header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
23 March 2007 / Ulele Burnham , Jamie Burton
Issue: 7265 / Categories: Features , Public , Profession , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Public Law Update

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Two-tiered duty to promote race equality, Race Relations Act 1976, S71, Legal necessity for proper consultation

RACE EQUALITY

The celebrated Macpherson report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence, The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, was a significant event in the development of legal rules designed to take account of systemic racial discrimination. One of the legislative responses to Sir William Macpherson’s well-publicised coinage of the term ‘institutional racism’ was the two-tiered duty placed on public authorities to promote race equality.

Statutory duties

The general duty, found in the Race Relations Act 1976 (RRA 1976), s 71(1), is an obligation for all specified public bodies to have due regard to the need to “eliminate unlawful racial discrimination…and to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups”.

The specific duty, placed upon a further category of public authorities specified by the secretary of state, requires such bodies to make procedural arrangements, eg the publication of a race equality scheme detailing the arrangements for assessing and monitoring the likely impact

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Firm expands in London and Leeds with dual merger

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Private wealth and real estate firmpromotes two to partner and five to senior associate

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Agile firm expands employment team with two partner hires

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll