Equality Bill [HL]

My Lords, my contribution to the debate will, I fear, overlap with those who have already spoken and those who are about to speak. However, I made my selection very carefully of what I wanted to say, so I shall press on. I declare an interest as a woman and a black person who could find herself having to use the Bill when it becomes law. However, today I will speak mainly from the perspective of being black in the United Kingdom. I welcome the Bill as a culmination of four decades of debate, campaigning and piecemeal legislative action on equality issues. Since the passing of the first, tentative piece of legislation, the Race Relations Act   1965, under the late Harold Wilson’s Labour government, to the most recent Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000—also, I note, under a Labour government—the black community has campaigned and argued for a more coherent approach to legislation. Indeed, that campaign and sustained argument have been echoed on the gender front through the work of the Equal Opportunities Commission, in particular by the Leader of the House, my noble friend Lady Amos, in her former position as its chief executive officer. I have also noted a deep resonance in the disability, gay, lesbian and, I have to say, anti-ageist movements. In brief, the issue is not one of taking a critical stance on the objectives of the proposed legislation, rather it is one of seeing how the integrity of four decades of community campaigning in often hostile settings can find real expression in the proposals before the House. It is my belief, as a Member of this House and a member of the wider black community, that the Bill does not adequately address my central concern and that of the community, which I have always sought to represent honestly. I shall try to do so again tonight. For the Bill to make an even greater impact, it must first address the conceptual riddle that lies at the centre of its philosophical and essentially moral approach with a clear statement defining what constitutes rights and equality. That needs to be articulated in terms of individual as well as collective rights and equalities. If that is not done, there is a danger that the legislation will be construed, interpreted and employed only in individual, legalistic and mechanistic ways. Secondly, the equality strands, themes and concerns that have led to the kind of legal rationalisation debate that we are having tonight need to be preserved as separate, though connected, pillars in the legislation. That is important in order to safeguard the distinctive rights of the various interest groups—women, disabled people, and black, gay and lesbian people—as well as the historical integrity of the movements that gave birth to past and present campaigns. Thirdly, comprehensive powers of enforcement must be built into the legislation, providing support and protection for individuals and groups to pursue judgments, remedies and compensation through the courts. A paper tiger of a Bill, however well intentioned, will do more damage than good to the legal cause of equalities, rights and justice and hence will not help to bring about the kind of fair, open and humanitarian society that Members on both sides of the House are working towards. Fourthly, I turn to a structural weakness in all previous equality legislation since the 1965 Act itself: adequate resources. Budgets must be secured and provided to the body charged with the duty to implement the aims and objectives of the legislation. To date, the work of all the bodies has been seriously hampered and, it could be argued, even undermined by the appalling lack of resources voted for the enormous task at hand—the building of an equality-driven and fair society. As I said at the outset, we must all welcome the Bill, but in order for it to make the important contribution that it should towards the building of a truly just and democratic Britain, the four points that I have set out should be seriously considered and taken on board during the redrafting and amendment stages of its progress. I ask noble Lords to take a moment to remember the victims of discrimination and the horrible, senseless acts of hatred and violence that discrimination breeds in our society. We should recall those persons no longer with us and to whose memory, at least in part, the creation, debate and future successful enactment of the Bill must be dedicated. I refer to those such as the late Stephen Lawrence, whose unjust fate must be remembered as the horrible and unnecessary result of deadly discrimination.