HL Deb 07 June 1967 vol 283 cc399-418

2.46 p.m.

LORD WADE rose to call attention to the P.E.P. Report on Racial Discrimination and the first annual report of the Race Relations Board; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the main purpose of the debate this afternoon is to draw attention to the first annual report of the Race Relations Board and also to the P.E.P. Survey which was carried out at the request of the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigration and the Race Relations Board. On Monday, when I learned of the outbreak of hostilities in the Middle East, I offered to defer this debate for a week in case it was thought desirable to have another debate on the Middle East. But it was represented to me, and I think rightly, that we ought to carry on with our business. Furthermore, the subject of discrimination in Britain is one in which we alone have jurisdiction. If this problem is to be solved, it can be solved by ourselves alone.

In November last year there was an interesting debate in your Lordships' House on immigration, in the course of which some helpful contributions were made on how we could help Commonwealth immigrants to live harmoniously with others in this country. I took part in that debate and I do not want to indulge in any tedious repetition, but on the particular subject of discrimination I think that in the two Reports to which I have referred we have some important new evidence, and it seems fitting that we should devote some time to discussing it.

At the outset I should like to pay tribute to the work of the Race Relations Board. They are to be congratulated on what they have done during the first year since the Board were set up. I am sure that the procedure that has been followed has been right, with its emphasis on investigation and conciliation. Your Lordships will recollect that at one time it was suggested that racial discrimination should be treated as a criminal offence. However strongly racial discrimination may be condemned, I believe that if people were hauled up before a court and prosecuted whenever there was evidence of discrimination there would be a revulsion against the law, instead of, as there should be, a revulsion against discrimination. Therefore, I am sure that Parliament was right in arriving at the decision that it did.

In accordance with the provisions of the Act, one of the first functions of the Board was to set up conciliation committees. The conciliation procedure is outlined in the Report. Complaints are received either by the Board or by the committees direct. Where they are received by the Board, they are passed on to the committees. Complaints may be oral or in writing, but I understand that most of them are in writing. The general procedure for dealing with complaints is broadly divided into two stages, those of investigation and of conciliation. First, the conciliation officer interviews the complainant and any witnesses he may bring forward. Then he endeavours to interview the party against whom the complaint is made. The conciliation officer then sends the report of his meetings to two members of the conciliation committee, who are asked to deal with the particular complaint. They have to consider whether there is a prima facie case. If there is a prima facie case of discrimination within the meaning of the Act, then the committee have a duty to use their best endeavours to secure a settlement by means of conciliation and by a satisfactory assurance. But first they notify the respondent of their findings; and, similarly, if they find there is no prima facie case the person against whom the complaint is made is also advised.

Everything possible is done to achieve a satisfactory settlement. It is only if that fails that there is a report to the Race Relations Board; and if the Board are satisfied that there is discrimination and that this is likely to continue, then the complaint is referred to the Attorney General or, in the case of Scotland, to the Lord Advocate. I am advised that so far there have been only three cases referred to the Attorney General. In the first case there was some element of doubt. In the second case, although there was ample evidence of flagrant discrimination, it was contended that the case did not come within the scope of the definition of "a place of public resort" as defined in the Act. I am told that the third case is still under consideration. So it seems clear that very few cases get so far as the Attorney General. But there are these ultimate sanctions, and the Attorney General has power to bring civil proceedings—not criminal proceedings—against the party concerned. But this is only in the last resort. So I think we can conclude from what has occurred so far that the conciliation procedure has been successful.

If there are defects in the Act, it is not so much in the procedure as in the limitations imposed by Parliament. Seventy per cent. of the complaints received are about matters which fall outside the scope of the Act. That, I think, is the problem that we have to face. The Race Relations Board Report deals in some detail with deficiencies that they have found in the Act, and I hope that it may be possible for the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to comment on this aspect when he speaks in this debate. The main difficulty arises, I think, from the fact that in so many cases the conciliation committees have to say: "We are sorry, but we cannot help you because your case is not covered by the Act".

Discrimination which comes outside the terms of the Act falls broadly into four categories. First, there is discrimination in places which perhaps one popularly would regard as places of public resort but which are not within the definition. The restricted definition has led to some anomalies. For example, I understand that discrimination, while not permissible in a public-house, is permissible in off-licence premises. The other three categories are in the realms of employment, housing and various services, such as insurance, car hire and credit facilities.

The Board, in their Report, recommend an extension of the existing Act. The two largest categories outside the terms of the Act are undoubtedly employment and housing; and it is employment and housing that most closely affect the day-to-day life of the coloured immigrant. I realise that it is important not to generalise: one must try to get the facts. Here I think that the P.E.P. Survey is of great value. I understand that officials of the House have done their best to provide your Lordships with copies of this Report, but it has run out of print. I hope that no-one has been inconvenienced by this. A summary of the Report has been made available for anyone who has not been able to get hold of the Report in full. When this rather formidable Report appeared on my table my first comment was: "Oh, dear! Another survey". But having studied the Report I must acknowledge the great care that has been taken to try to provide an objective account of the extent of discrimination, which really is most disturbing. There is substantial discrimination against coloured immigrants, and the darker the colour the greater the likelihood of discrimination. This is very sad, but it seems to be the case.

Before deciding what steps should be taken, one must, I think, first ask oneself this question: Given time and patience, will this discrimination disappear? After all, this inflow of immigrants has occurred before, and with the passage of time the incomers have been absorbed. Will this sort itself out as the new generations born in this country grow up? I wish that that were so. Hostility towards immigrants is not a new phenomenon. As the Race Relations Board Report points out, whenever there has been any large inflow there has been a reaction. The Report refers to the Flemings coming from the Low Countries, the Huguenots from France, the Jews from Eastern Europe, and the Irish across the Irish Sea. And it might have added, also, the Welsh coming to London and the Midlands. From my experience in the West Riding of Yorkshire, I could refer to the Poles in the years after the war.

LORD MAELOR

I should like to point out to the noble Lord that it was the English who came to England, which was occupied by the Welsh.

LORD WADE

I take due note of that, and I shall be careful in future about referring to the Welsh.

As I was saying, at first there was great hostility to immigrants who came in earlier years, but with the passage of time the whole situation has changed. If it were just a matter of time and patience, I should be only too happy. But, unfortunately, there is this new factor of colour. I should draw your Lordships' attention particularly to pages 12 and 13 of the P.E.P. Report, and if I may I will read an extract. It says: The inquiry has shown that there is, without any doubt, substantial discrimination in Britain against coloured immigrants in employment, in housing and in the provision of services such as motor insurance. This is the situation which exists now. It exists when in both employment and housing many immigrants are following ways of life which do not bring them into contact with potential discrimination. There were some suggestions from people in a position to discriminate that time would reduce discrimination; familiarity would reduce hostility and make immigrants more acceptable. Such optimism is not borne out by the findings of the research, which show two main trends. I am going to refer to only the first. As immigrants become more accustomed to English ways of life, as they acquire higher expectations and higher qualifications, so they experience more personal direct discrimination. This is apparent in local differences between areas with established communities as opposed to new communities. It is reflected in the experiences of school leavers who are the children of immigrants. Their numbers will increase. I think this is true, and the consequent feeling of frustration will, I am afraid, increase. If I thought it could be solved by the passage of time, with the aid of voluntary organisations, I should be only too happy. But all the evidence seems to point in the contrary direction, and I think there is a very real danger that the situation is likely to deteriorate.

However, as regards legislation, I think the question is not whether there should be legislation, but what form it should take, and with the experience gained by the Race Relations Board it is clear that new legislation should be along similar lines. We should ascertain whether there is a prima facie case. There should be the conciliation procedure. The Board, of course, must contain people with industrial experience. We must try to use existing industrial machinery—I am now, of course, talking about employment. Unions, certainly, must be asked to co-operate. I was interested in a speech of Mr. Frank Cousins at a conference at the May Fair Hotel, in February, organised by the National Committee, and my noble Leader, Lord Byers, was present. Mr. Frank Cousins did not entirely agree, I think, with the T.U.C., but that has happened before. He said this, however, on the subject of legislation: I want it to be understood that if we cannot find a solution without legislation, then my union will go fully in support of legislation. Of course, there are two sides to every question. I was speaking to a West Indian this morning who lives in Camden. He was educated in England from the age of six, and he said that he personally had experienced no difficulty in finding suitable employment. I noticed that he was working as a social worker. He said that he found that Africans and Indians suffered far more from discrimination, and his view was that the language problem was the greatest barrier. I take that point, but I must say that the weight of the evidence of the P.E.P. Survey is to show that it is not only language. I believe there is very strong evidence that an extension of the existing Act is required, if only to strengthen the hands of those who are trying to put an end to discrimination and to make it clear that society is committing itself openly to the task of removing, discrimination.

I do not belittle the value of voluntary organisations. There are a variety of bodies, including the National Committee, to which I referred, trying to do their best to help; and I hope that some reference will be made to them during the course of this debate. My only reason for not mentioning them is that I do not wish to take up too much of your Lordships' time. But I hope that these voluntary bodies will be referred to. While dealing with thanks, may I thank the noble Lords who indicated their willingness to take part in this debate?

When the original Act was passing through Parliament I was one of those who felt there was a case for including the subject of employment. I recollect that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack pointed out that there were difficulties, but I think he said we might have to face that possibility later. In the debate last November, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was more precise. May I quote one passage from his remarks, which is in column 729 of the debate on November 3. He said: We have been pressed to extend its provisions"— that is, the provisions of the Act— to cover racial discrimination in employment, housing and other fields. On this I would say that if further experience and evidence show that existing machinery is inadequate the Government will be prepared to consider the need for further legislation. In reaching a decision on this we shall naturally take into account the results of the investigation now being carried out by P.E.P. on behalf of the National Committee and the Race Relations Board into the extent of racial discrimination. My Lords, we now have these Reports. It may be that Her Majesty's Government will wish to wait for the Street Report—the Street Committee is looking into legislation in other countries—but I hope that the spokesman for the Government will be able to indicate a decision on principle on this matter. I understand that favourable remarks on the subject have already been made by Mr. Jenkins. But how soon will new legislation be introduced? What is it intended to cover? Meanwhile, of course, the Government must set an example. I shall be interested to know to what extent discrimination is avoided in Government Departments. I understand that it is more likely to arise in some of the public services for which the Government are not directly responsible but for which there is Parliamentary responsibility; for example, in the realm of transport. There are many coloured bus conductors, and I have always found them extremely polite: if I may say so, sometimes more polite than those of my own colour; but why are there so few coloured bus inspectors? I should have thought there must be some who were qualified to become bus inspectors.

Of equal importance to this subject of employment is that of housing. Segregation in certain areas of our towns and cities can so easily lead to the kind of situation that faces the United States, particularly some of their Northern cities. I will not comment on what has occurred in the United States, except to say that I think they have tackled the problem much too late so far as legislation is concerned—and I hope that we shall find a lesson in that.

Closely related to housing is the subject of education. If people are concentrated into certain districts then their children will go to the worst schools, in the worst buildings, and the most overcrowded classes, and it is impossible to provide what we wish; namely, equality of opportunity. I hope that I am not going too wide of my own terms of reference if I pay a tribute to the teachers who are trying to cope with this very difficult situation. May I give two examples of things that are being done. In Huddersfield the problems of the West Indian are recognised. The West Indians are British; they speak English; and they are shocked when they are not treated as British. But they do not always realise that the English their children speak is not quite the same as that which we speak, and in Huddersfield special attention has been paid to that in training them in the English language.

The other example is contained in a letter I have received from a teacher. This indicates a problem more than a solution, but may I quote from this rather interesting letter? I gave the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, some advance notice of it, and this is my last quotation. It is from a lady who teaches in a multiracial school in North London, and she wrote to me: I teach in a multiracial infant school in North London and find that there is a great lack of suitable pictorial material. Children in infant schools make 'topic books' and cut up magazines and papers to illustrate them. The pictures available always depict white children and white adults in middle-class situations. It is possible to find West Indian papers but these show all coloured people. It is almost impossible to find multiracial pictures. Could some publishers be encouraged to produce some? Then she went on: The teachers who are engaged in teaching in our multiracial schools badly need support and any help that you can give would be most welcome. Many experienced teachers are being overwhelmed with letters from training colleges, students and teachers asking for help, and these letters cannot be dealt with adequately by people who are themselves doing a full time job. As I see it there are three main difficulties—teacher training, suitable materials and the circularisation of information and guidance for teachers. These are not insurmountable difficulties but they need to be tackled at once so that teaching in a multiracial school can cease to be a problem and become instead a stimulating and worthwhile challenge. Good luck to her! and I hope she succeeds in getting what she requires.

Even if great improvements are made in the field of education, and even if many more obtain higher qualifications, the problem of discrimination will, alas! not be solved. The P.E.P. Survey shows that those with English school-leaving qualifications and English trade qualifications were among the groups which claimed most discrimination, and I have often met the complaint that while authorities seem to be fair in granting places at technical colleges and universities, there is difficulty in getting employment appropriate to the qualifications obtained.

In the debate in this House last November I mentioned the case of an Indian Oxford graduate with a good degree in English. He ended up with a job carrying clay at an art school. He has now gone back to India. This is bound to create bitterness, and I think that bitterness may increase. But it is not too late. I believe in what I call "practical idealism". I believe to tackle this is not impossible, but it is practical idealism that is needed. The proposed legislation may be somewhat in advance of public opinion, but Parliament should at times be willing to act in advance of public opinion; and I am sure your Lordships recognise this. In spite of the hostility which most communities feel at first towards strangers, the British have a reputation for being hospitable and liberal-minded to those who come from overseas to live here. There is no doubt that colour has created an added com- plication, but if we tackle this seriously and in time, I believe that our reputation can still be upheld. I beg to move for Papers.

3.13 p.m.

LORD ABERDARE

My Lords, it strikes me that we have some evidence in this House this afternoon of "race discrimination", in that some of us have been fortunate enough to go to the Derby and others of us remain here. Those of us who remain here owe a great debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for drawing our attention to two documents of great interest, both of which are very human documents, and I thank the noble Lord for drawing our attention to them and for introducing the Motion in his usual interesting way.

The first Report of the Race Relations Board is pleasantly short and to the point, and is full of interest, and I should like to congratulate the chairman of the Board, Mr. Mark Bonham-Carter, and the members of the Board, not only on their Report, but also on the work that they have shown themselves to be doing,. From their Report it is obvious that they have been working extremely hard, especially over the difficult proposition of setting up the conciliation committees; and they have clearly made a successful start in operating the Act of 1965.

I must say—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, who has now gone, would agree with me—that I was a little surprised to find that there was no conciliation committee for Wales. The chairman of the Race Relations Board is a prominent Liberal, and the Liberal Party have always been forthright in advocating the rights of Wales and regional government for Wales, and to find that Wales was grouped with the North-West of England came to me as somewhat of a shock, and I wondered whether a Mancunian would really be the best person to conciliate an angry Welshman. However, on referring to Appendix III of the Report, I found that there were no complaints from Wales under the Act, and therefore I assume that in the question of welcoming the immigrants Wales is blameless, and that if we have any racial discrimination it is against the English.

In operating the Act the Board have found a certain number of problems, which are listed in paragraph 38 of their Report, and I cannot help repeating a suggestion that I made when we were discussing the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill which, if your Lordships remember, put right a whole lot of administrative anomalies that had arisen in the field of superannuation. Here again there are many difficulties which have arisen under the Act and which were not foreseen at the time the Act was passed into law. I wonder whether there should not be some provision in our constitutional arrangements whereby an Act of Parliament could be reviewed two or three years after it was passed, so that such administrative matters not raising any question of principle which had arisen since the Act was passed might be rectified. It strikes me that there may be a role to be played in such a review by this House. Otherwise these admirable suggestions which have proved difficult for the Race Relations Board must either await a new Race Relations Bill, which may be many years off, or they may be lucky enough to attract the attention of a Private Member who is prepared to bring in a Private Member's Bill and is lucky enough to win the ballot.

In my opinion one of the most valuable actions of the Board, in co-operation with the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants, was to commission the P.E.P. Report, and I think we should also express our gratitude to the Rowntree Trust, who financed this Report. Reading it in general, it seemed to me to bear out what I think most of your Lordships would probably have suspected to be the case, that there is racial discrimination in the field of employment and housing and other services. Further, it shows that at head office level, whether it is the head office of a business or a trade union or a local council, there is a policy against discrimination on the ground of race, and that the policy is that only personal qualifications are to be taken into account when making appointments or offering accommodation. But when one comes down to shop floor level, or to local landlady level, the picture is different, and it is there that discrimination is likely to he found.

On the other hand, the Report contains one or two surprising facts which I think should not be overlooked when we are considering the whole picture: first, that, in the sample of immigrants that they were using, in the three months before coming to Britain an average of 75 per cent. were unemployed. In Britain 94 per cent. of them were in regular employment. So to that extent that is good news. Secondly, it is stated in the Report that employment exchanges find less difficulty in finding suitable employment for immigrants now than they did four or five years ago. Thirdly—and I must say this surprised me most of all—48 per cent. of the sample taken owned or were buying their own homes, and this, I think, is a significantly large figure when one so often is thinking of people living in crammed rented accommodation. Incidentally, although it has nothing really to do with the immigration problem, another very striking fact to me was that of the 150 companies that the interviewers saw at local level only 51 had contact with trade unions. That seemed to me a surprisingly low figure.

Where discrimination occurs there is also a rather common excuse given throughout the Report—that is, of the effect it would have on other people if there were not discrimination. In other words, the local employer is frightened of the effect on his workers of introducing immigrants among them. The landlord or the landlady is frightened of the effect on her other tenants of doing so. And yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Wade, mentioned, when immigrant labour is employed—for example, he instanced the bus drivers and conductors, and I agree with him that we admire their skill and courtesy—very soon they come to be accepted and there is no trouble. Here, I believe, is one of the cogent reasons that is given why legislation in the field of employment and housing might be of benefit, to strengthen the hand of those who are unwilling to discriminate but fearful of not doing so.

Just as this problem arises on the first employment of immigrants, so it arises again in an even more difficult form at the time of promotion to positions of authority. We find many immigrants in unskilled jobs but very few chargehands or foremen. The noble Lord, Lord Wade, asked how many London Transport inspectors are immigrants. On this question I would draw your Lordships' attention to a most interesting speech made by Mr. Oscar Hahn, the chairman of the Midlands Conciliation Committee, himself a refugee from Europe and the manager of a Birmingham factory. If I may quote, with your Lordships' permission, what he says, I think it is extremely pertinent to this point: The reasons why it is so difficult to promote coloured people from the shop floor are many. I would not from my experience put the reluctance of white men to work under a coloured foreman very high on the list. The chief reason usually is a lack of education and a lack of understanding of the mentality of their white workmates and in many cases a lack of belonging. That brings me on to the question of the second generation of immigrants, where these kinds of considerations will not apply. The man or woman will have been born in this country, will have been educated in our schools and will have been brought up in every way as a full member of our community. There will be no lack of understanding of English mentality. We must, I am sure, do everything within our power to see that this second generation of immigrant is able to be promoted on his or her merits and able to be housed in exactly the same way as everybody else. If not, we are storing up trouble for ourselves in the future and we may find ourselves faced with some of the difficulties that they face at the moment in the United States of America.

As well as the two documents which the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has drawn to our attention, I would recommend to your Lordships another report, the report of the Chairman of the Race Relations Board on his tour of the United States of America, because certain of the factors that he found there are of vital importance to us, and it highlights the fact that by doing nothing we may be running into some of the dangers that have faced them there. We may be in danger of creating what apparently are called de facto ghettoes—horrible words to describe a horrible situation.

The question facing the Government is whether to extend the present Race Relations Act to cover the fields of employment, housing and certain other facilities. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said, that in general I think we are all reluctant to contemplate legislation of this sort. I think we should all prefer to have people realise what is right for themselves and to rely on the processes of education. But I must say I am very impressed by the arguments put forward by the Race Relations Board. They have shown, by their tactful handling of complaints under the present Act, that, backed by the ultimate sanction of the law, the great majority of cases can be solved without resorting to the law; in other words, by the processes of conciliation. I am also impressed by the belief expressed by Mr. Oscar Hahn that the purpose of legislation in this field is to harness the support of people of good will and not in the first instance to convert the segregationists. He ends with a plea to avoid rushed legislation and a sentence with which I wholeheartedly agree: that bad legislation is worse than no legislation. I hope that the effect of this debate will be to focus interest on this problem and begin a process of discussion which could result in carefully thought out and effective action.

3.29 p.m.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE, (LORD STONHAM)

My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for initiating this debate and giving us the opportunity to consider the first Report of the Race Relations Board and the P.E.P. Report. I also join with Lord Aberdare in congratulating the Chairman and members of the Race Relations Board, not only on their Report but on the hard work and successful work they have put in which has made their firset Report so eminently satisfactory.

In the nearly nine years I have been in your Lordships' House I think that in some sense there has been a revolutionary change in opinions in many ways—nothing, of course, to do with myself, but it is something I have observed—and it has never been more clearly shown than in the two speeches we have just heard, both of which I warmly welcome. The noble Lord, Lord Wade, said, and with this I agree, that Parliament should be prepared to act in advance of public opinion, and especially this House should be so prepared. He was able to say that without a ripple of dissent anywhere discernible in the House. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, referred to the racial discrimination which started at about 3 o'clock at Epsom and at one time, certainly within my membership here, on this most important day and at this important time one could not possibly expect to get a full House like this to consider a subject of this kind. I find this extremely encouraging.

The Report of the Race Relations Board and the P.E.P. Report are important social documents which will be of great value to the Government in deciding what further steps must be taken to deal with the evil—and indeed, it is an evil—of racial discrimination. Her Majesty's Government agree with the Board that: to suffer discrimination is to be humiliated. and that: discrimination on grounds of colour, race or national origin, is so degrading an affront to the indivdual who encounters it that any society which regards itself as civilised should provide a means of redress, no matter how rarely it occurs. The Reports show that provision of the means of redress involves serious and substantial problems, only some of which can be solved by Governments. But objectively the Reports also reveal much that is encouraging.

When your Lordships considered the Race Relations Bill, doubts were expressed about its effectiveness. These have been justified to the extent that less than 30 per cent. of the complaints received fell within the scope of Section 1 of the Act. But other doubts have been effectively answered. The Board declare bluntly: In the field the Race Relations Act was intended to cover unambiguously, it has proved workable and effective and they add: It has not in fact proved difficult to establish whether or not discrimination has taken place. The Board are also of the opinion that the mere passage of the law possibly reduced the incidence of discrimination", and this may account for the fact that the total number of complaints in the first year was only 327—a gratifyingly low figure. I must add, however, that since the publication of the Reports there has been a sharp increase in the number of complaints, which suggests that many people were not aware of the powers of the Board.

Another matter which I regard as one for thankfulness is that, of the 54 public house complaints (the largest group which could be investigated), not one had to be referred by the Committee to the Board: they were all settled locally. Considering that less than half were upheld, it is a tribute to the good work of the conciliation officers and the good will of complainants and respondents that settlements have been reached and assurances given without causing bitterness. From this—and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, holds the same view—it seems reasonable to claim that in the Race Relations Act we have the correct pattern of legislation based on the effectiveness of conciliation, and if further legislation is necessary it might well he on the same pattern. In reply to Lord Wade's question, I can say that certainly there should be no difficulty in meeting some of the deficiencies in the present Act which are listed in paragraph 38 of the Board's Report. Of course you cannot change men's minds and hearts by law, and new laws will not wholly solve the problems. But if the law is clear, strong, and sufficiently comprehensive it makes it much easier for men's hearts and minds to move in the right direction and for those who have discriminated to think twice in future.

Understandably, the noble Lord, Lord Wade, asked me to state the Government's position regarding new legislation; but on this I cannot go further to-day than to renew the assurance which I gave last November and to which he referred, and to repeat what my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said in another place on April 27: that the Government are examining the Reports of the Race Relations Board and the P.E.P. Survey, together with other available evidence (including the Street Report), and are considering the need for, and the practicability of, strengthening the existing Race Relations Act and administrative machinery. And if the need for strengthening legislation is proved my right honourable friend certainly hopes it would be done well within the lifetime of this Parliament. Clearly there is a problem, and for a Labour Government to fail to deal with it would be to betray everything for which the Labour Party stands and has ever stood.

I think I can best briefly state the problem we must solve by drawing your Lordships' attention to the three main and very disturbing conclusions of the P.E.P. Report, which are: first, that the extent of discrimination against coloured people in this country is greater than the immigrants believe it to be, because they try to avoid exposing themselves to it; secondly, that as immigrants become more accustomed to our way of life and obtain higher expectations and qualifications, so do they experience more direct personal discrimination; and thirdly, that as awareness of prejudice and hostility grows immigrants tend to withdraw into their own closed communities, which if it happens for any other than purely cultural and religious reasons, which one would understand, will in my view be a disaster.

The sample—974 informants—was a very large one. The inquiry was conducted with great care, and we are entitled to place substantial reliance on its findings. But I differ from the Report in some of the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence and figures. For example, page 14 of the P.E.P. Report sets out, in percentages, what life in Britain is like for immigrants, compared with their expectations before they came here. The Report concludes that rather more had found life below expectations than above them". To me the figures tell a different story. If you exclude those who are said to have mixed feelings—the equivalent of "Don't knows"—you find that of every 100 immigrants 49 find life in Britain as good as or better than they expected, compared with 36 who find it worse. I doubt whether a similar inquiry among white British immigrants, say, to Australia would have produced a much better result. A few months ago I had a letter from a former employee, as good a craftsman and man as I have known. For family reasons, he emigrated to Australia. After a lively description of life there, his letter concluded I have just done my first year, guy. of what I regard as a three year sentence with no remission". New countries do not suit everyone, particularly our immigrants, the majority of whom, as the Board points out, have moved not only to a very different country but from a rural to an industrial background.

Table 2 of the Report, which sets out the sources of dissatisfaction with life in Britain, is in some ways not only very encouraging but substantial evidence of the basic decency of the majority of British people. It tells us that no less than 23 per cent. find nothing disappointing about life in Britain. That is quite remarkable. This compares with 38 per cent. who blamed colour and racial prejudice in general or in connection with employment or housing. Perhaps more surprisingly, only 12 per cent. said their disappointment arose from employment difficulties caused by racial prejudice and only 5 per cent. blamed housing difficulties caused by discrimination for their disappointment. Both these percentages are less than the 13 per cent. who, understandably, attributed their difficulties to our weather and our food.

My Lords, if one person in 8 blames colour for his employment difficulties it means the other 7 do not; and if one in 20 complains of racial discrimination in housing the other 19 do not. I regard discrimination on grounds of colour as a deplorable disease, and 12 per cent. is a completely intolerable percentage, but it is fair to point out that, on the evidence of the Report, it is a disease from which the majority of our people do not suffer. Despite this, we are faced with the fact that the overwhelming majority of immigrants are convinced that there is a colour bar in Britain, and the three main causes for this conviction are alleged discrimination in employment and housing and the general hostility of the host community. It is for us to examine the supporting evidence for these allegations, consider what we are doing about them now, and decide what we must do.

First, in the field of employment, where 36 per cent. of immigrants claimed personal experience of discrimination, compared with 64 per cent. who either did not believe, were not certain, had heard about it at secondhand, or had not exposed themselves to discrimination. Here the Report in my view is not completely objective, because immigrants who apply for employment with firms known to take coloured workers obviously experience non-discrimination, not non-exposure to it. Similarly, the claim in the Report, that the follow-up tests proved that the proportion of immigrants claiming discrimination understates the true position, is of doubtful validity, because the testers, although they did their job thoroughly, went only to firms named by immigrants as having discriminated against them. Clearly, the firms tested could not be claimed as a representative sample of British industry. If you investigated the business methods of bankrupts you would find a lot of them were bad payers, but this could not be taken as an accurate description of the whole business community. Unquestionably there is a lot of colour discrimination in employment, but unquestionably also it does not apply to the major part of industry.

What does the P.E.P. Report reveal about the actual position at ground level where discrimination is felt by and hurts the individual? Both the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. are completely opposed to racial discrimination in employment, and the Report provides plenty of evidence that trade unions, at both headquarters and branch level, apply this policy in practice. They all, in case of redundancy, apply the policy of "last in, first out", regardless of colour. They all oppose any quota restricting the number of coloured immigrants employed in a company. They all insist on the payment of agreed rates of wages. Naturally, there are difficulties. Some trade union officials say that they have difficulty in getting immigrants to join their unions, and this causes resentment among their fellow workers. The unions fight equally for their members, coloured or white—and here I quote the P.E.P. Report: these are not my views, but the viewpoint of P.E.P. P.E.P. quotes one official thus: We investigate all grievances from coloured members. Most are imaginary. You get them in saying their wages have been cut. You find it's the income tax (some think they are exempt) or the national insurance stamp. In cases where it has been possible to prove an immigrant has been treated prejudicially, we go the whole hog—up to a threat of strike action if it is not put right. Some white workers are misguided enough to complain about the common use of canteens and lavatories, but these complaints are overcome by firm management, of which the report gives graphic, almost lurid examples. Workshop difficulties of this kind are the exception, and in my experience often arise between immigrants from different countries. In my business I found that we could not have Jamaicans and Nigerians in the same workshop. The Jamaicans affected superiority on the ground that they had been British longer, and we had to put them in different workshops. The Report refers to a department staffed as to 95 per cent. by Pakistanis who tried to create a monopoly and exclude whites. They even resorted to sabotage. The employer imposed a 50 per cent. quota of Pakistanis. These things arise not from racial prejudice but from ignorance, and in my view ignorance among members of the host community is the major cause of immigrants' troubles in employment and housing. In the disgraceful examples which are listed on pages 24 to 26 of discrimination in employment of skilled workers, the discriminatory agent was usually a junior—a receptionist, typist, commissionaire or at most a foreman.

Of course, it is impossible to banish prejudice and ignorance by law, but we may be able to banish discriminatory acts resulting from prejudice, ignorance and the absence of law. I believe that we are succeeding in abolishing this prejudice, albeit too slowly. The Report says that there is: less difficulty now in finding suitable employment for immigrants than was the case four or five years ago. … People are getting used to them. … Immigrants are losing the 'Britain owes us a living' attitude. P.E.P. also say: It is easier to place coloured school leavers than to find employment for adults educated overseas. Unquestionably, lack of adequate English, or of fluency, is a very real difficulty in accepting some immigrants for employment or in limiting to manual jobs those who are otherwise qualified for posts of skill or responsibility.

My Lords, I understand from my noble friend the Leader of the House that a very important Statement is about to be made; and, although I have not concluded my speech, I hope that I may be forgiven if I break off here and ask your Lordships for permission for the Statement to be made.