Poverty

Lord Ouseley Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ouseley (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for giving us this opportunity to discuss this subject and for his passionate introduction of his own views to enable us to focus our minds on the causes of poverty.

I am not an expert and I do not think that I will be able to provide the answers or guide your Lordships to the causes but I come here with an experience of poverty. I grew up in abject, third-world poverty, which makes poverty in this country seem fairly mild. Growing up, that reality was about four things for people like me, in order to survive: beg, steal, borrow and hustle. That was the reality and that is the reality for most people across the world who are dealing with famine, disasters—manmade and natural—and starvation. Growing up here, aged 12, I was delighted to be sharing a home with 18 other people, in six rooms, where we had to share beds; there was one cooker on the landing, a tin bath for which we had to queue at certain times during the week, and an outside toilet. For me, that was almost luxury.

Today in 2016 we have a different picture and we have to address that. Before I try to do that, I want to say that I am very grateful to all the people who have helped me along the way—because that is what this is about. Tackling poverty relies on people such as the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and the many others—the thousands and millions of people—who seek to help others to come out of poverty in the way that I have. I am grateful for that.

Poverty has been around for ever and I despair as to whether we can ever eradicate it. We know that Governments, philanthropists, charities, Churches and other voluntary bodies are genuinely committed to supporting measures to ease the pain and meet the immediate needs but they are not able to go all the way—that extra mile—to get people out of poverty in a self-sustained, permanent way.

Britain has always been an unequal and divided society. Each day, the gap has widened between the haves and the have-nots. They inhabit and experience different realities. The contrasts are stark, and we know them well: obscene personal wealth juxtaposed with impoverished households; cities and towns versus rural areas and the countryside; and London and the south versus the rest. There is also what I call soft power, as opposed to no power—we have heard a bit about the issue of power already—by which I mean the networks operating in our society to ensure that power, resources and access to opportunities stay within the privileged and nepotistic circles of who you know, and which exist to override fairness, justice and merit.

This debate is very timely. Yesterday, a new Prime Minister—full of optimism and good will—told the world how she would focus attention on everyone in the country, whatever their background or circumstances, and on building a fairer Britain. She did not promise to end poverty, but she emphasised that she would give particular attention to those who find it difficult to “manage” their lives, which is a beautiful way of describing poverty. Can she do it? Will she do it? We have been around this before in this House. We hear promises, but they do not necessarily materialise in the way we would like them to.

Our political leaders should be blunt about and up front with rage at the fact that 4 million Britons live in long-term poverty, with little prospect of enjoying access to the opportunities to succeed in life that are afforded to others in one of the richest countries in the world. Many of our leaders do not have a real-life understanding of the day-to-day experiences of people who struggle to feed themselves and their children, otherwise we would not be talking about needing to hear from those who find it difficult to manage their lives. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, knows many people who could talk to the Prime Minister about managing their lives—being able to pay their bills, turn on the lights and put bread on the table, without being pushed down the road to the loan sharks—while trying to acquire some personal self-esteem, pride and dignity for themselves.

In this time-limited debate, I want to focus a little on education, which has already been mentioned. This subject is key to enabling the next generation to work its way out of poverty. As I said earlier, people rely on all the support they receive from many sources to help them along the way. Essential education provision, from cradle to grave, is critical for the life chances of every individual, and in building confident, inclusive and coherent communities.

My time is running out, but let me just say that the sort of leadership qualities we need were described, very expertly and inspirationally, by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury in his recent speech following the referendum. He pointed to the upsurge in the number of reported race and xenophobic incidents, and described how the recent coming together of young people of all faiths and of none had generated a strong sense of hope and energy for the future. People coming together in such a way will generate a passion and a pathway for healing and reconciliation in some of our divided communities. He went on to propose ideas about how to deal with the fundamental issues together and how to offer people hope. We must hang on to the hope, and look forward to having the will to do something to end poverty.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Lord Ouseley Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ouseley]

My Lords, I support this amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I do so on the basis of comments that I made in Committee, which I will try not to repeat while trying to contextualise this Bill and where the equality aspects sit in it. Clearly, much of what the noble Lord has already said explains the difficulty that victims of discrimination have in proving discrimination, with the whip hand being with the employer and with the information often being inaccessible.

The Bill itself has an underlying theme. I feel that it is to allow employers to hire and fire without any fear, weakening employees’ rights and reducing the support and representation available to victims of discrimination in the workplace, while making the EHRC weaker. It transfers many of its resources and functions to the GEO, where the Government will have greater control. The Government have cut the previous grants programme and diminished the helpline. They are converting the EHRC into some form of strategic think-tank, which is unrelated to the reality and everyday struggle of disadvantaged and disaffected communities across the country. It is among those groups that we find many of the less powerful victims of unlawful discrimination. In addition, there are closures of advice and law centres, with legal aid being denied and costs now being associated with employment tribunal cases. That is the severe context in which we have to look at the attempt to withdraw the questionnaire procedure.

This is being done largely on the basis, as argued by the Government, that it is a burden on employers to have to respond to questions being asked by employees about their treatment. Employees have to get that information to determine whether they have a basis on which to go forward with a case of unlawful discrimination. Without that information, they literally have no basis for doing so. The basis of my support for this amendment is my experience of working with and against employers who want to get rid of their employees. Many employers clearly support the reform put forward here—getting rid of the questionnaire—because they do not want to be accountable for their actions or to respond to questionnaires in which they have to provide explanations for their actions. They regard these questionnaires, as the government side have argued in taking this forward, as a nuisance.

Employers also find some of the questions being asked challenging. That is not simply because they are seen and interpreted as a fishing exercise but because unless those questions are asked, employees who have a feeling that they have been discriminated against or an awareness that they have been treated unfairly, and probably unlawfully, are unable to carry forward their grievance. They cannot get redress without assistance, which I have already mentioned is vanishing, and certainly without the information that they need. Some of the questions asked, which may bring forward information or are sometimes not answered, are exactly what is required to help employees understand the nature of the discrimination they have suffered or understand the explanation for why they have been treated in certain ways that render it impossible for them to succeed in a case before a tribunal.

As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, pointed out, 83% of those who responded to the consultation opposed the repeal of the questionnaires. We have had submitted to us the EHRC’s position which recognises the usefulness and importance of retaining questionnaires. Indeed, we have had a submission from the Discrimination Law Association, which provided examples of the usefulness of the questionnaires in helping both employees and employers. Practitioners right across the country have contributed to that. I hope that the Minister will recognise that the case has not been made, with evidence, of how questionnaires are a burden for employers, other than that they see them as a nuisance and an irritant. In fact, in the name of justice, equality and fairness, and to enable the existing legislation to be undertaken and enforced effectively, as it has to be, the usefulness of the questionnaires should be retained for that purpose.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Lord Ouseley Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

My Lords, originally I put my name down in support of the clause not being included. As we have heard, Clause 58 repeals the statutory procedure for obtaining information to support discrimination proceedings under the Equality Act. The TUC opposes this clause. This procedure has been a vital part of ensuring access to justice for victims of discrimination since our first sex discrimination and race relations Acts were passed more than 35 years ago. Legislators back then understood just how difficult it would be for an individual to enforce their rights without access to information about how others were treated in a similar situation or statistics on the impact of policies or practices of different groups. This is information that the employer holds, hence the importance of questionnaires.

In trade unions’ experience, these questionnaires help individuals to access evidence at an early stage, which leads to an early clarification of the issues involved and, if the case proceeds to tribunal, greater efficiency in the tribunal proceedings. The questionnaires have the added benefit that they may prevent claims going to tribunal because they often lead to early settlement of any potential claim or they produce evidence that shows that discrimination was not actually the reason for the individual’s treatment. Therefore, it seems to me that these questionnaires are of value to the employers as well as to the employees. I have no idea why the Government should think it a good idea to exclude them in future.

The Discrimination Law Association, whose members comprise lawyers and people who work on behalf of trade unionists and workers, has said that without the kind of information that individuals can obtain only from written questionnaires, in many cases it would be almost impossible to prove discrimination. It should be noted that 83% of those responding to the consultation that proposed repealing this provision, opposed the repeal, including unions, equality NGOs, the judiciary and members of the public. This seems to be a really strange stance for the Government to take. This provision helps both sides in a dispute and I cannot really understand why the Government should be proceeding against it, when it is against the recommendations of the TUC and the unions who are very active in this area.

[Lord Ouseley]

My Lords, I support the question and seek to clarify the context in which I offer support. It is one in which we have seen light-touch regulation being promoted by the previous Government and by this Government to get us to a point where, as has already been stated, we want employers to be in a position to hire and fire as they wish. That in itself will add greater discrimination for those who are likely to be discriminated against, on no reasonable basis.

The context is also one in which we see increasing tribunal fees being imposed along with the cutting of legal aid and funding for advice agencies to help individuals, who are relatively powerless in seeking to get redress if they feel that they have been discriminated against in employment. The situation with discrimination is that the employer always has the whip hand and the employee has very little knowledge, other than a feeling of being treated unfairly. Sometimes it is with evidence but they are unable to have information which places them in a position where they can argue and justify their claim for compensation.

The discrimination often occurs, in my view, for three main reasons. First, employers are lazy and it is a very quick fix to get rid of someone. Secondly, it is incompetence or, thirdly, it is just straightforward prejudice and bias. Those are the three main areas that appertain to discriminatory claims. The victim can move forward only with evidence and the respondent would like to be in a position of not having to disclose any information.

Usually, in my experience, most employers—particularly small employers—have no policies or procedures. Of those who have, the moment that you go back to them to try to explain that they may have breached anti-discrimination legislation and to ask them whether they have complied with their procedures, if they have any, they usually find very quickly that they want to come to an arrangement to conciliate or settle with a claimant. That is because they recognise that they are being challenged on a basis which has justification and that they have clearly failed to follow their own procedures, where they exist. In the case of very small employers, hiring and firing takes place very informally. There is usually a lot of nepotism, with family and friends being involved in the employment within small firms.

That said, it is quite important that we recognise that, notwithstanding all that I have mentioned about context, this repeal has come forward based on inaccurate and misleading information. There is no evidence of the burdens that have been created for employers. The original purposes of the questionnaires, from the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976, have been fulfilled because they enabled assessments to be made on the basis of facts and information provided. That enables that assessment to determine the strength or weakness of a case and may seek to persuade a complainant to withdraw because their case is so weak, or at least to put pressure on an employer to demonstrate that they are in an unsustainable position of seeking to defend the indefensible.

Evidence has shown throughout the years that the use of the questionnaires has helped us to reduce the costs and the burdens on both employers and employment tribunals. Without a questionnaire, a claimant could bring proceedings themselves and apply for disclosure or further information and such an order, when made, will bring considerably greater burdens on an employer. That is something that we should consider as a counterbalance to getting rid of the questionnaire—the real burdens that would be placed on employers if that process was pursued.

It cannot be overstated how crucial statutory questionnaires are to enable people to prove genuine discrimination claims. They offer a structured, time-bound way for a potential claimant to find out the employer’s or service provider’s reasons for taking certain action, and to gather evidence that the claimant cannot access in any other way. Without this kind of information, which individuals can obtain only through written questionnaires, in many cases it will be almost impossible to prove discrimination or a breach of an equality clause. The many individuals who have approached me about cases of alleged discrimination are at their wits’ end and give up in frustration. This will put us back many years, to the situation that preceded the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976.

Questionnaires are not a problem for employers who have nothing to hide. They are alerted at the earliest stage to the strengths and weaknesses of a possible discrimination or equal pay claim and generally take action swiftly to settle the case if need be. Conversely, repeal of the questionnaire procedure will mainly serve the interests of employers or service providers who do not wish to expose their potentially discriminatory policies and practices or cover up the misdemeanours of individuals in their employment. That is why it is important that we consider again whether this repeal has any justification and whether there is no better way in which to enable us, if necessary, to modify the questionnaire where it may be seen to be excessive and reduce it in a way that employers may see it as less burdensome, if that is the case, as a way of retaining it. In that way, we can ensure that we maintain the basis of helping to determine which cases have no basis to go forward to an employment tribunal, and persuading those complainants to withdraw, and seeking to impose the maximum pressure on those employers to settle with those complainants.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I came along this afternoon to support the opposition to Clauses 57 and 58 on the part of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, but I hung back in relation to Clause 57 because I was waiting for the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to intervene, as I knew that he had views on these matters—so I missed my turn. However, now that I know that the noble Lord is not here this afternoon, I shall say just a few words very briefly on Clause 58, although I fear that I shall not be able to speak with the same unrivalled knowledge and expertise on the subject as the noble Lord would have brought to the matter. But perhaps we will be able to hear from him in a later point in the debates on this Bill.

I was fourth on the list of those who put their names to this question, so I shall speak very briefly, but there are a couple of points that I would like to make. The Government have argued that the questionnaire procedure imposes considerable costs on business of nearly £1.5 million a year, with questionnaires becoming overlong and technical. However, research carried out by the Government Equalities Office has found that only 2% of private sector employers have had to complete a questionnaire in the past three years and most of those who did so agreed that responding to it had been straightforward. That does not sound like a great burden on business to me.

There is a great deal of concern out there in the legal profession about the prospect of the questionnaire procedure being done away with because, as others have indicated, it has been a very valuable part of the procedure in discrimination cases in enabling those cases to be dealt with more smoothly and expeditiously. As an example of this concern, the president of the Employment Tribunals Service, in responding to the Government’s consultation, went so far as to say:

“We further consider that the questionnaire procedure is very much in line with the pre claim resolution processes that are currently a consideration in primary legislation before Parliament. To remove this assistance to such a facility seems to the Employment Tribunal judiciary to be contrary to the overall policy of early resolution of claims or claims not proceeding where there is little merit. The proposed amendments to the Equality Act are considered by the Employment Tribunal judiciary to be retrograde steps in the administration of discrimination claims”.

That is a very strong statement coming from a very senior judicial official. The Government would be extremely unwise not to take very seriously advice coming from that quarter. Bearing in mind that kind of advice and the evidence to which I referred, which suggests that it is not nearly so much of a burden on business as the Government make out, I very much hope that the Government will think again and not proceed with Clause 58.

Disability Services

Lord Ouseley Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ouseley]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, for introducing this debate and giving us the opportunity to consider the excellent Scope report and the issues contained in it, and bring them before the House to enable the Minister to respond. I also thank him for enabling us to pick up on any other related issues in the area of disabilities as they affect black and minority ethnic communities.

The challenge facing policymakers and decision-makers is to understand the multiple disadvantages being faced by black and minority ethnic disabled people, and to collaborate with community-based and community-led organisations to determine appropriate and effective responses. Following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, had to say, this resonates well with how we involve people who are able to relate to those who have needs and how we help them to respond to these needs at the earliest opportunity.

Where available, the data show black and minority ethnic people having disproportionate adverse experiences of access to income, education and essential support services, in the job market and in utilising public facilities. When we add the disability characteristics, we find that the situation is considerably worse. Increasing numbers of BME disabled people are experiencing discrimination and disadvantages because of a combination of factors, including race, ethnicity, class, poverty, status and where they live. The latter is an important discriminatory feature that we must also consider.

The wide range of disabilities requires appropriate responses, whether the disabilities exist from birth, develop through disease or injury, or occur because of ageing and infirmity. My contribution is particularly concerned with two areas of disability. The first is that which is due to ageing and infirmity. The second regards mental illness. As they advance in age, more BME people are experiencing many forms of disability and impairment. My mother, who is 85 years old, disabled and bed-bound, is in the fortunate position of having care provided for her on a 24/7 basis. My siblings and I are able to make that provision without recourse to external involvement. However, many people are unable to experience that support. Many like her, with similar afflictions and who may not be able to obtain the same level of support, will more likely than not experience a diminishing quality of life in their latter years.

Quality of life and quality of care are essential components of growing old with dignity. As a society we are currently grappling to find solutions to the cost implications of making appropriate provision for the care needs of a growing elderly population with multiple impairments and disabilities. I have worked in old people’s and adult care homes with people with severe conditions, and I pay tribute to those who are carers. Occasionally we hear stories of where people have been let down by standards of care but on the whole we see in this situation committed and dedicated people helping others, whether in a professional capacity or on a voluntary basis. In the context of today’s debate it is important to acknowledge the work done by BME carers, both within the family setting and in voluntary self-help settings.

As the previous chair of an organisation called the Policy Research Institute on Ageing and Ethnicity, I had the benefit of observing at first hand for more than a decade the significant contribution of BME-led adult care organisations which reach out to BME elders across the country. Considerable work was done in outreach activities to make them aware of the increasing prevalence of dementia, so that the elders could be referred to services at the earlier stage of the condition. This work also addressed their multiple and complex health needs.

This is a good moment to remind the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, that he was involved in helping to launch a study with PRIAE in 1999, Managing Dementia and Ethnicity, which resulted in a film called “Dementia Matters”. The study has been distributed widely among educators and people in the profession.

Without minority ethnic, age or specialist organisations that cater for such groups directly, BME elders with disabilities would remain invisible and, worse, would still not be supported. The challenge for mainstream organisations, including large equality ones, is whether they are prepared to engage with and invest in minority initiatives and organisations. BME communities are part of British society. BME elders with disabilities are British, yet we see the dangers of parallel but unequal services developing, with different organisational resources, funding, capabilities and life spans.

That trend is even more accentuated in the area of BME mental health sufferers. Undoubtedly, in the area of mental health disability there are outrageous disparities. For example, the life expectancy of people from the UK’s African-Caribbean communities who come into contact with services under the Mental Health Act is reduced by a staggering 25 years, as they are routinely labelled schizophrenic or psychotic. Early intervention and culturally appropriate services remain at best sparse and at worst non-existent. There is an extensive body of evidence cited by Black Mental Health UK that indicates that the UK’s African-Caribbean communities are subject to the most coercive and punitive treatment, often with fatal consequences.

Deaths in custody and reduced life expectancy have blighted many African-Caribbean households. It is known that more than 50% of those who lose their lives in police custody are mental health service clients. The same data from the Equality and Human Rights Commission reveal that 20% of deaths in police custody involve black men, who represent less than 3% of the national population.

What is being done to safeguard BME disabled rights? Effective advocacy provision, particularly led by BME organisations, would be an essential requirement to assist in achieving fairness; this at present is lacking. Individuals being treated under the Mental Health Act, whether in hospital or in the community, have the right to access an independent mental health advocate to ensure that their rights are observed and that they are treated fairly. Black patients in detained settings do not have access to effective advocacy. In far too many cases, they are not even informed of this right.

Black Mental Health UK is deeply concerned about the effects of treatment to BME disabled people with mental health illnesses. Black people presented to the service are routinely labelled as psychotic and given high doses of anti-psychotic medication, which come with a raft of side effects that include irregular heartbeat, cardiac arrest, muscle and joint pain, jerkiness similar to the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease, severe sexual dysfunction, rapid weight gain, obesity, diabetes, heart disease and reduced life expectancy. These matters must be addressed as part of any overall strategy, and within the particular context of mental health.

I will raise one final concern: the presence of police, often in riot gear, on psychiatric wards. High-profile death in custody cases have reinforced distrust both of the police and of mental health services. It is necessary that there should be a consistent mechanism for monitoring deaths that occur after police restraint on psychiatric wards. Only in cases where there is a high-profile fatality and the family are vocal about the incident are such matters brought to public attention. It is right that the Minister should respond and say how we will seek to share information in an open and accountable way that will enable those who provide support services for those with mental health illnesses to be made aware of how they can contribute to ensuring that the latter’s rights are safeguarded.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Lord Ouseley Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, it is very seldom indeed that I disagree with my noble friend Lord Lester. I call him my noble friend because he has been a friend for so many years. However, on this occasion I must disagree with him, and my reason for that goes right back to the Equal Pay Act and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. How long ago was that? It is a considerable number of years. Are we entirely happy with how equal opportunities have proceeded? Has it all been achieved? I would certainly argue not yet. There is a heck of a lot to catch up on and to have accepted.

That is exactly why I recommend very strongly the amendment that has been moved, and spoken to so brilliantly by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, and others. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, may well say that it is all written out there, but there is a section that can help the commission to talk to the different groups, get them together, and take them through the processes that might make their advancement as individual groups or as part of the community much more acceptable. That is a strong reason why we should retain this section. I will spend no more time than that on it but I feel very strongly that we need to retain this section.

[Lord Ouseley]

My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, on moving this amendment and on her very powerful introduction. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, missed that because it really represents the difference between what the victims of discrimination, whose rights are being eroded, want for a commission, and what a lawyer wants for an organisation that is a highly esteemed body, which can be looked at and admired, but is not reaching the people’s needs. That is what Section 3 and its retention represents for us who sit here opposing what is proposed in this Bill. That also helps to answer the question posed on many occasions about the notion that it would not make any difference.

We do not have any clarity about what the Government want to see the EHRC doing and how that relates to how people in our society—whether they are disabled or on the grounds of age, race, ethnicity or other characteristics—feel about a body such as this not meeting or responding to their needs, or giving any leadership or indications about how society can move forward in healing the problems that are afflicting the many people with those characteristics and who are affected by discrimination and the erosion of human rights.

We already know how far the EHRC has gone backwards in the aspirations that a lot of people had for it. That is not a criticism to suggest that it has not done good work because it clearly has, but it could have done so much more. To a large extent, I do not have any disagreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has said but I believe that Section 3 is an important aspiration. It is absolutely right to say that it is a statement of purpose and it is very broad. For me, it enables the commission to do the sort of things in a flexible way—notwithstanding the way in which it is required to be strategic—which enable people on the ground to identify with it. That is the worst part of the past four or five years of watching the way in which the predecessor bodies faded into obscurity when the new body came on stream and lost contact with people on the ground. That is where I am addressing my concerns.

I see the general duty as a statement of purpose and a mission statement. In no way do I see it as constraining the EHRC from doing what it needs to do or what it has to do, while recognising the constraints imposed upon it by government and the limitations of its resources. That is the killer constraint, which I think will determine what exactly it will do in the years ahead. No justification has been put forward for removing Section 3, other than the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lester.

The loss of the notion of promoting good relations is very serious. I see promoting good relations as a common thread of connectivity across the diverse protected characteristics. It underpins the fundamental requirement of a body such as the EHRC to promote better knowledge and understanding of equality and human rights issues, to counter myths and prejudices with facts and to encourage good community relations across the diverse competing interests, which is quite considerable.

Should the EHRC have no role whatever in challenging policies, proposals and activities that damage community relations? Should it never challenge the Government? Clearly the Government would like an EHRC that never challenged their policies and activities. However, if the commission is not able to challenge, who will do that? This is the politics of madness at a time when tensions are rising, conflicts are on the increase, austerity is feeding prejudices, frustrations and anxieties, and blame and scapegoating are dominant features of everyday culture. Who is seeking to counter any of this? Should the EHRC not take on some of this activity? If not, why not?

The general duty is a binding and unifying concept that intertwines equality and human rights. It guards the fundamental role of the EHRC. The reason for the removal in Clause 56 of Section 3 is to weaken further the EHRC and heighten its impotence in the eyes of many people who need an effective EHRC to champion their rights and assist them in building good relations, tackling inequality and promoting human rights.

[Lord Morris of Handsworth]

My Lords, one of the disadvantages of being around as long as I have is that you observe the tide flowing in and flowing out—ebbing and flowing. I have followed the equality debate, participated in it and in some instances been a victim of it over many years. Tides such as progress in equality need to be measured. The section that we are debating is as good a measurement as one could get. The progress that we seek will be advanced by the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. She advocates that the retention of Section 3 is an absolute requirement. The question is not just for those outside the debate but for those who are part of it.

Section 3 is the quality control mechanism by which the Act can be judged from time to time. However, it has a much wider purpose. It can be the section by which the Government’s commitment, activity and purpose in this field are judged. The proposal to repeal Section 3 is equivalent to the referee blowing the final whistle before the match has ended. It should not be the case, when debate is still going on and before it is concluded, that the key mechanism by which we can measure progress and draw some conclusions is under threat. That is why it is important that, whatever emerges in legislative terms from the Bill, Section 3 is retained. The message that its removal would send would downgrade all the other aspirations of the Bill.

Many pioneering people have made valuable contributions. However, as we have heard in the debate and read in the press, we have not abolished discrimination on grounds of race, gender, disability or otherwise. There is still a job to be done. I do not believe that at this point removing the general duty would enhance confidence in the Government’s commitment to the whole issue of discrimination. The job is not done. There is much more to do. In the best tradition of the way in which your Lordships’ House is able to engage all strands of opinion, I believe that on this issue the Government should take note and retain Section 3. It is not just a question of how others would be measured; it is a question of how the Government would be measured and judged. I support the amendment.