Equality Bill [HL]

My Lords, he did not get much joy out of the then Home Secretary, Sir Frank Soskice, but he continued tirelessly ensuring that race legislation became the unequivocal statement of public policy in the country. He is internationally respected on matters of rights, liberties and equality. I have no doubt that your Lordships’ House will take serious note of his comments. I asked earlier who in the 1960s could have believed that we would have legislative measures to tackle racial discrimination. History tells us why it was necessary to introduce the measures in the way that we did. The Race Relations Act 1965 was the gentle persuasion to prepare the public to tackle discrimination in public places. The Race Relations Act 1968 established the principle of conciliation as a means of tackling grievances based on race, colour, national and ethnic origin. The Race Relations Act 1976 was the start of a strategic approach to tackling institutional discrimination. Over the years, the position of black and ethnic minority communities has changed substantially. We have the benefit of the latest census figures published by the Office for National Statistics. They show that, in April 2001, 9.9 per cent of the population in England and Wales identified themselves as being from an ethnic minority. In London, 31.2 per cent of people identified themselves as being from an ethnic minority. Evidence published by the Cabinet Office in its report Minority Ethnic Issues in Social Exclusion and Neighbourhood Renewal shows that 70 per cent of people from ethnic minorities live in the 88 most deprived local authority districts, compared with 40   per cent of the general population. Further evidence tells us that, in 1999, only 30 per cent of Pakistani pupils, 37 per cent of black pupils and 30 per cent of Bangladeshi pupils achieved five or more GCSEs at grades A to C, compared with 50 per cent of white pupils and 62 per cent of Indian pupils. An African-Caribbean graduate is more than twice as   likely to be unemployed as a white person with A-levels. African men with degrees are seven times more likely to be unemployed than white male graduates. There has been a massive shift in Britain’s demographic make-up. The pattern is constantly changing. We no longer talk about the first generation of immigrants. Primary immigration has virtually stopped. We are reaching a stage at which most black and ethnic minority persons are born in this country. Despite that, it is safe to assume that discrimination occurs in all fields. Almost all the research agencies and the Commission for Racial Equality have confirmed that. It is no good being squeamish about it. Minorities are entitled to the same standard of consideration, fairness and respect as anyone else. Can we be certain that they receive it? Race equality should never be underestimated or undermined. In the final analysis, the emphasis in any policy determination should be on the manner and the   extent to which minorities’ deepest feelings about their race, colour, national or ethnic origin are fully accepted in the community and by the policy makers. I have repeatedly stated that trends in race relations show that discrimination persists at a high level. Minorities are still disproportionately to be found among the poor; the homeless; the unemployed and those who have never worked; those who are stopped and searched; those in penal institutions; and those who suffer as victims of racial harassment and violence. The fact remains that racism and racial discrimination are an everyday reality in the life of many of our people. Geographically and economically, many of them are still in the precarious position of being in the same place allocated to them when they first came here. The most frightening aspect is the failure of many of our institutions, even now, to take into account the cultural diversity of our different communities. I have always enjoyed the humour of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. He questioned the duty of the equality commission to create a society where there is respect for the dignity and worth of each individual. Nothing affects your dignity more than being refused a job on the ground of race, colour, national or ethnic origin. The loss of dignity and hurt feelings already form part of our industrial tribunal deliberations. Desiring one’s dignity is the backbone of human rights legislation. We have continued with minor tinkering since the Race Relations Act 1976. To an extent, we had no alternative other than to implement European Community law; the EU equality directives; and some limited measures on disability discrimination. Until now, there has not been a comprehensive and strategic approach to tackling discrimination and promoting equality. All that we have succeeded in doing is bringing greater incoherence to the work of the three equality bodies now in statute. Even now, questions remain. There is consensus about the need to create a single equality Commission, but how effective would it be without a single equality Act? As my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill pointed out, we would not have legislated by first creating an equality and human rights commission and then legislating to reform the substance of equality legislation. I fully endorse that view. A better way to proceed is to see whether a common strand of equality legislation is appropriate to make unlawful discrimination on the ground of religion or belief, especially in the provision of goods, facilities and services, education, the use and disposal of premises and the exercise of public functions, as contained in the Bill. In essence, equality legislation—it is at present incomplete—that removes the existing inconsistency is a prerequisite for creating an equality and human rights commission, not the other way round. If we enact the Bill in the present form, the law is more likely to be shaped by challenges in the courts. The legal outcomes of challenges will set out the boundaries within which the Bill will operate. We are missing a golden opportunity to have a wider equality Bill that   would put together the different strands in fully   comprehensive anti-discrimination and equality legislation. I accept that it will be some time before we reach that point. Therefore, it is essential that the Bill contains provisions to ensure that the impact of its operation is closely monitored and an obligation placed on the new body to ensure that the Bill, when enacted, is constantly reviewed and that a consultation process is established towards rational equality legislation for an equality and human rights commission. The Bill has aroused considerable interest, as demonstrated by the large number of briefings that we have all received. As I said, there is a temptation to tinker with various provisions to meet objectives contained in some of the briefings. I shall avoid that temptation because that is precisely what the Government have done with various pieces of equality legislation already in place. If the Government can indicate the timescale for the single equality Bill, that would help us to ease the passage of this Bill through your Lordships’ House. I declare an interest. Much of my professional career has been spent in race relations. I was a member of the first body, the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants, set up by the Harold Wilson administration under the chairmanship of the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Michael Ramsey, in 1965. I continued with the Community Relations Commission under the chairmanship of Frank Cousins and Mark Bonham-Carter. That was followed by a career in the Commission for Racial Equality under the chairmanships of David   Lane, Peter Newsam, Michael Day and Herman Ouseley, now the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley. In fact, there is a danger that I will go down in history as a full-time immigrant. The Bill gives us an opportunity to probe more fully on some of the aspects of the legislation that is proposed. Let me single out a few issues. The first is the setting up of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights. We ought to start from the basis that it is predominantly a law enforcement body and, therefore, should resist the temptation to become a large representative body of different communities. It should also be fully independent of the Government, with a requirement that it should submit its annual report to Parliament and be subject to Select Committee scrutiny if need be. The last thing we want is for the Government to interfere in the commission’s operational duties. A lean professional organisation is likely to be more effective. I remember my time with the Commission for Racial Equality, where even the purchase of a typewriter required Home Office approval. I am also aware that ample pressure was brought on the commission to mount an investigation into prisons, costing substantial funds when Her Majesty’s Inspector of Prisons was fully equipped to deal with such matters. The Government should ensure that there is no watering down of the CEHR’s duties in relation to human rights. We should not underestimate the need for powers to seek a judicial review. We should be aware that the duty to promote equality may not be applicable in all cases and that there is a danger that privacy laws may be breached. We should ensure that   equality legislation, when enacted, takes full account of such pitfalls, particularly when it concerns sexuality. There is a need for detailed consultation with interested organisations on the matter. That is not to deny the right to equality, but it is question of how we achieve it. Matters relating to religion also require wider consultation, not a knee-jerk reaction. We have waited long enough for the Bill, and we wish to ensure its speedy passage through the House.