into account the non-financial impact of discrimination. These changes should be made within the next two years.
37 Women and Equalities Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2017–19, , HC725, paras 78–97
40 Women and Equalities Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2017–19, , HC725, para 78
41 Brahams Dutt Badrick French LLP ()
42 [Emma Webster]; [Rosalind Bragg]; [Joeli Brearley]; [Julie Morris]
44 Witnesses in private; A member of the public ();
45 Witnesses in private
46 Oral evidence taken on 25 April 2018, .
47 Oral evidence taken on 25 April 2018, .
48 Women and Equalities Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2017–19, , HC725, para. 97
49 Women and Equalities Committee, Seventh Special Report of Session 2017–19, , HC1801
50 Brahams Dutt Badrick French LLP ()
51 Women and Equalities Committee, First Report of Session 2016–17, , HC 90, paras 133–143; Women and Equalities Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2017–19, , HC725, para 86–92
52 [Lucy Frazer QC and Kelly Tolhurst]
53 Law Commission, , September 2018
54 Law Commission web page, , accessed on 16 April 2019.
55 [Emma Webster]; [Rosalind Bragg, Joeli Brearley]; [Baroness Kennedy]; Maternity Action and YESS (); Brahams Dutt Badrick French LLP (); Employment Lawyers Association (); A member of the public ();
57 Employment Lawyers Association ()
58 Professor Dominic Regan ()
59 A member of the public ()
60 A member of the public ()
62 [Emma Webster]; [Rosalind Bragg]; [Julie Morris]; Employment Lawyers Association ();
63 Employment Lawyers Association ()
65 Ministry of Justice ()
66 See columns S and AT in table 6.1 of Legal aid statistics England and Wales tables October to December 2018. Accessed at
67 Ministry of Justice ()
69 Employment Lawyers Association ()
70 Women and Equalities Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2017–19, , HC725, para 79; Oral evidence to the Sexual harassment in the workplace inquiry on 6 June 2018 [Michael Reed]
71 A member of the public ()
72 Professor Dominic Regan ()
73 Women and Equalities Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2017–19, , HC725, paras 83–85
74 Employment Lawyers Association ()
75 , The Times, 14 April 2019. Accessed on 16 April.
76 Evidence given in private; Evidence given in confidence; A member of the public ();
77 and [Julie Morris]; [Baroness Kennedy and Jane Mann]; Employment Lawyers Association (); McAllister Olivarius ()
79 [Dr Emma Chapman]
80 Tribunals Judiciary and Employment Tribunals (Scotland), , 25 March 2019
82 Professor Dominic Regan ()
83 A member of the public ()
88 Women and Equalities Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2017–19, , HC725, para 85
89 Women and Equalities Committee, Seventh Special Report of Session 2017–19, , HC1801
90 Women and Equalities Committee, Seventh Special Report of Session 2017–19, , HC1801
Published: 11 June 2019