A debate sparked by Trevor Phillips’ Channel 4 documentary, Things We Won’t Say About Race That Are True, has put the spotlight on our race relations legislation. The arc of Phillips’ narrative seemed to vindicate UKIP leader Nigel Farage’s comments in the show that there is more anti-racism legislation than is necessary for a modern Britain. After all, goes the argument, this is no longer the ‘no blacks, no Irish, no dogs’ country that it was in the 1960s.

What this perception does not appreciate is the incontrovertible fact that we still live in a racially unequal society. That is to say, across pretty much every measurement of quality of life and in every social sector – from employment, to education, health and the criminal justice system, to name the first few that come to mind – outcomes for black and minority ethnic (BME) people are worse than for their white British counterparts.

To look at employment specifically – the area in which Farage and others have argued is swamped by unnecessary and counter-productive anti-discrimination legislation - members of ethnic minority groups continue disproportionately to be unemployed and underemployed for longer periods than their white counterparts. Just last month we heard that the rate of unemployment among young BME people had risen by 50 per cent. The harm, often permanent, caused to victims of discrimination should not be underestimated. The law as it stands not only enables individuals to seek redress but is also a strong incentive for changes to employers' policies and practices.

Further to this, our anti-discrimination law, which currently manifests itself as the Equality Act 2010, is the primary means by which the state proclaims its commitment to fair employment practices and the eradication of workplace discrimination. It is a formal public declaration of the shared responsibility of both government and citizens to recognise the inequalities that still exist in our society, and to secure lasting change.

In Great Britain we have had a law banning discrimination in employment on the grounds of race, colour, nationality, ethnic or national origins since 1968 (in Northern Ireland since 1977). As has been well-documented during the current debates, some forms of blatant race discrimination rarely occur today. But behind closed doors discrimination persists, it has simply mutated into something more subtle. Anonymised tests of recruitment by written application consistently show gross disparities; applicants with ‘British’ names were invited for interview, while those with identical qualifications but ‘non-British’-sounding names were not. Meanwhile, inequalities in staff retention, access to training and promotion increase the higher up the employer’s ladder one looks.

Even if we could say that there is now equality of opportunity between ethnic minorities and the white British population, which we cannot, it is wrong to argue that this would be the battle won. Aiming for equality of outcome is not at odds with employment based on merit. Contrary to Farage’s perception, equality of opportunity in the workplace is a win-win; employers can know that they are getting the most suitable person for the job, and, regardless of their race, colour, ethnicity or nationality, people can do jobs for which they are qualified. Equality of outcome would be the proof that equality of opportunity is working.

In reality, a wide range of ostensibly benign institutional barriers prevent highly skilled, competent ethnic minority people from securing suitable employment. Measurements, often subtle and informal, as to whether a person is right for the job result in well-qualified minority candidates being rejected.

We know from the countless of incidents of racial discrimination in the workplace that have gone through the courts since the legislation came into force that racism persists, and those on the sharp end of it have used the law as an essential tool with which to protect themselves.

To pull this safety net from under the feet of BME working people – and indeed others who rely on anti-discrimination legislation to uphold their rights – would be a giant and totally pointless step backwards that would benefit no one.