§ 46. Mr. Croninasked the Prime Minister if the speech made by the President of the Board of Trade on 22nd October, 1958, at the annual meeting of 1009 the British Travel and Holidays Association, in which he advised the meeting to reject a resolution which would have barred from the Association any hotel or restaurant refusing admission to guests on racial or religious grounds, represented the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
§ The Prime MinisterAs my right hon. Friend said at the meeting referred to, Her Majesty's Government deplore the practice of any discrimination on grounds of race, creed or colour, but I agree with the advice he gave on that occasion that this does not seem to be a matter in which hotels should be disciplined in the manner suggested. An hotel keeper has certain obligations under common law to receive guests and it is for the courts to decide whether he fulfils them.
§ Mr. CroninWould the Prime Minister agree that it was quite unnecessary for the President of the Board of Trade to give this gratuitous advice to the Association; that it received widespread publicity and that it has caused widespread offence?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not think so. My right hon. Friend was asked for his advice on this particular and rather limited point, and he gave it. The point is that membership of the British Travel and Holidays Association does not confer any direct benefit and therefore there was no sanction that could have had any importance. The true sanction is the common law and the interpretation of the courts.
§ Mr. J. GriffithsIn view of the fact that since that advice was tendered by the President of the Board of Trade the impression has been given abroad—particularly in the Commonwealth—that one of Her Majesty's principal Ministers was, in a sense, condoning racial prejudice, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will now say frankly that the Government deplore the idea of any hotel exercising racial discrimination of this kind?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not think that is a fair interpretation of what my right hon. Friend said. In answer to questions he made very clear what were his views on the general question. The actual phrase he used was:
While I would wholeheartedly agree with the general principle of non-discrimination, I should not like to see anything like the passing of this resolution.1010 So that on that limited point my right hon. Friend made perfectly clear what was his view.
§ Mr. GaitskellWhat was the objection to the passing of this resolution? If it had been passed, surely it would have shown that the Association was wholeheartedly against racial prejudice and discrimination of any kind? Why did the President of the Board of Trade oppose it?
§ The Prime MinisterHad the resolution been couched in terms such as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, that would have been another thing. This was simply a question of whether it might be the case that the particular term, to remove certain members from the Association, was a sanction which has no value.