Equality Bill [HL]

I had to get that dig in, my Lords. I am not surprised by the consensus about the Bill. We must not delay in replacing the outdated, fragmented and unsatisfactory legislative framework that has existed all this time. I do not underestimate the impact of existing legislation, but successive governments have been reluctant to respond to many of the reviews and recommendations made by equality bodies such as the CRE and the EOC. Of course, there are exceptions, such as the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, but that was driven more by the Stephen Lawrence inquiry than by any other factor, as we were rightly reminded by the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids. It is not in dispute that the United Kingdom has substantial anti-discrimination legislation on the statute book. In that respect, we are far more advanced than some of our European neighbours. Equality of opportunity is one of the core values of our civilised society. It has helped to build a strong, competitive and successful Britain. That does not mean, however, that our framework of anti-discrimination legislation could not be better. There is clear evidence that we still have a long way to go. Could we really say that we have achieved equality for all our citizens? As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor asked, do women earn the same as men? Why are black men more likely to be unemployed than white men? Why is society still uneasy when it comes to gay people, who are constantly harassed during work and leisure? Have we really tackled the disadvantages suffered by disabled people? Who would have imagined in the 1960s, with the large influx of Commonwealth immigrants, that the United Kingdom would have no fewer than four separate pieces of race relations legislation? Such legislation was first introduced in 1965, and it was followed in the 1970s with legislative measures to tackle sex discrimination. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 is also on the statute book. Of course, there has been progress, but it has been slow and cumbersome. Much of the early legislation on race introduced over 25 years ago needs drastic revision. We need a fundamental review to ensure that what we promote helps to make a difference to people’s lives. There is always a temptation to tinker with different clauses in a Bill. We should avoid such temptations. We have argued, in my party’s manifesto, for a cultural change in the way that our workplaces and institutions function. As the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, pointed out, the Government have undertaken a major review of our equality bodies. There has also been meaningful consultation, which resulted in the document Equality and Diversity: MakingIt Happen. The questions posed by the Government were the right ones: what should our institutions’ top priority be? How can they best contribute to a more just and equal society? What are the structural options for such a single equality body? Many of the responses now form the basis of the Bill before us. More important, we welcome the lead role taken by the Department of Constitutional Affairs, and in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. We are privileged to have in your Lordships’ House some of the practitioners whose job was to give effect to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976. The noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady   Lockwood and Lady Howe of Idlicote, have led organisations such as the CRE and the EOC. We welcome their contribution in today’s debate. In the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, we had one of the most effective chairmen of the CRE in recent times. We should seriously consider the points that he made. Political cronies should not be part of the new structure that we intend to establish. There are some who are not here, without whose contribution race relations would have remained stagnant. I will single out the late Lord Jenkins of Hillhead as the most reforming Home Secretary of his day and the late Lord Bonham-Carter as the first chairman of the then Race Relations Board and the Community Relations Commission. Their pioneering work has done much to build our diverse, but cohesive society. Yesterday, many of us attended the memorial service   for Earl Russell. The minor canon quoted Oliver Cromwell, and how appropriate were his words:"““let us pray for those who seek asylum in this country, as also for those who defend their cause, and those who make and administer the law concerning them; for justice and equality among all who dwell in this country””." I have no doubt that, if Earl Russell had been in the Chamber today, he would have intervened on more than one occasion, but he would have supported the principles of the Bill. I must also single out my noble friend Lord Lester of   Herne Hill, who has a distinguished record on human rights. He is a pioneer of anti-discrimination legislation in Britain. I trust that he will not be embarrassed if I mention that I have known him for over 40 years. In the early 1950s and 1960s, when race equality was not fashionable, he was instrumental in supporting organisations such as CARD—the Campaign Against Racial Discrimination.