§ 24. Mr. Brockwayasked the President of the Board of Trade if, before continuing the grant from public funds to the British Travel and Holidays Association, he will ensure that hotels belonging to the Association do not practise racial discrimination.
§ Mr. MaudlingNo, Sir. It is for the courts and not for the Association to decide what are the obligations of hotel keepers in matters of this kind.
§ Mr. BrockwayDoes the right hon. Gentleman understand the very serious position? Did he watch the television programme, which was a quite responsible feature, which indicated that an African had telephoned 25 hotels which receive assistance from this association, that 14 replied that they had no room for him, and that within ten minutes an Englishman inquired of the 14 and 10 said that they had accommodation? Is it not scandalous that the Government should be giving £1 million to this association and yet should not be requiring from hotels an undertaking that they will not practise race discrimination?
§ Mr. MaudlingThe purpose of the association is not to provide benefit to individual hotels but generally to stimulate the tourist industry, which is one of our biggest export earners. But, on this very important question of discrimination, I understand that the Hotel Proprietors Act, 1956, says that keepers of hotels may not, without lawful excuse, refuse to provide refreshment and accommodation to any traveller who appears able and willing to pay and is in a fit condition to be received. There is thus clear legal provision by Parliament to deal with this problem. That is how we should proceed and not by the way the hon. Member suggests.
§ Mr. JayIf that is the law and the Government grant public funds to this association, then it is not the duty of the Government and of the association to ensure that the law is carried out?
§ Mr. MaudlingI have no reason to suppose that the law is not being carried out. I do not regard the evidence of a television programme as being conclusive. If anyone believes that the law is not being carried out, then there is recourse to the courts.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that his original Answer will be received by many people on both sides of the House with very great anxiety? Is he intending to say to the House that public money can be continued to be paid in large amounts to an association without taking any responsibility whatever for seeing that the money is not used by anybody who may benefit from it for a purpose which is quite contrary to public policy and against the law? Does he think that he has no responsibility in the matter at all?
§ Mr. MaudlingThe hon. Member should get his facts right. To remove any hotel from association membership is not to deny the hotel any benefit but merely to lose its subscription. The hotels pay, they do not receive. The important thing in this matter is that where Parliament on a very important issue has provided a principle to be determined by the courts, it should be for the courts and not for any association to enforce the law.
§ Mr. BrockwayIn view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise 'the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.