HC Deb 27 October 1976 vol 918 cc655-62

Lords amendment: No. 38, leave out Clause 71.

Mr. Jim Marshall (Leicester, South)

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Clause 71, which was removed by the other place, would impose a statutory duty on local authorities to work for the elimination of discrimination to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups.

This is one of the few Lords amendments that the Government have chosen not to oppose. It is interesting to review the history of the clause. It was imposed upon the Government, against Home Office advice, in Committee on 24th June, with all-party support. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane), the chairman-designate of the new Commission, supported it. The Government made no attempt to remove the clause during the Bill's remaining stages in the Commons, but they connived at the House of Lords removing it.

On 5th October 1976, Lord Harris of Greenwich said: Before I resume my seat"— some of my hon. Friends might think that he should have resumed his seat earlier— I should perhaps say that all of us in this House have basically free votes, but if a Division takes place on this particular clause the members of the Government will abstain in the Division." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 5th October, 1976; Vol. 374, c. 1192.] The Government appear to be using the House of Lords to thwart the will of the House of Commons. That ill becomes a Government which at present is accusing the House of Lords of thwarting important Government legislation. For that reason alone, the clause should be reintroduced.

Local authorities have a unique part to play in formulating the climate of opinion in an area. Officers and elected members come in contact with the problems of the area and they quickly become aware of any difficulties concerning discrimination, equality of opportunity or poor relations between people of different ethnic groups. Good local authorities—and I represent an area which has a good local authority—use that information when formulating social and financial priorities. Other local authorities ignore the information. Such local authorities could be dealt with if all local authorities were under a statutory obligation to carry out these proposals. The Select Committee recommended that course of action.

Clause 19 imposes a general duty in education. What is so particular and specific about education? Local authorities are charged with providing a number of services to ratepayers and I do not see why education should be chosen from all other services provided. Local authorities should have a statutory obligation to promote all the objectives in the legislation through all its services and activities.

Hon. Members might ask—why should a statutory duty be placed upon all local authorities? My answer is that it is unfair for the burden to be imposed upon those authorities with large immigrant concentrations. The burden should be shared. We live in a multi-racial society, whether hon. Members opposite like it or not—and we all have an obligation to promote harmony and good race relations, whether, to quote Lord Hailsham. we live in the Isle of Sky or in the City of Leicester. Those obligations could be discharged in a number of ways. Local authorities in general could play a part by channelling funds through the rate support grant mechanism to those with large immigrant concentrations, without increasing the overall level of the rate support grant settlement. They could agree that authorities with large immigrant concentrations deserved more financial assistance. In this way all local authorities could play a part in solving the kind of problems that the Bill seeks to solve.

I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that it is of the utmost importance that he clause be returned to the Bill.

Mr. Cyril Smith (Rochdale)

I compliment the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) on tabling the necessary motion to enable the House to debate this matter. I was disappointed that the Government did not choose to disagree with the Lords. I am glad that at any rate some Labour Members have made sure that we have the opportunity to register our disapproval of the Lords' action.

Local authorities can play a major role in race relations. Most of them are anxious to do so. But in this matter of race relations and community relations, as in other matters of good common sense, there are one or two local authorities that may not be very anxious to carry out the functions required to be carried out in their areas. As someone who spent 23 years as a member of a local authority, I know that on occasions it helps if one can, even if opposed by large majorities, quote parts of the law to prove that there is a legal obligation to do certain things.

Whilst I accept that the clause as it was before their Lordships amended it was not very strong, or would not lead to great enthusiasm on the part of local authorities that were not already enthusiastic, the fact that it was in the Bill could strengthen the arms of some councillors and ratepayers who might be prepared to try to force the authority to meet some obligations.

This is the only Lords amendment about which I have received a letter from my local community relations council, which is a very active one. It is obviously aware of every Lords amendment, and this is the only one it has asked me to vote against. The secretary wrote: I am writing on behalf of this Council to all three local MPs to urge that you will please actively support the reinstatement of this clause to the Bill when it returns to the Commons. This Council believes that this clause is of great importance and will be of considerable help and support to local community relations councils in carrying out their new role as laid down in the Bill. So far we have had a lawyers' paradise. I have heard little discussion so far about community relations or race relations. I have heard that the law should say this or that, and how some lawyers make sure that it is written one way. That is all to protect the legal profession and is to do with their future, but I am not sure that it is to do with race relations. However, this is something to do with it and to do with community relations. It puts the onus of responsibility in a key area where that responsibility can effectively be used in race relations—local government. Thinking of local government, I would give comprehensive education as an illustration of the fact that there are good and bad local authorities.

In urging the House to rewrite this into the Bill, I am asking them to cater for local authorities which, in my view, are bad authorities and will do nothing unless some law gives the power to push against them and to say "You must do something about that".

I urge the Government to think again about this clause and, if they will not move, I hope that their Back Benchers will support the hon. Member for Leicester, South and make sure that this clause is reinstated.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Thomas Torney (Bradford, South)

I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Rochdale, Mr. Smith). I, too, have had letters about this clause. It is the only one about which I have had letters.

This is an important situation. There has been talk and legal jargon—and here again I go along with the hon. Member for Rochdale. I remember, as a member of the Standing Committee which dealt with this Bill, saying in Committee that we were being discriminated against. Such people as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) and myself, ordinary lay Members, were discriminated against in as much as so much legal jargon was being talked.

The words in the Bill about racial discrimination will be wasted if we do not alter the social conditions. Race relations is about social conditions, and while had social conditions exist, no matter how much we change the law and compel people to do this or not do it, it will be wasted if we do not take some action to change social conditions.

When we look at social conditions we see that there is much delegation of power to local authorities. I fail to understand why the Government have not seen fit to reinstate this clause. Local authorities play such a major part in establishing good race relations and will play a greater part than any law court could or would. That is why I insist that this clause must be reinstated.

I do not take lightly to defeating the Government, but I hope that they will he defeated if they support this Lords' amendment. It is necessary that this clause should go back into the Bill because local authorities are so important.

If the Government are afraid that, when pounds ale so short or so cheap that we cannot afford to spend more money, local authorities will demand more cash, then so be it. If we want racial harmony—and we do—we have to face the fact that more money must be spent. I come from an area in Bradford, a city which has a huge proportion of coloured immigrants. I speak as someone who has served, for the whole of his time in the House, on the Select Committee on Race Relations and I claim to know a little about the subject and about the surrounding conditions which immigrants have to suffer, and about understanding their problems.

We must agree that local authorities have a large part to play. I am not criticising my local authority. Some local authorities do a good job but others may need pushing. This clause may provide the impetus which will make the Gov-eminent provide the extra money which is needed to improve racial harmony and better social conditions. Despite what I know that the Minister will say, I hope that all lion. Members will support this clause.

Mr. Barney Hayhoe (Brentford and Isleworth)

I support the retention of Clause 71. Like the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), I have received representations from my local community relations commission. It is the only clause on which I have received such representations. It is strongly felt that it should be retained.

Having listened to much of the debate this evening, I believe that there is a much better case for preserving the clause and disagreeing with the Lords than there has been for disagreeing with another place on many other matters. Despite the manner in which the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) introduced this issue—at one point he went some way towards convincing me that it was not wise to disagree with the Lords—my feeling is that we should disagree with them and retain Clause 71.

Mr. Willey

I moved this clause in Committee. I am obliged to hon. Members for the support that they have given to it. I wish to explain briefly what the issue is for this House.

This clause implements the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee. It received overwhelming support in the Standing Committee which considered the Bill. The House has to stand up for itself. The Conservatives have to vote with the Conservatives in this House and not with those in another place. That is the only issue, the only division. What is the point of setting up a Select Committee giving it this responsibility and then rejecting its unanimous recommendation?

The Home Secretary's predecessor told the House in July that the Government would stand by this clause. When the Government replied to the Select Committee in September they did not criticise the clause. In those circumstances the Government ought to stand up for the House.

I want to explain why this clause is important. It is important in the context of the Select Committee because the Government accepted our recommendation about community relations officers. It follows from that that we should reinforce the position of the local authority. This stemmed from our report.

The two major factors affecting this decision have already been canvassed. There is no issue upon which more representations have been made. It is the most important issue in the eyes of those concerned with community relations. The Government said in Committee that they had not consulted local authorities. They had plenty of time to do so because the Select Committee took evidence from local authorities.

We are now told by the Community Relations Commission that local authorities from Glamorgan to Camden support this clause. They are acting upon it although it is not yet law. The directors of social affairs in local authorities held a conference recently and strongly supported the clause. We cannot let these people down. We should recognise that they have expressed their views and that this is a provision earnestly required by those concerned with community relations.

I hope that the Government will be able to accept what I believe to be the view of the House. It has not been revealed so far, but the Government have said that if their Lordships left the clause, they would put down amendments. That is reasonable. I suggest that we restore the clause so that if the Government so feel they can table their amendments.

Mr. John

It might be for the convenience of the House if I intervene now. The Government still have reservations about the clause. I want no right hon. or hon. Member to be under any illusion, so I must make it clear that this is a declaratory clause and not one that will bring about any magic change. Nevertheless, I, is clearly the will of the House, as I understand it, that a clause dealing with local authorities should be in the Bill.

Although the Government still have doubts about the value of the clause, they have no doubts about the objects mentioned by my right hon. and hon. Friends and in asking local authorities to achieve the greatest degree of co-operation with the CRCs at local level and with the new Commission. On that basis we are prepared to accept the principle of the clause and, with the permission of the House, to move manuscript amendments which will have a clarifying effect. They conform to the formula at the beginning of the Bill. I think that they are much neater, more acceptable and much clearer in the way in which they bear upon local authorities.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. John

I beg to move a manuscript amendment in lieu thereof to the words so restored to the Bill: Leave out the first "its" and insert "their".

Question put and agreed to.

Amendment made in lieu thereof to the words so restored to the Bill: Leave out "work towards the elimination of discrimination and" and insert make appropriate arrangements with a view to securing that their various functions are carried out with due regard to the need—

  1. (a) to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination; and
  2. (b)". —[Mr. John.]

Forward to