RACE RELATIONS ACT 1968 (AMENDMENT) (Hansard, 11 June 1969)

§ Mr. Hugh Jenkins (Putney)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Race Relations Act 1968; and for connected purposes. My proposed Bill stems from a resolution carried unanimously at the 1968 Trades Union Congress and couched in these terms: That this Congress notes with concern that there are social and working men's clubs which practise racial discrimination in regard both to admission to the clubs and to the engagement of performers. Congress endorses the action taken by the performers' unions in instructing their members to refuse engagements in such clubs and asks the General Council to call upon all affiliated unions to support the performers' unions in this matter by any means open to them. At this stage I remind the House that before coming here I was Assistant General Secretary to British Actors' Equity Association and that I still have a part-time connection with that organisation; so in that sense I have an interest in the matter.

My Bill would extend the operation of the Race Relations Act, 1968, to clubs. It would provide that a club may legitimately restrict its membership to particular ethnic groups or nationalities, provided that it does so publicly and in accordance with adopted rules. Thus a club may be set up for Jewish bakers, or for Pakistani conductors, or even as one hon. Member opposite would probably like for descendants of William the Conqueror only, provided that it is done properly, openly and in accordance with the rules of the club.

1480 If my Bill is carried into effect, the practice of unstated but vicious colour discrimination in clubs would be eliminated.

The only other proposal in the Bill would be to correct an unintentional consequence of the 1968 Act. Under that Act it is now illegal to advertise for a person having particular national characteristics. Thus, it is illegal to advertise for an Indian or a Chinese waiter. It is probably illegal to advertise for a Hawaiian guitarist. Theatrical employers certainly cannot advertise for a coloured actor to fill a rôle; so if they need one they have to use a telephone or send messages. This was not the intention of the Act, but it has this effect, so the people who carry these advertisements—the Stage, for example—are legally advised and they are refusing to carry such advertisements. My proposed Bill would correct this mistake without permitting any other undesirable laxity to creep in.

Both these proposals have the support of the Race Relations Board. If the House permits the introduction of the Bill, I hope to gain Government support between now and Second Reading.