§ 12. Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he proposes to seek to amend the race relations legislation in the light of the speech of Lord Scarman to the Minority Rights Group on the temporary nature of the Race Relations Act.
§ Mr. McCrindleIs the hon. Gentleman aware that some of us read his weekend speech with the greatest interest, especi 680 ally the part that stated that we cannot prosecute or legislate racialism out of existence? In these circumstances, would it not be wise for the Government to keep an eye on the continuing effectiveness of the Race Relations Acts and to ensure that they are a help rather than a hindrance to good race relations?
§ Mr. JohnIf the hon. Gentleman had read my full speech—I do not blame him for not doing so, as the extracts that appear are necessarily brief—he would realise that I do not find any substitute for a good Race Relations Act to secure equality of treatment. In so far as it is necessary to have an Act—I believe that it is, to secure equality of treatment for the minority communities—I am determined to make the Act as effective as possible.
§ Mr. Alexander W. LyonIs it not odd that a distinguished judge of Lord Scarman's stature should have made the mistake of thinking that appropriate sections of the Race Relations Act had anything to do with positive discrimination, in the American sense? All that they do is allow the Government to provide for special need rather than give any act of discrimination to anybody.
§ Mr. JohnNothing in the Race Relations Act provides for positive discrimination in the sense that my hon. Friend mentions. I agree that it allows for special treatment to fulfil special need, and I believe that that is vital.
§ Mr. StokesIs the hon. Gentleman aware that many people believe, in the light of experience, that race relations legislation is harmful to human relations and contrary to British traditions of fair play, and that the sooner it is repealed the better?
§ Mr. JohnI believe that it is not race relations legislation that is causing an upset in relations but irresponsible statements, for electoral gain, that are made from time to time without any regard to the facts.
§ Mr. John MendelsonDoes my hon. Friend agree that the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) about legislating racialism out of existence was short-sighted—as if anyone were to ask "Can you legislate dishonesty out of 681 existence?" That has never been a basis for not having legislation, for example, against theft or robbery with violence. Does my hon. Friend further agree that what is required is not so much amending legislation but the keen conviction of every judge in court that he will not act against the law but will implement it? If a judge can interpret "One down and a million to go" as not an incitement to violence, are we not ready to conclude that that judge will never interpret anything as incitement to violence?
§ Mr. JohnRace relations legislation goes a great deal wider than the one section that deals with criminal incitement. I am concerned with the whole of race relations legislation. The context in which I said that we could not legislate racialism out of existence was that race relations legislation is necessary but must be operated with determination and commitment by all sections of the community. I only wish that there were a little more on the Opposition Benches.