HL Deb 26 November 1969 vol 305 cc1346-78

7.15 p.m.

LORD FERRIER rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in regard to the disturbances connected with the tour of "The Springboks" Rugby Football side, they are satisfied that the provisions of the Race Relations Acts of 1965 and 1968 are being properly administered by the authorities. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I ask it because there is a widespread feeling of anxiety and, indeed, alarm at the disturbance and violence which is taking place on the occasions of Springbok Rugby matches. The debate has begun rather later than I expected because of the interesting debate which preceded it. But one advantage of that is that the evening paper has appeared in the Library. I should like to read from it. a few words. The heading is: BOKS BATTLE—THE BIGGEST AND ROUGHEST —and "roughest" applies to the crowds. The article reads: It was the biggest and roughest antiapartheid demonstration of the Springboks' tour. Three police officers were sent by ambulance to hospital suffering from crushed ribs. It goes on: More than 5,000 people—mainly university students—swarmed over barricades, fought police officers, used their banners as weapons and tried to battle their way into the rugby ground. Girls screamed as they were trodden underfoot. Youths yelled as they linked arms and ran and crashed into the police barricades. They swarmed over the roads, over walls, through the gardens of private houses. Terror-stricken mothers shepherded children indoors and locked themselves inside … And so it goes on.

Is there any wonder that there is anxiety and alarm? I feel that there is no doubt about it, especially after reading this and judging by the public reaction to the sprinkling of broken bottle-glass on playing fields even before a practice game. Was not this, anyway, a criminal offence under common law?

However that may be, the fact that the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, on demonstrations (December 10) appeared on the Order Paper on the same day as this Question of mine was given a date, goes to confirm that anxiety is felt by others in this House besides myself. The noble Lord, Lord Wade, and I acted quite independently of one another. I am glad that his Motion will be before your Lordships in only a fortnight, because it enables me to keep my speech to the narrower issue of the Race Relations Act—and I concentrate on Sections 6 and 7 of the 1965 Act.

I venture briefly to sketch in three personal experiences which form the background of my approach to the subject. Fifty years ago I played for a well-known Scottish Rugby side. Incidentally, I happen just now to be president of the club. Before that I had played for my school and in the 1918–19 season for a Service side in the Midlands. I particularly recall a match with the New Zealand Machine Gun Corps team which contained a number of Maoris. Incidentally, I recall the seismic experience of a collision with my noble friend Lord Wakefield in a game against an R.A.F. side.

In the mid-twenties I was Rubgy Secretary in the Bombay Gymkhana and I arranged the first match between its all-European side and the High School Old Boys Club which consisted of Anglo-Indians and Indians. This match became a regular feature which I believe continues to this day. Thirdly, I recall the Quadrangular Cricket Tournament in Bombay between four clubs, Hindoo Parsee, European and Mohammedan. The tournament was the reverse of divisive but, alas! the wiseacres thought otherwise, and it was never resumed after the last war.

So, my Lords, first, I have personal knowledge and experience of Rugby football, this superb game which, if not actually a religion, is, to many at least, a way of life; and secondly, I have played it and encouraged the playing of it in mixed communities, and my experience has been that it is not a class game—I put "class" in inverted commas—as some of the Members in another place seem to think. Thirdly, my Lords, I believe that inter-communal sport is the reverse of divisive. It follows, therefore, that I am in favour of the visit of a team, whoever they represent.

It also follows that I have no sympathy with the policy of apartheid, though I am satisfied that many critics of it are ignorant of South Africa and the advantages to coloured people there which stem from that policy; however much those advantages are outweighed by the disadvantages. I would add that I respect an individual who prefers to stay away from Springbok matches, or the player who chooses not to play against the side. This is, my Lords, a free country, or it used to be. There used to be freedom to demonstrate; freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom to indulge in sport; freedom to play games; freedom to watch games. Is the only freedom left to be the freedom to stay away, to keep out of the way? Or is this to become compulsory by order of a mob?

My Lords, I drafted my Question and put it on the No Day Named List on November 12, and I confess that were I drafting it to-day I would word it more narrowly still, especially in the light of the prospect of Lord Wade's debate, because a great deal has happened in the last fortnight, and a good deal more to-day.

As I have said, my principal concern is with Sections 6 and 7 of the 1965 Act. May I take Section 7 first, because that section elaborates Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936 which was passed into law at the time of the Mosley troubles. As I wish to be brief, I think the simplest and shortest way in which to illustrate my contention would be to quote from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, on the Second Reading of the 1965 Race Relations Bill on July 26, 1965, at column 1102. I am sure that noble Lords will agree with me that we miss the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and wish him a speedy recovery. I imagine that nobody regrets his absence more than the noble Baroness, Lady Scrota, who is to reply.

On that occasion, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said: Clause 7 of the Bill re-enacts Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936 in extended form. This section provides that 'any person who in any public place or at any public meeting uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned shall be guilty of an offence.' Section 5 of the 1936 Act is directed primarily to securing that public meetings and demonstrations in public places take place without breach of the peace. Freedom of public speech and demonstration is of little value unless this can be assured and, at the same time, those not taking part are entitled to expect that they shall not become occasions for brawls and disorder, in which members of the public may be injured. The purpose of the section is essentially preventive—either to prevent disorder when a breach of the peace seems likely, or to limit and end disorder that has occurred. This can be effected only by immediate police action, for which Clause 6 is not designed to provide. As Section 5 of the Public Order Act now stands, it does not state in clear terms to the man-in-the-street that it covers such conduct as the dissemination of pamphlets and waving of banners at public meetings, or the sale of offensive literature in streets. The view has been expressed, and has much to commend it, that in law the word behaviour' as it stands is sufficient to cover all these activities, and that accordingly no amendment of Section 5 of the 1936 Act is necessary. On balance, however, we have thought it right to take the opportunity to re-write Section 5 in extended form, so as to make its scope completely and unequivocally clear, particularly to those likely to be directly affected. The present penalties in Section 5 of the 1938 Act (which are, in fact, set out in the Public Order Act 1963) will continue to apply."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26/7/65; col. 1102.] And so on.

I assure your Lordships that I read that lengthy extract because it saved me saying the same thing and it is put in a very much better way than I could have said it. So much for Section 7. Incidentally, the Preamble to the Public Order Act 1936 is well worth some study. Section 6(1) of the 1965 Act reads: A person shall be guilty of an offence under this section if, with intent to stir up hatred against any section of the public in Great Britain distinguished by colour, race, or ethnic or national origins—

  1. (a) he publishes or distributes written matter which is threatening, abusive or insulting; or
  2. (b) he uses in any public place or at any public meeting words which are threatening, abusive or insulting, being matter or words likely to stir up hatred against that section on grounds of colour, race, or ethnic or national origins."
Subsection (2) deals with definitions, and subsection (3) says: A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
  1. (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds, or both;
  2. (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding one thousand pounds, or both; but no prosecution for such an offence shall be instituted in England and Wales except by or with the consent of the Attorney General."
I leave your Lordships to draw your own conclusions in the light of what is happening to-day. These sections in the Act and the Minister's speech at the time—fourand-a-half years ago—of that Second Reading show a remarkable prescience of what might happen and, unfortunately, is happening now. Has the warning been disregarded? As I see it, various of these offences are being committed, not only in connection with specific matches but in general terms almost every day. Is it possible that the Government have been dragging their feet?

I pose another question. If ordinary people are beginning to get apprehensive, and even impatient, should not the authorities act now? Who promotes the "Springboks go back" banners and slogans? Who says that they will, "hound the Springboks wherever they go"? Are they not offenders under the Act? My Lords, I would quote from a speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor which he made on the occasion of that Second Reading. In fact, I propose to make two quotations. One is a brief one which reads: I am sure that we all regret that in this country it should ever have been necessary to legislate against intentional incitement to racial hatred. But in the circumstances in which we now live, the law would he detective if it did not provide against it."—(col. 1061.) Later, the noble and learned Lord said, when dealing with a remark from the noble Lord, Lord Somers: Of course, it would be quite possible, under Clause 6 of the Bill. to have a prosecution of a black person for inciting to hatred against white people." (col. 1064.) Indeed I think that a prosecution has been lodged along those lines. The Home Secretary has done well to confer with Chief Constables but has he gone far enough? I doubt it, if, indeed—and I refer to a news headline— Anarchists known to the police are stirring up trouble at the Springboks' matches. The same newspaper quotes from the Home Secretary's interview: The right to demonstrate, whether the demonstration is a popular one or not, is a cardinal right of the people of Britain. But there is a difference between demonstration and destruction. I would do nothing to interfere with traditional right. But it is a fact that a job lot of anarchists have got on to the antiapartheid demonstrations for the sole purpose of fomenting violence. If that is the case, are they not committing offences under this Act and inciting offences against the common law? And if they are known to the police and are identifiable, should they not be brought to justice? I look forward to the reply of the noble Baroness, which will, I hope, clear this up.

At the moment a situation has developed in which ordinary people going about their affairs feel impotent in the face of disorder and violence by a comparative few. Do not the polls show that most people in this country want this tour to continue? Such feelings of anxiety can perhaps have the most disastrous effects, the very reverse of what the demonstrators seek. I commend to your Lordships a letter from a South African, a Mr. E. Webster, from Balliol College, Oxford, which appeared in The Times on Saturday, and with your Lordships' permission I will quote the last two paragraphs, in which he writes: But what disturbs me in particular is that the majority of that moderately tolerant group of the British public (revealed in the recent Colour and Citizenship report), will become increasingly unsympathetic to the d'Olivieras of this world and will be easily led by unscrupulous politicians along the path of race hatred. Furthermore, a factor which is uppermost in my mind as a South African, is that the totally irrational, negative and hysterical reaction of the South African public will find a vindication in their intransigent attitude if the protest simply ends in senseless violence. The path to racial tolerance and harmony is not an easy one, but the prejudiced personality is certainly not likely to be convinced by coercion. To conclude, if the Government find themselves unable to do more than they are doing now, then, when the Act comes to be amended, as seems inevitable and as I hope, as a Scotsman, imminent, should not any such amendment include that the provisions of Sections 6 and 7 be strengthened or enlarged to protect law-abiding citizens from disturbance? Not only that, at whose charge is all the cost of the damage, the crush barriers, the minions of the law, the transport dislocation and now, as I read, the destruction of private property, not to mention the quite unreasonable demands being made on the long-suffering individual policemen, who are being faced with difficult and arduous and even dangerous duties when, admittedly under strength, they have other things to do?

If the position is not clear enough as it stands—believe it is—then let the matter be clear beyond a peradventure before the visit of the South African cricket team next summer, when disturbances in cricket grounds will be more difficult to contain than they are on the hitherto sacred turf of Twickenham or Murrayfield. There are some points which I have not mentioned and which will doubtless be dealt with by other speakers and other points which will emerge during the debate on December 10, and I shall resist the temptation to say more, unless it be to conclude by saying that, like some other noble Lords from Scotland, I attended the Annual Rededication Parliamentary Service at Crown Court Church this morning and in the course of his Prayer of Intercession, the minister prayed: Where there is turbulence and violence let there instead be harmony and hope. My Lords, it is in that spirit that I ask my Question.

7.35 p.m.

THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER

My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for asking this Question and for giving us an opportunity for a short debate upon a matter which is very much in the minds of us all. In making my contribution I must say things that I believe must be said, though I would far rather not have been compelled to do so; but I think that we must go rather more deeply into the background of the situation which has arisen.

I am confident that your Lordships will give unanimous agreement to the view that politics should have no place in sport. Games should be played for what they are, a test of skill and stamina between individuals or teams, with no other factor impinging upon the outcome than the incentive of beating one's opponents fairly by a superior display of expertise. But with the growth of international sport it has become more and more difficult to observe this ideal, and from time to time—for instance, in the Olympic Games—there have been reminders that the elements of national prestige and national politics are never far from the surface and all too easily break through, to vitiate the integrity of the sport and embarrass those who hold strong views about their undesirability.

Such, in my view, is the situation that has arisen over the visit of the Springboks to this country. I do not think it is denied that this team was chosen according to the application of the principles of apartheid. Politics have played their part in the selection of the team that is touring this country. I have heard it said that it is wrong for us in this country to protest against the presence of such a team in our midst because by doing so we are bringing a political judgment upon a situation that ought to be free of politics. But, my Lords, it is not we who are bringing politics into sport: it is the South African authorities who have done so. And I would hold that by playing games against a team which avowedly has been selected on grounds of racial discrimination we involve ourselves in bringing politics into sport, and that the only way we can uphold the principle that politics have no place in sport is by refusing to participate with those who openly apply racial standards in the selection of their teams.

I believe that, however acceptable may be the individuals who compose a team in a sporting event, and however innocent they may be, as individuals, of political motives, it is nevertheless undesirable to welcome to this country visiting teams in the choice of which race and colour have been a deciding factor; and I would uphold the right of those who feel strongly about the principles which are involved to make their protest known as effectively as they can do so.

How is this to be done? I think I can understand the views of many who feel that there must be some physical manifestation of their principles. They believe that this is the only kind of opportunity they have of making known their views about apartheid and they have some reason to think that, unless their protest is unmistakably seen and heard to be made, the absence of such evidence may well be construed in South Africa as evidence that we do not care. But I am equally sure that anything other than peaceful demonstration and protest is ill-conceived and ought to be condemned as strongly as 'we can do so. There may be some who genuinely feel that they must indulge in physical violence and must attempt to prevent matches from taking place. This I believe to be wrong in principle. I believe that such behaviour plays into the hands of less scrupulous people, who do not care a fig for racialism and whose only purpose is to seize upon any excuse for making trouble. Such attempts, moreover, deny the democratic freedom of those who wish to watch such matches. Again, violence begets violence, and its use in support of an ideal, however worthy, is likely to produce reactions the very opposite to those which the protesters would desire. So I trust that this House will unequivocally condemn the use of violence in making protests of this nature.

However, I would repeat my conviction that it is undesirable that sporting teams chosen on grounds of racial discrimination should come to this country: for by welcoming them and co-operating with them on the field we knowingly or unknowingly implicate ourselves in the political issues which have determined their selection. We defeat our object if we try to express our approval by indulging in physical violence and hooliganism. I believe that we can best express our feelings by staying away from matches; by bringing pressure to bear upon governing bodies of sport to refuse to allow teams in this country to play against those chosen on discriminatory grounds or to send teams from this country to them; and by suggesting to those responsible that facilities in this country should not be made available for such games.

It is to be hoped that by now the message will have reached South Africa, and that it will be appreciated there that many people in this country do not think it right to welcome teams until we can be assured that the standard which has been adopted in the selection of a team is that of skill, arid skill alone.

7.42 p.m.

LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL

My Lords, I am sure the House is most grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrier for giving us the opportunity to discuss the disturbances that have taken place and are taking place outside and within Rugby fooball grounds arising from the tour of the Springboks Rugby Football side from South Africa. Public attention has been drawn to the working of the Race Relations Acts in connection with other matters that have taken place recently quite unconnected with Rugby football. It seems to me desirable that there should be an authoritative statement in this House on the working of these Acts, and in particular on their application in respect of demonstrations that have taken place arising from this South African Rugby Football tour.

First of all, however, I should like to declare an interest, in that I am a past President of the Rugby Football Union and at the present time act as one of its trustees. Also, for a number of years I represented England on the International Board which is responsible for the control of the playing of international Rugby football and the amending, as and when desirable, of the laws of the game. Both this International Board and the Rugby Football Union have always been most concerned to keep politics out of the playing of the game of Rugby football. They have been greatly encouraged in such wishes, because in the years immediately following the First World War, when Ireland became politically divided, the Irish Rugby Football Union continued to represent both the North and the South, and politics were kept out of the game in Ireland, to the great advantage of the game and, it is hoped, of politics as well. As your Lordships will know, because of recent political disturbances in Northern Ireland the Springboks game due to be played in Belfast on Saturday has been cancelled.

When a few years ago South Africa became a Republic, that political fact in no way altered the happy and friendly relationship between the South African representation on the International Board and the rest of the Board. From time to time, when international matches are played the Rugby Football Union impartially invites members of the Government of the day and the leaders of the Opposition to watch the game, and afterwards at the dinner in the evening when the game is over, if the principal guest invited to speak is a politician, then he may be either a member of the Government or of the Opposition Shadow Cabinet. Therefore the disturbances that have recently been taking place on Rugby football grounds in England and Wales have been deeply regretted by the Rugby Football Union and the Welsh Union, whose only desire is to keep clear of politics and look after the playing of the game. The Rugby Football Union are solely concerned with the organising of the game in England in the best interests of the players, in the expectation that the more the players enjoy the game the better will it be for players and spectators alike.

I am making this point at some length to your Lordships because recently, prominently reported on the front page of the Daily Telegraph was the following statement by Mr. Russell Kerr, the Socialist Member of Parliament for Feltham and Chairman of the Socialist Tribune Group. This is what he said: I deeply regret that the Rugby Union should be engaging itself in politics in this way". It is difficult to imagine a more distorted, biased and untruthful statement. The facts are that the four home Unions of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales have invited a Rugby football team from South Africa to visit the British Isles to play Rugby football as they are fully entitled to do.

It is over 60 years since the first team from South Africa visited the British Isles, and more than 70 years since a touring side from these Isles first visited South Africa; and there have been many visits since then. The sole purpose of these visits is for players and spectators to enjoy themselves in watching a game of Rugby Union football played by a team from overseas. So far as the Rugby Football Union is concerned, politics has never entered into the playing of these games, nor does it now. The sole responsibility for the bringing of politics into the playing of the game of Rugby football has been with others. The players and spectators gathered together on a privately-owned Rugby football ground to enjoy themselves in playing and watching a game of Rugby Union football do not deserve this legal and peaceful enjoyment of their leisure time to be broken up and destroyed. Players and spectators are entitled to be protected, exactly as I should be entitled to be protected if I were giving a private party in my flat and people entered on to my property to break up my party. I am entitled to throw them out and, if necessary, to get the help of the police in doing so. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, had a letter in the Daily Telegraph a few days ago which makes the point very well. He said: 'Police accused of aiding vigilantes'; Springboks at Swansea, your headline (November 7). If a mob invaded my garden and the police helped me to turn them out would they be 'accused'? That is the end of the letter.

When Oswald Mosley and his Black-shirts some thirty years ago started causing disturbances on racial grounds it became necessary to introduce the Public Order Act 1936, as my noble friend Lord Ferrier has already said. The Race Relations Acts of 1965 and 1968 are, as he has pointed out, an extension of that Act. It seems to me, and to many others as well, that people have been guilty of offence under Section 6(1) of the 1965 Act, because without any doubt numbers of people have been quite deliberately stirring up hatred on racial grounds within and outside Rugby football pitches. Many of those demonstrating have used words which are abusive and insulting, and they have been deliberately so used to stir up hatred on grounds of race and national origin. Since this is the case, the public are entitled to know what action the Government are proposing to take to prosecute people guilty of misbehaviour. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has already drawn attention to Section 6(3), which concerns penalties, so there is no need for me to take up your Lordships' time by reading them again, but I think that if the Government made it known very clearly that they were not going to countenance any further scenes of disorder and violence on or outside Rugby football grounds, and that there would be prosecutions under the Act, we might well see this violence cease.

I make a strong distinction between those peacefully demonstrating in public places and others whose sole object is to stir up trouble on private property against the wishes of the great majority assembled on that private property for lawful and peaceful purposes. It is in- teresting to recall that it was the National Socialist leader, Hitler, who first brought politics into sport in a big way in the Berlin Olympic Games in 1936. When the War was over the Iron Curtain countries were quick off the mark in realising the importance to them of mixing politics with sport, and sport was fully exploited by the Communists for political ends. It is, I think, significant that people who have been causing these disturbances within as well as outside Rugby football grounds—and again I make the distinction between violence and disturbance, and peaceful demonstrations—are the same sort of people who are to be found protesting and demonstrating on all and every occasion, especially on Sundays, that suits Communist policy. And, of course, they avoid such occasions as when the Russians invade Czechoslovakia, or when a wall is erected in Berlin to prevent people from leaving East Germany because of the intolerable conditions in that country.

When the Springboks were playing their first match against Oxford University at Twickenham three weeks ago, your Lordships will recall seeing on television, as well as in the photographs in newspapers, an old man in shorts being led from the pitch. He had invaded the playing area at half-time. This individual was none other than 60-year old Bill Laithwaite—a leading Surrey Communist. Why did not the B.B.C. and the newspapers report this item of fact? Why do not the newspapers and the B.B.C. report that the planning and the driving force behind these disturbances and violent demonstrations come from Communist anarchy sources? These people wish to disrupt our way of life and cause anarchy in our midst.

People in our country are allowed wide freedom, as indeed they should be, to demonstrate and protest by peaceful means. If, however, this freedom is abused, as it now is, by deliberate interference intended to provoke violence of lawful and peaceful behaviour by law abiding citizens on Rugby football grounds in the United Kingdom, then just as surely as I am addressing your Lordships to-night our ancient rights and privileges will disappear. That is why it is so important for the Government immediately to take firm action under the Race Relations Acts. If the Government do not do so, then the Race Relations Acts are meaningless jargon; and, what is also so important, the law is brought into disrespect.

The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has already drawn attention to the wording of the Race Relations Act, and I must say that I find it extraordinarily difficult to understand how it comes about that a Scottish family wanting a Scottish cook to make them porridge for breakfast offend against the Race Relations Act when they advertise this employment requirement, but people who invade private property and then cause a disturbance for the sole purpose of inciting racial hatred apparently are not offending. If they are offending, then why have the Government not taken action before now? May I remind the Government of what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said in the debate already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier. I quote: Taken together, the powers contained in Clauses 6 and 7 will enable the police to deal with the rabble-rousers in the street, and with the back-room organisers …"—[OFFICIALL REPORT, 26/7/65; Col. 1013.] If this gives to the Government the necessary powers in the street, then surely they have the powers even more strongly to stop these rabble-rousers from creating disturbances on private property. Moreover, in the process of causing this disturbance among people gathered together for lawful and peaceful enjoyment of a leisure pursuit, these hooligans, some of whom are under the influence of drugs, use filthy and obscene language. For innocent and peaceful players and spectators to have threatening epithets and obscene abuse hurled at them, even before a game has started, such as, "You masturbating Fascist pigs" is quite intolerable.

To judge by some of the things said on the B.B.C., and reported in certain newspapers, coupled with the use of the word "vigilantes" instead of the time-honoured and well-understood word of "stewards", people might be excused for thinking that there had been encouragement by the Rugby Football Union for stewards to rough-handle these disturbers of the peace who invade the playing area, which in any case would be only what they deserve. The facts are exactly the opposite. Prior to statements which have been made during the past 48 hours, strict directions had been issued by the Rugby Football Union to those clubs and unions responsible for organising the playing of matches against the Springboks. They have been told to instruct all stewards that they are there only to assist the police to remove demonstrators from the playing area if requested so to do by the police. Furthermore, that they should not on their own remove demonstrators by force, and that in no circumstances whatever, and no matter how great the provocation, should they retaliate in any way.

Finally, stewards when on the pitch should be clearly distinguishable to each other and to the demonstrators. Stewards give, and always have given, their services voluntarily. They have never been paid, as was suggested by the Home Secretary in another place a day or two ago. I have seen the police, assisted by stewards, in operation on two occasions recently, doing their best to preserve law and order while undergoing the most filthy abuse and deliberate provocation by people not assembled to watch Rugby football but to cause disturbance. No tribute paid to the patience and forbearance of the police in such circumstances can be too high. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity that this debate provides to commend the police for the loyal, patient and quite outstanding manner in which they discharge their difficult and exacting duties in the public interest.

Next year, to commemorate the celebration of its centenary, the Rugby Football Union have invited a team from Fiji to pay us a visit. I cannot but help wonder whether the Government would not have taken action before now if, instead of the Springboks, the Fijians had been our visitors this year and they had been subjected to the same kind of provocation, intended to arouse racial hatred, as have our present visitors.

In conclusion, your Lordships will have noted that I have made no reference at all to the arguments for and against the policy of apartheid which is being pursued in South Africa, and on which subject there are such deep feelings. What I am drawing the attention of the Government to is the fact that this touchy subject of apartheid is being used by the Communo-anarchists to stir up violence and hatred, with anarchy the ultimate object in view. I am sure that the Government have in their possession the necessary evidence, as I have, of the people behind these disturbances and their known Communist affiliations. In so far as the principles of apartheid are concerned, these people could not care less. What they are interested in is the fact that this subject is a convenient vehicle for the disruption of our society.

8.1 p.m.

LORD O'HAGAN

My Lords, one of the main reasons why I come to your Lordships' House is to learn, and one of the more important things I have learnt is how controversial subjects ought to be discussed-subjects such as that under discussion at the moment. The calmness and tolerance that is often found here does so much good. Race, and people's views on matters connected with race relations or discrimination, are "hot" subjects; and we have a very great responsibility when discussing them.

I do not like apartheid. I think it is indefensible; it degrades those who benefit from it, as well as those who are discriminated against. Nor do I like violence. But I feel that your Lordships ought to continue to help to provide sensible leadership when matters like that under discussion to-night are before the public eye. Yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, chipped away, unintentionally or not, the chances of calm discussion continuing here. To-day we have had another discussion capable of misinterpretation, and the unnecessarily violent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal. I live in Fulham. Two streets away from my home is a big wall—I think it is the wall of the gasworks. On it, in letters about 2 ft. high, is written: "Enoch's all right. So keep Britain white."

There is a great deal of fear; there is a great deal of ignorance, and a great deal of reactionary unrealism about. However calmly the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, made his case, I shall be sad if the message that goes out from this House, particularly to the Commonwealth, tonight is that the principle of fair treatment for all citizens takes second place to games of Rugby. My Lords, if it does, the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, will have done infinitely more harm than good. I fear that he may have done so; and if he has not, the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield, has.

8.4 p.m.

LORD BROUGHAM AND VAUX

My Lords, the wind has been taken out of my sails by what has been said already. I should like first to welcome the Spring-boks here on behalf of myself, and also I feel, on behalf of the great majority of the people of this country, lovers of this sport. I should like also to wish them luck and wish them well. I do not particularly approve of apartheid, but they probably do not approve of many of the laws that we have in this country.

If one wants to discriminate against South Africans coming to this country, one has to consider which is the lesser of two evils. The Russians can come to this country—your Lordships may think that this is a red herring, but it has been slightly touched on in a different context to-night. I know that Russia is a Communist country, but if they can murder people just because they do not do as they are told, I think that what we are faced with by this visit is the lesser of two evils. If any people should not be allowed to come to this country, it is the Russians. If we stop nationals from both these countries from coming here, then that is the end of international sport.

I should like also to-night to congratulate the police on the job they are doing. I wish them all the luck, support and strength they need to carry out their duties to the best of their ability, and in their attempts to please everybody without treading on the toes of the hooligans (for that is all these demonstrators are; they are very much a minority), while, on the other hand, they are beaten and suffer internal injuries, fractures and the like.

As I have said, many of the points I was going to raise have already been mentioned, and at this hour I do not think it worth mentioning them again. I have noticed what has been said about to-day's incidents. They took place a quarter of a mile away from the ground where the match was actually being played. I do not know whether one can draw any consolation from this or not. But in this country it has always been a right to air our views through peaceful demonstrations. This right has now more or less disappeared, and we have come almost to the stage of bloodshed. If these hooligans want violence, then I think the police ought to be given more assistance with troops, who can give just an extra bit of weight and push them away. If that does not work, then I suppose it will have to come to the police standing there and using their truncheons. We shall then see just how close the demonstrators actually get to the police. I am sure that they would keep well away from the police, who would not have to move an inch.

My final point is that I should like the Press to give more space to the actual games of Rugger and not so much to the demonstrations, because it only blows the situation up for a bigger and more violent demonstration at the next Rugger match.

8.8 p.m.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, I apologise for not having given notice that I wish to take part in this discussion. I want to do so as a Rugby football enthusiast. Sixty years ago Rugby was my religion, and Rugby is still my escapism. I regard it as the greatest sport in the world. I went to a school with only 90 boys. We regularly provided international players: Gillespie of Scotland, Fahmy of Wales, the great Gracie of Scotland. Indeed, when I left school I had no greater desire than to become a Rugby international. My devotion to Rugby was one of the reasons that made me a Socialist. On 15s. a week I could not stand the cost, the social cost, of Rugby clubs in London. Although I felt that frustration, I retained my devotion. The beauty of the passing movements across the field! The times I have watched the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, leading a forward attack! They are some of the highest memories of my enjoyment in life. It is because of this enthusiasm for Rugby football that I am taking part in this debate tonight.

One of the reasons for my devotion to athletics and sport is because of its internationalism. One thinks of the Olympic Games, with the great principle that neither politics nor race nor religion must deny the right of any team to be represented there. I pay my tribute at once to our Rugby Union for the contribution which they have made in Ireland, to Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland playing together. One thinks of great athletic meetings and the inspiration of seeing them upon television, with Negro athletes representing America; with all races and all colours, with the yellow races of Asia there, too. Anyone who has a real understanding of athletics and sport must have the understanding that a man or woman who is to be regarded as great in athletics and sport must be so because of capacity in the game and not because of the pigmentation of their skin and their birth.

My Lords, it is partly this devotion to the philosophy of athletics and sport that makes me regret so much that in South Africa this principle should be repudiated. There, no African can play with a white European. There, no coloured person can play with an African. There, no Indian can play with any member of another race. South Africa to-day is repudiating the very essence and philosophy of those of us who treasure athletics and sport, in the way that many of us do. It is not those who are protesting against this denial of the very essence of sport and athletics who have brought in politics. It is the South African Government, which denies the right of the great majority of its population to be chosen for a South African team. I know it is sometimes said that no one but a white in South Africa has the athletic quality to be chosen for their team. One would not be surprised if that were true, when one considers the football fields on which those who are not white have to train and have to play. But it is not true. With my knowledge of Rugby football I could recite many names of non-whites in South Africa, even under the conditions there, who would have won on any inter-racial basis the right to represent their country on the international field. I can think of one at this moment who has become a professional and for whom Australia has paid a large fee because of his great ability as a Rugby player. So, my Lords, it is not those who are protesting against the presence of the South African team who are introducing politics into sport. It is the South African Government which has done so, and those of us who believe so deeply in the essence of athleticism and sport are sorry that any Government in the world should have introduced this element of division. My Lords, I want to speak briefly but I must make some comment upon the extraordinary argument that we have heard tonight that the Race Relations Act should be applied to those who have been demonstrating against the white South African visit. I have been described—and I do not think he will mind my mentioning this—by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor as the author of the Race Relations Acts, because year after year when I was in another place I introduced Bills which ultimately found expression in the Acts. What has been the purpose of those Acts? The purpose has been to make illegal the practice of discrimination on the grounds of race or of colour in expanding spheres, beginning in public places, moving on now to housing and employment and to financial contracts. The purpose was to indicate that our nation stood against racial discrimination.

LORD FERRIER

My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I thought I had made it perfectly clear in my opening speech that the issue as I see it is a narrow one concerning Sections 6 and 7 of the 1965 Act, and no other Section of any Act have I mentioned.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, but I do not think what I am saying is irrelevant to his argument, to which I listened with great care. I am trying to speak with a certain absence of intensity, and this is partly because as a Rugby footballer I have appreciation both of the noble Lord who put down this Unstarred Question and the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal. I know their contributions to the Rugby game. What I was trying to say was that the purpose of the Race Relations Acts was to declare on behalf of this nation that we are opposed to discrimination on the grounds of race and of colour, and those now opposing the coming of the South African team are opposing it exactly upon those lines. How in the world a Race Relations Act can be used against those who are demonstrating this right to human equality I do not begin to understand.

I will just add one further thing before I conclude. I am against the violence which has been shown by demonstrators. I was at Oxford at the time of the cancellation of the University match there. I spoke to students and I warned them of the backlash which would come if violence was shown in these demonstrations. But the great majority of the students who are protesting now are doing so from the highest motives: because they believe in human equality; because they believe that human personality is greater than any difference of race or colour; because they believe that this spirit ought to animate the international sport which we love, which Britain has done so much to contribute to the world. My Lords, in that spirit I hope that we shall reject the arguments which have been put forward tonight, and applaud those who regret the presence of the South African team, because it denies the very spirit of human equality for which this nation stands.

8.20 p.m.

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrier for introducing this Question, because it has enabled your Lordships to have a debate on a subject which is of very considerable public interest. I consider that anyone who takes part in a debate of this nature realises that he has a very "hot potato" and must indeed be moderate and careful in what he says. No one could have been more moderate and careful than the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, who, if I may say so, put his case, which was necessarily a fairly strong one, with the least possible cause of upset to anyone. If I could emulate that in one small iota I should be grateful, but I doubt whether I shall succeed.

We have of late had an increasing number of demonstrations, and these give the public cause for deep consideration. I am not one of those who feel that to demonstrate is to exercise democracy, albeit one may be availing oneself of a privilege of democracy. It has always seemed to me curious, when one looks back over the years and thinks how hard the pioneers have struggled to get to a state where we can call ourselves democratic, that one can sit back and reflect that the greatest sign of democracy is that people may demonstrate because their views are not accepted.

The problem will come when the Government have to decide between the undoubted right of people to demonstrate and the even more undoubted rights of people to go about their lawful life or pleasure without let or hindrance. I would impute no particular emphasis to either; I think that both are important. But they are necessarily conflicting, and the conflict seems to be becoming greater. I listened with immense interest, as one always does, to the right reverend Prelate, and I hesitate to comment on what he said for fear, as it were, of being taken in the wrong way. But perhaps I may just say that I think we might be on dangerous ground if we accepted his assertion that we should not play games with people who come from a country whose Governments or way of life we do not like or accept. One entirely understands his views in saying that, but I should think that this would be a dangerous precedent indeed.

THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER

My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to interrupt. I did not say that we should not play games with teams coming from countries whose policies we do not approve of. What I said was that we should not play games with teams which themselves represent a policy that we cannot accept.

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, I bow to the right reverend Prelate's definition, but I should have thought there was not a significant difference. However, be that as it may, I accept what the right reverend Prelate has said. I also accept fully the views of those who feel, as indeed he did and other noble Lords did, that the Springboks side is unacceptable to them personally because it contains no coloured people. I accept the fact that if they feel the desire to express their dissatisfaction at this they may have the right to demonstrate. But I do not accept that they have the right to demonstrate in such a manner as to prevent others from going about their lawful business of enjoying a match.

But, my Lords, have these people the right to demonstrate? What are they demonstrating about? It is surely that the team is composed solely of one type of person; that the team is not composed of a mixture of races but is composed solely of white people. The essence of the demonstration must therefore necessarily be racial. If one were to imagine a situation where a team of coloured people were playing a match and there was a demonstration against them, this would be infringing the Race Relations Act. Surely, therefore, if there is a demonstration against a team not composed of coloured people but composed solely of white people; if this is the essence of the demonstration, this must surely offend against the Race Relations Act.

I should have thought that if anyone wished to consider this he would have need to go no further than Section 1 of the Race Relations Act 1968, which says: …A person discriminates against another if on the ground of colour, race or ethnic … origins he treats that other …less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons …". Nobody likes a situation where demonstrations such as this are caused. One would hope that in the future some way will be found of making one's perfectly legitimate complaints against a régime or a society in such a manner as does not conflict with the lawful business or pleasure of other people.

I once suggested to your Lordships that I had coined a law, which I described as "Ferrers Law", which says quite simply that everything has the reverse effect of that intended. I cannot but believe that that is possibly the case with the Race Relations Act, because this is an Act which was designed to prevent racial discrimination against coloured people. In fact I should have thought that there is here an argument that it bears completely the other way round, where you have a situation in which there is discrimination against a side because of its racial make-up. I have never liked the Act because, instead of harmonising people of different ethnic backgrounds, it has had completely the reverse effect. It has tended to polarise people into different groups, each trying to find out what are their rights and duties and privileges and protections under the Act; and this I believe to be a wholly regrettable state of affairs. I do not believe that it is a unifying Act. But the fact is that we have the Act, and it should be brought to bear equally for the protection of one section of the community as for the other.

I wonder for how long we shall have to suffer policemen being injured and knocked about by these demonstrations, with little being done to protect them, all to allow the so-called freedom to demonstrate. Ten were injured at Swansea; another four to-day taken to hospital, as your Lordships have heard, with crushed ribs. Where is the freedom here? Where is the freedom for those who genuinely wish to watch the match, who want no truck with race relations? Where is the freedom for the mothers, as my noble friend read from the paper, who had to lock their children up in their houses for fear of the demonstrations? The Government have an Act to preserve law and order, yet they seem to be making little use of it.

I have heard a report that 200 students from Edinburgh had their fares paid to go down to Swansea to join in the demonstration. We know that the genuine demonstrator has a right to put forward his views, but surely he must also accept some liability if by airing his views he attracts a considerably larger element of rowdy people who are not concerned with expressing his views but merely want to have a punch-up. This is the danger; that if the one genuine band of demonstrators attract a large crowd of rowdy people they themselves will, in the end, prejudice the right of the genuine demonstrators to demonstrate. This is what we should guard against. So I would ask the Government this simple question: what are they doing to ensure that the rights and the privileges of those who demonstrate do not make inroads into what I consider to be the far greater right and privilege of the many who wish to live their lives and to go about their work or their pleasure in peace and quiet.

8.32 p.m.

LORD STRANGE

My Lords, I am a chalk jockey. I apologise for that, but I put my name down at the door and it has been reported to both Benches and also to the Desk. The reason I did that was that I did not know whether or not I was going to speak, because I thought that other speakers before me would have covered very much better than I could have done everything that I was likely to say. But they have not, which is most surprising. However, I can guarantee to your Lordships that I shall not keep you any longer than necessary, because I have only about three or four things to say. I may say to your Lordships that I have just received a "wire from the turf" to say that there are four other speakers after me. That is pretty serious but still!

I know we are most keen on teaching and preaching democracy to everybody outside the country. Why on earth do we not have democracy in this country? That is the point I am speaking on. I know quite well that there are here a number of rugger players. Lord Brockway was a rugger player. We all agree that sport is outside politics. For goodness sake, let us leave politics out of something! Let us have sport free. I am sure that everybody in this House resented the attitude of the South Africans in trying to pick the cricket team we wished to send over there last year. It is against all the interests of sport and everything else. I am sure that nearly everybody in his heart objects to these disturbances against the team that they have chosen to send over here. We do not want to go into this question of racialism in the matter of sport. For goodness sake, let us keep it clean! Lord Wakefield, Lord Brockway and myself were all keen rugger players. We never thought about whom we were playing against. I should not have minded playing against black, yellow, green or whatever colour the people were; I wanted to play, and I liked it. For goodness sake, do not dirty sport with racialism or anything else! Just forget it. They have sent over here the people that they want and we should play against them. Let us leave other things out of it.

The point that I have got up to raise is this. So far as we can, let us keep this country a democracy. People, Wat Tyler, everybody else, are entitled to collect the masses together and to march. We recognise that. We recognise that it is the British way of showing a grievance. They march along and wave banners, they shout and yell. They cannot be stepped because it is part of the British democratic way of life to do this. People are allowed free speech. But they are also allowed liberty of the individual. That is basic. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be able to correct me if I am wrong, but I think it comes from Magna Carta, that in time of peace people should be allowed to go about in freedom.

These marches are great fun; but they impede the traffic. They are damaging for the police and often to other people. They are inclined to be riotous, which we do not want. They are inclined to break up buildings; we do not want that. The point is that they hold up traffic, they sometimes damage people, they are extremely noisy and they interfere with the liberty of other individuals. That is not democracy. Other individuals should have their liberty. They should be able to go about and do what they like. They should not be stopped by people marching down the street. But the people marching down the street should not be stopped, either. They have their point in regard to democracy. They are very angry about something—in fact, furious. They wave banners. They have all sorts of weapons to throw at somebody else. They should be allowed to do that.

But what we want to achieve is fairness to other people, the nice people in this country who do not riot, who stay quietly at home. They know what they want, or what they think they want, but they do not want to get bowled over by the rioters going down the street. What we should do, therefore, is to have a circular track on which it is legal for platforms and speak, shout and yell, and forms so that they can get up on the platforms and speak, shout and yell, and throw anything they like at each other, and we should have a quite limited police force to keep them in order. We should have organising points on this circuit where these people can organise themselves to march. They should be kept at a distance apart so that they do not start a fight with each other. If they want them, we should have Members of the Houses of Parliament—yes, Members of the House of Lords, too, if they will go—to stand on those platforms to answer questions. These people like asking questions. Let them be answered. They should march round as many times as they like. if the British public want to go and look at them, let them. We should have places for them to stand. They could buy hot dogs, or fish and chips; they should sit down on the grass and should be allowed to listen. These people should be allowed to run down anybody they like—the Queen, the Royal Family, the whole Constitution, the House of Lords even.

At the end of the day they will be tired. They will have said their say. Then they would go to a disbanding point and go quietly on their way. But do not let us have them marching down the streets, collecting in squares, upsetting people who do not even like them and who think they are a bore. Let them attract the people who like them. There is always a Hyde Park or places such as that at which people can speak. Give them a proper route to march down with their banners. At these matches I think they should be conducted to a held where they can march round and wave their banners, but not interrupt people who want to go and see a game of Rugby football. What on earth has that to do with politics? I cannot see any connection at all between these two things. Some people want to see others playing a game.

We are a little nervous about the way in which South Africa is not run quite as a democracy. But that has nothing to do with sport. Do not let us have students coming down from Edinburgh. Perhaps we should let them come, but let them have a field on which to march, where they can shout and do anything they like other than upset the ordinary citizen who has come to see a game of Rugby football. That is all I have to say.

8.39 p.m.

LORD BURTON

My Lords, I, too, apologise for not having put down my name, but I had hoped that this point would be made by someone else. It is only one point, and it is that if these scruffy, long-haired children who make up the majority of the demonstrators were to get no publicity for their demonstrations, would they continue to demonstrate? Is it necessary for the Press and the B.B.C. to give them all the publicity that they do? It seems to me that it is this publicity which is costing the country so much money and trouble to keep law and order.

8.40 p.m.

TIIE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM

My Lords, I, too, apologise for having been unable to give notice of speaking, and especially for being unable to be here when the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, introduced the discussion. I entirely agree with all that has been said about the distinction we need to make between peaceful demonstrations and violent demonstrations; of the democratic need for the one in certain conditions of society, the justification for the one, and the lack entirety of justification for the other.

That point aside, I should like to approach from another direction, and quite briefly, a point which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, made, and which I believe the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chester made. My point is centred round the question: can politics and sport be kept apart on this occasion? I do not know enough about the details of the Irish situation in regard to those Irish Rugby games in the past, but the Race Relations Act apart, it would surely have been an entirely different matter if the Northern Ireland team had excluded, on a principle enunciated for everyone's knowledge, people born South of the Border, people who had not been Unionists, and people who were not members of the Orange Order. That would inevitably have made the team from Northern Ireland politically biased and politically expressive. It could not help but have done. I think that situation is closer to the one we have before us now.

The truth is that politics have in fact entered into the playing of this game, and by none of our doing. Sport and politics have now met together because they have entered into the selection of the team, and it seems to me that that fact itself makes the games occasions which stir up racial trouble. Inevitably the team becomes a symbol of racialism, though no member of the team may himself wish for that. The team cannot help but be a symbol of racialism because of the principles on which it has been selected. As I say, the Northern Ireland case would have been just the same had that team been selected on the principle of allegiance to the Unionist Party or the Orange Order, or whatever it was. They were not selected on those principles, and therefore the Irish situation was undoubtedly helped by these games occurring.

Surely we have to be very careful that sport does not have the political overtones which have in this case been given to it by a Government not our own. It is those political overtones which this team expresses which form the cause of trouble in this case; and they are overtones which, as the noble Lord, Lord Brock- way, said, entirely deny the philosophy of sport which we treasure in this country. That, my Lords, I submit, is the real issue behind the present disturbances.

LORD WADE

My Lords, I should like to make it clear that my only reason for not taking part in this debate is that in a fortnight's time I am due to open a debate on the subject of demonstrations. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, very kindly referred to this. At the same time, I should not like my silence to be implied as agreeing with the varied arguments that have been put forward in support of this Motion. I think perhaps the fairest thing I can say in one sentence is that I think it is commendable that the youngest Member of your Lordships' House who has taken part in this debate should have spoken with such wisdom, moderation, and good sense.

8.44 p.m.

THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (BARONESS SEROTM

My Lords, it will be obvious to the House that I could not have had the direct experience of the game of Rugby football that many of your Lordships clearly have. My own personal involvement has been secondhand in the sense that three times a week when my son was playing Rugby football for his school, I had to wash his Rugby kit. This did not prejudice me against the game; it gave me some idea of the enthusiasm that it engenders amongst men.

When I saw the terms of the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, which he has put tonight, and which in fact has enlarged itself into a debate, it seemed to indicate that he was concerned primarily with the very limited issue of whether the authorities concerned with administering the race relations legislation in this country are sufficiently alive to their duties and responsibilities. However, as has been shown by the very wide variety of issues and questions that have been raised by those who have spoken since him in the debate, his Question is not really as simple as all that. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester—who unfortunately has had to leave us owing to another engagement, and who has asked me to apologise for his absence to the House—I thought spoke with courage and with clarity, stating the wider issues that were involved and which indeed lay behind Lord Ferrier's Question. The whole of the discussion we have had goes to show that the problems that have been raised by the Springboks' tour in this country, and the demonstrations that have happened in connection with it, involve issues which are really of the essence of our traditional procedures and our democratic system of government in this country.

The noble Lord, Lord Wade, has just reminded the House that he has a Motion down on the significance of demonstrations in a modern society. But it is not surprising that many of the points that have been raised to-night have been raised in relation to this issue, which is a matter of concern in some quarters at the moment, and was debated at some length during the passage of the Race Relations Act itself in 1965.

Several Members of the House have reminded us of the longstanding tradition in this country that persons with similar opinions, whatever one's view of those opinions, should have the right to organise themselves and put their opinions forward, provided they do not go beyond the limits that have been set by the law in the interests of the community as a whole. In spite of the call for troops from the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, the rest of the House would I think agree that we would not wish to rush into any action which could result in paying the very high price indeed of the loss of our traditional freedoms in this country. It is regrettably true that some demonstrations can lead to violence, and several speakers have deprecated this, but this occurs far less often than is supposed. I hope that the House will keep these incidents in a sense of proportion.

I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Burton, when he seemed to suggest that perhaps certain incidents receive too much publicity. Perhaps certain facets of certain incidents get too much publicity. I think the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has basic objections to demonstrations, in that he himself has never felt moved to demonstrate; but there are several Members of your Lordships' House, and I certainly am one of them, who have joined in many demonstrations.

LORD AUCKLAND

Peaceful.

BARONESS SEROTA

And I have often been surprised when we have read or seen the accounts of them later in the Press. My Lords, it would surely be far too extreme a step for the Government to forbid all demonstrations, because only a minority give rise to violence. It would be equally invidious to take the view that certain demonstrations, because they might interfere with some activities which some of your Lordships hold dear, ought solely on that account to be prohibited. The noble Lord who put the Question was concerned with penalties for offences such as assaulting the police, possessing weapons, and about making good damage. I think the noble Lord knows that where a demonstration does become violent the police have adequate powers to deal with offenders, but with regard to the explicit subject of the Question, namely, the application of the race relations legislation—

LORD FERRIER

My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Baroness, I did not say anything about making good damage. I mentioned that damage seems to have ensued from the violence.

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord. I thought he was making the general point, and my reply was that this comes generally within the terms of the law and is not dealt with, nor needs to be dealt with, within the context of our race relations legislation.

The noble Lord referred in some detail to Sections 6 and 7 of the Act, and quoted at considerable length from the speeches that were made on them during the passage of the Bill, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. But as he told us—and I do not wish to requote the sections of the Act because the hour is late—if there is any allegation of an offence under Section 6, then it is for my right honourable friend the Attorney General to consider it in the light of the details of the particular case alleged. And whilst I am clearly not competent to make any authoritative statement on a question of law, especially in a Chamber such as this, which has so many distinguished and learned Members, I should have thought it very doubtfully arguable that the demonstrations have so obviously involved any offence of racial incitement under Section 6.

With regard to these demonstrations, I think that many of us see them as being not dissimilar from those which have been held in recent years against the Vietnam war. The intention of those demonstrations has been to seek an end to the war; and the intention of the current demonstrations against the Springbok tour, as many noble Lords have pointed out, is to put an end to the racial policies of the South African Government. I know that several of those who have spoken tonight deeply resent what they regard as the mixing up of politics with sport; but I think that they must equally understand that there are others, who are demonstrating to bring the Springbok tour to a close—that is their declared objective—because they believe that a team which is selected by a country on the principles of apartheid is the very anathema of all they believe in. The Government do not see that this is relevant to Section 6 of the 1965 Act, which deals with racial incitement against minority groups in this country. I would urge your Lordships to look at the Act and to understand that that is its purpose: namely, to take action against those who incite race hatred against minority groups in this country.

With regard to Section 7 of the Act, the other point raised by the noble Lord at the outset, its original purpose, as he said, was to substitute amended provisions for those originally enacted in Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936, which make it an offence in any public place or at any public meeting for a person to use threatening or abusive language or insulting words and behaviour; and the fact is that, out of a total of 102 arrests at matches after the present Springbok tour, 61 arrests were for offences under Section 7. I submit to the House that the problems which arise in connection with these matches are not really problems of the kind to which the race relations legislation is really directed. Indeed, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said in another place on November 17, they are problems of public order and fall to be dealt with as such on precisely the same basis as any other such problems. I hope it is in that light that those noble Lords who are concerned with the general issue of demonstrations and the right to demonstrate freely in a democratic society will address their minds when they take part in the debate that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, is initiating on December 10.

House adjourned at five minutes before nine o'clock.